What is Just and Fair

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way"

Is the Electoral College Obsolete?

For the second time in sixteen years,  we have had an election where the winner did not win the popular vote.  Although Donald Trump lost the popular vote by a narrow margin,  he won enough electoral college votes to win the presidency.

Now many of the media talking heads and political hacks (but I repeat myself) have taken up the cry that the Electoral College is an anachronism,  a remnant of the 18th century being inflicted on modern times.  Is this true?   Is the Electoral College still needed?   One map answers this question.


The Electoral College exists for the same reason the United States Senate exists.   When the thirteen colonies decided to join together to form a nation,  the Founding Fathers were very aware of the problem cities present to a democracy.


Cities had been a problem since ancient times.   Rulers live in cities along with their extensive entourages and large numbers of poor unproductive people.   So rulers have long taxed the productive (the farmers in olden times)  to feed the cities.   Think the bread and circuses of ancient Rome.  It was said that the Pax Romana provided peace to the entire empire, except for the cesspool that was the city of Rome.  (Not deliberately drawing parallels to modern day Washington, D.C.,  but if the shoe fits…)

A good example from modern times is the Russian Revolution of 1917.   When Lenin and his fellow communists took over,  they knew their base was the urban workers of Moscow and other cities.  They didn’t care at all about the farmers in the countryside.  They,  like all other Russian rulers, viewed the farmers as slaves.  (Technically serfs,  since Russia had banned slavery by calling all the slaves serfs.)  They knew they had to feed the workers in the cities to maintain their power base.  Ultimately,  Stalin collectivized the farms,  resulting in the deaths of millions from starvation.

So back to the United States.   The smaller, less populated colonies knew that New York (New York City), Massachusetts (Boston), and Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) would come to dominate the smaller colonies in a pure democracy.   So they created two important institutions to insure the representation of the rest of the country,  the United States Senate,  with two senators for each state, regardless of population,  and the Electoral College,  with an extra elector for each state regardless of population.

Now look again at the map of the United States.   Hillary Clinton won the large cities,  where the massive political machines  (think ACORN and its corrupt successors) could generate a large votes,  and large parts of the population live on the government dole (think bread and circuses).   Meanwhile,  the vast majority of the rest of American counties voted for Donald Trump.  The same thing happened in 2000 between George Bush and Al Gore.

And the Electoral College worked just as the Founding Fathers intended, protecting the bulk of America from the domination by Tammany Hall style political machines.

Hate Speech In America

(originally published, March, 2004)

The Left has managed to pass a good deal of Hate Crime legislation which further penalizes evil doers if they have the wrong reason for committing their crime,  thereby adding political correctness to the penal code.   In addition, a great many colleges have passed policies which can get faculty fired and students expelled if their speech is not politically correct.  The rationale behind all this is that somehow we can establish a Mind Police which will insure that peoples thoughts are proper. Where what is proper is defined by a small group of the liberal’s best and the brightest.

The European Union recently passed a law banning Internet hate speech which it defines as “any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors.”   Interesting bit about religion there at the end,   I guess this means that it’s ok to attack a religion, just as long as it’s not a pretext for racism.

The Canadian government has gone a step forward,  signing into law a measure that would ban any expression against homosexuality.   Opponents believe the courts will determine this law bans the Bible as hate speech.

Proponents of Hate Speech legislation are concerned that hateful speech can incite actual violence. One of the most curious aspects of all this is that the whole “hate speech” gambit is used in only one direction.   Liberals are allowed to accuse Conservatives of being Nazis,  Hitlers, Warmongers,  and so forth and so on while at the very same time, sometimes in the same speech, accusing them of being racist bigots who promote hate and violence.


Check out the “Death to America” theme.


These were just some of a raft of attacks, sometimes violent, on Republican headquarters across the country.

This has been the first time in recent history that we have had such violence,  where senior citizens and students acting as campaign workers were literally terrorized in their own headquarters.   Just for fun,  try to find any equivalent attacks by Republicans (repeatedly called Brown Shirts during the campaign) against Democrats.

Is there any question that our once civil political discussion is being reduced to thugs chanting profanities, propagating lies, and violently attacking Republicans?  What caused all of this?  Hate speech.  Liberal hate speech against Republicans.   Television and Internet commercials comparing our President to Adolf Hitler.  Repeated lies about disenfranchised voters.   The Democrats managed to incite the baser of their base into actual acts of violence.   Then, with plausible deniability, the Democratic Party spokespeople could disavow the violence while at the same time getting in jabs about how upset people were with the Republicans.

