Theological Dialogue 5: Freewill, The Soul, The Universe

(Response)

I wanted to write you back, but lacking the time to do justice to each question (which they undoubtedly deserve; they are fantastic) I am breaking them up into sections. Besides, the break seems somewhat natural anyway.

So, I'll start here:

(Question)

Firstly, in terms of Job, when God reveals Himself to Job in order to scold him for questioning Him, isn't that inhibiting Job's free will? Doesn't this show that Job didn't in fact remain faithful? Because instead of continuing to believe in God's judgement, Job questions His actions.

(Response)

Regarding Job, your question is a good one. But ultimately, when God reveals Himself, it is not an infringement upon Job's freewill because at the time of this revelation, it is not as if Job is questioning God's existence, he is more so questioning why he has had to suffer. If it was the former, then there might be a foundation for an argument, but there never seems to be any moment in those final chapters where the existence of God is ultimately in question. Job knows there is a God so His presence is not the surprising factor. Nor is that the intention of the book. We are not supposed to read the book of Job and consequently think to ourselves, "Whoa, there really is a God. He even came to Job to prove it." Rather, we should be focused on the fact that no matter how wise we believe we are, and no matter how much we think we understand about the workings of the world, our knowledge is but a fraction of God's. To quote, "Were we there when God laid the foundations of the earth?" (Job 38:1 author translation)

Two further comparisons are appropriate here in order to better illustrate this point. Throughout the entirety of the Gospels, people are constantly begging Jesus to perform a "sign". Their requests are frequently met with admonitions by Jesus. This is due to the fact that Jesus wants them to know with their hearts instead of simply their eyes. This is the case for an assortment of reasons, but namely because we have a tendency to explain away the things that we see. Yes, in the moment we may believe, but after the fact, we often seek out a number of excuses and justifications for what we previously thought to be miraculous. However, to know with one's heart is completely different. What we know there is much more resilient. What is to be gained from this is an understanding of Christ's intentions. He wants to leave our freewill intact. He want us to choose Him.

Additionally, as we look further into the Gospels and the miracles performed by Jesus (and those that happen everyday for that matter), we are again forced to ask the question: Is this miraculous intervention an infringement upon our free-will? And again the answer is no, but for a very interesting reason. When we examine the miracles performed in the Gospels, they all share a fascinating theme. Jesus declares each time that the person's faith has saved them. What this tells us is that the faith precedes the miracle. Christ does not perform the miracle without the individuals first knowing (in their hearts) that He is able to do so. The miracles do not convert them. They are already converted and the miracles follow. The same is true of many miracles today. People seek out God's intervention (and in doing so, their belief is already evident), so God is not taking away free-will, people are choosing to be in relationship with Him and to place their trust in His power. 

With all of that said, Job certainly faltered in his trust in the Lord, but he never lost faith in Him. Job always knew the Lord was there, he simply wanted an explanation for his suffering, I think in this, we can relate a lot to Job. In many ways, we want to be privy to the plan.

(Question)

Additionally, you stated that souls are limited by the physical aspect of people which they are tied to. But how can a soul, which is the form of humanity be limited by that which is beneath it in terms of the divided line.  To put this in perspective, wouldn't this mean that your hand could be limited by the shadow it casts?

(Response)

Hmmm... this a a very interesting philosophical inquiry. In short though, I think if we examine the relationship between the body and the soul vs. the relationship between a hand and its shadow, the difference becomes quite clear. Unlike the forms as they are portrayed in Plato's theory, the soul, as you mentioned above, is intimately tied to the body, whereas the forms are not tied or linked to the things of the visible world. This is an important distinction. Since we are composed of body and soul, there is often a struggle for control. That is a somewhat simplistic explanation of the dynamic, but nonetheless, it works in that it illustrates how sometimes we give way to the body (or the flesh) while other times we adhere to the will of the soul. A hand and its shadow do not "battle" in the same way for control. Whatever the hand does, the shadow follows. But as we know, and talked about in class today, even though we may know the desire of the soul (what is right) we constantly fail to act in accordance with it. As an aside though, you created an interesting link between Plato's theory and Peter Pan. He is constantly struggling with his shadow, and sometimes it even dictates where his physical form seems to go. The dynamic of soul and body is similar. Yes, the soul is the form of humanity, but it is not separate in the way that the forms are separate from the things of Plato's divided line.

