< Back 03/16/2022 So for 25 years you do nothing to anyone or for anyone; everyone does everything to you and for you. Other people feed you, clothe you, shelter you, teach you, play with you, hurt you, etc. Then, for the next 50 years, you do everything to and for others: you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, play with them, yes, hurt them. More later… -David So for 25 years you do nothing to anyone or for anyone; everyone does everything to you and for you. Other people feed you, clothe you, shelter you, teach you, play with you, hurt you, etc. Then, for the next 50 years, you do everything to and for others: you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, teach them, play with them, yes, hurt them. More later… -David Previous Next

< Back Comfort for Clumsy Believers: What the Disbelief of the Disciples Means for Us Deidre Braley "There is evidence that, in the backs of the disciples' minds, there was always the glimmer of the same question that shimmers on my frontal lobe today: 'But what if we’ve gotten it all wrong about him?'" Every quarter or so, I have an existential crisis. It’s not something I typically bring up in conversation; it turns out that questions like, “What if everything we’ve believed about God and the universe is wrong?” tend to dampen the overall mood of dinner parties and coffee dates. Plus, it just isn’t polite Christian talk. Nobody wants to hear the late night doubts of a so-called believer—least of all me . These questions are unwelcome; these doubts, disturbing. But I’ve found comfort as of late in the recountings of Jesus’ death and resurrection in the Gospels. For the first time in all of my rereadings, it’s striking me that the disciples really didn’t understand the entirety of what Jesus was up to and who he was. There is evidence that, in the backs of their minds, there was always the glimmer of the same question that shimmers on my frontal lobe today: “But what if we’ve gotten it all wrong about him?” How have I missed it until now? How did I not see that these men—just like me—grappled with the pesky whispers that poked and prodded at the foundations of their faith, their security, their eternal futures ? I’ve always assumed that since they knew Jesus personally, it was a given that they also understood he was really the Son of God. That every moment they were in his presence, his essence of saving grace would be so palpable that they’d know for sure who they were dealing with. That there would be no way they could touch and see, eat and banter with Jesus himself and still hold on to any shred of disbelief that mumbled, “Maybe he’s just a really good guy. A stellar prophet. Ten out of ten, as far as leaders go.” The Disbelief of the Disciples But looking around at Jesus’ closest handful of friends in the days surrounding his death and resurrection, we see a group of people thrown into the confusing waters of uncertainty, fear, and doubt. Judas acts a traitor. Simon Peter denies knowing him. The disciples in the upper room refuse to believe Mary when she tells them Jesus has left the tomb. The men on the road to Emmaus can’t even see past their discouraged hopes to realize that Jesus himself is walking alongside them. In short, even though they knew Jesus and he’d told them exactly what would happen, they still couldn’t seem to bring themselves to the point of certain, unwavering belief. Doubt is often seen as a character flaw. Society loves the certain. But maybe certainty is such a hot commodity because it’s what we all actually lack, addled by our own human condition. The disciple, too, were humans, and I see now that they each struggled with varying degrees of disbelief. What is significant to each of their stories does not turn out to be their level of dubiety, though—it is the way they end up responding to their natural predisposition to doubt. Judas, for example, is consumed by his disbelief. I have always wondered how he possibly could have betrayed Jesus, knowing he was the Son of God. Because honestly, how did he think that was going to work out for him? But now it strikes me: he didn’t know it, not really. If he had, he never would have traded him for thirty pieces of silver. He would have understood he was making a preposterous exchange (a bagful of coins for the Savior of the world) and that his treachery would have eternal consequences. My theory is that it wasn’t about the silver at all; it was about the fact that he heard the crowds all around him saying, “He is not who he says he is,” and allowed them to feed the doubts that niggled there in his soul. You can almost hear the snake in the Garden whispering the same lie in Judas’ ear that worked with Adam and Eve: “Did he really say that?” Judas justified his betrayal by shaking his head alongside the others, letting the disquiet of his disbelief overwhelm even the intimacy, miracles, and teachings he’d experienced in his close walk with Jesus. It isn’t only Judas, though, who questions the truth of Jesus’ words. Before it happened and on multiple occasions, Jesus himself had explicitly told his disciples that he would be mocked and shamed, beaten and killed, and then would rise on the third day. But it is written, “...they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said” (Luke 18:34). This proves to be true, for on the day of Jesus’ resurrection, when Mary and the other women burst in to tell the eleven that the tomb was empty, Luke says, “these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (24:11). And when a disguised Jesus meets the two men on the way to Emmaus and asks why they look so sad, they respond, “...we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). The unspoken implication is obvious here: But he wasn’t. It is clear that belief and doubt had done battle in their souls; their belief had told them that Jesus was the Messiah, while their doubt had told them he was just a man. In his death, disbelief had won, and the men succumbed to despair. A Closer Look at Simon Peter Simon Peter was not immune to doubt either. He walked on the water to Jesus, yes, but he also began to sink the moment he saw the wind and the waves. And later, his three denials of Jesus are evidence that he did not have enough faith to stand against the enormous fear mounting within and around him. And yet, throughout the Gospels we see Simon Peter among the first to surrender to belief. At Caesarea Philippi, Simon Peter confesses that Jesus is “the Christ, “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). On the mountain with Jesus during the Transfiguration, he is the one to (albeit awkwardly) embrace the seemingly-impossible fact that Moses and Elijah are there too; he offers to set up a tent for each of them (Matthew 17:4). When the other disciples balk at the notion that Jesus has risen, Simon Peter dashes from the room and arrives in breathless wonder to see the folded linens for himself (Matthew 24:12). And when the resurrected Jesus later appears on the beach where they are fishing, he is the first to recognize him as Lord and jump in the water in his haste to get to him (John 21:7). Simon Peter is not set apart in these stories because of his absence of disbelief or his stunning quality of character. In fact, he seems like a bit of a hothead—rash and impulsive and imperfect as any of us. But now I see that his superpower is his utter willingness to surrender to belief and, like a clumsy jump off the high-dive, to submerge himself in holy mystery. It’s not always pretty and he doesn’t always stick the landing, but he does keep jumping. Comfort for Clumsy Believers I’m comforted to know that those who walked with Jesus—who heard things of heaven directly from the Master’s mouth—also struggled against insidious doubt. I’m even more comforted by Jesus’ response to their clumsy attempts at belief. On the road to Emmaus, he admonishes the two disheartened men, saying, “‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’” (Luke 24: 26). But he doesn’t leave them there; he goes on to interpret “to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (v.27)—starting all the way back at the beginning as if to gently lead their analytical minds into the territory of total belief. And to Thomas who says, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:24), Jesus appears and lets him do just that, as if to say, “I know this handicap you’re working with—humanity—is a tricky, finicky thing. Come, let me lead you to belief.” He helps his friends believe with their minds and their physical beings, appealing to wherever the incredulity has laid siege. He encourages them to touch, think, and feel. He helps them do whatever it takes to clear the shared hurdle of humanity: a quizzical nature. I have to believe that if there was grace for them, there is also grace for us clumsy believers—the ones who are troubled with unwelcomed doubts as we lay awake at night, and who sometimes tremble under the weight of our own existential crises. But let’s also take inspiration from Simon Peter. He was sifted by the devil and, like so many of us, heard the echoes of the original lie reverberating in his eardrums. But instead of letting disbelief win out, he still jumps out of the boat. He still lunges toward his Lord. When the enemy and all the world cry, “Is he really who he says he is?” Simon Peter waves them off as if to say, “Yes—he is I AM. And I am here for it.” Jesus responds to his friends’ varied degrees of doubt with tenderness and grace. He is not surprised by their disbelief, nor does he turn away because of it. But as Thomas puts his fingers into his wounds, Jesus does say, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29). Remember—it is not our disbelief that defines our faith, but rather how we choose to respond to it. So the next time we