< 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 Ecclesiastes – One Book or Two? David Cowles Jul 9, 2024 “It seems that we are not only permitted to dance in the face of death, but that God expects us to do so.” We do not expect our philosophers to be right, but we do wish they’d at least try to be consistent. Unfortunately, that’s a wish often unfulfilled IRL…nowhere more so than in the Old Testament book of wisdom known as Ecclesiastes . A friend of mine decided it was time for him to undertake the Christian equivalent of the Haj . One summer, he committed to reading the Bible from cover to cover. When he was done, I asked him, somewhat foolishly, which book was his ‘favorite’. To my surprise, he said, “ Ecclesiastes , of course.” Ecclesiastes ? Maybe. Of course? No way! But I shouldn’t have been surprised. Like me, my friend was a child of the ‘60s and even in that anti-clerical era, Ecclesiastes had its fans ( The Byrds ). Plus, Ecclesiastes is crammed full of jaw-dropping insights into the human predicament. So, what’s not to love? These realizations might have originated in virtually any corner of the world at virtually any time in its cultural history. Some of the ideas sound like they come from the Vedas or even the Tao Te Ching . Some look like they were lifted off of a 20 th century hand-out for a survey course on Existentialism. Still, the book sometimes reads as though it was an amalgamation of two texts culled from two very different traditions. On the one hand, Ecclesiastes offers a searing indictment of the human condition - vintage existentialism, full of angst and anxiety. In the spirit of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus, the emphasis is on the futility and absurdity of life. The mood is dark, the language strident! But on the other hand, there is a quietist thread running perpendicular throughout the text; it’s a blend of Epicurus, Voltaire, and Norman Vincent Peale. There is little doubt that Ecclesiastes is the work of more than one hand. Verses have almost certainly been added to the original text. That said, it would be a bridge too far to suggest that Ecclesiastes is really two books edited into a single text. We will need to find another way to resolve this dilemma. So, let’s consult the text: “Emptiness, emptiness…all is empty. (‘Emptiness’ is one translation of an Aramaic word that also denotes ‘absurdity, futility, vanity’.) “All things are wearisome… There is nothing new under the sun… I have seen all the deeds that are done here under the sun; they are all emptiness and a chase after wind… “The wise man is remembered no longer than the fool…all will be forgotten. Alas, wise men and fools die the same death!... Everything is the same for everybody; the same lot for the just and for the wicked…there is one lot for all… Men have no advantage over beasts, for everything is emptiness…all came from the dust and to the dust all return… “Better the end of anything than its beginning…The day of death is better than the day of birth. Better to visit the house of mourning than the house of feasting. “Time (entropy, mortality) and chance (quantum uncertainty) govern all.” Cheery stuff! Koheleth (the Speaker), once thought to be King Solomon himself, has taken us down an ontological path from which there is no logical escape. At this point, who could imagine that the book would end with everyone singing ‘Kumbya’ and dancing around a May Pole? And yet… Ecclesiastes has the temerity to suggest just that: “I know that there is nothing good for man except to be happy and live the best life he can while he is alive. Moreover, that a man should eat and drink and enjoy himself in return for all his labors is a gift of God… “Go to it then, eat your food and enjoy it, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart; for already God has accepted what you have done… Whatever task lies to your hand, do it with all your might.” Here Ecclesiastes dips into a Biblical thread suggesting that God has pre-ordained a specific set of tasks for each of us to complete. We see it in Jeremiah and the prophets, but it is most clearly summarized in Ephesians 2:10 : “For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance that we should live in them.” In this view, we do not create our lives, we step into them (or not). We are invited to do the Will of God , to participate in universal salvation. Of course, God marches on, with or without our cooperation. We can jump on the bandwagon and play our scripted role in salvation history, or we can stand off to one side. We can let life pass us by…literally. “It is good and proper for a man to eat and drink and enjoy himself… He will not dwell overmuch on the passing years because God has filled his time with joy of heart.” Et voila - a full-throated endorsement of bad faith? Joie de vivre is intended by God to distract us from our existential predicament? Faith really is the opiate of the people after all! It seems that we are not only permitted to dance in the face of death, but that God expects us to do so. “Living well is the best revenge!” ( The Great Gatsby , BCE edition) Such an interpretation is rooted in what, I believe, is a misreading of Judeo-Christian theology. Contrary to popular opinion, salvation does not require us to thread a needle: “Every breath you take and every move you make…I’ll be watching you” ( The Police ) …not! As stated in Ephesians (above), God does not dictate a plan; rather, he lays out a smorgasbord of options: “Pick a path, any path; they all lead home. Just stay out of the brambles.” To whatever extent we do not directly oppose God’s values (Beauty, Truth, Justice), we participate in eternity. God is infinitely merciful and he created the cosmos so that everything in it might be saved. It is his intent that events in the spatiotemporal, entropic world should participate in eternity…and God will out. Only that which explicitly rejects salvation will be expunged at the end of time. Everything we do, whether we realize it or not, is motivated by our appetite for God as he is manifest to us, i.e. as the Good, as Beauty, Truth, Justice, et al. To whatever extent our actions resonate with those values, they are eternal. Only the destruction of God’s ‘goods’ (above) cannot, by definition, be saved. Clear? Well, when all else fails… I turn to symbolic logic to compound my confusion: B є A for all B, provided B ≠ -A. In other words, everything (B, events) is part of A (eternity) except -A. -A, the negation of A, cannot be an element of A. And how do we know -A when we meet him? Fortunately, we can turn to the Bible, or better yet Dante ( Inferno ) & Milton ( Paradise Lost ), for a paradigm: Satan! Imagine Robert Frost ( The Road Less Traveled ) and Hugh Everett ( Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ) had babies: We’d be they! 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. Keep the conversation going. 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 Neti, Neti David Cowles Jul 11, 2023 “So clearly, God’s primary value, like Sartre’s, is freedom...strange bedfellows.” “I am not what I am; I am what I am not ; I can be whoever I want to be!” Wow! A Directory of Existentialist Clichés. Just what the world needs right now! But funny thing about cliches – sometimes they are true. That’s how they got to be clichés. Even Polonius was right some of the time. Our journey of self-discovery did not begin in a Paris café, sitting across from Albert Camus. It did not even begin with Jean Jacques Rousseau 150 years earlier. It began at least 7 millennia ago, and it was first expressed in Sanskrit: “ Neti, Neti (not this, not that)” - 7,000 years later it’s still our most profound statement of spiritual consciousness. ‘Neti, Neti’ has been translated into the philosophy of post-classical Europe as the via negativa , an ‘epistemology’ based on the idea that knowledge does not consist of knowing what-is but of knowing what-is-not. Both knowing and creating are like sculpting; they chisel away the undifferentiated block of marble to reveal the image concealed therein. I infer what is by knowing what is not! The via negativa is equally at home in Asian spirituality (the Vedas ), Christian mysticism (Nicholas of Cusa), philosophical anarchism (Kropotkin), modern existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, et al.), and the literary works of Sir Arthur Conant Doyle (Sherlock Holmes). But I am not content - I am not content just to be what I am not , what I used to be but never was, or what I’m coming to be but never will . Why, oh why, can’t I just be me? – The title song for my new, soon-to-be on Broadway, hit musical. Catchy, don’t you think? And timely too. I’m a boomer and from Kerouac to Derrida, I am part of that period of American culture when everyone was asking the same question: “Who