(Question)

If God created the universe, He would have to do so with His omniscience allowing his insight into the actions that all people would take. Doesn't this mean that predestination is inevitable and so, free will is not actually real?

(Response)

First of all, I don't necessarily believe that the creation of the universe was dependent on the actions of the people who would occupy it. In fact, in our time, the universe existed for billions of years before there were even any people at all. Thus, while God did create the universe and He is omniscient and therefore knew the path that all things would take, His omniscience did not threaten to inhibit the freewill of the people who would eventually come to inhabit earth. This is namely due to the fact that God experiences time in a much different fashion than we do. As mentioned in class, God is atemporal. He is outside of time and space. Therefore, whereas we see time chronologically, God sees all time as if it is the present and only time. He knows all things, past, present and future as if they simply are, as opposed to "have happened" or "are going to happen". By understanding this notion, we can also come to understand that God can know what we will choose to do without impeding our ability to choose to do it. As an individual, you are still actively exercising your freewill, making decisions and so fourth, God simply knows what that decision will be. This does not mean it is determined, remember, you chose it, it simply shows that while we have yet to decide, God knows the beginning middle and end because to Him it is all simply the now. 

To carry this point one step further, many theologians argue that we (in chronological time) are actually never in the present. Kind of like the notion that we can not truly know something in the visible world because it is constantly in flux, time (at least in the temporal realm) functions in a similar fashion. It is always passing. Therefore every moment is actually a past moment or future moment. With that said, God is the only thing that can exist in the present because for Him all time exists simultaneously. Outside the temporal realm, time simply is. Therefore God is actually the only true present.

Thanks for being patient with me and the fact that it took so long to reply. I hope you learned something interesting!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 4: The Evolution of Morality?

(Question)

I have a follow up question regarding humanity. Do you believe in the theory of evolution and if you do. Is morality an evolutionary advantage that was evolved or was it placed specifically in homosapiens? I have the same question for the 'soul'. If you don't believe in the theory of evolution how do you believe it was that we came to be?

Thanks.

(Response)

Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you! 

But to delve right into it, yes, in many ways, I definitely believe in the "theory" of evolution. I put that in quotes because I don't necessarily think that there is one theory surrounding evolution, in fact, there are multiple approaches to the notion of evolution, but if we are simply talking about the theory that we evolved into a species, and as a species, yes, I'm totally on board with that. And furthermore, I don't think there is any reason not to be. There is nothing from Genesis, especially if you view it through the lens discussed in the last email, to suggest that there was not some type of evolution that took place on earth. In fact, in its simplest form, Genesis points directly toward this idea. First, the sun broke through the atmosphere, the water gave way to sustainable life (plants) and probably some extremely simplistic "animals" or at least early blue prints of them, and then there was man (with a couple steps in between, obviously.). In a nutshell, our planet and its occupants have evolved, that fact isn't worth trying to deny. 

As for the idea that morality is an evolutionary advantage, that is where things get increasingly more complicated. Evolution seems to deal primarily in genes and their mutations. Something evolves due to a mutation that does not kill it and furthermore turns out to be beneficial in one way or another. Therefore, if morality was an evolutionary advantage, that would suggest that it is somehow tied into our genetic make up. And not only that, it would also suggest that morality was the product of a genetic mutation. If that were to be the case, then ultimately, we would have to assume that at some point in time, it was more advantageous to one's survival to live morally that to not. This has difficult and strange implications. Much of survival centers around the animalistic elements of our being. In fact, to kill for food and resources (although morally wrong) is entirely justified from a survival perspective. Therefore, one might argue that living morally has very few advantages until you get into a structured society where your survival actually depends on your ability to do so. Within the animal kingdom, there is really no place for morality. There, it does not go hand in hand with survival. 

However, if it is structure, stability and progress that you are looking for, then morality plays an enormous role in your ability to bring about those notions. In addition to rational thought, it is most likely what provides the foundation for civilization. But I do not think that in any way implies that it is an evolutionary trait that has been developed over time. In a lot of ways, evolution doesn't really point toward progress, at least not in the sense that we have achieved it. Evolution is designed to keep a species alive, but it does not create the circumstances in which it is ultimately nullified. Unlike humans, animals are still subject to the evolutionary demands of survival, and if they can not keep up, they will go extinct. Humans have proven that this notion no longer applies to them. We have adapted beyond the principles of evolution. 