find ourselves in the turbulent waters of late-night doubting, we needn’t give in to despair, nor chastise ourselves for having questions. Instead, we can consider ourselves normal, and then remember that our response is what drives the narrative. Judas had doubts and betrayed the Savior of the world. Simon Peter had doubts, and Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom. The difference? Judas leaned into disbelief of what he couldn’t see, while Simon Peter leapt into the mystery. Let us be followers who, addled with doubt though we are, choose to keep jumping from the boat, to keep lunging toward our Lord, and to keep on believing what we can’t see. It is our willingness to surrender to belief that will ultimately define our faith. Deidre Braley is a freelance writer and editor. She lives in Maine with her husband and two children, and most days can be found savoring an overly cheesy bagel or drinking a second cup of coffee while working on her weekly newsletter, The Second Cup . She is a strong believer in the power of poetry, picking roadside flowers, and blowing past small talk at all costs. Follow her on Instagram @deidresecondcup or on Facebook — she loves meeting new friends. Return to our Holy Days Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Job is My Superhero David Cowles "No one has taken a bigger risk than Job, and no one has faced longer odds; and yet, Job has taken God to court and won!" Where can you find a superhero when you need one? In a Marvel movie perhaps…or a DC comic? You probably wouldn’t think to look in the Bible, and certainly not in the Old Testament. Too bad! The Bible is chock-full of superheroes, especially the Old Testament. I mean, Abraham gives up a cushy upper middle-class lifestyle to become a nomad. Moses organizes a rebellion of Hebrew slaves and leads them on a 40-year trek across the wilderness to a new homeland. You get the picture! My personal favorite is Job. The Book of Job was written a mere 2,500 years ago, but the story itself is probably much older than that. Ok, granted, Job’s not your everyday superhero. In fact, on the surface, he’s anything but. We don’t meet him on a mountain top or at the head of a vast army; we meet him lying in the dust, his skin covered with sores, his family gone, his wealth wiped-out and his reputation in tatters. In those days, if you had a streak of ‘bad luck’ (like Job), people assumed that God was punishing you for sins you’d committed. Proof was not required. If you were suffering, then you must have sinned. Case closed! “What need have we for witnesses?” I am reminded of the judicial system in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Lookingglass : The sentence comes first, then the verdict, then the trail, and last of all, the crime itself. Imagine living like this. In our lives, we all have periods of relatively good fortune… and not-so-good fortune. Imagine your so-called friends ghosting you whenever your luck runs dry. Or imagine suffering their unjust accusations and their cruel taunts on top of your grief, your illness, and your poverty. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Certainly, not Job! When he hits rock bottom, his wife tells him to “curse God and die!” His ‘friends’ gather, supposedly to comfort him, but actually to tease him, to shame him, to blame him for his own suffering. Mrs. Job wants him to give up and die. His so-called ‘comforters’ want him to acknowledge his sins and beg God for forgiveness. But Job has other ideas. He won’t give up, and he won’t plead guilty to crimes he did not commit. He’s a superhero, remember? Job’s idea of God is very different from his friends’. Job’s God is not uncaring or cruel; he is just and merciful. Even more importantly, Job’s God is not above the law. In your catalog of superheroes , who else has the chutzpah to do such a thing? Using an ancient Middle Eastern legal formula, Job summons God, and much to everyone’s surprise (except Job’s) God complies with Job’s summons; he appears. At that time, the cornerstone of the law was God’s covenant with his people. Today we would call such a covenant a contract or even a constitution . God authored the covenant and Job expects him to follow it…and he does. From here on, Job’s comforters sit in stunned silence. What manner of man is this that even God obeys him? But God is not obeying Job. God is simply honoring the terms of the covenant. God is obeying God. Even more fundamentally, God is being God. All the characters in this ancient drama see God as fierce and unpredictable, all except Job! Like Abraham and Moses, Job ‘knows God’. He knows that God cannot behave unjustly because he is Justice. He knows that God cannot stop being God. So to recap, Job summons God and God appears. Is this the happy ending we’ve been hoping for? Not even close! The action’s just beginning, so buckle up! Were you expecting God to appear as a meek little lamb, ready to submit to the will of the court, putty in the hands of the plaintiff (Job)? Then you were wrong! God is furious! He has better things to do with his time than hang out in some District Court, answering Job’s impertinent charges. I mean, there’s a universe to run, for cryin’ out loud! God appears, but he’s not happy about it, not one bit. He addresses the court “out of a whirlwind." It’s undoubtedly an eye-catching performance. I mean, you don’t see that every day, do you? Admit it: you’d probably pause your remote to watch such a spectacle. Who could pass up a chance to walk down memory lane with God, exchanging war stories and listening to his tales of creation? Job could, and he does; he ignores God entirely, but then, Job is a superhero after all. He keeps his eyes fixed firmly on the prize (‘judgment for the plaintiff’). God mounts a spirited defense, “Where were you when I laid earth’s foundations? Have you ever in your days summoned daybreak? Have you ever reached the sources of the Sea and walked on the bottom of the Ocean?” God’s strategy is clear. He will overpower Job. But notice, God’s arguments are off point. They are more a product of frustration than careful legal reasoning. They have nothing to do with justice in general, and even less to do with Job’s particular complaint. God is blurring the line between might and right . Plus, this is not an episode of Law and Order . For one thing, God is both the defendant and the judge. We would never agree to such an arrangement today. We’d call it a ‘conflict of interest’, and for anyone but God, it would be. If you were your own judge, you’d probably find yourself innocent most of the time…ok, all the time. We all would…but not God. He alone can build a true firewall between God-the-Defendant and God-the-Judge. Job ignores God’s bluster. He does not take God’s bait. He won’t be drawn into a school yard game of one-upmanship; he will not show his NFL highlights reel next to God’s. Job hangs tough, “I have spoken once - and I will not repeat. Twice - and I will no more!” Job smells blood. He is going for a directed verdict of not guilty…and he’s going to get it, too - if only he can keep his cool. But not before God takes one last desperate shot: “Can you pull out the Leviathan (a sea monster) with a fishhook? Can you toy with him like a bird? Who has ever confronted him and survived? Even gods live in fear of his majesty; they’re in terror of the ruin he wrecks.” In other words: If you’re not afraid of me, perhaps you’ll be afraid of my creatures. But, of course, God’s threats are empty, and his words fall on deaf ears. Job has the last word: “I am fed up; I take pity on dust and ashes.” Translation: If I can’t get justice, no one can! Today, Job might be held in contempt of court for such a remark; but God lets him slide. Now on to the verdict. The whole cosmos is of one mind: Job will be found liable and further punishment will be imposed. The whole cosmos…that is, except Job. Job knows he will be acquitted. He knew it from the beginning. Job knows God! God moves from the plaintiff’s chair to the judge’s bench. He puts on his legal robes and prepares to rule. But first, he has a word for Job’s fickle friends: “You did not speak about me honestly, as did my servant Job.” And now…the verdict! God finds Job “not guilty” on all charges and restores to Job all that he had lost and more. What makes a hero? The willingness to do what’s right, to defend one’s values and beliefs, despite overwhelming opposition and with no realistic hope of success. Then what is a superhero? A hero who succeeds, who wins out in the end after all. In the entire history of literature, mythology, and religion, no one has taken a bigger risk than Job and no one has faced longer odds; and yet, Job has taken God to court and won! So, Job is my superhero. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Previous Next

< Back Healthcare & The Titanic David Cowles Jan 26, 2026 “We have the technology to transform healthcare…we just need the will to deploy it and we will begin to build that will only once we stop moving furniture.” Have you heard, there’s a healthcare crisis in America? We spend 20% of our precious GDP trying to stay well (or get well) yet one-third of what we spend (7% of GDP) is wasted on treatments that are ineffective and/or on conditions that have been misdiagnosed. Now add to that the unnecessary tests and procedures occasioned by the practice of Tort First defensive medicine and it’s not a pretty picture. But at least we have a system that delivers the best available healthcare to every resident, equally and on demand, that always delivers a warm and caring healthcare experience, and that treats every patient at all times with the dignity and respect they deserve; right? Not so much! When I walk into a Morton’s Steakhouse I know I’m going to spend a lot of money, but I also know I’m likely to have a very rewarding experience. Can I say the same when I walk into a doctor’s office or a hospital ER? Ok, so none of this is news to you after all! But not to worry: our best minds are working to make things better, much better. Problem is, they have been doing so since the dawn of the healthcare crisis (c. 1985)…and that makes a note I recently found in my in-box (1/8/2026) especially troubling: “ OpenAI on Wednesday announced ChatGPT Health , which will allow users to securely connect their medical records and wellness apps to the artificial intelligence chatbot. ChatGPT Health is not intended for diagnosis and treatment…” New Flash : We have been in the process of ‘allowing users to securely connect their medical records and wellness apps’ for more than 25 years. It was a signature project of George W. Bush’s presidency. And to what end? During the last quarter century there has been an explosion in healthcare technology encompassing surgical procedures, pharmacology, diagnostics, etc. and yet, unless you happen to be the direct beneficiary of one of these advances, who thinks that everyday healthcare is better now than it was 25 years ago? As many doctors will attest, it is almost impossible to practice medicine today. Patients are not so much treated as they are managed ...managed according to insurance carrier protocols, industry best practices, regulatory checklists, and the need to defend potential malpractice litigation down the road. And if that’s not enough, we now have the poorly understood and grossly misapplied provisions of HIPPA, erecting unnecessary (and unintended) barriers between healthcare professionals. To whatever extent we do practice medicine, we often do so in the dark. Of course we know where the fault lies, don’t we? Insurance company red tape, PBM price gouging, government over-regulation and paperwork, the legal system! And no doubt, each of these can be problematic and does contribute in its own way to lapses in patient care. Besides, we would rather blame others for our problems than look in a mirror. But that’s ok because our politicians have the answer, don’t they? The trouble is, they have too many answers. Some say we need more competition among insurance carriers and healthcare providers, some say more consumerism and patient accountability, some more emphasis on public health, wellness, prevention and primary care. Most say we’d be OK if we were more like England, Canada, or Germany, even though those systems are arguably even more troubled than ours (though I will grant you, they are cheaper – folks get less care, but they pay less for it – I guess that’s something: Morton’s opens its first drive thru ). Things don’t have to be this way. ‘We have the technology’ to make things better, much better (there’s even ‘an app for that’), but we choose not to deploy it. It’s called Artificial Intelligence (AI) and it has the potential to turn healthcare upside down…and in short order. But there’s nothing we fear more than a solution to our problems. Imagine the angst in the Climate Community if we discovered cheap, abundant, clean energy! The advantage to being as old as I am, at the time that I am, is that I have seen technologies that were bound to change the world come…and go: VHS, MTV, Blockbuster, Fax, AOL, etc. (Remember when we said, “I can’t imagine how we did business before we had fax;” well, when was the last time someone sent you a fax?) Take a message to Sam Altman (OpenAI): “You can’t save the Titanic by rearranging the deck chairs. You have to change course.” TV crime shows notwithstanding, people are not bad. No one wants the healthcare system to fail. But doctors, lawyers, payers, and regulators all have vested interests in the current ‘infrastructure’ and that puts them squarely at odds with progress. We love to put lipstick on pigs; what we can’t see can’t hurt us (as long as we don’t smell it). The rollout of ChatGPT Health, at least as advertised, is the moral equivalent of waving a fan and calling it air conditioning. It doesn’t help; actually, it hurts! It creates the impression that our problems can be solved easily and ‘on the cheap’ and that we’re actually addressing them. It soaks up attention and resources that might otherwise have been directed toward implementing a real solution. And we have a pretty good idea what that solution is. OpenAI is right to think that AI is the future of healthcare, but they are apparently reluctant to deploy it. For example, 80% of the tasks performed in a Primary Care practice could be done as well or better by AI , freeing the physician to do what she does best: observe, classify, diagnose, prescribe, and evaluate. On the specialist level, an extensive study (Harvard Medical et al.) has shown that AI is 4 times better at diagnosing complex health conditions than a team of seasoned, board certified physicians. Incredible…but true! We have the technology to transform healthcare here and now and across the planet; we just need the will to deploy it and we will begin to build that will only once we stop moving furniture. *** Honoré Daumier’s The Hypochondriac (c. 1830s) humorously depicts a man obsessively worried about his health while the doctor appears indifferent, highlighting both the patient’s anxiety and the physician’s detachment. The painting serves as a satirical critique of medical negligence and the social dynamics between doctors and patients in 19th-century France. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Corinthians David Cowles How is it that God can perform the miracle of Incarnation? Or to put it more accurately, how is it that God is the miracle of Incarnation. In the Bible’s New Testament, 14 letters (‘epistles’) have traditionally been attributed to Paul of Tarsus, St. Paul. The authenticity of some of these letters is in dispute, but scholars agree that 7 of them were almost certainly written by Paul himself. One of the most important is Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians , often referred to simply as Corinthians (even though there is a second letter from Paul to the congregation). Corinthians is one of the oldest books of the New Testament (probably written before 60 AD). It reflects Christian Christology, ecclesiology and eschatology during a relatively early period in Christianity’s development. It is important to note that Paul wrote this letter while he was in Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor that has an outsized role in the history of Western philosophy and theology. Heraclitus, for example, was a member of the Ephesian royal family and John the Evangelist is thought to have been the Bishop of Ephesus at one time. Just before visiting Ephesus, Paul wrote his Letter to the Romans from Corinth. While the doctrines advanced in the two letters are certainly compatible, Corinthians marks a profound change in emphasis. While Romans is focused on sin and the salvific power of Christ’s crucifixion, Corinthians focuses more on Christ’s resurrection, the role of the Spirit and the nature of eternal life. Did Paul’s visit to Ephesus enrich his theology? Like any ordinary letter, Corinthians is a mixed bag. It contains personal greetings, biographical updates, advice, exhortations, and even a bit of old-fashioned gossip. But woven into the fabric of this letter, in between the dominant lacunae, lies a complete systematic theology. Nowhere except in the Gospel of John is early Christian theology so thoroughly spelled out. We proclaim Christ crucified…the power of God and the wisdom of God… Christ Jesus who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption… Paul begins by juxtaposing ‘Christ crucified’ with ‘the power and wisdom of God.’ Superficially, the two seem to be in conflict, but Paul and his followers knew differently. Christ crucified is precisely ‘the power and the wisdom of God.’ How so? Creation is a neat trick if you can pull it off, but God’s defining ‘power’ lies in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ. God, the ‘creator of heaven and earth’ quite literally turns himself inside out to become a single quantum of being (Jesus) in the vast spatio-temporal universe. It is as true to say that the God is embedded in Universe as it is to say that Universe is embedded in God. Christianity threads with the needle between pantheism, on the one hand, and Deism, on the other. In Paul’s theology, God is ultimately “all in all.” You might say that God manifests himself in three stages: Creation & Providence Incarnation & Resurrection Salvation & Redemption And wisdom? Wisdom is you being aware of the world, and of yourself, and of yourself in the world, and of yourself being aware of yourself in the world, all at the same time. Wisdom is very different from knowledge. All the knowledge in the world does not make a person wise. Knowledge tends to be linear; not wisdom! Knowledge can masquerade as static information; wisdom is always dynamic. Knowledge is something you can park on a shelf; wisdom is a way of living, a state of being. If you are wise, you understand ‘the ecology of the moment.’ You are neither subject nor object, noun nor verb. You are the perceiver-perceived and the perceived-perceiving. God’s wisdom is his perception of himself through, with, and in Christ. Old Testament Wisdom ( Sophia ) is related to New Testament Logos . The Father is perceiver-perceived while Christ is perceived-perceiving. That is wisdom. God is wise by nature, you are wise through grace and through worship, study, prayer and good works. With wisdom comes righteousness, sanctification, and ultimately redemption. Through wisdom, one comes to know what is right (‘righteousness’), one comes to live what is right (‘sanctification’), one comes to be what is right (‘redemption’). This is why Solomon, the wisest of men, asked God for one gift only, Wisdom, trusting that all else would follow. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all other things will be given to you.” (Mt. 6:33) How is it that God can perform the miracle of Incarnation? Or to put it more accurately, how is it that God is the miracle of Incarnation. The Nicene Creed tells us it is “by the power of the Holy Spirit,” and Paul agrees. (Or perhaps we should say that the Council of Nicaea agrees with Paul.) It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that the Father knows the Son and the Son knows the Father. The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” ( Nicene Creed ) and Paul tells us that the Spirit dwells in each of us. Because we have received the Spirit because the Spirit of God dwells in us, we have the mind of Christ. Everything belongs to you be it… the world or life or death, or the present or the future, all belong to you and you to Christ and Christ to God. Each of us has a unique role to play in the cosmic dance. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ…whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him… Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own. We belong to Christ, but not as material possessions. We belong to Christ as members of his body. Because we are members of Christ, the Spirit that dwells in Christ dwells in us. Paul’s theology is just as materialist as anything Karl Marx ever wrote. There is no wimpy bourgeois idealism here! In fact, Paul’s philosophy might best be described as Christian Materialism, an effort, in my view successful, to explain how the cosmos works at the most fundamental, and therefore most general, level. Because we are members of Christ, we are part of something much bigger than ourselves. We are an integral part of the cosmos (in Christ we inherit the cosmos), and we are part of something even greater than that. Everything belongs to us, but we in turn belong to the Lord of ‘everything’ (i.e., Christ). We are not alone, we are not our own! For us, there is one God, the father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist. Note the variation in voice here. We receive all things from the Father (active voice), we exist for the Father (passive voice), but it is through Christ (middle voice) that all things, including ourselves, come to be. From him, for him, through him – one reality perceived from 3 perspectives. The Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Christianity is a materialist theology, and nothing makes that point more clearly than the Eucharist. Eucharist is not Christ symbolically, or metaphorically, or even just spiritually; it is Christ materially, body as well as spirit. There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit; there are different forms of service but the same Lord; there are different workings but the same God who produces all of them in everyone. To each, the manifestation of the Spirit is given for some benefit… But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person... As a body is one, though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also is Christ. For in the Spirit, we were all baptized into (his) one body. We belong to Christ; but we do not just belong to him (I-It), we are members of his body (I-Thou), and not members in the way that elements of a set are members of that set or in the way that friends become members of a club. We are members of Christ as parts of his glorified body! A body is unlike a mathematical set and unlike a social club. In a body, each member’s health reflects the health of the whole; and in turn, the health of the whole (body) reflects the health of each of its members. This is the language of mutuality and reciprocity, not dualism: subject/object, active/passive. A body has many parts, and each of those parts makes a unique contribution to the overall functioning of the body. So, too, each of us has a unique set of gifts and a unique role to play in the community that is Christ’s body. Now the body is not a single part but many… God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended. If they were all one (the same) part, where would the body be? Christianity is not only materialist; it is also pluralist. The many constitute one, and that one adds to the many. Buckminster Fuller was fond of saying, “Universe is plural and at minimum two.” Was he paraphrasing Paul? There are many parts, yet one body… But God has so constructed the body…that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. The body is one organism with many organs. These organs (parts) do not just relate to the body (whole); they also relate to (i.e., have the same concern for) each another. In this topology, each part relates, not just to the whole, but to every part of that whole. In fact, it is that network of relatedness, that mutual concern, agape (love), that constitutes the body as a body. The earliest Western philosopher, Anaximander, held a similar view. He believed that it was as a result of mutual concern (“reck”) among parts that the whole came to be. 20th century British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, shared this view as well. In his ‘Philosophy of Organism’ every part (‘actual entity’) is related to every other part and to the whole as ‘whole.’ A relates to B. A relates to C. B relates to C. A relates to B in C and B relates to A in C. Confused? Try this: If one part suffers, all parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body and individually parts of it. To use Whitehead’s language, God does not just ‘prehend’ us, we prehend each other, and we prehend God. This tight network of relatedness is, I think, what John meant by Logos . (According to Martin Heidegger, originally, logos originally meant ‘net’ or ‘weir.’) According to Anaximander (above), the whole exists because of the parts, but the parts in turn subsist in the whole. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. This is a remarkable verse. It rules out the possibility that Christ was raised, but we will not be. Paul argues that either there is resurrection or there is not. If there is, then Jesus was raised and will we be too; if there is not, then Jesus was not raised, nor will we be. Paul is an ontological democrat; he rejects the gnostic concept of an ontological hierarchy. Whitehead (above) agrees: God is not an exception to natural law, but its highest exemplar. Our fate is inextricably linked to Christ’s. And if Christ has not been raised, then empty is our preaching and empty too your faith…if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain… Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If one rises, all rise, otherwise none rise. But since we are members of Christ’s body, if Christ rises, we must inevitably rise with him. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep… For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ all shall be brought to life, but each one in proper order; Christ the first fruits; then at this coming, those who belong to Christ… Christ has been resurrected and so as members of his body we can be assured that we too will be resurrected. Then comes the end when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father… When everything is subjected to him, then the Son will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. Alfred North Whitehead (above) thought that this was the pivotal verse in all scripture. But in another sense, it is merely a restatement of a much earlier idea: “Everything belongs to you and you to Christ and Christ to God.” But in this later version, Paul goes one step further and points out explicitly that God is ‘all in all.’ This is certainly the climax of Corinthians. But Paul goes on to give us a deeper understanding of resurrection: What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies. And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel…So, also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible… It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one. Only by living (and dying) in the spatio-temporal world can we be resurrected in the eternal world: a seed must fall to the ground and ‘die.’ Mortality is the gateway to eternity. We understandably dread death, the suffering, the uncertainty, the utter loss of control. We pray to be delivered from danger and ill health so that me may live as long as possible. Fortunately, God does not grant all petitions! If he did, we might ask him for immortality, and he might grant it, and there is no greater punishment than immortality (think of the poor souls in Dante’s Inferno ). There is no greater punishment than immortality (think of the poor souls in Dante’s Inferno ). Unknowingly, we are praying for a fate far, far worse than death, but God will overlook our folly. Resurrection is physical and material, but it is not ‘natural.’ The resurrected body is different from the natural body. The natural body, for example, is ‘corruptible’ while the resurrected body is ‘incorruptible.’ The resurrected body is ‘spiritual’ but nonetheless physical. From here on, I will ‘shut up’ and let Paul speak for himself: Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall not fall asleep, but we will all be changed, instantly, in the blink of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For that which is corruptible must clothe itself with incorruptibility, and that which is mortal must clothe itself with immortality (sic). And when this which is corruptible clothes itself with incorruptibility and this which is mortal clothes itself with immortality, then the word that is written shall come about: “Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” … But thanks be to God who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Image: Rembrandt van Rijn (and Workshop?) (Dutch, 1606 - 1669 ), The Apostle Paul, c. 1657, oil on canvas, Widener Collection. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com. Previous Next

