I start to understand that my life is not my own, and in this it has more meaning. I walk to a different tune, speaking words that actually make sense. But this is dangerous. The world preaches that we have only one life to live, that to die is the end of everything. If we must die, then may as well go out with such a bang that our memory remains eternally. Reach the highest mountain of gold, power and triumph. Step on the necks of your enemies for that lofty idea called freedom. Can you reach it?

I look to those I’ve known for many years. I have changed. My funny speech frightens them. But how can we be born again without dying? You are not of sound mind. Come back when you are well.

I soften my voice. I start to craft my words, seeping truth handed down to me from on high that they might understand. I inadvertently push them away. I only want you to understand me! I don’t want to scare you! But my voice is drowned out by her frightened screech. She knows me not.

Years go by, and the chasm has only deepened, only widened. Why do you not call me when you visit? Why do you turn your hand to me? The closest one to you calls me, and you… I have not forgotten that you birth me. I remember well your love. Do not shun me. Pommel me, and my nose will break and run red with your blood. Won’t you hold me? Am I forever lost to you?

A monster was born that day. A monster isn’t one by action, but by sight. My words are soaked with the stench of death, and I raze the ground in my wake. My promise of sweet life is nothing but a death toll. Come to me all who thirst, and you will drink your own blood.

A monster am I. My question now: how may I be cured from this plague? And if there be a remedy, will I envelop it within me, or cast it aside? Which relationship means more to me? I was never promised an easy life, but must I shine to contrast the jars of destruction? We are told to speak forth truth. Some are called to die, others to life, and others still to bring death. Is it too pompous to ask why?

He starts off saying to orient is to find the horizon, literally to find the sunrise. So we know the sun rises from the east, right? From that we can assume where North, South and West respectively. But can we? If my right and left are confused, what I think is North is actually West! He would say that to orient ourself in thinking we need a firm grasp of our subjective reality.

Once we have mastered this can we venture forth in the objective realm. But wait, here comes a condition: I mustn’t confuse my subjective thought with another’s! Pretend you’re in a darkened room, remembering some objects in there to help orient yourself to find your bag of M&M’s. Someone in the same room who has a clearer view of the room calls out to you and say, “Go left!” Er, his left or yours? Lesson to hold is this: my subjective reasoning is meant for me, and can help lead others around either in circles or to their destination. You just have to reason within yourself whether when receiving that info if you can trust what they’re saying, clearly using your own subjective thought.

Now we can orient ourselves in this objective realm, placing our subjective markers in it to better understand where I stand in it and then where to go (provided you have a destination). Kant will say that all of the objective realm is so vast that even if we’ve collaborated with all of the past people who’ve come and gone will not suffice in reaching the bounds of our own objective reality! A deterrent in knowing God, or as he would call the supersensible. Funny how he means beyond our senses, yet supersensible…

Now, pretend you’re in this darkened room with some ideas of the objective realm with a clear idea of your subjective reasoning, and in this supersensible reality that you’re checking out you say that this object in front of me is a column. Well, guess what! It’s a statue of a man doing a push-up with his index finger! This is how he’s going to say we cannot know whether God is infinite or not. You cannot use your senses (subjective reality) on Him (supersensible reality) to make claims about Him (objective reality). The room, too, is always changing, as though when you’re not looking someone is moving the objects around, either with good purpose or malicious intent.

Kant will say that the thing to do is to stay out of the supersendible realm, orient ourselves within the objective realm, and then look into the supersensible realm. If you find no contradictions, then leave it as a possibility, but not a fact! There’s so much work here and since we cannot orient ourselves in the supersensible, we should not venture forth or else we will be lost.

Now, what are we to say? He is correct? Am I wrong in saying that God is infinite because I cannot know this?

My reply: first, an object in the objective realm must exist as a part of the objective realm. Redundant, maybe, but very important.

Two, an object that is no longer a part of the objective realm does not mean it never was a part of the objective realm.

Three, assume God, wanting to make Himself known, enters the objective realm.

A, He lives, breathes, eats, and so on and so forth until He perishes.

B, We cannot know whether He objectively exists or not based only on this: all we have are objects writing from their subjective view on this supposed objective reality.

! (It’s supposed to be a small I), most of the past we have subjective accounts of an objective reality.

!! It is up to me whether I agree with the accounts of Jesus, Washington and Heath Ledger of their objective reality, the probability of their existence coming closer to 100% the closer they are to my objective reality

C, We have subjective accounts of not only His existence and workings on Earth, but that He rose Himself from death and as a part of objective reality He enters the supersensible realm.

D, As we have no objective proof of His existence or non-existence, all we can say is that this is a possibility but is not a fact. So far, we agree to what Kant says.

Fourth, assuming all of what is said is true, I can only use my subjective reasoning to validate its truth. An object that has left objective reality, even if it still exists, can only be presented in a subjective realm.

Fifth, though Kant would leave it at that, I will go one step further and say that if God could enter the objective realm, then He should be able to enter the subjective realm as well, given that He is what we normally define God as being omnipotent, omiscient and benevolent.

Finally, I say that He has entered my subjective reality, as I opened the door for Him to do so, by not only allowing His existence to be possible but wanting Him to reach me, in a subjective manner.

He came into my life, proving me His existence, and showed me that much if not all of the written subjective testimonies presented in the Gospels have undeniable objective truth.

I will mention three things in closing: 1) Kant’s reasoning for the writing comes from the idea that proponents with the mind set that we can objectively know certain and key attributes of God such as eternal and infinite came from a phrase “beyond reason.” He looked at that and thought “without reason”, and being a man with great reasoning capabilities, had a strong inclination to defend that which he so rightly held onto.

2) Though he mentions the supersensible, he only attributes this to God, where I would want to add more to it and make it more of a realm rather than just Him. For instance, space and time would fit in this category. We say we feel it and see it, but we only witness its effects. Take a fish: it knows not what water is for it can only live in it. It might start to have an idea about it as its pulled out, but it would be a near-death experience were it to be able to recount what happened and share what it witnessed to other fish. We are much the same with space and time. Determinism falls into this category, as will love and many more supersensible things.

3) You can know God. It will come from a subjective standpoint, but as Kant would have it, without the subjective we would not be able to operate in this objective reality. How much so, then for the supersensible reality! Kant is right that we cannot go to it, but he failed to see that it can come to him, just as He can come to you. Let go of everything. Give your life over for the chance to know Him. See that you are a sinner, that you cannot release the shackles of sin’s weight on your own, and that He is willing to release you if you would turn from it to Him and call out to Him. I promise you, just as He has with me and many others, He will find you. You just have to want it, and ask.

It would start to grate on some people the idea that we have a Father who would condemn those who, if given the chance, may receive Him. Others would throw a fit that we are “taking away” the omnipotence of God if we are to say that He has no hand in it. If asked what side of the fence I stand on, I might ask the question, “If I have to take a stance on whether I believe we are always saved once saved or not, do I have to say that our God is either benevolent or if He is omnipotent and omniscient?” I hope I wouldn’t have to choose either or, for I think He’s both. But it is the case that either He chooses whether we are saved or not, or He does not choose whether we are saved or not.

The question of our salvation only becomes clear when we concern ourselves with the ideas of Predestination and Free Will. Now, most people would believe in some sort of destiny at hand, but we also like to think ourselves as intelligent creatures choosing to go this route or believe in this cause. But usually when I talk about this, people are more likely to champion their desire with a Free Will stance rather than Predestination. Usually their biggest concern is with the L in TULIP, which is Limited Atonement, that Christ would only atone for the sins of the elect, the chosen or saved. This is opposed to the idea that He died for all sins, which people believe goes against their idea of God and what the Scriptures says. It is also true that, no matter which way you’re looking at Free Will you have a God who is either holding back His full power over mankind or is closing His eyes to the future, limiting the words omnipotent and omniscient to mostly omnipotent or mostly omniscient.

I fear this is a battle that may wage for longer than I will be alive. Let’s step back a bit and do some exercises. Now, when talking about Predestination and Free Will, we would want to frame it only to our salvation and leave out the physical world, that is, whether God is controlling each and every movement I make or if He is allowing me to run amok. Suppose it was the former, that God is a puppeteer: would it make any sense at all if He was giving us a choice to love or not love Him, to make Him Lord of our lives or for us to be our own masters? A bit ridiculous to think on, right? How about we reverse it: would I be truly free to do whatever I want if my hand is forced to love Him or not love Him? I must wag my finger at these illogical claims. They cannot be! ‘Twould be like saying that this pencil in my hand is not a pencil but a duck. The pencil either is or is not, and never both.

It may be comforting to think that we have a choice, but then it must mean that I can lose my salvation. If that is too scary a thought, then I am left with the idea that we are merely robots and have no love within us. A tragedy, no? But, hark… what do I hear from yonder? It’s the past to greet us with glad tidings! I remember a woman when I was a freshman who would encourage my playful thinking on such matters. She gave me an example to say that it’s both: We are inside a fence in which we can roam any way we want, but we may never venture forth outside the fence. It was a great way to ease my mind from these thoughts and be lulled into thinking it can be both and that I can basically choose whatever way I please in any situation.

If that is truly the case, that we have both a limited free will and a limited destiny, then what are the limits? Might be easy enough to say that our physical limits restrain us. But let’s put some thought into it.

…

It would have to be God who’s doing the limiting. And in that way, He is either to some giving them the choice to do what they want, to love Him or leave Him, and to others He is controlling their destiny of whether they will love Him or always look away. Yet, this solves nothing. We are still left with the bitter taste of either stance we are championing. In fact, we have to burden ourselves with the other stance, which is making things more complicated and makes my brows frown. Poo. Maybe it would be better to leave this sort of thing to God while I go off perfecting my futilities.

I guess it’s not about an older sibling who should watch out for the younger, or that he’s the example I look up to, but it’s about what God has said not to do, and yet you do it after your brother does it. The Lord isn’t even pleased that Judah, with her actions aligns with Him. Iono… I was thinking to bring in my experience with The Pilgrim’s Progress and having the license to sin (which we don’t have even after being saved), but it’s about holiness, to the point of actually being set apart. I wonder if the Lord is this upset with me…

What John Paul II (and what he wants Jesus to say) is that God had a better plan for us in the beginning, and that since sin has come we have backlases and repercussions from sin and its affects. Beyond it, though, is an idea and a way of life that may go beyond what The Law says into what God wants. Jesus is quoted as saying that He wants no one to take apart what God has sown together, and that it is because of our hard headed ways that we cannot live with another.

To get back to the prenup thing, from a financial aspect it is sound to get a prenup, where you can basically say anything you want in it. We are told to be as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents, but I don’t think The Father wants us to separate from one another!

In the beginning, The Godhead were in perfect community. He made us to be in perfect community, where a mother, father, and child(ren) were not to break. But that all changed when sin came into play. Now brothers and sisters fight, parents abusing their children and each other, and even the Godhead was torn apart. The last was so not by the power of sin as it wreaks havoc in our lives, but to bring us and Him together. Death was defeated, and the power of sin was loosened. The Godhead became whole and is made perfect once more. Shouldn’t we do likewise?

I like how there’s ambiguity in the following lines of Matthew and Mark: one tells us that He says unless infidelity occurs the divorced who remarry commit adultery, while the other omits it. It’s almost as if even God can understand the pain of losing someone to another and wants to be totally cut off from the infractor, yet at the same time wants nothing more than to be rejoined with the offender. There’s that struggle between being holy and getting into our mess. And because of our “hardened hearts,” He does not mandate saying that those who betray we must leave, for many times He wanted to leave us. Thanks be to God that He has never caved into His righteous anger and forsaken us!

But they sinned. We are nocent. To respond to our nocence, God declares to the woman, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16. Look at the second sentence of that verse. Do you see where I’m getting at? Now, I’m all for women’s rights, that they are just as human as a man. But it is the case that woman comes from man (in the ancient Hebrew, man is ‘hadam’ until in the second creation story he wakes up as ‘is’ and she ‘issah’). Do we say, from there, that God wanted man to have submission over woman? That would be a total misreading of the passage, so no.

God, in response to sin, makes this claim that woman is to be ruled by man, or at the very least for the wife to be submitted by her husband. This is how God is reconciling the first disobedience, to put woman in her place.

Now take that thought, and apply it to the way we live here in America. Women have the right to vote. Their vote is just as strong as a man’s vote. Women have the right to divorce. Women have the right to have authority over a governing state, and yes, even to become governess of the United States of America. Are we moving away from God’s decree when we (men) give power to women?

I believe that one day women will be just as powerful as men. I believe that women and men will be co-partners of the Earth, that everything will be as it should be. But maybe, just maybe, we are to wait for the Second Coming. Am I off for thinking this way? Should I reconsider the point, and think that God is working in us today to bring about the sanctification of the Earth? I am apt to decline only because no where else in the Bible does this thought ever occur. I don’t think it’s wrong to hope for this change to occur, but now I feel my stance must change in order to be closer to God by not only dismissing a woman when she disagrees with me, but to vehemently put her in her place. For God.

… or maybe I’m just a big butt by going against the status quo.

I could only think of two reasons (not really, but they’re funny) of why she would follow me: My headphones do more than play high-quality music, or my smell brings all the ladies ’round me! Seriously though, do people have nothing better to do than to follow someone? And what are you going to get out of it? Because, let me tell you, when a girl follows me I just get all hot and bothered and have to hit on her. PAH-LEEZE!!!

…She was kinda cute though. WHAT AM I SAYING?! uguuuu… Did you know this happened once when I got lost at UIC before I first started there? I’m driving and see this one girl at the intersection in the left hand-turn lane where I make a right. I get lost and start gallavanting through Taylor and Morgan, losing myself into this cul-de-sac. I finally just park the car to think, and there she pulls in front of me to turn around. It was, like, eight streets ago when I saw her. And that, lads and lassies, is why I am a creep: how else am I gonna get back at the world?

To be perfectly honest, I admire them. They were definitely made with thought and care, to be able to overcome obstacles that I will never be able to overcome. What I mean is this: God will never let us go through something we cannot handle. Anyone who has that predisposition are much stronger in that area than I can ever be! It’s a struggle that I cannot comprehend empirically, and thus all I can do is be in awe. Maybe it is wrong, but they are just as human as we are, right? God loves them just as much as He loves us. Of course, though He loves us, in order for us to be in a relationship with Him we must surrender over our entire lives, meaning we must give up all the things He detests. We’re not to lie, steal, kill, or create or let happen any injustice that He deems so. I have to give up my laziness, my pride, love of money, and all other gods that I have and will bring into my life. I mean, if there was an action that gave pain to the one you love that you could give up, wouldn’t you?