Speaking of mysteries (as I did in my last post) the thought occurs to me that if I believed in a God in whom there was no mystery, I'd probably be believing in a made-up God.

Why?

Because I think a made-up God would be a god who makes sense within the everyday knowledge that we have. I just don't think we'd make up a god who didn't fit our notions of reality.

Instead, the Real God must be greater than everything we perceive, or He couldn't have made everything.

And if there is mystery in what we perceive - and when we come to the edges of our perception of reality, things do begin to get really weird - then the God who created all this stuff, from the commonplace to the incomprehensibly baffling, must have a nature that in some ways is far more baffling than the weirdest mysteries of the universe.

His nature is true and constant and good, but to us limited human beings elements of his nature must be impossible to understand. I guess that's where faith comes in.

Whenever either Christians or atheists get to a certain point in a logical examination of their beliefs, they find mystery.

For example, let's take the topic of free will.

For the Christian there are two seemingly incompatible truths:

First, that human beings have a free will and can make real decisions. You can see this throughout the Bible in every command and every bit of praise and every bit of blame. If we were mere puppets then we couldn't make real decisions - for good or for bad - so there would be no need for commands and no point in praise or blame.

Second, there is the truth that God is in control of everything, down to the last little thing.

So how do those two beliefs fit together? I don't know.

But the atheist faces a similar dilemma.

On the one hand, most atheists seem to believe that people can make real free-will decisions, otherwise, why would they write books and give lectures and otherwise try to persuade people to become atheists?

But on the other hand, athiests believe that everything is based on purely natural processes: one thing leading to another to another to another, the previous things causing the next things, from the beginning of the universe right down to their lives. But that means their decisions are not really decisions, but are just the inevitable result of preceeding events.

So, they believe in free-will and they believe that free-will is impossible, two clearly contradictory beliefs.

Okay, so what is the difference between the Christian's dilemna and the atheist's?

Well, as a Christian, what makes the seeming contradiction acceptable to me is that I know the One who understands how they fit together and who wouldn't have told us these two truths if they did not fit together. So I can reasonably assume that the logical conflict I face is resolved in dimensions or ways that I can't begin to imagine.

But the atheist - by definition - cannot appeal to God or any "higher power" who might assure him that, despite appearances, his contradictory beliefs fit together. Therefore he has no reasonable cause for believing that the logical conflict he faces can be reconciled, and he is left with nothing but contradiction.

I thought this question had been adequately dealt with years ago, but it seems to have made a reappearance, so I thought I would address it.

If you ask, "Where did God come from?" you are incorrectly including in your question the idea that God is a part of time, rather than the creator of time.

It does not make sense to ask what came "before" God because words like "before" and "earlier" and "previous" and so forth are all are about time, but God made time and therefore is separate from time. And if something is separate from time, then there is no "before," and asking what is before God is as silly as asking, "What is before blue?" It is not a time question so you can't get a time answer.

Think of time as a line you draw on a sheet of paper. If someone asked what comes before you on that line, the question wouldn't really make sense because you are not part of the line. It's the same with God.

I've been slowly adding an old encyclopedia to the web, reading it as I go along, and occasionally stumbling on interesting tidbits.

For instance:

- Did you know that "Captain Bligh ... betrayed a singular capacity for making himself disliked by his subordinates." Oh, you did know that.

- I like James Brindley's method of solving problems.

- Did you know that a French engineers' report concluded that it would be virtually impossible to build the the Panama Canal?

- Did you know Sunday School had an inventor?

I don't know what reminded me of this, but for years I've been bothered by some of the harrassment rules that have governed companies - at least in California. While I totally agree with the principle of not permitting harrassment and I agree with coming down hard on it when it occurs, and while I know at least one woman who used the process quite correctly, I've also seen the process abused over the years by some women who seem to think that it was invented expressly to prevent them from experiencing any inconvenience in their social lives.

Let me give a couple examples:

- I was a manager at a computer software company. A guy who reported to me asked a woman in the company if she would like to drive together to a meeting of a professional association they both belonged to. She reported him for sexual harrassment. He was not punished but he was crushed and humiliated.

- At another company a woman who reported to me told me that a guy from "the other side of the building who didn't have any business on our side of the building" had come around a number of times and had spoken to her on a few occasions. And, although she had not told him her name, he knew it. She was deeply offended. Sigh. I dutifully told the HR department and dutifully told her she needed to discuss it with the HR department directly and dutifully kept my mouth shut, but I really thought what she did was wrong. Here, some poor fellow, probably some nerdie tech guy, had the temerity to like her and find out what her name was and - horror of horrors - speak to her. And for that crime he was undoubtedly dragged into the HR department and humiliated.

I want to make clear that I don't blame HR departments for this. The HR people I've dealt with have been very professional and know some of the rules are absurdly vague, but they're stuck with them just like everybody else. I remember at one mandatory meeting on harassment the presenter essentially said that if you "look at someone" you may be guilty of harrassment. It would have been vague enough if she had said that you couldn't "look at someone in a lascivious manner" or something like that, but it was just "look at someone." She knew it was stupid and she was uncomfortable when I pointed out that everybody at that meeting was - at that very moment - guilty of harrassment, and that we were all guilty from the moment we walked into the building until we left at night. But what was she supposed to do? The law may be stupidly vague, but it was the law.

So, I reserve my contempt for those who make vague laws and for those few women who use HR departments to turn down (and humiliate) poor guys they do not happen to like.

I recently finished reading the book, Politics, by Aristotle. Though I certainly respect the guy, the one thing that really struck me about the book was something I thought did not reflect well on him.

I had always heard that Aristotle taught kind of a "moderation in all things" philosophy, which seemed to me to be a pretty good plan, but then I read the book and discovered that when he talked about "moderation in all things" he basically meant ALL things. He struck me as being kind of an extremist about moderation, so to speak.

Everything was going fine until the last section of the book, where he discusses education. One of his examples of a subject that should be on the curriculum of every good citizen is music. Okay, fine. But, he said, the citizen of a community should learn just enough about playing music to amuse himself and his friends during leisure times. He shouldn't try to become a really good musician because becoming excellent in such skills is only for servants, not for full citizens. So, in other words, being really excellent at any art or craft is for inferiors and is not worthy of those who are full citizens.

Ouch! No wonder the Industrial Revolution did not begin with the Greeks. No wonder their science was mostly theoretical. Those who say that science began during the Renaissance when people began throwing out Christian thinking and rediscovering Greek thinking are full of prunes! Undoubtedly Greek thinking was a big factor, but taken as a whole, if Aristotle is indicative of Greek thinking, I believe Greek thinking was as much a hinderance as a help to the rise of science.

The Bible study group I belong to has been studying the New Testament book of II Corinthians, and one thing that really struck me about the book is the lessons it gives on authority.

In this book the Apostle Paul attempts (among other things) to persuade the Corinthians that he is a true apostle, and that the so-called "super apostles" that the people have fallen for are not.

Before telling you how Paul makes the point that he is legit, let me tell you how he does not make his point. It struck me that if the early church was organized in a heirarchical fashion, then the most obvious thing for Paul to do would have been to say something like this: "I was appointed by the official church leadership to be an apostle. Those fakes were not. End of discussion!"

But he doesn't do that. He explains and praises and argues and pleads and threatens and is ironic and urges the people to consider how he has lived among them. He knows they're upset that he didn't visit them as he had planned, so he tells his reasons; he knows the false apostles have sown seeds of doubt about his integrity, so he reminds them that he has never taken any money from them. But though he seems to use every tool available to him - much as a distraught parent might with a child - he never once cites any earthly authority, only God: "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God."

Though not conclusive, this suggests to me that the early church was probably not organized in a thoroughly heirarchical fashion.

Also, Paul was collecting money for a church in great need (apparently the church in Jerusalem) and the churches in Greece/Macedonia appointed a man to accompany Paul to make sure the money was spent properly.

I am awestruck! The churches had that authority and the great apostle Paul was perfectly willing to be watched to make sure he didn't steal money. What a lesson in godly humility! And in light of this, how can any church or parachurch organization refuse to have regular audits or otherwise demonstrate to those who give that the money they receive is being properly used?