So where does morality ultimately come from? Most likely, it was given to us when God bestowed the soul upon man. Prior to that moment, what we now know as man, was probably a more animalistic version in the form of Cro-Magnon. Without the soul, Cro-Magnon would have most likely continued on an evolutionary path similar to that of most mammals. The fit would have survived, while the rest did not. There would have been no progress beyond simple capabilities, and we today would probably live more like animals than humans.. (And I understand that they are one in the same, but I hope you get my point.)

Since I do recognize the validity of evolutionary theory, and I have explained the impact of the soul on man, I think that last question is kind of accounted for. However, I will say this. I do not think that it is a coincidence that the name of the "first man" in Genesis is Adam, and that in the Hebrew, Adam actually means man. When he receives the soul from God, I believe this marks the beginning of humanity as we know it. Were there humanoid like creatures that existed prior? Probably, but they did not possess an innate sense of morality, they were not fitted in the image of God. This notion is what ultimately ties all of this together. Morality links directly to the soul. Without the soul, there is no morality. So was it an evolutionary development? Is it a component of our genome? Most likely not. It was given to man, by God, that he might recognize his full potential. 

Thanks!

MRD

Theological Dialogue 3: How did this all start?

(Question)

I have a question. What is your standpoint on the creation of the universe/earth/our coming into existence and how does this compare to other sects of Catholicism and/or Christianity? I'm just curious as I've heard conflicting view points on the subject.

Thanks.


(Response)

Hey,

This is a great question. Sorry that it took me so long to get back to you, but hopefully I can provide a little insight on this topic, or at least the best understanding/explanation that I've ever come across.

There are, for the most part, two major schools of thought surrounding this matter. First off, you have creationists who believe that God created the world, and that the account in Genesis is the literal portrayal of the creation story. In extreme circumstances, creationists believe that the world, and the universe for that matter, is some 6,000 years and 6 (if you will) days old. However, if you were going to track the genealogies to the "T", that number would probably be more accurately projected in the high 5000's. At that point though, the argument becomes somewhat irrelevant because a debate between a few thousand years is really nothing compared to science's projection of a universe that is some 15.5 billion years old, and an Earth that is somewhere in the ballpark of 4.5 billion years old. 

Thus, the other major school of thought. These ideas rely more on the scientific data and often times gives way to evolutionary theory. However, it is important to remember that while "creationism" touches on both the creation of the universe and the creation of man, evolutionary theory is, in many ways, mainly concerned with the origin of man (and most species that exist today). However, evolutionary theory carries with it certain implications that produce inevitable claims about creation. The theory uses fossil samples that are thousands, and in some cases millions, of years old. Thus, if the samples are in fact genuine, the world is bound to have been created far more than 6000 years ago. For this reason you often hear this debate as one that exists between creationist and evolutionists.

Ultimately, we have two sides of a very wide spectrum, and then many different theories and suggestions that fall somewhere in between. 

Personally, I do not think that the answer exists with either extreme, but rather that it can be found by taking pieces of each theory and recognizing the notion that science and theology need not be exclusive or in conflict with one another. (A concept recently reiterated by Pope Francis.)

Okay, so... I am going to try to do my best with this, but keep in mind that I am explaining some very complex theory and in some respects I might not be able to do it justice. However, I'll attach a youtube podcast that will allow you to listen to the theory from the actual physicists that proposed it, though you might find my explanation a little more approachable. 

For starters, I think two things: 1. That the universe is probably about 15.5 billion years old and that the earth has consequently been around for about 4.5 billion of those years, and 2. That time most likely does not relate to God and man in the same way.

These two concepts are important because they are the foundation of Gerald Schroeder's theory on creation, and consequently the one that I think is probably the most accurate account.

It all starts at the beginning (as it appropriately should) because that is where God is. Genesis states that God made the Universe and everything in it in stages. Each of those stages occur on different days of creation. Now, you will hear some people suggest that "days" in the bible are not real days or meant to be interpreted that way, but that isn't entirely accurate. According to the Talmud, the days in Genesis are exactly that, days. However, they are not days on Earth, but rather days at the center of creation and that distinction is extremely important. Remember how we talked about Einstein's theory of relativity and how gravity can act like friction for time? Well, the gravity at creation (the point of the big bang) is so strong that the time lapse between us and that point in space is a million million seconds. In other words, for every second that occurs at creation, a million million seconds have occurred here on earth.