What do I mean by Hate Speech?  Let’s take some examples:

“Never again will a million African Americans be denied the right to exercise their vote in the United States of America,” 

John Kerry made this declaration from the pulpit of the largely Black Friendship Missionary Baptist Church of Miami.  He repeated it over and over again in different venues in the closing weeks of the campaign,  even though he knew there was no basis for it.    The Main Stream Media (MSM) that repeated these sound bites over and over also knew there was no basis for them.   In fact,  many of the studies trying to find a basis for them were conducted by MSM coalitions.  Yet the reporters and editors let these inflammatory statements go unchallenged.   They knew they were false and they must have known of the effect they would have on the Black community.

“The United States is a land that has raped every area of the world.”

–         Susan Sarandon, actress and liberal activist

“There are tens of thousands of people who lived through (the Holocaust), escaped the ovens, and are now living out their final years in South Florida,” “Sixty-two years ago tonight, the. . . German government sent goon squads throughout the country to trash and burn the homes, stores, and temples of its Jewish citizens.  Seven years and six million slaughtered lives later, the Jewish people of Europe were virtually extinct.  A few survived.  I will not allow those who survived to … be abused again.”

–  Michael Moore, demanding a new vote     in  Palm Beach County

“The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush … and his band of brown-shirted thugs.”

– Sandra Bernhard, actress

“Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon would get my vote”

– Richard Berthold,   Univ. of New Mexico Professor

Can there be any question that this kind of language inflames the young, the impressionable, and the terminally stupid?    America’s strength over the past two hundred years has come from our peaceful transfer of power every four years and our free press.   Any student of history knows these are both incredibly rare.   This year,  we could have easily seen that peaceful transfer marred by rioting and legal wrangles,  largely because our free press failed to do its duty and debunk the demagogs.   The result would have been disastrous,  not only for us, but for the world

Why do Blacks vote the Democrat ticket?

Someone please explain to me.  Why do Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic?  OK, I understand saying that the Republicans are the party of Lincoln doesn’t carry much water.  The logical response is “Yeah, but what have you done for us lately?”

OK,  what about the fact that schools were integrated because a Republican President,  Eisenhower,  appointed a popular Republican governor, Earl Warren,  as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He did it as a recess appointment to get past Democratic opposition,  and he did it to bring in a Chief Justice who could orchestrate a unanimous decision on a most important case,  Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka.  Without a Republican President and a Republican chief justice, the separate but equal doctrine may have stood for another decade.

Meanwhile, where were the Democrats?  It brings us back to Lincoln.  Because of his actions, the Republican Party lost the South for more than a hundred years.  All of the major political figures resisting integration,  from state governors to county sheriffs, were Democrats.  And they put up a unified front effectively blocking integration for years,  until the Kennedy Brothers came to town and broke ranks. Even after Kennedy,  the Democrats voted unanimously against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

So how did the Democrats co-opt the Black vote?  Was it LBJ’s War on Poverty?  To any disinterested observer,  all the War on Poverty accomplished was to break up the Black family (welfare couples were rewarded for not being married) and put many poor Blacks into a cycle of dependence on government charity programs, thus destroying the basic human pride of many Blacks.

The Democratic leadership combined with a cadre of non-elected black leaders assume that all Blacks must vote Democratic and follow the party line.   When Blacks break free of this mold,  there are incredibly racist attacks.  President Bush appointed the first Black male Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and now has appointed the first Black female Secretary of State, Condeleeza Rice.  What was the reaction of the Democratic party?  Elation?  No way.  The reaction was a full scale attack on the successful Blacks.  One Democratic radio commentator referred to her as an Aunt Jemimah.  Gary Trudeau depicted the President referring to her as “Brown Sugar” in his popular Doonesbury comic strip.  Colin Powell and Clarence Thomas were referred to as  “Uncle Toms.”  Democrats seem to have discovered that they can be as racist as they want to be and no one will call them to task.

Obviously,  racist attacks against successful Blacks, whether politicians or businesspeople, are a means for Democrats to keep Blacks in their place.  Keeping them living close to those streets named Martin Luther King Way and voting the right way.  Where are the unelected Black leaders?  The likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton receive their power from the Democratic establishment.  They maintain their power as long as they toe the party line.  And obviously, real success stories are a threat to the Jesse Jacksons of the world, who never really accomplished anything except exploiting racism for their own aggrandizement.

