The eye of the needle...

21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. 22 And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. 25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered very much, saying: Who then can be saved? 26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men, this is impossible: but with God, all things are possible.  (Mt 19:21-26)

[1] All the world’s wisdom and human ability compared to the infinite wisdom of God is pure and utter ignorance, as St. Paul writes to the Corinthians, [1 Cor 3:19] “The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight.”  [1 Cor 3:18-19]  “If anyone among you thinks he is wise, let him become ignorant so as to be wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”  Those, therefore, who value their knowledge and ability as a means of reaching union with the wisdom of God are very ignorant in God’s sight and will be left behind, far away from this wisdom.  Ignorance does not grasp what wisdom is; and in Gods sight, those who think they have some wisdom are very ignorant.

For as the apostle says of them in writing to the Romans: “Taking themselves for wise men, they became fools.” (Rom 1:22)

Only those who set aside their own knowledge and walk in Gods service like unlearned children receive wisdom from God.  This is the wisdom about which St. Paul taught the Corinthians: “If anyone amount you thinks he is wise, let him become ignorant so as to be wise.  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” (1 Cor 3:18-19)  Accordingly, to reach union with the wisdom of God, a person must advance by unknowing rather than by knowing.  [1] (Chap 4 pp 66-67)

[1]“John of The Cross Selected Writings” – The Ascent of Mount Carmel.  The Classics of Western Spirituality Copyright 1987. The Washington Province of Discalced Carmelite Friars Inc,.

It is clear to see in the words of Christ and St. John of the Cross, the people that value in and of themselves, their material wealth, the own abilities and knowledge in the eyes of the world, will find it hard to attain Heaven and, “will be left behind.”  The knowledge of the world is foolishness, yet most of us struggle with wanting to attain material wealth, money and power in order to be seen as worthy or “of value” in the world.  The world clearly stands in contradiction to following God and it is not easy to hear nor follow God while being of the world and attached to such wealth.  As is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, we must be stripped and detached of our own wills and desires to seek what the world deems knowledge and power, and become like unlearned children.  However, this is not possible on our own and comes only, from/through/with God.  In order to follow God we must leave behind our old lives, selves, wills, and allow God to draw us to Him, in order to be stripped and detached from the “foolishness” of the world.  However, as this is easily said, it is not easily done nor accomplished by anything we do directly.  Whether, it is with the words of Teresa of Avilla or John of The Cross, it is a process that a soul goes through in order to find its Creator.       

A person with freewill can choose to say “Yes” to God, following the sound doctrines of The Church, by practicing prayer and receiving the sacraments, the rest is up to God.  It is only God’s will as to the degree to which a person is purged and detached from the world.  As God touches the soul, it is raised to heights that are unknown in comprehendible terms.  The soul is moved in a way that it does not know, but only follows blindly, searching.  It is felt so deeply and in such an intense way, left in complete darkness and blinded by the light and love of God, its Creator.  A soul is unable to obtain this on its own merit, it is forever changed, desiring only that what it does not know, nor understand, but only feels in the depths of its existence.  7”I adjure you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and the harts of the, fields, that you stir not up, nor make the beloved to awake, till she please. 8 The voice of my beloved, behold he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills. 9 My beloved is like a roe, or a young hart. Behold he standeth behind our wall, looking through the windows, looking through the lattices. 10 Behold my beloved speaketh to me: Arise, make haste, my love, my dove, my beautiful one, and come.” (Song of Songs 2:7-10)

The world’s “foolishness,” wisdom, material wealth and power that people seek for their own gratification and wealth, in order to feel worthy and important of the world, serves only to get in the way of hearing and following God.  One is unable to hear God, let alone seek God’s will, when the love of money, wealth and power cloud the judgment and view of God.  The soul is buried and covered by the immoral desires of the flesh, as the bodily senses take in, only what it desires, leaving the soul empty and longing for what it does not know, but desires.  For as God, created the soul, for Him and to seek Him, the body, which the soul exists in and occupies, cannot be separated, while on this earth.  The soul exists in the wretchedness and stench of the body.  As St. Francis of Assisi referred to his own body as, “Brother Ass” and treated it as such.  It is that complete and total abandonment that Francis experienced only by/with/through the grace of God that he was able to seek the things of Heaven rather than of earth.   The heights he attained in is interior life were not of his own human ability and/or desire.  As God touched the souls of St. Francis, John of The Cross and Teresa of Avilla, just to suggest a few, it is clear to see the detachment they had from and of the world and the complete and total abandonment of themselves to the will of God.  They did not possess nor seek the material wealth, money and power of the world.  They did not care what society deemed to be important and did not seek the things of this world, but rather treasure in Heaven.

We have the freewill to choose to follow God and seek His will.  It is a process to be open to His will with complete and total abandonment and the grace of spiritual docility.  It is only with/through/by His grace that we can obtain such heights and be detached from the desires of the world.  It is only by our desire to choose to follow God and seek His will, that He will grant such.  