This is the first thing you need to understand. Time for us is different than time for God. And furthermore (as noted by Moses in the Book of Numbers) time in the first chapter of Genesis is actually different than time throughout the remainder of the book. The best, and easiest, way to think about this is that one (at creation, in the beginning) is God's time and the other (the rest of biblical history) is Man's time. 

So, why is all of this important? Well, when you start to do the math you begin to realize that the conversion eerily aligns with the different days of creation, and the things that occurred on each day. If each day is an expansion of the universe, and consequently one day for God, but millions of years for man (remember, with each expansion, though smaller than the one before, the world is moving further from creation and thus time is ultimately "speeding up") then the six days of God's time correlate to about 15.75 billion years in Man's time. 

Check out this chart and what you'll find is that the biblical explanation of these scientific events mathematically aligns with the scientific dating of the same events. When the earth was created 4.5 billion years ago (between day's 2 and 3) we were in the midst of our third expansion and while only

days had passed for God, billions of years had already passed at various points throughout the universe.

In short, I think that the big bang did in fact occur, but God was the catalyst for that big bang. He created the universe and everything in it, and the reason that He is talking in days and we are talking in billions of years is because time, quite literally, moves at different speeds relative to its location in the universe. Thus, the two ideas are not mutually exclusive; they are not in conflict with one another. The Bible is not suggesting that the universe is only 6000 years old, and the ancient Jewish commentary even says so. Did God create everything? Yes. Did He do it with a Big Bang? Yes. And did He do it in six days? Yes. The only difference is that what was days for Him (based on His "location") was billions of years for us, based on ours.

If this doesn't make any sense at all, try to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhrdtTG0nTw

It is dense, but fascinating.

Hope this at least sheds a little light on everything or something...

Thanks.

MRD

Theological Dialogue 2: Goodness and the Soul

(Question)

Dear Mr. Degitis,

Thank you for answering my question and I apologize for the delayed response. I had a few follow up questions based on your answer. First of all, if the actual definition of good, as seen by God differs from our definition, then how can goodness be a higher form, and how can the truth which is God be both good and knowable, if our view of goodness can be limited by a human definition?

Additionally, if God is striving to achieve the greater good in every instance, isn't it very possible that all of our love and worship may be discarded without a moment's notice to achieve this good?

Also, in the book of Job, God's actions seem similar to Him wanting to win a "bet" with Satan. Couldn't God's omniscience have allowed Him to know Job would be faithful, and isn't allowing Satan to destroy his livelihood hampering free will?

Finally, this doesn't relate to your response as much as previous questions, but if God is all knowing and loving, why then wouldn't he wish to share this knowledge with his children, and if it is due to a lack of trust based on what we would do with said knowledge, then wouldn't that call into question His creation of us in His image and our souls being the incorruptible form of humanity?

Thanks.

(Response)

Some really good questions here. I'll try to tackle them one at a time, but inevitably, my answers will probably just lead to more questions. As it should be. ;)

1. It isn't so much that the actual definition of good differs from ours, we just have a somewhat limited understanding of it. And what I mean by this is that the notion of good does not change, we just fail to understand it on a deeper level, or a wider scope. Essentially, we want what is good in every moment of every day (and a lot of times I think we know what that would be), but that isn't really how the world works. We are constantly standing in the way of the prevailing good because of our selfishness and our desires. For God, in His benevolence, good is something that will occur on a wider scope. It will ultimately prevail, even though from moment to moment it doesn't necessarily seem that way. If God were to imbibe good into every set of circumstances, it would hinder our freewill. You have to remember that the lack of good in the world is a consequence of humanity, not God. Furthermore, goodness is objective, like truth and knowledge, therefore (like all of Plato's "forms") it is separate from us. That doesn't mean that we can't know goodness, or God for that matter, but we most likely will not know it or Him fully. The temptation of sin often stands in our way. 

2. Ultimately, the flaw in this question lies in the fact that God is not "striving" to create the greater good in every instance. God does not "try" to do things. He either does them, or He doesn't. Furthermore, you have to change your perspective here. All things are not necessarily working toward the greater good. We are constantly involved in activities that pull us from relationship with God. There is a difference between everything contributing to the greater good, and the greater good simply coming to fruition. My theological understanding of the matter corresponds more with the latter. God is good, and His goodness will prevail. Often we will try to stand in the way of it, but ultimately, we won't ever prevent it. 