How do people like Jesse Jackson receive their power?  By getting the spot light from the Democratic party,  the Liberal Main Stream Media,  and liberal groups like the NEA.  For example, several years ago my daughter, then in fifth grade, had to complete a worksheet about Jesse Jackson.  The correct answers on the worksheet were to fill in that Jesse Jackson was a “courageous” leader and similar superlatives.

Just take a moment for a reality check.  What do you think would happen if a conservative journalist (an endangered species if ever there was one) used such racist terms against any Black.  Or if a similar school worksheet touted the sterling qualities of, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Think about it.

Very simply,  the main difference between today’s Conservatives and Liberals is that Liberals believe big government can solve society’s problems where Conservatives believe big government is the cause of many of society’s problems.  Conservatives believe in individual rights, individual opportunity, and perhaps most distinctively, individual responsibility.  The government’s job is to provide freedom and justice for all,  not to set up a constituency as victims.  Government programs to provide aid to victim groups can only be successful, in a government sense, if the group continues to be victims.  The bureaucrats running the welfare bureaucracies are successful if they can grow their bureaucracy.

Blacks are exploited and suppressed by the Democratic Party.  Successful Blacks who break away from the fold are villified unmercifully.  The greatest hope is that more and more Blacks are moving to the middle and upper classes,  and as they do,  they get a much better view of what is happening and begin to vote Republican.

And the Democratic party exploits other people who have bought into their own victimhood.  Whether women, hispanics, gays, or any other group.  Republicans like to think of people as individuals, each with their own potential and responsibilities.  These are both generalizations, of course,  there are plenty of exceptions on each side.  I refer to the norm.


Nevada – the Men’s Den of the United States

You’ve all seen them, or possibly been responsible for them.  The den the wife leaves to the husband to decorate, with his sports trophies,  racy calendars, well-worn in lazy boy, and large screen tv.  Or the hunting cabin,  all dark wood carefully decorated with the heads of animals and that coffee table made from antlers.  Or the bachelor pad,  last cleaned before move-in not counting an abortive attempt before an even more abortive visit by a member of the opposite sex.   All of these have one thing in common,  interior decorating done by men.

This is Nevada.  The Men’s Den of the United States.  An entire state designed and decorated by men,  with an aesthetic sense beyond the comprehension of any woman. This is a state that has legalized gambling and prostitution,  and has produced Las Vegas as its highest cultural and most tasteful  achievement.

Some Nutty Religious Site

My father-in-law gave me some concise feedback about my blog. I directed him to this blog so that he could see a photo album from a family wedding. He didn’t manage to scroll down to the album. Instead he said the URL I had sent him to was “some nutty religious site about abortion.”

Sorry Bert, this is my site. And it’s not about abortion. Abortion was just one current example of the confusion between wisdom and knowledge. Perhaps I should have stuck with the example of nuclear bombs, much less controversial. And nuclear bombs have killed less people. Depending on which interpretation of abortion you buy into.

OK, in for a penny, in for a pound. Before I leave the subject of abortion, let me add one more observation. The pro-choice (read pro-abortion) position has become a litmus test for today’s Democratic party. Pro-life (read anti-abortion) Democrats are totally shut out of the national party. Democratic senators are willing to undermine the United States Constitution to block judges who they believe might be pro-life.

There is a reason for this. In Gangster movies, you have undoubtedly seen the rite-of-initiation shooting cliché. The bad guy hands the gun to the good guy, who is pretending to be a bad guy, and tells him to shoot a fellow good guy. Why, because if he shoots the good guy, then he establishes himself as a bad guy. Well, this rite-of-initiation also exists in real life, where gangs routinely require murder or some other heinous act as a requirement for acceptance into the gang.

Now think about this. Once a woman “chooses” to perform an abortion, for whatever reason, she must believe the pro-choice rhetoric. The alternative is to believe she has killed her own child. For her own mental health, she must accept the pro-choice view of the fetus as some inconsequential body part. Otherwise, she will go mad with guilt. The Democratic Party knows this, and they prey on it. By being the pro-choice party, they guarantee themselves lifelong members who are mentally unable to even consider the alternative.