Objectivist or Subjectivist....?

As Ayn Rand asserts,

“I hold, if man wants to live on earth, and to live as a human being, he has to hold reason as an absolute.  Which, I mean that he has to hold reason as his only guide to action and that he must lead by the independence of his own mind, that his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness, and that he must not force other people, nor accept their right to force him, that each man must live as an end in himself, and follow his own self interest.”

“I say that man is entitled to his own happiness and that he must achieve it himself, but he cannot demand others give up their lives to make him happy, nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.  I hold that man should have self esteem.”

Does this mean she chose to ignore the fact that we, as human beings are created and contingent, unable to create ourselves from nothing, are dependent on other human beings and our environment to come into and sustain existence?  It seems, if she read and accepted St. Thomas Aquinas, as a respected philosopher, she would have had to understand at least on some level his, “Five Proofs of the Existence of God” and simply chose to ignore them; as she remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.[18]  ^ a b Sciabarra 1995, p. 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

As human beings exist as created and contingent, I pose the question, why do I exist now and not two-hundred years ago or two-hundred years in the future.  We exist but at some point in time, we did not exist and will cease to exist as we do now.  Hence, if we exist why do we exist and why do we exist now because we do not have to exist at all?  Does that mean that everything that we know to exist, has to exist necessarily, and did it have to come into existence at all?  Philosophically speaking, if it were possible, start with today and count backward on a timeline as the example, the year 2009 had to exist first before 2010 and 2008 before 2009 and so on backward.  Would it not seem reasonable that there would be, if we were able to go back far enough and long enough, at some point exist, the first moment in time?  Would it not seem reasonable to accept that something had to cause the first moment in time to happen or come into existence?  Hence St. Thomas Aquinas’, the first cause of all causes which is God.  Which would stand to reason as we cannot create ourselves, nor choose to will ourselves into existence, how can we be the end of, to and in our means and existence, as Rand asserts, “Man’s, achievement of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose.”

As Rand chose her subjective logic and reason to assert, God does not exist because she cannot see, hear or touch Him, did she choose to ignore Aquinas’ “Five Proofs?” Did Rand simply not understand or see that it is impossible to exist completely independent from all other human beings, as she used them merely to obtain her own happiness?  If Rand would have asserted that she simply did not care whether God existed and chose to live her life accordingly, would make some philosophical sense.  However, because human beings are contingent and created, finite and unable to will ourselves into existence from nothing, it would seem the individual cannot be the end to, and of himself and as Rand states, “the highest moral purpose” is to create one’s own happiness.  As she grew up under a communist dictatorship in Russia, it would make sense that she chose to ignore the philosophical, why’s and how’s of existence and live a completely hedonistic self-indulgent life, as well as believe in an extreme capitalistic economy and society.  However, it seems to me, rather extreme to go through all of the mental hoops and philosophical disconnects, she did in order to try to justify her desire to live a completely self-indulgent lifestyle… just ask King Henry VIII about Sir Thomas Moore, or I should say St. Thomas Moore.    

What does this mean...?

            In reading the news, Michelle O’bama wife of Barack O’bama or President O’bama, as she told a group of sisters that her husband the president carries with him a picture of The Blessed Mother in his wallet.  After pondering this, it seems to me to raise questions. 

If the president does indeed carry such a picture and in some twisted perverted way, have a devotion to Our Blessed Mother, how can he support and encourage laws approving abortions wide scale, through laws and tax money.  Which further leads to the question, does Michelle O’bama say such things without thinking?  As it is obvious that neither she nor her husband understand the gravity, of which his actions hold in the eyes of God.  In addition, what is the motivation to which she and her husband take action and/or say things?  Why would she say such a thing, if indeed it were true? Furthermore, why or how could her husband do such?  Because we can never know the authentic truth about this, we can only go by the words of Michelle O’bama.  It seems to be to be a dichotomy that her husband would carry such a picture in his wallet, because his actions and words prove to be anything but in contradiction to what the Blessed Mother is in the eyes of God.

It would seem to me this event sheds further light on the person of Michelle and President O’bama.  If he is truly seeking to do what is right and the best interest for all people and the world not only for the USA, how could he allow and give money to let people take the lives of the unborn, while at the same time carrying a picture of The Blessed Mother.  How can Michelle O’bama know what her husband says is the truth if he does one thing and says another?  I am NOT speaking in terms of politics, as it seems to me to point out that the current president is neither philosophically logical nor morally grounded on anything remotely based upon God and the moral truth.  As it is impossible to know anyone completely and fully and what they are capable of doing and/or saying, it would seem to me this event indicates, neither Michelle or her husband have any kind of moral understanding to which to seek a higher office, let alone lead anyone other than their own family and children.  It would seem to me difficult at best for their children to be able to grasp the ideas of which their father and mother instill.  How can a logical deduction be made about a person that says, I carry a picture of The Blessed Mother in my wallet and devotion to her, while I sign laws and bills to enact wide scale abortions and kill innocent human beings?  This seems to be to indicate a mental disconnect in the mind of Michelle and her husband.  How can a person looking at him as president understand what he says or means.  I am NOT questioning that he may love The Blessed Mother in his own way, while not understanding, as he is not Catholic.  I am pointing out the question, on what basis does he and Michelle live out their marriage?  Does she know and accept that he says one thing and does another?  If that is the case, how does she know who he really is?  How does this reflect on the fact that the people in this country voted him into office, to lead and guide the nation.  When President O’bama looks at himself in the mirror what does he see and feel?  I pose to Michelle O’bama, “Did you really mean to tell the sisters about the picture, if so is it true based upon his actions or words that he has such a devotion to the Blessed Mother?”  In addition, Michelle, “If you did not mean to tell the sisters, did you say it to gain popularity for your husband, in the eyes of the sisters while feeling pressure at that moment to say something?  Did you before saying this, know your husband carries such a picture and devotion but not question his motives, while he allows, promotes wide scale abortion throughout the United States and the world?”  

It would seem to me that neither he nor Michelle understand, what it means to lead, guide and nurture his family.  What do they say, in ten years, when someone in his family asks him to defend his views on abortion while carrying a picture of the Blessed Mother?  While many people are going to argue this is neither important nor relevant to politics, to which I would assert, this goes much deeper, it gives us further insight to how people think and act, while trying to set good examples.  This event seems to show how he, Michelle and human nature think… Which leads me to ask, how is that a world exists and people live their lives saying one thing and doing another, without so much as a second thought, while ignoring the “Objective Truth” because it does not fit their lives? 

I do not doubt that Michelle and President O’bama believe what they are doing is right or moral in some way, while at the same time causing more confusion while they live a dichotomy.  It is not easy to be married and raise children in a culture of death and decay and contributing to the decay, while carrying a picture of The Blessed Mother in your wallet.  This is, at best philosophically absurd and a grave immoral act.

From a conversation several years ago, stated to me, “There is no objective truth.”

If stated objectively as a truth, how one can, assert beyond all doubt to know there is no objective truth?  If a person makes such an assertion, it does not seem to make sense to me, to state objectively, that something does not exist objectively.  I can accept the assertion; they do not know if there is an objective truth, based upon what that person believes to be true.  Hence, if a person believes something to be true it cannot be stated objectively, and/or beyond all doubt or question, that would be “Faith,” defined in www.dictionary.com as “belief that is not based on proof.” 

As created, contingent beings, it is impossible to have complete and full knowledge of all that exists; hence, much of our existence is based upon faith of what exists or thought to exist, without being able to know beyond all doubt.  As in the case with time and love as examples, how can human beings prove time exists, yet we understand it to be a concept universally accepted, trusted and adhered to without thought.  Does it not take faith and trust, to plan our lives, appointments and schedules, based upon the time of day, week or month?  How can we prove what love is or know someone loves us?  These are concepts, which we believe to some degree of certainty but impossible to know beyond all/any doubt and/or be proven scientifically.  Yet we plan and live our lives based upon concepts that cannot be seen or proven, to exist, beyond all doubt.  “Trust” defined in www.dictionary.com as “confident expectation of something; hope.”

Created and contingent, human beings have no choice but to take certain things upon faith and trust.  How can anyone state factually whether something or someone exists, if they do not experience something or someone directly?  Do we simply disregard what we experience from one day to the next, as it is impossible to prove beyond all doubt or question what took place the previous day, week or month?  It would be absurd to disregard history and state, “because, I did not experience something or someone directly, it did not or does not exist.”  We would have to start each day over as if the previous day did not exist or ever happen.  The knowledge that humanity obtains today can only be based upon the knowledge of what past generations obtained and so on, back to the first recorded history.  It is impossible to not use or look at history in order to obtain future knowledge.  Human beings are created and contingent, unable to obtain full and complete knowledge of all that existed, exists and will exist, regardless of the knowledge we obtain in our lifetime.  We take it on faith, things that cannot be proven beyond all doubt, what has been handed down to us through history, is true, or at least to some degree true, but it is impossible to know beyond all doubt that it is true.  Human beings simply do not nor cannot exist throughout time to witness firsthand all that has existed, exists now and will exist.  Based upon this, it would make sense to assert, because they have not seen or witnessed something directly, they “believe” something to be true, although not knowing beyond all doubt. 

If we accept, ideas and concepts that exist in our minds without being able to use scientific methods to prove their existence, such as “time” and “love,” it seems to me, weak at best to assert beyond all doubt, God does not exist, because it cannot be scientifically proven.  Does it makes logical sense to state, if something or someone cannot be seen or experienced directly, and cannot be scientifically proven, hence that something or someone does not exist?  It would make more sense to me, to assert, not knowing if God exists nor care, and choose to live their life accordingly, rather than to assert God does not exist and knowing it because God cannot be seen, heard, touched or scientifically proven to exist.