The second part of this question is fascinating, but I think the answer is still quite simple: No. God won't discard our love and worship because these things are good and He can use them. As I said above, we will try to stand in the way of the good, but the flip side of that coin is relevant as well. We can definitely try to contribute to the good, and God definitely asks us to do so. God won't discard what is good for the greater good, that wouldn't make any sense. He will use it. Now, if our worship or "love" is misguided (Westboro Baptist) , it will certainly be discarded, but that is a mute point because those things aren't actually worship and love.

3. As for Job, yes, it does, from a literary standpoint, seem kind of like a bet, but that is a misunderstanding of the situation. What is interesting about the book of Job is that it falls into the category of "Wisdom Literature", which consequently tells us a lot about its purpose. Essentially, we are meant tolearn from the book of Job. And what is it that we are meant to learn? Well, one, that we should keep faith, and two, that to some extent, we are in no position to question God, or the things that happen to us. Job is reprimanded at the end as he kind of demands an explanation and it is at this point that God reveals Himself and assures Job that he is in no position to be demanding anything. Does this just mean that we should accept our lot, no matter how crappy? In some ways, yes, but ultimately it is just showing us that we need to trust in the Lord. Of course God knew that Job would remain faithful, and no, God allowing Satan to put Job through all that suffering is not a hinderance of freewill, but actually more of a testament to God's commitment to keep our freewill intact. He could have prevented Satan from doing anything, but then Job would have never been in a position where he was actually forced to make a choice. If choosing Christ is the key to our salvation, then suffering is sometime the very catalyst that we require.

4. It is important to remember that we were made in God's image, we were not made to be God or even gods for that matter. This notion is probably what lies at the foundation of why God does not provide us with His omniscience, or in some cases, any insight at all. It isn't that He doesn't trust us with the "knowledge", we simply aren't created to wield that type of power. 

This notion doesn't conflict with the concept of the "soul as the form of humanity" for two major reasons. One, at least from a Catholic perspective, the soul is intimately tied to the body, which limits it. In order to understand this, we have to step slightly outside Plato's theory of forms and look biblically instead. Remember, Paul presents this relationship between the world of the flesh and the "heavenly realm" or the notion of being in relationship with Christ. As we exist as soul and body, we kind of walk in both worlds. To "free" the soul, so to speak, we have to remove the desires of the flesh, or "die to the world of the flesh". This is probably something we will struggle with until we are fully resurrected and made pure with Christ. The second component lies in the fact that the soul, although made in the image of God is not perfect in the sense that it is God. This links to what I mentioned above, and it's pertinent because it allows us to draw a distinction between the form of humanity and God. Even if we achieved our perfect form, we still would not be God. Similar to the theory of forms, in the way that the "form of goodness" created all forms, God created the soul. The forms are not the same as goodness in the same sense that our soul is not the same as God. 

Hopefully you found something interesting here. Great questions. 

MRD

Theological Dialogue 1: Natural Disaster

(Question)
Dear Mr. Degitis,

     I have a theological question, and in an effort to save class time I'm sending it via email rather than asking it in person. This question is somewhat popular, but I have never heard it answered by someone well educated in theology such as yourself. In the year 1755, there was a very large earthquake in the Catholic, holy city of Lisbon, Portugal. This earthquake struck on All Saints' Day while everyone was in church worshiping. At that time period the tallest buildings were generally churches which made them especially susceptible to earthquakes. 80,000 people died in their churches from the earthquake which was followed by a tsunami which wiped out the rest of the city. If god is all loving why would this have happened? This points to the idea that either god is not all powerful, assuming he controls the weather, or He is not all good/the form of goodness. What is your take on this incident, and do you think people's faith indirectly led to their deaths? 

Thanks.

(Response)

This is a really fascinating topic, and an absolutely tragic event. I do think there are a lot of theological implications here, and while I might not be able to address all of them, I will certainly do my best to address a few. 