This also means the Democratic Party profits from each abortion, and is therefore motivated to increase the number of abortions. Who’s right on the issue of abortion? See my previous blog. We just don’t know. Personally, I hope God made a loophole in there somewhere. Enough nutty religious stuff. I don’t consider it such. I am interested in language, logic, and intelligence. And I readily admit that Democrats possess at least one of these attributes.

(originally posted October 28, 2004 )

Knowledge and Wisdom

Wisdom is the power that enables us to use knowledge for the benefit of ourselves and others – Thomas J. Watson

A key failure in current political discourse is that many, if not most, people confuse knowledge and wisdom. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is quite simple. Scientific and technical knowledge tell us about the physical universe and how to manipulate it. Wisdom tells us how to use the knowledge to lead the good life.

That is, knowledge tells us how to build the atom bomb, wisdom tells us whether we should. Knowledge tells us how to extend our lifespans, wisdom tells us whether we should. Although the difference between knowledge and wisdom is simple and fundamental to our lives, it is not widely understood.

In America, it is confused by an educational system that teaches moral relativism and political correctness, while making a desperate attempt to not teach religion. The result translates into an attempt to not convey any wisdom at all, for religion may be defined as a formal system of wisdom. Yet American schools try to suppress religion and present that any set of values is equally as valid as any other set. They demean some of the wisest people in history for being white and male and make a deliberate attempt to belittle their teachings Knowledge, however, is esteemed and rewarded. The result is a generation that equates knowledge with wisdom.

This confusion causes people to look to scientists to answer moral questions, which is at least as bad as looking to religious leaders to answer scientific questions. For example, abortion is one of the most hotly debated topics in our society. Simply by the use of the labels fetus and baby, our society is heavily split. At present, we either abort a quarter of all fetuses or murder one out of every four babies. If the first label is correct, maybe it’s not such a bad thing. If the second label is correct, we live in one of the darkest and most cruel societies in the history of mankind. Which is it?

Many people look to scientists to answer the question. Yet scientists can’t provide the answer, only wisdom can. Scientists can make objective observations such as when the heart starts beating, when the brain waves start, when the fetus is possibly or probably viable outside the mother’s womb, and when the fetus is possibly or probably threatening to the mother’s life. All of these scientific measurements can be determined with some amount of objectivity. All of these measurements are used by people on both sides of the debate. Yet none of these scientific observations answer the question if abortion is right. No scientific measurement ever will.

Another group in our society looks to religion for answers to scientific questions. Take for instance the fundamentalist Christian sects who take everything in the Bible as scientific fact because they know the Bible to be True. Thus, the theory of evolution must be wrong. The Earth must be only a few thousand years old. And so on. If the Bible is not scientifically correct, can it be True? Again, we have confusion between truth in the realm of knowledge and Truth in the realm of wisdom. When a parent explains a basic Truth to a child using a simplified explanation, does this make it less true? If Jesus explained a truth with a parable, was it necessary for the parable to actually have happened for the parable to contain Truth? If God gave a simplified explanation to his children because they were not ready to understand quantum physics and DNA, does that make the Bible false? Especially since the lessons being taught were those of wisdom and not of knowledge.

If God had been interested in imparting knowledge, wouldn’t Moses have come down the mountain with the laws of motion and thermodynamics? Instead, he came down with the Ten Commandments, moral rules meant to impart wisdom on how people should live their lives.

Perhaps the worst effect of the confusion of knowledge and wisdom is that people are losing faith in the institutions of wisdom, the churches. Because of the advancement of knowledge, people feel that churches are outmoded. Yet wisdom is timeless. Are the Ten Commandments any less valid today than they were thousands of years ago? No, they are the basic minimum set of rules that make a civilization viable. Knowledge may make killing more efficient, but no amount of knowledge will make murder right. To have a legitimate political debate, people must understand the difference between knowledge and wisdom. In knowledge, there are right and wrong answers about specific facts, but there is no concept of moral right and wrong, good and evil. For that, we need wisdom. For we live in a time of great knowledge and precious little wisdom.

Why Liberals don’t like Christianity: The Old Testament Version

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.” – Ecclesiastes 10:2

The Future

The Future

To look at the future, lets start in the past.