am I?” So why can’t I be this me that I so yearn for? It seems so simple. But that’s not the kind of hairpin I am. Not-being is what I am. If I were to become something, be it a stone or a rose…or a crotchety old man (hmm), I would still not be me, obviously, and worse, I would not be at all. So let’s catch up! There is a world. I see it, feel it, taste it, smell it. I am satisfied that it exists: it is! But I am not that world. I know that I am because I am not that world and I know that I am not that world because I am : Sum ergo non sum; non sum ergo sum! In fact, I am not even in that world. I exist purely as the negation of that world. But surprise, I am no bomb thrower! No, I negate the world only in order to improve it (i.e., in order to bring it closer to being a true reflection of God’s will, God’s values). That’s the kind of hairpin I am! That’s my mission…should I choose to accept it. Genesis, Creation, Big Bang: there was nothing, aka chaos, the absence of order, of logos , of dike . Then God negated chaos ( fiat lux ), thereby introducing order (light vs. darkness) where there was none. Creation ‘proceeded’ in evolutionary stages (six such stages according to Genesis), each negating some aspect of the status quo ante . The ‘final’ stage of creation: creatures capable of continuing God’s creative mission on their own, creatures who can echo his creative mantra, “Neti, Neti!” God’s nature is negation, and we are ‘chips off the old block’. By nature, God is an iconoclast, an anarchist. Applied to ‘nothing’, negation generates ‘something’; applied to chaos, negation generates order. Contemporary physicists are proud: they have supposedly found a way to deduce something from nothing (‘negative vacuum pressure’). But they are about 13.5 billion years late to the party! God got there first. On the seventh day, God rested, not because he no longer cares but precisely because he cares so much. He took off the training wheels. It’s up to the created world now to determine its own destiny, but still, as the Vedas say, there is not a footfall of an ant that God does not hear. Deism is a sham, with all due respect to our so-called ‘founding fathers’ (sic). How could God lose interest in what he had lovingly created? Do humans lose interest in their children after they are born? Of course not, but on the other hand, good parents recognize that they are not their offspring, that their offspring need freedom to pursue the universal creative mandate in their own way. “God created the heavens and the earth.” Created! ‘Created’ does not mean imagined, designed, manufactured, or assembled. God is not a character in the Lego Movie ; he is not even a ‘master builder'. ‘Created’ means created . A true creature, be it a work of art or a universe, is independent of its creator. The universe is totally free and independent of God. God is a functionalist; he did not invest his creation with ornamentation. He is a minimalist; he invested no more in his creation than what is required to maintain a functional universe. So clearly, God’s primary value, like Sartre’s, is freedom. God and Sartre, strange bedfellows indeed! Image: La Madonna della Pietà. Michelangelo Buonarroti. 1498–1499. Saint Peter's Basilica, Vatican City 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. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . 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 Genesis – Our Theological Toolkit David Cowles Dec 19, 2024 “Biblical theology is like Improv: here’s a situation, here are the characters, now go!” “I don’t believe in Genesis. I don’t believe that God created the World in 7 days. I don’t believe in Adam and Eve, and I definitely don’t believe in any Flood.” (Sound familiar?) Ok cool, but I must say, a little weird. I mean, what would be the right number of days to create a World? And you don’t believe your parents had parents? But I am happy to hear that you have no experience with natural disasters – just don’t move to California! But ok, no Genesis for you. Got it! How about arithmetic then? Do you ‘believe’ in arithmetic? For example, do you believe that a² + b² = c²? You do? Sorry, you say you do…but you don’t! You don’t believe that one letter combines with another letter to form a third letter. The very idea is ludicrous. It’s just a bit of nonsense like you might find in an Edward Lear poem. a² + b² = c² is true, and meaningful, only if you understand that a, b, and c stand for the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. Now we’re getting somewhere. Finally, common ground! We all believe in the Pythagorean Theorem. Well, Genesis is like arithmetic; it’s a toolkit – a theological toolkit. Arithmetic doesn’t tell you how much you spent on groceries last week, but it gives you the tools you need to answer that question yourself. Likewise, Genesis provides a detailed inventory of tools, a description of what each tool does, and some hints about how the tools work in tandem. Armed with these tools, you can do something much more important than household budgeting; you can play that ultimate reality game called Eternal Life . As with mathematics, so with theology! Master all the symbols and their relations and there’s no limit to the intellectual edifices you can construct. Minecraft and Legos can’t compete! First, the primal opposites: light & dark, land & sea, earth & sky. Then the characters: Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Abraham & Sarah, Isaac & Rebecca, Jacob & Leah – and I’m just scratching the surface. Think of these so-called Patriarchs (sic) as our avatars. Per Alfred North Whitehead, every event is bi-polar. He dichotomized the world as conceptual and physical , Quine as quality and quiddity , Heidegger as what-is and that-is . The ancient Greeks created an algebra for quantitative (physical) relationships. The ancient Hebrews created an algebra for qualitative (conceptual) relationships. Together, the two algebras are comprehensive enough to encompass any possible input; and in that way, we can say that mathematics and theology are both universally true. We can also say that John, Paul, George and Ringo (I mean, Augustine and Aquinas) were on the right track when each sought to synthesize Semitic theology with Hellenic philosophy. Genesis is chockablock full of ideas - abstract concepts broken down and communicated in narrative form. Big Bang, evolution, urbanization, technology – it’s all there! We just have to understand it. In Ulysses James Joyce broke down World history and culture and reformed them as the story of a single day (June 16, 1904) in the life of a single city (Dublin). Jesus of Nazareth used a similar technique in crafting his parables: he took concrete elements from everyday life and used them as symbols to encode and communicate abstract ideas. Yes, we are traveling in good company! Pablo Picasso endorsed our project: “It isn’t up to the painter to define the symbols. The public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they understand them.” As did St. Paul: “There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit…To one is given…tongues, to another interpretation of tongues… If any speak in a tongue …let someone (else) interpret (it).” (1 Cor. 12: 4 – 16 & 14: 27) Joyce himself characterized the physical world as the “signatures of all things I am here to read.” ( Ulysses ) Biblical theology is like Improv: here’s a situation, here are the characters…now go! According to the theater house rules , error ( aka sin, heresy, idolatry) occurs only when someone steps out of character. Within each character, everything is possible; beyond the character, nothing is allowed. This is the meaning of Dogma; it sets the buggy-baby-bumpers, the guardrails; but within the confines of Dogma, it’s no holds barred! We’re all asking the same questions as Gauguin ! Who are we, where did we come from, where are we going, how did we get here…and why? To help us explore those questions, the Judeo-Christian tradition provides a costume closet full of avatars…and invites us to go crazy. We haven’t had this much fun since we played dress-up in our parents’ attic. There is only one rule: avatars can do nothing that is inconsistent with their characters. Otherwise, the sky’s the limit. As theologians, professional or arm chair, working in the Judeo-Christian tradition, our job is to plumb the depths of these characters and explore the dynamics of the relationships among them. Ok, let’s get to work! Begin with God, Adam, and Eve. Add in a tree, its fruit, and a snake. What can you do with that? Well, that’s theology…and cosmology. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to contact us on any matter. How did you like the post? How could we do better in the future? Suggestions welcome. 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.