I think that the first thing that must be avoided is the ultimatum posed by the situation. While the circumstances are most unfortunate, I do not necessarily think that they inevitably point to God's lack of omnipotence or the fact that He must not be a benevolent God. The reason lies in the fact that the logic in such an argument is somewhat flawed. Essentially it is claiming that if God is good then He would have stopped the earthquake, butsince He didn't stop the earthquake He is either not good, or was unable to do so. Thus we are left with either a God who is not benevolent, or one who is not omnipotent, both of which are claims that go against the nature of the Christian God. However, I think that you can see how this question sets God up for "failure". It is a circular logic that inevitably points to the exact claim the asker is trying to make. A trap of sorts. This is particularly problematic because the trap is based on a number of "human" notions that we are then trying to ascribe to God, the largest of which, is our definition of what is good. Unfortunately, we are only able to think of things in relatively small increments (not because we are not intelligent, but because we are limited). God, however, is able to see things in what is best described as the bigger picture. We see a tragedy, but we do not know how it fits into the greater plan. We want God's benevolence to relate to every single moment, but what we might be missing is the fact that His benevolence is relating to the ultimate (or often time referred to as the greater) good. The questions are a reflection of our very limited scope and very human definition of what it means to be good.

Another component to this that is somewhat interesting is the dynamic between can't and won't. There is a great deal of theology (Christian, Jewish, etc.) that suggests that God seldom gets involved because His presence would too radically impact our freewill. If we knew that there was a God because He showed Himself to us, then we are not choosing to follow, worship, love Him. Ultimately, He is God and if we knew that, we would do whatever He said. However, He wants to be in relationship with us and thus, a number of scholars would argue that He often times refrains from involvement so as to leave our hearts open to choose. Love is a choice, it can not be forced. So how does this relate to the questions at hand? Well, God created the earth and natural disasters are a component of our planet's evolution and renewal. As inhabitants, there are times when we fall victim to those natural disasters. Not because we have wronged God, or because He is angry with us, but because it is a natural consequence of our interaction with the world. Sure, God could have stopped the earthquake, but then where do we draw the line? Should He stop all natural disasters? Should He stop disease? Suffering in general? You see, this is the inevitable rabbit whole down which we begin to fall when asking these types of questions, but it happens because we are thinking too small. Ultimately God's goodness might manifest in the realization of His kingdom, and while it might be a rocky road to get there, the fact that we chose to stick with Him along the way is important. Everything works out in the end, and if it isn't working out, it just isn't the end yet ;)

Lastly, and this is a much more mystical approach, but one that is interesting nonetheless; a number of scholars argue that this world is a spiritual battleground. A place where the souls of men, women and children undergo the constant mêlée of spiritual warfare. I personally believe that there is some truth in this line of thought though I don't know exactly how far I am willing to take it. With that said though, there is a component of this that absolutely cries spiritual warfare. What better way to make people question their faith then to present them with the seemingly pointless death of thousands of believers? In the book of Job, when the Devil was trying to dampen Job's faith, he stopped at nothing to do so. He wiped out his family, his farm, he plagued him with boils, the suffering was endless. I think in many ways (if spiritual warfare is truly a thing) then the tactics may not have changed. The Devil knows that the best way to turn a soul is to make it suffer and believe that God is not there to do anything about it. And if we continue to look at Job as an example, God allows Job to be tested, and yet, Job preservers. This again is an example of Job choosing His faith in the presence of Darkness. Furthermore, God does say "Who are you to question me?" and I've always found that particularly fascinating. Not because it seems aggressive or unnecessarily, but because it really points to this fact that we have no understanding of the greater mysteries of this world. We question God because we think we know best, and I would contend that that isn't actually the case. If we follow this approach, or any of them for that matter, then yes, in some ways, these people could have died because of their faith. The bible suggests that we will suffer if we we follow God. That suffering simply looks different from person to person. No one said that it is supposed to be easy. 

Now you're more of a straightforward/scientific thinker, so that last element might not particularly appeal to you, but I hope you find some explanation in the other two. In the end, I think that this situation is a sad one, and I don't know that I can give it just explanation. But I also do not think it points to a God that is not all powerful or one that is not good. I know that God cares for us deeply and I believe that He does not want us to suffer, but on the road to the kingdom, that might be somewhat of an inevitability. Christ even says so in John 16:33.

Anyway, I hope this provides a little insight. Feel free to write back with more questions, or seeking further explanation if something doesn't quite make sense.

You rock.

MRD