If you took your average common man from the Early Dynastic period of Egypt, about 3,000 B.C. and dropped him into the Egypt of the Roman Empire some three THOUSAND years later, he would not have noticed the difference. In fact, had you dropped the same poor Egyptian into the Egypt of 1900, almost five thousand years later, he would probably not have noticed much difference.

Let’s do it again, if we took a freeman from the Roman Empire and dropped him a thousand years later, he probably would have noticed the world had changed for the worse. Technologically and scientifically, the world had not advanced and had even gone backwards.

In both these cultures, change was frowned upon. If a son did things differently than the father, or the apprentice did things differently than the master, they were wrong. Change was bad.

Then, just a few hundred years ago, came the scientific revolution. Men started testing and refining their hypotheses with experiments. These men were the first true scientists, the people who used the scientific method. From this point on, change became fast and furious. And people resisted change, as people always have.

In early nineteenth century England, the Luddites appeared. These were bands of workers who went about destroying looms and knitting machines. They felt that the new machines were taking away jobs because one worker could now do the work of eight. They envisioned a world where the great mass of people would be unemployed and starving because of the new machines.

The Luddites existed before anyone ever had a job making telephones, automobiles, airplanes, movies, musical recordings, refrigerators, radios, or televisions. They existed before people spent money on electric power, batteries, frozen foods, or soft drinks.

In other words, the Luddites could only see the world as it existed in their time. The Luddites were guilty of static analysis. They assumed things were going to stay the same.

When trying to solve a problem, you can’t assume people’s behavior or their technology will stay the same. In history, you will find many of the mistakes governments make are because of static analysis.

Let’s do it again. In the 1960s, the new Luddites objected to automation. They felt they would take jobs away. This was before anyone had made the first microprocessor, the first personal computer, the first video game, the first digital watch, the first VCR, the first CD Player… you get the idea.

Let’s do it again. In the early 1990’s, many people felt the microcomputer revolution was topping out. That all that could be done had been done. This was before the world wide web, before the explosion in cellular phones, before DVD’s. Do you begin to detect a pattern?

All these time periods had their Luddites. The naysayers believed there was nothing new under the sun. They all did static analysis, and they were all wrong. Things changed, and the biggest thing to change is the rate of change itself. The first major changes of the agricultural revolution took thousands of years. The next major changes of the industrial revolution took hundreds of years. Now we are seeing incredible changes in the space of decades and even years.

The rate of change is exponentially growing. Recent decades have been governed by Moore’s law. Back in the mid-60’s, a computer scientist named Gordon Moore postulated that computing power would double every eighteen months. People scoffed at him. Now, thirty-five years later, Moore’s law is still holding true. In 1965, one thousand dollars of computing bought one hundred calculations per second. Today, one thousand dollars buys one hundred MILLION calculations per second. The computers on your desks at home are far more powerful than the multimillion dollar computers of the nineteen sixties. And as you all know, the world has changed.

So what does this mean to you. Has everything been invented? Is there nothing new under the sun? Are we done?

The answer is no! If we project the rate of change into the future, it means we will see more change in the next twenty years than we have in the past one hundred. Think about that. One hundred years ago, the airplane had not been invented and automobiles and electric lights were novelties. Yet we’re going to see greater change than that by the time you’re in your thirties. Which means many of you will be the ones making the discoveries and inventing the new technologies.

The real changes and discoveries will be in science and technology. Here are some projections, both my own and other futurists:

-Within ten years, computers will be invisible, and incredibly powerful. Screens will be heads-up displays on your eyeglasses, input will be via a natural language voice interface, audio will be through small earplugs or implanted transducers. (Think about how teachers will give pop quizzes in that environment.)

-Within thirty years, we will have practical fusion power and MHD generators.

-Within forty years, medical science will be adding almost a year to our lifespan for every year that goes by. Today’s medical science will seem unbelievably primitive.

-We’ll spend most of our time in the next century in virtual reality. Certainly most of our business time and probably most of our recreational time.

– Within fifty years, we’ll have nanobots , microscopic robots built with nanotechnology, in our bodies. They will keep us healthy and might also act as our interface to virtual reality systems. We might install a new computer by snorting a tube of self-replicating nanobots.

-Deep space probes will travel near the speed of light to distant worlds, carrying the DNA and complete brain scans of their crew, who will happily live out their lives on earth at the same time they make the journey to distant planets.

-Forward time travel will therefore be possible. Crew members from such probes may come back to earth five hundred years after their birth.