< Back Genesis and Revelation David Cowles Aug 23, 2026 “Like all good bookends, they are symmetrical…Spacetime begins on the 7th day and ends with the 7th seal.” 1750 words, 8 minute read The canonical Christian Bible, finalized during the first centuries C.E., is beautifully constructed. Genesis and Revelation are its bookends and, like all good bookends, they are symmetrical. Like Peter Pan, Genesis takes us from void through the light and onto the created world while Revelation takes us from the created world through void onto Parousia . That said, do not expect the Apocalypse to look like a film of Creation run backwards. The processes are congruent but not mirror images. Check it out: Genesis : Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and wind sweeping over waters, and God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light ! God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day . Revelation : I watched as the Lamb opened the first seal of seven. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest. Aletheia : Light ↔ white. Light is vectored (bow); it stands at the head of the created world (crown) and it is the prerequisite of all that follows (conquest). Genesis : And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day . Revelation : When the Lamb opened the second seal , I heard the second living creature say, “Come!” Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make people kill each other. To him was given a large sword . Aletheia : Separation ↔ sword. The sword is agent of division, as instrument of death; appropriately, it’s color is fire engine red. *** Genesis : And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day . Revelation : When the Lamb opened the third seal , I heard the third living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “Two pounds[a] of wheat for a day’s wages, and six pounds of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” Aletheia : Gatherer economy ↔ distributive justice. Black ↔ (justice is) blind. *** Genesis : And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night , and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day . Revelation : When the Lamb opened the fourth seal , I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, “Come!” I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death , and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth. Aletheia : Time ↔ death (entropy, mortality). Death (Hades) entails the loss of defining qualia, e.g. the ‘shades’ in Homer’s underworld ( Odyssey ); ergo, “pale.” *** Genesis : And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day . Revelation : When he opened the fifth seal , I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been. Aletheia : Hunting ↔ martyrdom. The evolution of animalia opens up the possibility of expanding the gatherer economy to include hunting. The perverse analogue of hunting is martyrdom (we are the hunted). Question : Is there a vegetarian/vegan message embedded here? I will leave that to the reader. *** Genesis : And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day . Revelation : I watched as he opened the sixth seal . There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. The heavens receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?” Aletheia : Mankind (sic) ↔ apocalypse. ‘Nuf sed! As Adam and Eve hid from God in Eden, so now we call upon Nature to conceal us from God’s scrutiny and to protect us from his wrath. *** Genesis : Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. Revelation : When he opened the seventh seal , there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Aletheia : Rest ↔ silence. God’s creative process ( Genesis ) and his redemptive process ( Revelation ) are separated from the created world by a Markov Blanket : rest/silence. Ordinary spacetime begins with the dawn of ‘the seventh day’ and ends with the opening of ‘the seventh seal’. The world was created in the image of God, but the image is not the figure, the map is not the territory. There is an ontological ‘gap’ between God and World that protects the integrity of God’s process and the independence of his product. Question : Did John of Patmos, titular author of Revelation , intentionally recapitulate Genesis or did the subject matter itself dictate its presentation? Again, I defer to you, dear reader. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

Explore the intersection of philosophy, theology, and science in Aletheia Today's Fall 2024 issue. Discover thought-provoking articles on consciousness, identity, and spirituality, including discussions on Christology as a Theory of Everything, the true meaning of miracles, and the relationship between Genesis and quantum mechanics. Dive deep into the mysteries of existence and the complexities of cessation and continuation of the Holy Spirit's gifts. Inside Fall 2024 Philosophy Why R U, U? “Hamlet was right: you either are…or you are not. There is no disembodied ‘being’ walking abroad, seeking an ‘identity’. King Hamlet’s ghost is not real!” Don’t Teach Your Kid to Count! “Our own number system is based on a highly specialized, and not necessarily privileged, concept of quantity.” Theology Mark’s Diary – Notes for a Screenplay “And so they were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were filled with awe, while those who followed behind were afraid.” The Mustard Seed “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds find shelter in its branches.” (Matthew 13: 31 – 32) Is Christology a TOE? “Cosmologists cannot rely on science any more than astronomers can rely on religion. There can be no successful TOE (‘Theory of Everything’) without both...” Show Us a Sign “We have been shown our sign…and it’s a simple one. The sign is that there are signs!” Culture & The Arts Fifth Grade Slump, Eighth Grade Cliff “We must surrender the notion that adolescence is a dress rehearsal for adulthood. It’s not; it’s real life! Genesis and Quantum Computing “Quantum Mechanics is the secret code that unlocks Genesis and when it does, we are surprised to discover that Genesis may be ‘literally true’ after all.” Spirituality Cessation and Continuation: Have the Miracles Ceased or Are We Just Cynics? "Perhaps it is not that God has ceased His miraculous works, prophetic messengers, and tongues that can cross language barriers, but that our understanding of miracles has changed because the flesh is as fleshy and conflicting with the Spirit as ever." The Effects of EGO on Your Success "The funny thing about ego is that it can make people believe they are more important than they are." Readers React What's the buzz about? Our readers' reactions to Aletheia Today... Additional Reading Can't get enough of Aletheia Today's content? Check out the books that inspire our magazine.

< Back Harriet Tubman Joins Six Women of Courage in the Exodus Story--Passover Part Two Ayala Emmett "Let us follow these biblical women and Harriet Tubman’s unflinching courage. Let us be agents in our time in the political arena to support and stand with all who struggle for freedom here in America, in the Middle East, and around the world." In 2015, we added to our Seder Harriet Tubman, who joins the six women who shaped the history of the Exodus. The women belong at the Passover table because all seven emerge as consequential political catalysts. All are remarkably brave, amitzot , all are women who at great risk take bold actions in the political/religious arena of their time and speak directly to contemporary concerns of justice. Tubman joins six agentive women in the Exodus story who are connected across ethnic and class differences. Who are the biblical women and how do they influence the history of the Exodus? Two of the six are midwives, two are mother and daughter, and two are women of high rank, the daughter of Pharaoh, and the daughter of a Midianite Priest. The women inscribe courage as a dominant element in the Exodus story that begins in oppression, slavery and attempted genocide. Pharaoh orders the two midwives Shifrah and Puah to do the unthinkable, “when you deliver the Hebrew women look at the birthstool: if it is boy kill him” (1:16). Pharaoh invades the gendered domestic sphere of childbirth and the midwives without hesitation step into the dangerous political terrain. They are defiant, “the midwives who revere* God did not do as the king of Egypt told them.” The two midwives offer us the first biblical lesson in civil disobedience. The text is (deliberately?) unclear about the identity of Shifrah and Puah. Their ethnicity has been debated in rabbinic commentary; the majority of the rabbis, including Rashi the 12th century commentator identify the midwives as Hebrew women, while other sages view them as Egyptian. Their actions, however, are unambiguous, they defy Pharaoh’s edict to kill all Hebrew newborn boys. Commentators who believe that the midwives are Egyptians praise them for standing up for an oppressed minority. The midwives defiance, regardless of their ethnicity has become a symbol for standing up for the powerless and has been understood as reverence for God. The midwives defiance makes possible the upcoming events, which focus on the actions of the mother and daughter. The narrative states unequivocally that mother and daughter, whose names at first we don’t know, are Hebrew women of the tribe of Levi, “a certain man from the house of Levi went and married a woman a Levite woman. The woman conceived and bore a son” (2:2). Her son was not killed because the midwives refused to comply with Pharaoh’s edict, which in turn enabled the Hebrew Levite mother to have a live baby boy. Yet, after three months the mother realizes that she can no longer hide her son. She makes the most heartbreaking decision, to send away her baby in the hope that he would be rescued. The Levite mother constructs a waterproof basket and places her son among the reeds on the Nile. The baby’s sister is watching from a distance as he becomes the first biblical child asylum seeker. Entering the scene is the fifth woman who immediately knows that this child is of the oppressed minority, “This must be a Hebrew child” (2:7) says Pharaoh’s daughter who without missing a beat decides to take the child. A women’s conspiracy follows, the baby’s sister offers to find a Hebrew woman who would nurse him, the princess agrees, and the boy, still nameless is returned to her weaned, becomes her son and she names him Moses. With few words, mother, sister and adoptive mother (Egyptian) are bonded in saving Moses’ life in defiance of Pharaoh’s violent decree. Moses, as the text tells us, grows up in Pharaoh’s house, kills an oppressive Egyptian task-master, escapes to Midian and marries Zipporah, (a Midianite of high rank), the sixth woman in the Exodus text. God tells Moses to go back to Egypt to “free my people.” A very reluctant Moses goes back to Egypt with Zipporah his wife and his sons and on the way God wants to kill him. The “him” that God seeks to kill is not named. The text is far from clear whether God wants to kill Moses or one of his sons, but whoever it is, Zipporah in that critical moment of facing God, acts quickly, she circumcises her son and for unexplained reason it works “and He lets him go.” (4:25). Zipporah closes the circle of the six women as she, like the others, saves a life by crossing into the religious sphere that could be dangerous if entered inappropriately. What is appropriate for women in the religious domain has been reinterpreted for generations and in our time we witness greater inclusion in ritual practices. While Miriam has been restored and given a place at the Seder symbolized by placing her cup next to Elijah’s it is time to follow rabbinic Midrashic tradition of honoring by naming, since it is the sages who named Pharaoh’s daughter Batya. We honor at our Seder tonight all six women, the midwives Shifrah and Puah, the mother and daughter Yochebed and Miriam, the princess Batyah and Moses’ wife Ziporah. They all are seminal leaders in the history of the Exodus and this year they are joined by Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman is a woman “who went on to run spy missions for the Union army in the South, including a gunboat expedition that freed more than 700 South Carolina slaves. Harriet Tubman will be the first African-American and the first woman to have her image cast on the front of a currency note.” Let us follow these biblical women and Harriet Tubman’s unflinching courage. Let us be agents in our time in the political arena to support and stand with all who struggle for freedom here in America, in the Middle East, and around the world. * The Hebrew “vatirena et HaElohim” (1:17) is an idiomatic expression that is best translated as revering God. This was republished with permission from T he Jewish Pluralist . It is first in the series Four Women’s Collected Essays on the Meaning of Passover . Click here for introduction to the series. Image: " Moses Found in the River ." Synagogue fresco from 244 CE. Ayala Emmett Ph.D. is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Rochester. You can read more about her accomplishments and writing credits by following this link . Return to our Holy Days 2023 Table of Contents, Previous Next

< Back The Lottery “The state lottery is just about the only financial vehicle that offers some folks a realistic opportunity to materially impact their economic circumstances.” David Cowles We all love to gamble, most of us anyway; but why? If we know the rules of the games, we know that we are unlikely to walk away a winner; and unless we have a problem, most of us gamble for the fun of it. When we go to Vegas, we don’t expect to come home with life changing riches – casino limits make that a virtual impossibility. If we’re smart, we expect to come home slightly poorer than when we left. We gamble because we enjoy the games themselves. Plus, it is an undeniable thrill to “beat the house”, even if only to a modest extent and for a short period of time. Bottom line : for most of us, gambling is not a financial planning strategy. Or is it? 60 million Americans play state lotteries every year. In states that have lotteries (44) the average adult invests more than $300/year in numbers, scratch cards and other proposition bets. While it can be fun at first to scratch a card looking for winning numbers, after a while it can get tiresome. Yet we still do it. Why? Simple, we do it to get rich! “Whoa, I thought you just said that you couldn’t get rich gambling.” That’s right, I did say that, and it’s true…in casinos! Lotteries are a completely different kettle of fish. Here’s how they work: In the better games, approximately two-thirds of the proceeds go back to the players as ‘winnings’ while the state retains the other one-third to cover costs associated with the games and to fund budget items like education, transportation, or healthcare. Of the portion that goes to the players, about half is distributed in ‘small’ prizes after each draw; the remainder goes to fund the ever accumulating Jackpot. Take Jackpot heavy Powerball. One third of the proceeds go to fund the Jackpot; if no one claims the Jackpot on the first draw, that unclaimed amount rolls over to the next draw. In any sequence of draws the Jackpot begins at around $20 million, not a bad haul. But if no one wins, the Jackpot will at least double on the next draw. There is no theoretical limit to how high the Jackpot can get but we know it can at least reach $2 billion IRL (100x the Draw #1 prize). Many politicians and economists have noted that lower income people spend a higher percentage of their assets on state lottery tickets than do higher income folks. Of course they do! High earners are able to save money systematically; they have the option to participate in HSAs, IRAs, 401(k)s and other tax advantaged accumulation vehicles. They can even “play the market” and pick the next Amazon. A dollar invested in the DJIA 15 years ago is worth $10 today. $1 invested in Apple on the same day is now worth $100. Beats any savings account I’ve ever had! (Of course, you have to know what to buy and when to buy it; but we enjoy thinking we can outsmart the experts…and occasionally we do…just as we occasionally beat the house in Vegas...or win the Lottery.) Unfortunately, though, many Americans do not have ready access to equity markets. So here’s the fundamental question: does playing a ‘good’ state lottery constitute a viable financial planning strategy for someone of modest means? The answer, surprisingly, is yes! The state lottery is just about the only financial vehicle that offers certain folks a realistic opportunity to materially impact their economic circumstances. What’s the magic? A state lottery takes a little from the many and delivers a lot to the few. Sounds like the worst form of ‘robber baron capitalism’, doesn’t it? And it is! Except you are the robber baron. Where’s Bernie Sanders when you need him? But wait! The ‘few’ in this case are ‘selected’ randomly. You don’t need to be rich to win the lottery. You don’t need to have attended a posh prep school; you don’t even need an Ivy League education. Nor do you need to be born a genius…or work 60 hours a week. The lottery is a way, often virtually the only way, for many ordinary Janes and Jims to change their circumstances. Here are questions you will not be asked by a licensed lottery agent: Where did you go to school? What is your race, religion, gender preference or sexual orientation? Are you living in the United States legally? Have you ever been convicted of a felony…or been in prison? What’s your credit score? Still not convinced! Scared off by the 300,000,000 to 1 quoted odds? Perhaps you should be, but let’s dig deeper into the economics of investing your life savings in Lottery tickets: If you buy one ticket, you have one chance in 300 million of winning the Jackpot on the next draw. But depending on where you are in the cycle, that winning ticket could be worth anywhere from $20,000,000 to $2,000,000,000, a swing of 100x. Obviously, buying tickets is a better deal when the payout is $2 billion than when it is $20 million. But I promised to break it down. You bet $2.00. $0.67 of that goes to the state to fund various public services, $0.66 cents is returned to the players after each draw in the form of ‘small prizes’ and 66 cents goes to fund the ‘progressive’ Jackpot. So how much did you invest? Not $2 because 66 cents is returned to the players after each draw. So at the most, your net investment is $1.34. But that assumes you attribute no value to the various public programs that the Lottery supports. If you believe those funds are spent efficiently and that you share proportionately in the benefits of those programs, then your net investment is only 66 cents. But let’s not get carried away. Let’s use the most conservative figure: $1.34. Now that $1.34 could win you as much as $2 billion…except it doesn’t. That advertised $2 billion payout is spread over 20+ years. If you elect a lump sum, which you will, the payout is more like $1 billion…still enough to pay the rent and have some left over for a vacation to Jamaica. So the return on my $1.34 investment is about 750 million to 1. But the odds of my winning are 300 million to 1. So my return is $2.50 per $1.00 invested. Not many fund managers can match that sort of return. In fact, by the time the advertised payout is $800 million, the state’s advantage has disappeared entirely. Beyond $800 million, you’re playing with the house’s money. Arguably, it is the paradigmatic example of ‘doing well by doing good’. I buy a lottery ticket every week…but I never win. Bummer! But some of the money I lose comes back to me, and others, in the form of lower taxes and/or enhanced public services. Additional funds come back to the players in the form of small prizes. Or maybe I do win, maybe I even win big! Then money well spent, I’d say. According to American political folklore, we ninety-nine percenters are supposed to spend our days wringing our hands, stomping our feet, resenting the one-percent. For the most part, we don’t do that! More often, we take whatever steps we can to improve our economic lot; one of those steps may be the judicious purchase of state lottery tickets. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to our Spring 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

“I am a spy; I can sense it, but I have no spy craft, no Bond-tech, and no ‘should you choose to accept it’ mission.” < Back I'm Ageless and Timeless David Cowles Mar 1, 2024 “I am a spy; I can sense it, but I have no spy craft, no Bond-tech, and no ‘should you choose to accept it’ mission.” My parents were members of The Greatest Generation, not me! I was born into the Who Am I Generation , aka the Baby Boomers. For some reason, ‘Who am I?’ seemed like a sensible question to us, and we allowed it to permeate every aspect of our lives. My parents couldn’t understand me, nor can my children. So 75 years on, I’m motivated to return to the defining question of my generation: at the end of the day, “after the cups, the marmalade, the tea” (Eliot), who am I? Well… I am an organism : I am a unique member of the species Homo sapiens , one out of 100 billion humans who have lived on Planet Earth. I am a society : I am 30 trillion organisms (cells), each harboring another organism (nucleus), some harboring up to 1,000 additional organisms (mitochondria). I am an economy : The 30 trillion cells that form my body share a common code (DNA); yet they differentiate into tissues and organs that perform vastly different functions, all in support of the host organism, me; they practice an extremely sophisticated version of division of labor . I am a polity : My body houses, protects, and provides for 100 billion, mostly symbiotic, bacteria. I am a citizen : I participate as a member in various overlapping human societies and in one overarching society, the biosphere, which encompasses all terrestrial organisms. I am topos : I am a fissure in the fabric of spacetime. I hold a mirror up to the world. I am how the universe experiences itself. I am consciousness . I am a black hole : I have no hair , i.e., I have no qualia . I just am. I am the collapse of space and time. I am a singularity. I am a monad – I am unchanged since the moment of my conception, and I am unchangeable… at least until the moment of my death. Nothing about me that can change; anything that can change is not about me. I am an ouroboros : I am not what I am, and I am what I am not. I am forever chasing my tail. In Exodus 3, YHWH says, “I am what am.” I, on the other hand, “am not!”. I am everything…but in the mode of not being it. I am not anything; I am not everything. I am la différance – a neologism contributed to the French language by late 20th-century philosopher Jacques Derrida. I am a quantum of difference. A ≠ A’ but A – A’ = 0 or A = A’ but A – A’ ≠ 0. I am not myself, yet there is nothing between me and myself. I am myself, displaced. From my earliest memories, I have always felt that something was out of place. I never felt quite ‘myself’…and it turns out that that’s because I am not ‘quite’ myself. I am separated from ‘myself’ by différance . As a child, I felt a powerful disconnect between who (or what) I really was and the things I was doing, the person I was being, and the roles I was playing - a disconnect between ‘who I am’ to myself (nothing) and ‘who I seem to be’ to others (a float in the Macy’s Day Parade). I am 5. I am standing at the far corner of my posh pre-school’s front lawn. I am gazing outward, across a field of wildflowers, over a distant row of shops, onto the horizon. I am lonely, anxious, and terribly sad. As I stand and gaze, I feel that I’m not supposed to be here, but somehow, I am. I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time in the wrong body, but what can I do about it? Who can I go to for help? “Mommy, I’m not supposed to be here!” – I don’t think so. I don’t know enough yet to imagine that this angst might be the first stirring of philosophical insight or spiritual awakening. It just hurts…like most everything else at age 5. But I make a mental note: “Whatever happens, I will always remember this moment,” and so I do! In fact, thanks to Marcel Proust ( Search for Lost Time ), I’m still standing at the far corner of that lawn right now. Nothing has changed; no time has passed. I know that I’m supposed to be me. I mean, who else am I going to be? And I desperately want the me that I am to be ‘something or someone’. I confuse Being with Being X . Of course, to be something or someone is to be someone or something else , something I’m not, someone I can’t be. But I don’t know any of this at the age of 5! Imagine the loneliness…and the terror. I’m growing up among a bunch of ‘aliens’ (‘alien’ to me, not because I imagine they came from outer space, but because they appear to be something I’m not - persons.) I am a human baby, utterly defenseless, being raised by ‘wolves’. No wonder I have anxieties; no wonder I can’t breathe. I am a spy; I can sense it, but I have no spy craft, no James Bond tech, and no ‘should you choose to accept it’ mission. I am at the mercy of all that surveys me. Now I am 10; my ‘10-year-old boy’ identity is impressed upon me by every adult I encounter, by the way they treat me. But I am not a 10-year-old boy, and instinctively, at least, I know that. But again, what am I to do? Should I say, “Daddy, there’s been some mistake? I am not who you think I am. I am not 10; I am ageless and timeless. I’m just pretending to be 10. Please treat me as your equal, not as your 10-year-old son?” Gertrude Stein said that we are all always to ourselves, young men and young women. She was only partly right. Young adulthood is the time in life when we feel our age least. We are no longer too young for things, and we are not yet too old for other things. We are in the ‘opportunity zone’. We come to identify this period of minimal age with agelessness . Whenever we feel ageless and timeless, we imagine that we feel the way it feels to be a young man or woman. And so, I set off on a knight’s quest, determined to reunite my Peter Pan self with my shadow. Like generations of lords and ladies before me, I am in pursuit of the Holy Grail, aka ‘me’. Fortunately, I’ve always had friends in low places. My friends don’t treat me like a 10-year-old because they don’t see 10-ness in me anymore than they see it in themselves. To ourselves, we are ageless, and our friendship confirms this. Friendship is an agent and consequence of age-blindness. Why are peer groups so important to tweens and teens? Because they offer a safe space, free of toxic age consciousness. It’s the only thing that keeps us sane. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Click the image to return to Spring 2024. Previous Next Share Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to the Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Worst Book Ever Read David Cowles Jul 31, 2025 “In just over 300 pages, this book manages to recycle just about every bad idea since stale bread...” “What is the best book you've ever read?” From the dorm room to the senior center, I love to play this game. You can learn a ton about a person from their answer, or answers. And you can tell a lot about ‘the person you’ve made yourself to be’ (there’s a hint) by noting how your own answers morph over time. For me, the two titles that consistently emerge are The Gospel of John and James Joyce’s Ulysses , often joined by Whitehead’s Process and Reality and/or Sartre’s Being and Nothingness . I own hundreds of books (yes, I have read most of them) but these 4 stand out. But what about the worst book ever ? OMG…so much trash, so little time! Let’s exclude books that are just badly written, counter factual, morally repugnant, or boring as dried paint. (We only have 85 years after all!) I might change my mind next month but right now I have a clear winner in mind; it’s a book written by Anders Indset, a wonderful person I’m sure, and published in 2020: The Quantum Economy . In just over 300 pages, this book manages to recycle just about every bad idea since stale bread, panzanella notwithstanding. No, I didn’t read it all…I couldn’t do that to my poor Pooh brain! But I’ll step aside now, for the most part at least, and let the book speak for itself. Prepare yourself…now let the adventure begin: “The Old Economy is dead. So is the New Economy…and 2019 might go down in human history as the high water mark.” See what I mean. Who in his right mind could imagine 2019 as the apex of human civilization? But, in the immortal words of the Carpenters , “We’ve only just begun!” “We must move toward the unification of the natural and social sciences to create a society of understanding …We need a new enlightenment. But how do you enlighten people who don’t know they need enlightenment?” He means you , Muggle! Be grateful for small graces: the worst ideas often come wrapped in elitist packaging. Elitists just can’t help themselves; they tell you who they are…right up front and in your face. So it turns out, sometimes you can tell a book by its cover. “…Maybe we will succeed in creating a digital direct democracy, in which every voice can be heard without the sclerotic structures of party politics.” What a great idea! Put everyone in individual, hermetically sealed booths and ask them to govern. That ensures that public policy will enshrine the special interests of the ideological class, i.e. the media, the educational establishment, etc. Why didn’t Uncle Joe Stalin think of this…or did he? Human beings do not function in isolation. We only thrive in society with others: family members, neighbors, classmates, work colleagues, drinking buddies, monastic communities, etc. We form our opinions in dialog with others. Otherwise, we just recycle memes created en masse and promulgated for us by others. ‘Disempower the People!’ is not my definition of democracy. Brace yourself (if you’re not teetotal this might be a good time to pour): “How can we repeat the political masterpiece of European reconciliation and confidence building at a global scale?” Surely this must be a misprint. Perhaps he meant Tolkien’s Middle Earth , a label sometimes applied to Europe on ancient maps. He can’t mean the ‘Europe’ from which the UK recently seceded? Or the ‘Europe’ that voters are rejecting in droves in favor of right wing, nationalist parties? Or the ‘Europe’ that continues to suffer from decades of stagflation? Surely not that Europe! Like a ‘60s idealist, Indset sees the increasing prominence of ‘women’ in the workplace and the coming of age of ‘a (depopulated) younger generation’ as drivers of a future Quantopia ( aka Quantum Utopia). Kill everyone over 30? Intriguingly, he predicts, offering no supporting evidence or argument, the demise of the nation state replaced by ‘the unstoppable rise of cities’ and ‘a new kind of regional tribal society’. Is Indset nostalgic for the warring independent city states that pock marked Northern Italy during the Renaissance? Although claiming to embrace a technology-rich future, there is more than a whiff of the Luddite in The Quantum Economy : “…Can we achieve freedom if our genes are altered by AI and biotech?” Wow! There’s a lot to unpack here. “Achieve freedom?” So we’re not free now. How will we know we are free when we are free and what will it take to get us there? A victory by the Social Democrats in the next round of national elections? Is Indset really saying that our existential freedom is a function of our genetic code? If so, where does he think that code came from in the first place? (I doubt he thinks that God typed it out on his cosmic super computer.) Or did human freedom emerge out of whole cloth only to be extinguished by the process of evolution, i.e. natural selection? To borrow from Edwin Starr, “Freedom – what is it good for?” Earlier I mentioned books by John, Joyce, Whitehead and Sartre. Those books have one theme in common: Freedom! - it’s an inalienable feature of the human condition. Sorry Anders! “We don’t just need IQ, we need to harness WeQ : the potential of collective cognition …methods that serve both the individual and the collective.” No better word characterizes Indset’s vision than ‘collectivization’. We know what that looks like: Stalin’s ‘collective farms’, Star Trek ’s ‘Borg Collective’. We don’t need collectives, we need ‘Q’ (the Q Continuum), rescuer of Capt. Picard, sworn enemy of the Borg, Trekkies’ antidote for the poison of the collective. Toward the end of the book, Indset spells out his view of the human person. He does so in bold type, thank you, Anders…and it’s not pretty: “Every single one of us has a much greater potential to influence our career, our path in life, our personal development, and our emotions than most of us are aware of.” Potential? Influence? Where does Indset think our career, our path, our person, our emotions come from? From Marxist ‘history’, from our ‘class identity’? How quintessentially European! How utterly wrong! Let’s get this straight, once and for all. We are not born into a career. Our path is not handed to us at birth like a map. We fashion our own career, we choose our own life path, we create our own person, we live our own emotions. We are solely responsible for who we are, who we become, and what we do. Sure, we inherit an Actual World (Whitehead). We are a product of a specific genetic code. We begin life at a certain starting gate. But this is all just raw material. What we do with that raw material is entirely up to us, it is solely our own responsibility. We don’t ‘influence’ it, we create it! And so, the judges (me) are unanimous! The award for The Worst Book Ever Read goes to… The Quantum Economy . Read it yourself, draw your own conclusion…but only if you have a very strong stomach. *** Klein, Yves. The Phenomenon of Floating in Space. 1960, photograph by Harry Shunk, Yves Klein Archives, Paris. This work satirizes the illusion of control in a spectacle-driven, science-wrapped world — echoing Indset’s lofty but ungrounded vision in The Quantum Economy. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Politics or Philosophy? David Cowles Apr 23, 2024 “The philosopher never sees anything she likes…until she does; but when she does, she ceases to do the work of philosophy." Politics is the arena of opinion, of choice. A or ~A. Yet it’s politics, not religion (and certainly not philosophy), that is the opiate of the people. How so? A or ~A. We’ve just covered the entire range of potential options; so pick one! What could be better than this; right? Wrong! We’ve reduced our many-splendored world to just one of its aspects, one variable, its A-ness . How ‘A’ are you? Are you ‘A enough’? Did you say something ‘anti-A’ once when you were in middle school? Like kids with a model train set (do kids even have model trains anymore?), we are mesmerized by the back-and-forth motion of our engines: Red to Blue to Red to Blue, ad infinitum . We oscillate between A and ~A, oblivious of the fact that we are all the time running along a straight, fixed track, utterly heedless of any world ‘beyond the rail bed’ and utterly powerless to alter our trajectory. This is what we call freedom ; in politics this is what we call democracy . What we need now are the services of a good philosopher; know any? A philosopher will ask, “What do A and ~A, supposed opposites, have in common?” Their ‘A-ness’, of course. They both assume that A exists and that it is a meaningful measure of some aspect of reality. In the language of high school math, A-ness is the ‘absolute value’ of A and of ~A . Philosophy is not concerned with A or ~A. That’s the arena of politics. To the philosopher, A = ~A; it is their ‘absolute value’ that is the philosopher’s concern. Not A, not ~A, but ‘A-ness’ per se . Consider a recent political event in a U.S. state, Massachusetts; it was a referendum question on the 2022 ballot: Should the state impose a special 1% surtax on residents who earn $1,000,000 or more in a given tax year? A or ~A. A simple choice. Yes or no? The electorate was pretty evenly split, but to the philosopher, A or ~A is a distinction without a difference. What both sides of this debate must assume, i.e., the absolute value of A, is far more important than either A or ~A. In this case, the absolute value of A, ‘A-ness’, includes the following assumptions: The State (not just a state, but the State) has the right to confiscate a portion of any resident’s income or wealth at any time for any or no reason. It is reasonable and just to ‘classify’ members of society according to their income and/or wealth and to treat some such ‘classes’ differently from others. A simple plurality of a state’s voting electorate has the right to impose a confiscatory scheme on the entire population. Whether you vote A or ~A, you implicitly endorse the underlying premises of ‘A-ness’ (above). These are the assumptions that grab the attention of philosophers. My wife and I resolve a similar dilemma every morning when we eat breakfast at our favorite diner. I always order an English muffin with orange marmalade while my spouse orders toast with strawberry jam. We tease each other about our irrational but intransigent preferences; but the fate of the world hardly hangs in the balance. A philosopher looks at our daily dilemma differently. To her a muffin is toast and marmalade is jam. The questions she’ll ask are of another order entirely: Is it just that my wife and I have sufficient economic resources to eat breakfast, albeit a modest one, in a restaurant, also modest, most every morning? Is the distribution of food via an archipelago of privately held restaurants and franchised fast-food chains just and efficient? Is a breakfast of processed grain and sweetened fruit a healthy way for anyone to begin a day? Of course, these ‘2nd order’ questions can themselves in certain circumstances become the stuff of politics: e.g., should the City of New York permit the sale of super-sized soft drinks? Whenever a question of philosophy becomes a question of politics, philosophy must ask new questions: Should society require all able-bodied members to grow and prepare their own food? Should privately or collectively owned enterprises be permitted to profit from the sale of a basic human necessity, food? Of course, these questions could also be politicized, requiring philosophers to push the level of abstraction yet another notch higher. Theoretically, the process could continue ad infinitum . The only limitation is imagination. The praxis of politics is choice, maya . Either this or that. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a form of spirituality: neti, neti (not this, not that). Bottom line, the philosopher never sees anything she likes…until she does; but when she does, she ceases to do the work of philosophy. Keep the conversation going... 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.