< Back Stuffed Animals David Cowles May 4, 2023 “Contrary to universal public opinion, children do not play; they do not pretend; they do not make believe. They are!” Does it seem weird to you that a website devoted to serious philosophical, theological, and cultural issues would include an article on stuffed animals ? If so, I sympathize, but sit back, it’s about to get even weirder! We are adults, we are sophisticated; we draw a bright line between things that are alive, sentient, and intentional, and things that are not. Except that no one can actually locate that line; oops! “Don’t confuse the issue! Don’t use your philo-speak and theo-babel to make ambiguous what is obviously so well-defined.” Obvious? To whom? Certainly, not to my three-year-old daughter. She invests her $19.99 stuffed animals with at least as much humanity as she does her peers. She cries if one of them is hurt; she panics if one of them is lost. She goes out of her way not to hurt their feelings, and (don’t try this at home) I’m pretty sure she’d run into a burning building to rescue them. Is she committing a ‘category error’? Has she fallen prey to Whitehead’s Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness ? Is she committing the sin of idolatry? The reverse is true! Idolaters reduce; my daughter elevates. Née Roman Catholic, at the age of three, she has become an observant Hasid, ranking right alongside the Baal Shem Tov in the strength of her faith. She has already found the Shekinah , the spark of God that lives in all things; I am still searching. I have 4 children and 11 grandchildren; recently, I’ve even earned ‘great-grand’ status. Unfortunately, only now, at age 75, have I discovered the key to understanding childhood. Contrary to universal public opinion, children do not play ; they do not pretend ; they do not make - believe . They are ! How could I have ever imagined otherwise? Playing, pretending, and making believe are extremely complex behaviors. They require a very well-defined ontological map. You need to learn to play, and for that, you need a firm sense of ‘self, other, and world’ ( I, you, it , for short.) When we meet an adult with an imperfectly defined map…we institutionalize him! How can we expect a small child to work out such a map on her own? Ridiculous! Missed signs : Using Play-Doh, I fashioned a toy car for a four-year-old grandchild; when we were done, she asked in all innocence and sincerity, “Why doesn’t it start?” Another time, I made the mistake of saying to a five-year-old preparing for Halloween, “So, you’re going as Captain America this year.” Crestfallen, he turned to me and said, “No… I am Captain America!” Up to then, he had considered me ‘a fellow traveler’; now his faith was shattered. I was just another stupid adult. All the ‘belts and welts of childhood’ (Samuel Beckett) do not come close to the agony of betrayed trust. ‘Cool adults’ are a child’s worst enemy. Better the aloof parents and austere nannies of the Victorian era; at least kids knew what they were up against. Shane . Now, for the ‘weirder’ part! My daughter is away for the weekend. I happen to go into her empty bedroom to retrieve some inconsequential trinket, when I notice her menagerie, lined up on her bed against a wall. (She varies the order each night so that no one’s feelings get hurt. She confesses no favorites; she seeks to love all her children the same.) When I catch sight of her loved ones, I am overcome by her presence . I feel her through them . She has invested them with a ‘portion’ of her own spirit. Are these ‘stuffies’ now more alive for me than many members of my own species? Indeed! Would I run into a burning building to rescue them? Perhaps. We have turned epistemology upside down. We imagine that we begin with raw experience, that we fashion that experience into a mappa mundi , that we formulate hypotheses based on that map, conduct experiments and ‘draw conclusions on the wall’ (Dylan). We don’t. We begin with conclusions we had no hand in drawing. They were handed to us by our parents, our teachers, our peers, and of course, the omnipresent media. We view all experience through the prism of those conclusions. In the process, we interpose various patterns (e.g., science, reason) to help us get from preconceived Omega back to freshly discovered Alpha. Have you read Through the Looking Glass recently? A man is in prison, soon he will be sentenced; after the sentence comes the verdict and after the verdict, a trial; last of all, the crime itself. And what if there is no crime after all? Well, so much the better; the system works! Sidebar : In the ‘60s I worked with tween boys, a few of whom confessed to receiving an occasional ‘warning beating’ to ensure the best behavior at some upcoming event. According to them, “It works!” and none seemed particularly bothered by the injustice of it. Have you ever tried to assemble furniture from IKEA? When you’re done, you’re inevitably left with a jumble of unused pieces. What to do with them? Throw them out, of course! Likewise, the process of supporting preconceived conclusions with actual experience leaves a pile of events, unaccounted for and ready for discard. Like any good DIYer, we consign this remnant to ontological hell , the domain of the random, the particular, the magical or the miraculous, depending on your bent of mind. What we need is a good course in finished carpentry. To heck with IKEA, we need to learn to build our own furniture. To do that, we need to ignore pre-packaged solutions and respect the raw data of our own experience, even if it leads to us seeing God in a Teddy Bear. 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. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . 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.

“Zohar and Whitehead, separated by more than 500 years, both deliver us a map of the world where X marks the spot of the eschatological treasure.” < Back Whitehead and Zohar David Cowles Jun 1, 2023 “Zohar and Whitehead, separated by more than 500 years, both deliver us a map of the world where X marks the spot of the eschatological treasure.” The Zohar is a work of Jewish mysticism, steeped in ancient Kabbalah and closely related to modern Hasidism; it appeared out of whole cloth in the city of Leon, Spain, c. 1400 CE. It is surprising then to see similar ideas at work in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, a 20 th century British philosopher and an Anglican Christian. To recap, The Zohar is the story of our search for God and God’s search for us, mediated by what Kabbalists call the Tree of Life : Keter (Crown): Le Neant , Nothingness Hokhmah , Wisdom Bihah , Understanding ZA (God’s essence): Love, Justice/Judgment, Beauty, Eternity, Splendor, and Righteousness Malkhut (Shekinah ): Kingdom, the World The structure that Zohar identifies at the heart of Being is not imposed on Being or deduced from beings ; it is Being per se ! ‘To be’ is to be a ‘piece of fruit’ on the Tree of Life and by extension (fruit = seed), the Tree of Life itself. (The fractal structure of the Universe.) Keter ‘manifests’ as Hokhmah , Wisdom ( Sophia ), a single point of light. Hokhmah ‘inflates’ (Big Bang style?) and manifests as Binah , Understanding. Understanding encompasses Wisdom; it is the ‘reception’ of Wisdom. Binah provides the ‘space’ needed for the marriage of Hokhmah and Malkhut to occur. Fast forward to Century 21. Roger Penrose (of Hawking-Penrose fame) proposed a Cosmology ( CCC ) in which Heat Death (maximum extension) and Big Bang (minimal extension) are mathematically equivalent. In the language of CCC , the 5 branches of the Tree of Life are congruent. Binah is the womb of all things ( Malkhut ). Think Logos in the Christian tradition (John 1: 3). It faces Hokhmah on one side and Malkhut on the other. Keter (nothing) and Hokhmah (point) are eternal; so is Binah (extension). But within the eternity of Binah lies spacetime, a mode of extension, i.e., Malkhut , the Kingdom, our World. Binah is where Wisdom meets World; but between the two lies ZA , God’s essence…which is God. ZA consists of the 6 virtues (qualities, behaviors) of Emmanuel (‘God with us’). God’s essence is God’s substance. Keter/Hokhmah may be ‘ what God is,’ but ZA is ‘ who God is.’ What of Whitehead? His cosmology is built around a single God manifested in two Persons ( Personae ): God’s Primordial Nature (PN) and his Consequent Nature (CN). Personae because each Nature, by itself, is fully God. Yet the two Natures are radically distinct, they have no common elements. PN consists entirely of concepts (values) while CN consists entirely of entities (events), yet each Nature is implicit in the other. The Primordial Nature of God is ZA , the totality of God’s values. The Consequent Nature is Malkhut , the totality of events as they are redeemed in Binah . Ultimately, Malkhut , clothed in ZA , unites with Keter/Hokmah and the promise of Universe is fulfilled. Events originate in Malkhut (Whitehead’s ‘Actual World’) on account of the teleological attraction of Hokhmah , felt as the qualities of ZA . The unfolding of each such event in the cosmic womb ( Bihah ) is driven by God’s values ( ZA ). To paraphrase W.B. Yeats, “Its hour come round at last, ( Malkhut ) slouches toward Bethlehem ( Binah ) to be born.” Malkhut is the nexus of every event that is or ever was. Absent Hokhmah , Binah and ZA , events would occur haphazardly, revealing no pattern and disclosing no values. Such a world is not actually possible, but if it were, it would be featureless…and terribly sad. Fortunately, our world is not that world. Zohar and Whitehead, separated by more than 500 years, both deliver us a map of the world where X marks the spot of the eschatological treasure. Amazingly, the two maps overlay almost perfectly. Yet there’s no evidence that either mapmaker was even aware of the existence of the other map. Is this evidence of authenticity? Either way, in the intellectual history of the West, Whitehead and Zohar converge! 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 Summer 2023 Table of Contents Share Previous Next Click here. 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! 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, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Everything is Interesting…What Went Wrong? David Cowles Jun 21, 2022 Childhood today could be and should be utopian, but it isn’t. Not even close! Why? How did we screw things up so massively? Back in the day, acquiring knowledge was difficult. First you had to spend 1,200 hours a year in a classroom, sitting up straight and listening to the most exciting stuff in the universe (How does the world work? How did we come to be? And why are we the way we are?) made as dull and boring as humanly possible. Then, if you were a glutton for punishment and wanted to know more about something, you had to spend hours in a dusty library, searching for the book that would tell you just exactly what you needed to know. For two years in high school, I spent most of my Sunday afternoons at the Main Branch of the Boston Public Library, a 30 minute drive, each way, from my home, a far cry from Google. Knowledge is information and information is created whenever a unique event occurs. Information, broadly speaking, is the difference between what actually happens and what might have happened. I could have used these exact same words to define another word, an adjective, ‘interesting,’ so: Information is Interesting! Ok…what’s the big deal? Well, this for starters: when we say that information is interesting, we’re not saying that this or that piece of information is interesting; we’re saying that all information, by definition, is interesting. We’re also saying something else. We’re saying that anything interesting must contain information. Something is interesting only to the extent that it might have been other than it is, and of course ‘to be’ is other than ‘not to be.’ As Hamlet noted, ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ form the ultimate contrast. To be is to be information, pure and simple. Creatio ex nihilo . 20th century physicist John Wheeler famously said, “it from bit.” What we call ‘objects’ (its) are really just packets of information (bits). Grammatically speaking, in the sentence ‘Information is interesting’, ‘interesting’ is not an adjective modifying ‘information;’ the two words are synonymous. All information is interesting, and whatever is interesting, to the extent that it is interesting, consists of information. So, just imagine how great it must be to be a kid today! Classrooms are smaller and less constricting; many teachers work hard to make their inherently interesting material fresh and inviting; and libraries…well, the greatest library in the world (at least since Alexandria, RIP) is at the fingertips of most five-year-olds. Lest you think I exaggerate, I have firsthand experience to back me up: my five to ten-year-old grandkids know about things that I could never have dreamt of at their age, and some things I still can’t wrap my head around. Plus, and this is the really surprising part, they know what they know in astounding detail. There was nothing I knew in such detail when I was their age. So, to be young today must be to live in Utopia. Everything is interesting and information (the subject of all interest) is readily available. To be young today must be to live in Utopia, right? Obviously not! Childhood today could be and should be utopian, but it isn’t. Not even close! Why? How did we screw things up so massively? Challenge : Where did we go wrong? What can we do to fix it? In 300 words or less, tell us your idea(s). We’ll print the best ideas in our Fall Issue (9/1), with proper attribution of course. Email editor@aletheiatoday.com to take the challenge. Be sure to put “Childhood Challenge” in the subject line. All submissions must reach us by 8/1. Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! 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.

I’ll take the wisdom of Yogi Berra over that of Bill Clinton any day: Whatever is, is! < Back A Universe From Nothing David Cowles Nov 30, 2022 I’ll take the wisdom of Yogi Berra over that of Bill Clinton any day: Whatever is, is! In 2012, renowned physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, published A Universe from Nothing . The avowed purpose of the book was to debunk the idea that some sort of transcendent entity (e.g., ‘God’) is necessary to account for the universe as we experience it. Krauss subtitled his book: Why there is Something rather than Nothing . Of course, this subtitle implies a question that Krauss did not need to spell out for his readers. Anyone who might be tempted to read a book like this is already well acquainted with it. In fact, it was probably the first question serious thinkers ever asked, and it is still as relevant and thought-provoking today as it was 3,000 years ago. At least since Parmenides (b. 515 BC), Western philosophers, theologians and scientists have struggled with the subtitled question. To answer it, we need to define our terms, but that should be easy: even toddlers know the difference between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. Or do they? Is a dream ‘something’? How about an illusion…or a delusion? How about a unicorn? A squared circle? How about virtual particles that we ‘know’ exist but that, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, must annihilate one another before they are directly detected (i.e., measured)? Turns out, Being is not as simple a proposition as we might have supposed; but what about Nothing ? Is empty space nothing? How about a perfect vacuum? What about quantities outside the Planck scale? How about the ‘potential’ my parents and teachers saw in me as a child, but that was never realized? Krauss offers us three possible definitions of ‘nothing’. He begins with the notion that ‘empty space’ is ‘nothing’ and he shows, convincingly I think that so-called empty space inexorably spawns virtual particle pairs, radiation, and various space-filling ‘fields’: “Empty space can have a non-zero energy associated with it, even in the absence of any matter or radiation… The gravitational ‘pressure’ associated with such energy in empty space is actually negative… The energy of empty space (nothing) gets converted into the energy of something.” The problem with Krauss’ argument is that it is a bit too convincing. On closer examination, it turns out that ‘empty space’ is never really empty. It cannot be conceived without its virtual particle pairs, its ‘pressure’ (albeit negative), and its radiation and fields. We do not begin with empty space and then suddenly flip a switch and ‘create’ these constituent phenomena; these phenomena are part of whatever empty space is. ‘Empty space’, then, is clearly not ‘nothing’. Krauss admits as much: “… It would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy…is really nothing. In this picture, one must assume that space exists and can store energy…” Actually, though, Krauss’ empty space argument is odd for a quite different reason. Sir Isaac Newton believed that space was a passive receptacle that (logically at least) preceded whatever might populate it. Few, if any, cosmologists believe this today. Einstein taught us that space and time are aspects of a single reality: 4 dimensional spacetime. Now, modern cosmologists seem to be of two minds, either: 1. Spacetime is not a primary (substructural) property of cosmos but rather a secondary (emergent) property; or, 2. Spacetime is an illusion, pure and simple, and does not exist. A summer 2018 special edition of Scientific American showcases both points of views. The issue is titled A Matter of Time but, as we now know, space and time are aspects of a single 4-dimensional reality, so the same arguments should be applicable to space. In this issue, Craig Chandler ( Is Time an Illusion? ) argues that time, if real at all, is an “emergent property” of the cosmos, not its substructure: “Space and time are secondary concepts…” But Chandler has a foot in both camps: “… Many in theoretical physics have come to believe that time fundamentally does not even exist.” He synthesizes these views using a ‘block’ model of spacetime: “Spacetime is like a loaf of bread that you can slice in different ways, called either ‘space’ or ‘time’ almost arbitrarily.” According to this model, spacetime is a 4-dimensional loaf . If you slice it vertically, you get slices of time. Everything that happens at a given ‘moment’, no matter where it happens, is captured by that one slice. On the other hand, if you slice it horizontally, you get slices of space. Everything that happens at a given ‘location’, no matter when it happens, is captured on that one slice. Slicing the loaf diagonally reveals the effects of relativity. Astonishingly, this apparently 21st century idea is nothing new. The so-called ‘father of Western philosophy’, Parmenides, had essentially the same idea 2500 years ago: “… What-is is ungenerated and imperishable…unbeginning and unceasing…whole, single-limbed, steadfast and complete; nor was it once, nor will it be, since it is, now, all together, one, continuous…” In other words…a loaf of bread. In contrast, Krauss’ argument seems to rely on the discarded Newtonian model (above). Krauss grudgingly acknowledges these objections to his theory. But then he asks an even more intriguing question: ‘What if not even empty space is presumed to exist?’ What if we use ‘nothing’ to define the ‘state of things’ (whatever that might mean) before even empty space appears? “… The rules of quantum mechanics would apply to the properties of space and not just to the properties of objects existing in space… Should one consider the possibility of small, possibly compact spaces that themselves pop in and out of existence? … As Stephen Hawking has emphasized, a quantum theory of gravity allows for the creation, albeit perhaps momentarily, of space itself where none existed before…” Just as Krauss first argued that virtual matter, radiation, particle fields and negative pressure emerge spontaneously in empty space, now he argues that empty space itself emerges from an even more primitive state of being (or should I say ‘non-being’?). In this spirit, he titles his tenth chapter Nothing is Unstable . He does not mean by this that everything is stable but rather that instability is ‘ontologically substructural’, i.e., a fundamental characteristic of ‘Being’ itself. It applies to ‘nothing’ as well as to ‘something’. This argument is so challenging that the arguments against it do not come from physics, but from linguistics and philosophy. Contemporary scientists who dare wade into the waters of philosophy are invariably influenced by three men: A.J. Ayer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and John Austin. (Or if they are not so influenced, they certainly should be.) These three pillars of ‘analytic’ English philosophy (first half of the 20th century) argued that many, if not most, problems of philosophy stem from an imprecise use of language. While the three men’s views and methods differ widely, they were all laser focused on the way language is employed to frame philosophical problems. Collectively, they argued that terms used to describe everyday events (‘ordinary language’) do not suddenly acquire new and different meanings just because they are applied to cosmic and metaphysical phenomena. Red is red is red. Let’s apply that insight to Krauss’ assertion that “nothing is unstable”. Something is unstable if it possesses or exhibits the quality known as ‘instability’ (or lacks the quality known as ‘stability’). But how can the quality of instability, or stability, be possessed or exhibited by ‘nothing’? Only an entity that is ‘something’ can possess or exhibit qualities, instability included. There are no disembodied qualities, at least not where I live. “Look, there goes green arm in arm with damp as usual?” – not so much! Therefore, the sentence ‘nothing is unstable’ is (in the parlance of analytic philosophy) meaningless . By stating that “nothing is unstable”, Krauss implicitly acknowledges that his pre-existent ontological reality (‘nothing’) is really ‘something’ after all. But then what could we say about it? Perhaps we could speculate that it is something that exists solely in the mode of pure potentiality; but that is still ‘something’ – all of which works to defeat Krauss’ argument. Another lion of early 20th century English philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead, built his complex and comprehensive “Philosophy of Organism” around just three undefined terms: one, many and creativity. Perhaps Krauss’ ‘nothing’ is Whitehead’s ‘creativity’, the restlessness that lies curled up, like Kundalini, at the base of Being. Finally, Krauss offers us a third version of ‘nothing’. This version does not allow for potentiality or quantum fluctuation; it applies the definition of ‘nothing’ in the most rigorous possible way. Krauss rejects this version as ridiculous, and he claims that philosophers and theologians who insist on applying this definition are acting in ‘bad faith’: they’re simply refusing to engage in the debate at any level. In the parlance of the playground, they have picked up their ball and gone home. However, this is precisely the view of nothing that contemporary Italian philosopher, Emanuele Severino advances. Often called a Neo-Parmenidean, Severino holds that all being is eternal. Whatever is cannot not-be, nor could it ever not-have-been, nor could it come-to-be; it just is: “… It must be said of everything that, precisely because it is not nothing, it cannot become nothing (nor can it have ever been nothing), and therefore it is and reigns eternal. Everything is eternal.” Here I’ll take the wisdom of Yogi Berra over that of Bill Clinton: Whatever is, is! In any event, kudos to Krauss. He dared to take on the toughest of all problems in philosophy and ultimately, he had the courage to admit that he could not prove his hypothesis: A Universe from Nothing. Bottom line, being is, nothing isn’t, whatever is not can never come to be and whatever is, cannot cease to be. “That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know.” – Keats. 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 . Share Previous Next 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 Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back How Spacetime Memory Works David Cowles Jan 11, 2026 “What we call a ‘ghost’ may be our perception of traces of the past that have been encoded in the spacetime matrix.” < 1000 words, < 5 minute read. (This article is dedicated to John Timothy Donovan III who, 50+ years ago, suggested to me that spacetime could be a universal recording medium.) In a recent post on this site we presented a theory advanced on June 16, 2025 by Florian Neukart, the Chief Product Officer at Terra Quantum AG, and a Professor of Quantum Computing at Leiden University, to wit: Spacetime has memory! Dr. Neukart: “The curvature of space-time in general relativity is influenced by mass and energy. In our framework, there is an extra ingredient that should also contribute to that curvature: the weight of information woven into space-time…My collaborators and I began to refer to this idea as the quantum memory matrix (QMM) framework…” QMM is a relatively simple theory with absolutely fantastic implications. As Dr. Neukart said, “We aren’t postulating new hypothetical particles or unseen dimensions, we are simply taking what we already know about quantum information and packaging it in a new structure…” Fantastic implications? Well, for one, QMM has the potential to simplify our thinking about two pressing problems in contemporary cosmology: black hole information and dark matter. (If I can make these problems go away for you, will you let me proceed in peace?) Dr. Neukart: “Even when a black hole finally evaporates, its imprint on the space that surrounded it remains. Information doesn’t vanish after all – it’s just been stored somewhere we hadn’t thought to look…” Information is conserved after all. Potentially, the black hole information paradox is solved. And dark matter? “Astronomers already know that the gravity of many galaxies seems to be stronger than would be expected based on their mass and rate of rotation alone. Lacking an explanation, they have invented a substance called dark matter to account for the difference… Could dark matter be information, stored across space-time in a way that generates gravitational pull?” Dark matter is the 21 st century version of the 19 th century’s aether – everyone assumes it exists, but nobody knows what it is or how to find it. Until now! That’s QMM 2, Sceptics 0. QMM may shed light on slightly less scientific topics as well: “Daddy, is there such a thing as ghosts?” Across millennia and around the globe, folks (e.g. Hamlet) attest to the immediate, local presence of things that should be far removed in space and/or time (his dad). What we ham-handedly call a ‘ghost’ may be our perception of traces of the past that have been encoded in the spacetime matrix. Under certain circumstances we can become aware, in varying degrees of detail, of these traces. Sidebar : According to traditional Christian eschatology, concrete awareness of people and events from the past, if any, comes only after death. In the Celtic tradition, on the other hand, certain times of day (twilight, dawn) and certain days of the year (solstices, equinoxes, but especially Samhain) are conducive to such contact. (Halloween and the Day of the Dead are roughly coincident with Samhain). Likewise, pilgrims are fond of visiting holy sites; perhaps they’re connecting with events that happened at those spots long ago. And it’s not just pilgrims. Rome is full of tourists anxious to share the thrill of early Christian martyrdom in the Colosseum. And not just public attractions. We each have our own ‘holy places’ – spots we revisit over and over again to ‘reconnect with ourselves’, to ‘recharge our batteries’. To us these spots are magical; they could be straight off of a David Hockney canvass. But when we point out that magic to others, they just stare at us, bewildered, “You see what?” Nor need we look exclusively to the supernatural to see how spacetime memory may impact our experience. We experience Deja Vue, we have a 6th sense, we get hunches, gut feelings. Perhaps these are all micro-manifestations of spacetime memory. Of course, a memory is not the thing remembered; it is a coded, edited, compressed version. Any copy inherently differs, at least infinitesimally, from what is being copied. A 1980’s commercial asked, “Is it live…or Memorex?” Exactly! The inherent but infinitesimal displacement between an event and our memory (copy) of that event could be what Jacques Derrida calls Differance , potentially the source of all consciousness, individual and/or universal. QMM is just hours old as a scientific theory. Yet the phenomenon it models was exhaustively described over 100 years ago by Marcel Proust in Remembrance of Things Past (RTP)…but with a crucial twist: According to QMM, a common location may facilitate the simultaneous experience of events separated in time. According to RTP, a common experience may connect, here and now, locations separated in space and time. This anomaly is fortuitous. The fact that these relationships are apparently transitive and symmetrical gives QMM an added coat of plausibility. Finally, QMM seems consistent with the currently popular model of the universe as a hologram. At every point in space and on every plane of time, the universe is self-similar. Patterns recur across space and time and scale…like spacetime memory! We are used to major breakthroughs coming from supercomputers, satellite probes, telescopes, particle accelerators, etc. Or from a whole new physics…or mathematics. But what if it doesn’t have to be that way? Could an important new idea also be simple…and semi-obvious? Sometimes, it’s not about seeing new things; sometimes it is a matter of seeing old things with new eyes. *** The Enigma of the Hour - Giorgio de Chirico (1910–11) conveys a feeling of being stuck in time by presenting a motionless city square where the clock marks time without prompting any visible change or action. The frozen figures and oppressive stillness suggest an endless present, in which time exists as a symbol rather than a force that moves life forward. 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 Job and the Problem of Evil David Cowles May 27, 2025 “Once Scripture is understood…on its own terms and not those imposed on it…one can only ask, What problem of evil?” In most editions of the Bible, the Book of Job is suspended between Torah and the New Testament , i.e. between Genesis and Revelation . Its position is apt. It is a lengthy (over long?) meditation on the Problem of Evil – a ‘problem’ introduced at ‘Creation’ (Genesis 1 – 3) but resolved by the ‘Resurrection’ and the ‘Apocalypse’. If this sounds surprisingly simplistic, it’s because it is. Nevertheless, the Problem of Evil is cited by non-believers as the number one reason for their rejection of Judeo-Christian theology. It was also the rationale Bertrand Russell relied on in his best-selling, Why I am not a Christian . Why the disconnect? It begins, unfortunately, with our understanding ( mis ) of the story of creation itself. The popular image of God shouting commands into an abyss is anti-Biblical…and a bit ridiculous. No wonder folks don’t believe. It is important to remember that YHWH said, “ Let there be light.” ( Genesis , 1: 3) He did not say, “Light, be!” as most people seem to think. He was not a frustrated parent barking at a naughty child; nor was he a raging motorist, yelling, “Start, you sucker!” at his stalled automobile. Rather, he was a compassionate curator ! Nor did he imagine that light would obliterate the primal darkness (“…the earth was without form with darkness over the abyss…” – v. 2). Instead, we learn that God merely “separated the light from the darkness” (v. 3). Later, in the Gospel of John , we celebrate the fact that “the darkness has not overcome it.” (John 1: 5) Phase #1 of the creation process was not complete, however, until “God saw that the light was good” (v. 4) and “Evening (darkness) came and morning (light) followed, the first day.” (v. 5) All of which raises an obvious question: Why would an ‘omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent’ God need to ‘wait and see’ before determining that created light was a good thing? Could God have created something that was not good ? Would God need to pause and assess developments before rendering judgement? In a sense the whole so-called Problem of Evil is addressed and resolved in these first 5 verses of this first Bible book. All the stuff about God’s ‘omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence’ comes later and, for our purposes right now, is beside the point. The testimony of Genesis is clear: God’s hands are clean! Not so, the Book of Job . Here God is put on trial, charged with fostering evil . Job has quite literally staked his life, his health, his family, his fortune, and his reputation on the verdict. But our hero has a tough ‘row to hoe’. God is represented, albeit incompetently, by a ‘dream team’ consisting of three ‘wise men’ and a ‘fool’. Speaking of ‘fools’, Job appears pro se ; he has himself for a lawyer. Worse, God is not only the defendant but also the judge and jury. Can anyone say, “Conflict of interest?” The trial raises every imaginable legal issue. Does Job have standing to sue God? Can God even be sued? Can God be compelled to come to court? If the court were to rule against God, how could it enforce its verdict? How could it impose a sentence on the Creator of Heaven and Earth? Now the matter of God’s ‘omniscience, omnipotence and benevolence’ takes center stage. Unlike Genesis , Job presents the Problem of Evil in its more familiar trappings. A full account of the proceedings are available elsewhere on this site. Suffice to say, the procedural issues are resolved to the satisfaction of both parties and, in a stunning reversal of fortunes, God finds against himself and restores all of Job’s assets plus damages . Job is underwhelmed. He expected this outcome all along. His problems were merely procedural. Once the trial commenced, Job trusted that he would prevail. Even the obvious conflict of interest didn’t concern him. God on the other hand, perhaps sensing the weakness of his position, tries to bully Job into withdrawing his suit. But Job will not budge. He meets God’s bluster with his trademarked ‘frustrated patience’. He has faith that justice will out, i.e. if he holds his ground, the court will ultimately have no choice but to rule in his favor. Job did not believe that God’s nature would allow him to act unjustly…and he was right! Right trumps wrong after all. But the court’s decision applies just to this one case; millions of Job’s fellow sufferers, while buoyed by the trial’s outcome, remain mired in pain. The final resolution, the cosmic solution, comes in the New Testament’s Resurrection narratives and in the Book of Revelation . Here we learn (after the prophet Isaiah) that God is our fellow traveler, that he suffers ‘the whips and snares of time’ alongside us, via compassion and ultimately, via Incarnation. He is born, tiny and defenseless, into our world at our level. He endures in full the pain of mortality ending in a slow and painful death on a Cross. Clearly, our God is no wimp! But had the story ended at Cavalry, we’d be in rough shape; it didn’t! Jesus overcame mortality, pain and death via his Resurrection and eventual Ascension into Heaven (where he sits at the right hand of his Father). Finally, the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation , describes in minute detail, albeit in coded symbolism, the process by which evil will be eradicated, root and branch, from the World, and our primal Paradise restored, fulfilling Paul’s assurance that God will be ‘all in all’ (1 Cor. 15: 28), pan in panti ( Anaxagoras ) Once Scripture is understood in this way, i.e. on its own terms and not those imposed on it by non-believers, one can only ask, “What problem of evil?” Image: Blake, William. Satan Smiting Job with Sore Boils. c.1826. Ink and tempera on mahogany, 326 x 432 mm. Tate. Presented by Miss Mary H. Dodge through the Art Fund, 1918. 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 Eleanor Rigby David Cowles Apr 2, 2024 “The Beatles were true revolutionaries. They called for the overthrow of the existing social order, replacing it with… a secular version of Galilean Christianity.” Amid the avalanche of great popular music in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, the Beatles Songbook stands out. On top of ground breaking harmonies, Beatles’ lyrics often express philosophically interesting ideas. Similar only to Bob Dylan at the time, the Beatles marry melody with meaning, poetry with philosophy. This contrasts with some of the era’s heavy metal bands whose lyrics are virtually indecipherable and/or mind numbingly simplistic. The best work of this period reflects the intellectual ferment of the times…as it breaks new musical ground! Eleanor Rigby , a simple elegy, is a great example. I’ll let the music speak for itself and focus instead on the lyrics: Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been, Lives in a dream, waits at the window, Wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door, Who is it for? Father McKenzie, writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear, No one comes near. Look at him working, Darning his socks in the night when there’s nobody there, What does he care? Chorus : All the lonely people, where do they all come from? All the lonely people, where do they all belong? Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried along with her name, Nobody came. Father McKenzie, Wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave, No one was saved. We all seek connection: Ms. Rigby works, no doubt as a volunteer, for her local parish church. She craves human contact; she hopes her service makes a difference, somehow to someone; but in reality, her life is the detritus (rice) of others’ . Fr. McKenzie works on a sermon he hopes will help him connect with the remaining members of his dwindling congregation. A single word could light a fire; but it doesn’t. One theme could resonate with one worshiper and lead to a lifelong friendship; it won’t. In fact, no one will even hear his sermon, either because no one attended church that day or because they merely attended: “What did the priest talk about this morning, Joey?... I dunno!” Like Picasso or Matisse, McCartney is able to bring a whole ‘world’ into being with just a few lines. Ms. Rigby and Fr. McKenzie live in expectation of a world full of human contact and existential purpose, i.e. a world they will never experience! Instead they stand, thrown onto the deserted beach of Being (by Heidegger of all people), arms wide open, desperately waiting for a hug that, of course, will never come. Drawing from Gregory Bateson and Alfred North Whitehead, we say that Being is ‘a difference that makes a difference’. Rigby and McKenzie yearn to ‘make a difference’ and to enjoy the human contact that comes along with having purpose. They are disappointed: nobody came, no one was saved! Superficially, the song is about Eleanor Rigby. It’s not! It’s about Fr. McKenzie. “Look at him working…writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear…darning his socks (that no one will see)…what does he care?” (In the same way, Mary Poppins is not about Mary but about Michael Banks, age 5.) Ab initio , Christ’s ekklesia was an engine of human contact, but two millennia later, at least according to the Beatles, it has become another ossified barrier inhibiting real mutuality. Fr. McKenzie continues to go through the motions. He hopes for a breakthrough that he knows will never come. Instead, his life comes down to a series of existential dilemmas: Is a sermon a sermon if no one hears it, are socks socks if no one sees them, is liturgy liturgy if no one participates? Is life life if you’re just going through the motions? “All the lonely people, where do they all come from?” That’s easy! They are the products of a dysfunctional social structure. It is almost as if the Whole is afraid of its own parts. It protects itself by keeping people in virtual cages, sorted by gender, caste, class, etc. Cross-pod interactions are discouraged…and tightly choreographed. Artificial human interaction (‘getting and spending’ – Wordsworth) displaces real human contact. Result: each of us is alone in the crowd; we are ships passing in the night, islands in the stream. “All the lonely people, where do they all belong?” This is not so easy! In fact, Eleanor Rigby doesn’t answer that question…but the Beatles do answer it in a contemporaneous movie, Yellow Submarine . “Where do they all belong?” Why, in Pepperland, of course – a post-Christian Kingdom of Heaven. Pepperland is powered by Love…and Music is its agent. All barriers break down (“Let’s mix, Max!”)…even the ontological barrier between spacetime (Beatles) and eternity (Sargent Pepper). Pepperland is the World as it was supposed to be, Eden before Babel. The Beatles were true revolutionaries. They called for the overthrow of the existing social order, replacing it with a confraternity of the entirety, aka a secular version of Galilean Christianity. 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.

< Back Prayer for Forgiveness of Self in Difficult Times Gurnoor O Almighty Father in Heaven, Thank you for always loving me unconditionally. Today, I ask for forgiveness for all the harmful acts and immature decisions I took against my own self. I still carry the load of guilt and shame in my heart. I do not want to indulge in self-sabotage any further. There were decisions and actions that I took which were not in my favor. Teach me to learn from them and take them as stepping stones. Help me forgive myself for the sins I committed knowingly and unknowingly against myself. Forgive me for harboring feelings of anger, fear, and jealousy in my heart. Forgive me for the times I compared myself to others, and forgive me for longing for harmful things outside of you and your kingdom. Please forgive me for my resentful attitude when situations don’t go as my plan. Forgive me for the times I have indulged in harsh words against myself. Forgive me for believing things which are negative in nature. "Forgive me for doing wrong, as we forgive others." (Matthew 6:12) O Almighty Father, forgive me when I allow anger and bitterness. I know as my Divine Father that you are always besides me. Help me model your ways when I make my amends for the times I’ve hurt myself, and also offer forgiveness for times when I have hurt myself. Help me focus on my own responsibility in the issue, so my actions won’t be conditional. Amend my thoughts and help me understand how marvelously you have made me. Help me accept myself unconditionally. Hold me in the hollow of thy hand and shower your choicest blessings on me; I know your love knows no boundaries. I ask thee to help me let go of anger, bitterness, and resentment towards myself and others. Help me learn how to face every storm with confidence, knowing that you are giving me courage to move forward. Help us to set our eyes and our hearts on you afresh. Renew our spirits; fill us with your peace and joy. Teach me to forgive myself like you forgave those who sinned against you. Please fill my heart with Holy Spirit, and help me be your dutiful servant. Help me live in a state of complete surrender to You, my merciful and Almighty God. Thank you for each new day, each new chapter, and every new beginning. Amen. Gurnoor is from India and is a seeker. She is on her journey to discovering herself and her relationship to God. You can connect with her on Instagram, @niftyshadesofnoor. Previous Next