-People will have multiple avatars and identities, basically throwing away the last hundred years of work in psychology.

-Computers will surpass humans in most measures of intelligence.

-We will have Star Trek like remote sensors for finding everything from bacteria to mineral resources. Did anyone here realize we have already successfully tested remote sensors to find land mines in Yugoslavia?

-Robots will design and build other robots.
And we’re not talking only about science. Every field will have major discoveries and changes. Just look at some recent events.

No doubt, many of you plan to become lawyers. A great waste, but so be it. A month ago, the Napster case threw a major wrench into our two hundred year old model of intellectual property. Obviously, cloning and increased lifespan are going to cause major changes in estate law.

In the art world, advances in computer and chemical analyses are giving us a more complete look at the past. Twenty years ago, people wrote of Michelangelo’s somber pallet. Then in the early nineties, they found out there was a very old protective coating on the Sistine Chapel. They recently unveiled the renovation that shows extremely vivid and bright colors, especially the red on the faces of art historians.

We often talk about having ten thousand years of recorded history. What a joke. We have about five hundred years of recorded history and then about five thousand years of tantalizing glimpses into the past. Archaeologists using modern scientific techniques are making new discoveries every day.

Obviously, politicians, sociologists, and psychologists will be working full time to try to explain the changes. My guess is they won’t be able to keep up.

Let me leave you with one thought, When machines are advanced enough to have a sense of humor, will we get their jokes?

Thank you.

[ The original version of this talk was delivered to an assembly of junior high school students at the Pine View School for the Giftedin 2003.  Due to a teacher’s e-mail recommending the talk,  versions of it were given to a number of classes ranging from 5th to 11th grade]

Why are We here?

The Basics: Why are we here?

Welcome to the first post in my new blog. It seemed appropriate to start this blog with my current answer to a question that has troubled me since I was very young.

Why are we here? What is there in the human existence that isn’t in the eternal existence? What can we mortals do that an omnipotent, omniscient being cannot do? The first part of the answer has to do with love, and our growth in love.

The life of the human being starts with the love of a child for its mother. This is a very selfish kind of love. A baby loves its mother because she feeds it, protects it, takes care of it, and returns unconditional love. The baby need give nothing, it receives all. This type of love continues throughout childhood. A selfish, self-centered love, but a love nonetheless.

The second stage in love is the love of Eros, romantic love. This is the love motivated at first by the hormones and lust of adolescence. Again, it is a selfish love. The lover is at first motivated by the desires of the body and the fulfillment of these desires. Yet there is something more.

As love grows, it becomes a sharing of everything in life, not just a sharing of bodies. Shared dreams, shared goals, exploring the world together, having a companion, a friend, who can be trusted with your deepest secrets. The growth of this love results in a very deep caring for another, unlike anything experienced in childhood. This love is a willingness to sacrifice, to put someone else’s happiness before one’s own. This love can continue throughout a lifetime.

The third stage in love is having a family. Now love becomes making sacrifices for those who cannot give anything back beyond a child’s love. There are many sacrifices to make, many frightening times, many tragedies. It is a strange time in one’s life. The need to protect and provide for the children is dominant. This probably explains the Buddhist tradition that one cannot achieve enlightenment while one is being a father.

The final stage in love is after the children grow and leave home. Old age sets in. The unfulfilled hopes and dreams of a lifetime are likely to stay unfulfilled. Time is the enemy. The body disappoints. Yet, love remains, and because of the frailty and disappointments, there is more compassion for others

So life teaches us about love. In a brief moment of eternity, love migrates from love for self, to eros, to the love of your children, to the love of humanity. The lessons we learn in love would not be possible for an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being. Where would the sacrifice come from? Even God had to take human form in order to sacrifice himself.

What else can we do in this mortal form that eternal beings cannot? What about learning to have faith? Faith is simply defined as a belief in that which we cannot know. Again an omniscient being, by definition, would not need faith in anything. And what of hope? Again, the very definition of an omniscient being would make hope impossible. Except perhaps if you gave free will to your creations. Then you could have faith in them and hope for them.

So why are we here? Obviously not for the accumulation of material goods. What if there is a cosmic value system that values the development of certain virtues, and what if those virtues can only be learned as mortal beings? Faith, hope, and love seem to be the lessons we are to learn in this life.
“And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
– 1 Corithians 13: 13

(Originally posted March 13, 2004)

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén