When we (and by 'we' I mean these bits of binary data and my sentient self) first launched I was posting weekly photo diaries as well as regular essay posts. Because the interface for presenting those aforementioned bits of information was rather specific and constrained I decided to make RSCR:Respond as an outlet for the content I create on a more casual level.

This caused my expression of ideas to be a lot more fluid but, ultimately initiated the demise of my regular photo diaries and essays. The essays are expendable since most of what is on RSCR:Respond is written but, I always like the idea of a photo diary and need to get on the horse and stick with it.

So, there you have it...my first New Years Resolution ever. Thanks so much for everyone who took the time to observe what I do; to just know that other people can have access to my work and ideas from anywhere in the world is truly a dream come true.

I haven't forgotten about Triage; late in its development I rethought how I wanted to present it so I'm refining my ideas and hope to have it up soon.

Oh and everyone who loves video games should pick up this and this.

With regard to those in need, the modern church has become the forum for an academic acknowledgement of the existence for those less fortunate with our mission conferences and visiting speakers who give an account of their recent exploits, an obvious precursor to the passing of the collection plate that will certainly follow. After a moment of internal debate we open our wallets, satisfied to sacrifice a twenty-dollar bill to appease the rumblings of guilt we feel steadily growing within us. I do not mean to downplay those moments of charity for they are essential to the work of Christ; missionaries need our monetary support to continue the calling they have from the Lord. But perhaps there is more to the act of giving than the mere reallocation of funds.

The first verse of Psalm 24 tells us that, “The earth is the Lord’s and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.” (NKJV) Through David’s eloquence we learn that our so-called act of giving is now revealed to be just the opposite, for the resources we surrendered were never ours in the first place. The prudent believer would undoubtedly then come to the conclusion that there is something deeper in the act of ‘giving’ that our Father in heaven wants us to learn; a more important lesson than the mere acquiescence of our material goods.

James needed to define religion for us because we are quick to forget that the blessings we graciously experience are not something that we are owed nor that their occurrence follows in the obligatory wake of some sort of good work. We make the assumption that if we believe in God that we will somehow experience the fruits not only of the spiritual life but of the physical world as well.

Bruce Wilkinson’s drivel laced, barely inspired exegetical travesty The Prayer of Jabez makes the brazen insinuation that if we pray earnestly enough for it that God will inevitably ‘expand our territory.’ Though the book centered on the spiritual aspect of the affair millions of copies were moved because the subtle extension of the message was that our bank accounts would move in suit; transcribing our monetary quarter-acre into a vast countryside of wealth. Another contributing factor to its success was the instinctual selfish palpability of its message: ‘Lord, expand MY territory, make MY influence bigger. Oh, and by ME I mean you.’ Even the pure-hearted believer seeking to use the book as a tool to reach their fellow co-workers and friends were given a watered down view of God, seeing Him as a mechanical blessings machine who will open the floodgates of spiritual influence when the correct password is uttered.

We must abandon the idea that we are doing anything of value when we take part in the act of giving, if it is to accomplish what God intends because He doesn’t need our money. We are doing our Lord no favors when we surrender our tithes and offerings instead, we become entwined in the sacred act of surrender. In doing this we acknowledge that it was God that brought these blessings to us, not our hard work; an act of faith which recognizes that just as God was gracious in providing in our past that He will continue to do so into the future. The blessing comes when we stop and acknowledge his provision not our own generosity. The Lord was not hungry for beef when He commanded the Israelites to sacrifice their finest bull to Him. It was through this act that God’s chosen people would recognize that without Him they would not have even the smallest dove on which to feed.

But what of our acts of giving that extend beyond our weekly tithes and offerings? How are we to care for the orphans and widows of the world? It is foolish to think that simply writing a check will fulfill this obligation. Think back to the numerous stories in the gospels about Jesus’ healing exploits, but instead of an instance of miraculous healing imagine the act as a monetary gift. A crippled hand becoming well again will positively affect the quality of life to the beggar just as a check for $100 will provide food for the poor widow. But what if the provision stopped there? Certainly if Jesus were alive today he wouldn’t take up post on a street corner, writing out checks to all of us who were in need of paying the rent. It was the coupling of His miraculous acts with a demonstration of love and a subtle lesson of the beyond that made Jesus’ ministry so potently flawless in it’s representation of the divine.

The major intentional thrust of Jesus’ ministry on earth was to inform us of first, His claim to the throne; second, our sin-riddled lives and lastly, our dire need for a savior. It was certainly not limited to merely making the lame walk and the blind see. Those miraculous acts of physical impossibility that accompanied the message were simply vehicles to take the scales off of our spiritual eyes and instill in us a faith that could offer eternal salvation. Jesus, after being mercilessly beaten at the hands of the Sanhedrin, told Pilate plainly that He was ‘not the king of this world,’ making it clear to us all that we must forsake our concern with this world and shift our eyes to the next.

Though we may purpose to focus ourselves on the glorious horizon of Christ’s Second Coming we are, in the meantime, on this earth and must make the best use of our present circumstances. Though our primary concern in giving is surrender, its consequential effects of reallocating wealth are often immediately beneficial to the work of God. The electrical company expects that all its customers pay their bills on time and we can not foolishly count on coins from the mouths of fishes or dollar bills falling like mana from heaven to supplement the checks our churches write to keep the lights on. Tithing is an essential act of the church member but what is often missing is our offering; the amount we are called to give beyond our weekly ten percent.

The concept of giving an offering beyond the required tithe was first introduced in Deuteronomy 12:6-7 when God commands the Israelites that, “All of your sacrifices and offerings must be taken there, including sacrifices to please the Lord and any gift you promise or voluntarily give him. That’s where you must also take one tenth of your grain, wine and olive oil, as well as the first born of your cattle, sheep, and goats. You and your family and servants will eat your gifts and sacrifices and celebrate there at the place of worship because the LORD your God has made you successful in everything you have done.”(CEV) Even though the Lord requires that they bring Him tribute He gives it directly back to them in the form of a feast showing His magnificent benevolence in appreciation for their obedience and belief. During this time the Israelites were crossing the Jordan and being constantly engaged in battle, hardly a time to have a lavish feast, which would seriously diminish their rationed food stores. This type of celebration was an exercise in faith for God’s chosen people and an example from scripture that exhibits God’s call on us to be lavish givers when it is time to produce our offerings.

Many believers today often wonder how much they should give; paralyzed about whether or not it is enough, insufficient or if the money they give will be used wisely by the party who received it. Stewardship should always be at the forefront of our minds when we give to a ministry just as it is at any other time we have to spend money but it should never be used as a scapegoat to explain our stinginess. Many Christians I know become uncomfortable when they pass a homeless man, avoiding eye contact and nervously asserting that they didn’t want to give him their spare change because he would inevitably, ‘just spend it on drugs or alcohol.’ Though this may be true in many cases what is always true is that this beggar does have a need and as Christians we are called to satisfy it. My grandfather, Roy Sturtevant, died when I was only two years old but a story my mother has told me about him has resonated deeply about the proper conduct of the Christian giver.

Whenever my grandfather would encounter a homeless person or someone in need he would forgo throwing a few coins into a coffee cup preferring instead to extend a hand and bring them to a restaurant for a sit down meal. While his guest would dive into their hot meal he would use this time to share Christ with them; transforming their brief mealtime encounter into an opportunity to offer spiritual food as well. The offering in this scenario is expressed not just in the money it took to buy the man food, for my grandfather’s meager salary from the church was barely enough to feed his own family, but also in the sacrifice of his time. In addition to his pastoral duties he ran a small farm and the fact that he was in town delineates that he was there for a purpose. Just as the Good Samaritan diverted his travel plans to help a man in need so did my grandfather; postponing his errands to act as Christ would by feeding the hungry and giving them a glimpse of the eternal.

It is our duty as followers of Christ to always be at the ready for whatever sacrifice is demanded in any given situation. Our offerings can be expressed in any number of ways: whether it is writing a check to a ministry we believe in, providing a hot meal for the hungry or taking the time to share Christ with those we encounter even if it serves to disrupt our carefully crafted schedules. All of Jesus’ encounters with those in need where unplanned occurrences as he walked through the countryside of Galilee, through the temple courts or even by midnight appointment when he chose instead to talk to Nicodemus rather than sleep. Our Lord provides us opportunities to both give to those in need and to serve in the furthering of His ministry on a daily basis, not just on our mission trips and scattered excursions to the soup kitchen. It then becomes our duty to open our eyes and seek them out.

Heisenberg's revelation was not canonized right away for at the time science was viewed as the observation of the absolute. The world was viewed as an entity, which could be observed with despotic certainty by measuring its qualities and parts at a specific moment. For example: one could discern what time it was by observing the position of the hands on a clock paired with the understanding that time functions on the premise of progression by the repeated addition of equally measured moments. Due to the altercation of a given particle's position from where it was a moment before observation, the understanding of the sub-atomic was now split into two dimensional categories: reality and common sense. Reality is the state of the particle at the time it was measured and common sense uses reason to speculate on the particle's position if it had been unaltered by the tool used for its measurement. These both became valid explanations in the field of science even though the common sense value could never be absolutely confirmed.

In reflecting on Dr. Heisenberg's revelation I thought of the tools of human invention we use to discern and understand God, who is infinitely greater in mystery than even the subatomic particles being researched by Heisenberg. We often claim the workings of God's hands in our lives when the result we observe is favorable. I have often heard many friends of mine express to me the times at which they felt God was watching over them or protecting them when they experienced such an emotional event as a near fatal car crash. Almost instinctually we equate our blessings with a benevolent Father, one who loves us and watches over our every move. However when we experience pain we choose to abandon God by trading our past recognition for His provision for an atheistic worldview that diminishes the good we experience into merely an imagined stimulus that released endorphins into our brains.

God, as a concept, is appealing to us in times of plenty, not because of the good that was provided but because we think that by recognizing the existence of an invisible hand of generosity its provision will continue on into the future. When we experience pain, however, we violently reject the notion claiming selfishly that if God existed and really loved us that this never would have happened.

The unenlightened human is nothing more than a selfish collection of expectations, demands and impulses that changes its concepts of the divine at a whim due to the shifting forces of its current reality. The caustic feelings of rejection and disappointment we experience are the direct result of our lacking the ability to construct a reality that lives up to our manufactured expectations, not God's inability to stand between us and the pain we so desperately seek to avoid. God's plan for our lives only becomes sovereign and good when it contains the 'blessings' we demand. The true Christian life is to function at the opposite end of the spectrum where one has faith that His plan, though at times painful, is sovereign and perfect.

The first time one experiences this sublimely perfect moment of surrender to faith it is liberating in its simple execution and divine connotations. Faith is so intoxicating in fact that the Christian may often abandon any sense of logic and reason to a life lived wholly on this spiritualistic mooring. After reading the preceding sentence one may admire a Christian who is able to make such a leap but is that what we are called by Christ to do? Is God's desire that we all become fanatics who become quick to forsake reason at first chance? I firmly believe that any blind adherence to extremes of any kind are very dangerous and this essay will endeavor to address the modern Christian’s present state of scattered and inconsistent reliance on faith.

Today's Christian looks for guidance from three sources: scripture, prayer and the Holy Spirit. Due to the subjective nature of both prayer and ones relation to the Holy Spirit, validation of proper direction from these sources can be obtained through study and support from scripture. Scripture, in terms of its validity as a trustworthy document, is discerned through reason, academic study and historical investigation. Many key concepts found in the Bible, such as Christ's resurrection from the dead, can never be absolutely academically proved so one's acceptance of their truth relies through revelation through the Holy Spirit and prayer. This circular, canonical interdependence of the elements of the Christian faith in no way threatens its cogency; rather it asserts its power as the tie that binds the physical to the spiritual.

As Christians we use the defined moral code found in the Bible as a guide for how we should act, citing scripture as the authoritative word of God in which we must obey. In order to discern what is taught in the Bible we use the traditional modes of interpretation found in modern academics as well as the simple science of common sense. However, when a question arises that endeavors investigate an occurrence that is, at the outset, incongruent to the teachings found in scripture, a Christian will often decide that it is best to just believe by faith and trust that in time the wrinkles will be ironed out.

For example: the Bible never states that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, the science of math was applied to the names and ages listed in Adam's chronology and thus the age of earth was determined. However when this same principle of mathematics is applied to earth being millions of years old by the measuring the gasses displaced during half-life of a Uranium 232 atom that was trapped by flowing lava and untouched by water, it is considered invalid and untrusted by the 'faithful' Christian community as some sort of witchcraft. This selective embrace of the sciences threatens to alienate an entire sect of humanity from the Christian faith who finds this as the absolute expression of intellectual dishonesty.

Many Christians fear questions because we are anxious that our faith will be undone in our heretical search to 'disprove God' despite Jesus telling us in Matthew 7:7 that if we ask it will be given to us, seek and we will find, knock and the door will be opened. At the time our savior spoke these words to us there was no New Testament, no councils of Nicea or Trent dictating our canon, just the words of the Jewish Messiah and whether or not one chose to accept them. A balance between these two extremes of literal interpretation and the adherence to an ethereal faith evidences a healthy faith in Christ.

Which brings me back to Heisenberg. An article published on September 2, 1927 in the New York Times article "Details Concepts of Quantum Theory" stated that attempting to explicate his revolutionary quantum theory to the uninitiated was akin to telling "an Eskimo what the French language is like without talking French. In other words the theory cannot be expressed pictorially and mere words mean nothing. One is dealing with something that can be expressed only mathematically."

The origin of our faith in Christ is something similar: perhaps we heard a pastor give a moving message, a passage of scripture resonated with us or we looked for a creator behind the beauty we experience in nature. Some evidence was presented and we were compelled to look deeper but upon reaching the core of what we searched for our discovery was something so terrific, so marvelous and so magnificent that we could not hope to grasp the whole of it with our miniscule minds. Only faith could weave it all together for us, producing a puzzle we will forever be engaged in solving while providing morsels of insight for us to brood over with each piece properly placed.

Just as the abstract and perfect science of mathematics is used to fill in the gaps left by observation in quantum theory our faith must be the thread that binds the ever changing quilt of scripture, history, observation and morality into a lifestyle that believes in a God that we do not fully understand yet trusts all the while that He is perfect, pure, holy and knows what is absolutely best for us.

An academic who seeks to scientifically prove all the miraculous events in the Bible is on a fools errand just as much as the mystic who greets each valid question to his beliefs with the statement, 'Well you just have to have faith.' We are called by God to never cease in our search for Him, whether it be with the mysterious language of our hearts or in the unrelenting tenacity of reason, a gift He gave to us with the full intention that we would use it. There is no question He cannot answer, no concept He cannot reveal and no contention that will baffle His infinite mind.

Due to our limited time on this earth and our finite intellect, our search for answers will never be complete but that revelation does not in anyway excuse our mental lethargy; the fact that we will not finish the race does not mean we should cease in our endeavor to run it. Thomas Jefferson said it best in his Notes on Virginia: "A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge."

On many occasions I have endeavored to explain the viewpoint that there is a possibility that God, who has the ultimate attributes of being all-good, all-knowing and all-loving, may not have the capacity to know the future. If you are a life-long Christian, like myself, you might find yourself stooping to the ground in search of a good rock to stone me with but in the spirit of debate I ask you to drop your anti-heretical weapons and humor me for a moment.

I have adopted a view of God that mirrors that closely of the Anselmian definition first suggested in the 11th century by Anselm of Canterbury. His definition states that God is the most absolutely perfect being and possesses every attribute that is favorable to have and lacks every attribute that is unfavorable. For example: it is favorable to be all-powerful, therefore God is all omnipotent but God lacks the attribute of being able to sin because that would infringe upon his being perfect. Lacking the ability to sin does not limit God's power it simply defines his purity, which is another essential attribute to a perfect being since purity is a more favorable attribute than impurity.

If taking this line of reasoning one would be astute in pointing out that it would be more favorable for God to know the future over not knowing the future therefore if one uses the Anselmian definition it is safe to say that God must know the future. At the outset this seems to make perfect sense but in doing so you are making the assumption that the future is something that can be known and forgetting the essential variable of our free will, which I will address first.

A commonly held theological belief of the Christian church is that God gave the gift of free choice (the ability to choose between right and wrong) to man which distinguishes him from beast. (I should also note here that though sin exists it was not created by God but came into being because of the result of our imperfect choices. God did not create the computer, man did, but only because of the gifts of intellect and creativity that he endowed us with.) The first major catalyst change in the history of humanity took place when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and were thrown from the Garden of Eden due to their sinful actions. This shows God's displeasure in sin and His intolerance of it. How then could we truly have free-choice if God knows the future? If God knows exactly what will happen at every second of every day; knowing when we will sin, which in the Bible is defined as actions punishable by death (Romans 6:23), and when we will do right, than wouldn't it be logical to conclude that our actions are pre-destined and thusly, that we do not have free choice?

Dr. Robin Collins explicates this point with a terrific little example. He has a robotic dog that has a simple control mechanism attached to it by a cord. When he pressed one button, the dog begins to walk forward and is rewarded with praise for a job well done. When he presses the other button, however, the dog begins to yap loudly and he scolds the dog, angry that it did wrong all the while knowing that when he pressed the button he knew exactly what would happen. If God knows the exact future than when He created the entire world He would have known, far in advance, that it's inhabitants, if given the gift of free choice, would sin and therefore be punished for it; just as the designers of the robotic dog know that when pressing a certain button that the dog would bark loudly. To me that seems to me to be the antithesis of an all-loving God.

So, where do we go from here? Atheism? Gnosticism? How, after explicating these points, could one even remotely entertain the thought of the existence of the all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful traditional God of theism? If God knows the exact future how can He be all loving and how can we have free will? If He doesn't know the future how can God be all-knowing? This essay will argue that God does not know the exact future but that even in spite of this He is still omniscient.

When faced with the seemingly incongruent assertions found in scripture, theology and philosophy I have often wanted to sit down with God, across some sort of grand table and ask him a million or so questions. I have no doubt that if they were valid questions with valid answers that He would be more than apt and ready to answer them clearly and concisely (though it would be pretty rad if it was done all in the forms of mysterious koans). But what if I asked God an invalid question? One that does not have an answer like, what sort of atmosphere exists on the planet Cyrtaneous 4? There is no Cyrtaneous, never mind four of them and the answer to that question does not exist. Though the question makes sense, its subject is a product of my imagination; a figment of fantasy whose existence in my mind does not ensure it's physical reality.

A common assumption made by the human mind is that there is such thing as a future and that, in turn, it could be known by God. The future is a concept; we can never get to it because once we are there it becomes the present. We use it to explicate examples like, "when Susie turns 21 she will have a drink of alcohol" though this statement may turn out to be true only one Susie exists, and at the moment she is only 16. Barring any tangential discussions of Hawking, there is no 21 year old Susie currently enjoying a martini in the future while we wait for 16 year old Susie to come join her. The statement, "when Susie turns 21 she will have a drink of alcohol" is a prediction of action for the future when Susie reaches that determinant point in time. Because we can, to a certain degree, control our actions we, whether consciously or unconsciously, believe that there could be a future out there which exists because of our present intentions.

No better example exists to illustrate this point than in the movie Back To The Future where Marty McFly frantically plays his guitar as he watches the picture of his family fading. He believes if he doesn't do everything exactly right that his parents will not end up falling in love and copulate to produce both his siblings and himself. If time is in fact a determinant chain of events which is built on the immediately preceding events wouldn't Marty cease to exist until the moment his parents consummated their union? Certainly Marty would be fading the moment he was hit by her father’s car and she began to fall in love with him and not just at the moment at the dance when the love between the future McFly's love seemed doomed to failure. This point may prove irrelevant to my argument but I simply can't resist expounding upon apparent inconsistencies in film.

The same can be said for the past: it simply doesn't exist. There is no magical hard-drive that chronicles all our past actions and forever replays them, hoping we will come to visit and meddle with what once was.

In terms of the Christian life these random musings can find root in the Old Testament story of when God appeared to Moses in the form of the burning bush. In Exodus 3:14 God describes himself to Moses in this fashion, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you." It's is not, the Great I WAS (though He was) or the great I'LL BE (though He will) but the great I AM. God's greatness, His love, and His involvement in our lives is taking place right now and it's only our imperfection, pride and selfishness that bars us from seeing it. Our creator is always willing to work at improving this sin-soaked world we have ruined but we must give Him license to by our unrivaled submission.

Here's a wonderful example from scripture. The story of Jonah is probably my most favorite tale in the entire Bible. Besides the undeniably cool occurrence of a prophet of God being eaten by a whale Pinocchio style it has the foundational moral pillars of submission to God, hope for change and God's grace-filled acceptance of an apology from a nation of amoral sinners.

First a brief recap of the important events: Jonah is called by God to go to the wicked nation of Nineveh and let them know they will be destroyed because of their ignorance to the edicts of God. Jonah is mortally afraid of the Ninevites so he decides to take a boat to Tarshish. God becomes angry at Jonah's defiance and sends a massive storm that threatens to destroy the ship. Jonah admits to the crew that it's his God who is causing it due to his lack of submission. Jonah jumps ship, the storm stops and he's eaten by a whale (great fish) to boot. Jonah prays and asks for forgiveness while inside the belly of the whale and God hears his plea and orders the great fish to vomit up Jonah on the shores of Nineveh. While in Nineveh Jonah warns that the people have 40 days to repent or the Lord will destroy them. Upon hearing the news they turn from their wickedness as explicated in Jonah 3:10, "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened."

In the aforementioned passage it is plain to see that God acted in direct response to the contrition of the Ninevites. In verse 10 it doesn't say, 'God really knew the Ninevites were going to repent far in advance but thought it'd be fun to threaten them with some brimstone and hellfire.' God gave them fair warning and a 40 day time limit to either freely choose repentance or the pending punishment. I honestly believe that God gave the people of the nation of Nineveh the gift of free-will and that if they were not repentant they would have been destroyed.

God issued this same type of warning to Abraham that Sodom and Gomorrah would be destroyed due to their immorality in Genesis 18:16-33. Abraham even persuaded God to search not for the original fifty righteous who would save the city but bartered him down to only ten. Though both Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed the Lord would have honored his agreement with Abraham if he had in fact found that there were ten worthy inhabitants.

As explicated in the two prior examples, God's actions can be influenced, not necessarily dictated, by our actions, which derive from an autonomous, free-willed core. I firmly believe that God has a plan for our lives but we do not necessarily have to follow it; we have been given license to do as we please through the gift of free-will. We don't have to extend to God a role in our lives though we cannot help but be intertwined into His ultimate plan.

To think that God would have a predestined 'plan' that would include the specific knowledge of our fall into sin and whether or not an individual would chose to follow Him is inconsistent with his characteristic of being all-loving. If God would allow a child to come into being that he would unequivocally know, prior to their birth, would not choose salvation through Jesus Christ He would be essentially pre-determining their place in Hell, which is inconsistent with the characteristic of being all-loving.

God's involvement in our life adjusts organically to each choice we make, whether it be the decision He would have us to make or the innumerable mistakes we choose instead. Either way He is there in the next moment, forgiving arms open welcoming us back home like the prodigal son.

So how does all this relate to the future and whether or not God knows it? Well, in a world created by God that was pure, perfect and unmarred by sin, everything in it would have a defined optimal way to behave and would thus be absolutely predictable. When God created the human race he limited it in both power and knowledge because no being can be greater or equal to God. He also endowed us with free-choice, even if that opened the door of possibility to whether or not we would choose Him, in order that we would love Him out of a conscious decision and not a robotic, instructed action. As a result of this our actions become unpredictable for at the onset of any decision of choice we have the ability to choose either right (God's way) or wrong (any other conceivable choice whose possibilities are innumerable).

If God were to know exactly how we would act when confronted with a particular situation (post humanity's fall to sin) then our actions would be pre-destined since God created our world and knows exactly how we would behave. If that is the case then we do not have free will. How can a person who was made by a perfect being be placed in a world that would fall to sin, which God KNEW would happen, and how it would affect their individual consciousness in a particular way, be condemned for it's actions? That doesn't characterize an all-loving nor all-perfect God!

Then you may ask, "why would God, a supposedly perfect being, create a world he knew would fall to sin?" God's greatest attribute and gift to give is that of love. God knew that in order to have a world with the highest form of love He would have to not only lavish it upon his creation but offer them the ability to freely love Him back. Because God offered us free choice He knew this world had a capacity for sin but he also understood that in order to make beings that could experience truly loving Him, He would have to also give them the option of rejecting Him. This decision to offer the ability to freely choose love is the ultimate explication of his central attribute of being all-loving.

God's gift to us of free will ensures no absolutely determined future can exist; the plane of existence known as the present is created by our immediately preceding actions that cannot be truly determined millennia in advance because of our ability to choose at any moment between right and wrong. God is ignorant of sin and doesn't know, when confronted with a given situation, how anyone could ever choose anything but the most perfect, all-loving choice. He only knows how to respond to those imperfect choices perfectly, forever maintaining absolute control and never once forfeiting even the smallest morsel of power. Therefore God is a constant state of reacting instantly to our imperfect choices with a perfect plan that he wants to actively include us in but only if we invite him to work in our lives.

The reaction to that last paragraph by any prudent, rational Christian is to bring into question how there could possibly be such thing as prophecy if this is the case. What of the book of Revelation? If it's events were to transpire today wouldn't they have needed to been set in stone at least two millennia prior? The assumption that is made in those questions is that prophecy is impossible if one cannot know the exact future, and I would argue that it does not.

Garry Kasparov, who is widely known as the greatest chess player of all time, is unequalled in his prowess of the game. He was so unbeatable in fact that IBM took up the challenge of creating a computer that would defeat him, becoming a monumental event that would pit man against machine.

The first chess computer built for the task was named 'Deep Thought' and was handily defeated by Kasparov. It's more formidable younger brother, 'Deep Blue', and it's strategy of brute force however, would prove more difficult. After each move of Kasparov's IBM's Super Computer would process 50 Million computations per second and make it's next move based on what it calculated to be the 'best possible.' It did this by analyzing every possible next move by every piece left on the board and then the next thousand or so possible moves Garry could take from there and then narrow it down to what it 'thought' to be his most likely next move. It then used this algorithm of likely predictability, based on IBM's exhaustive research into Kasparov's strategies, to forecast what it viewed to be the best possible move, from the 100-200 billion it computed over the three-minute time limit each player was given, to counter his strategy while simultaneously setting up it's own game-plan for victory.

It truly was a marvel of modern computing. The scary thing was: Garry won. Just as Deep Blue was watching and calculating Garry's every move, Kasparov was watching back, noticing the computer's near perfect reaction to his strategic maneuvering. So how did he win? Kasparov would enact one of his trademark strategies and waited for the computer to follow blindly in its wake, knowing exactly how the computer would move to best counteract his strategy. Once he had gotten Deep Blue's pieces where he really wanted them he immediately switched his approach, slowly and painstakingly bringing Deep Blue closer to it's demise. Though Kasparov ended up losing to the later versions of the computer (which he classified as unfair because he claimed they had programmed the machine not to just play chess but to play chess only against him) that first big victory by Kasparov showed that it is reactionary strategy to the present state of the pieces on the board and not painstaking planning of where they could be in the future that ensures victory. It became a catalyst event that let paranoid readers of Isimov everywhere breathe a collective sigh of relief as well as offering further proof that there must be an intelligent creator behind the marvelous design of the human mind.

The same can be said of God's omniscience and his ability to communicate the end times to the prophets even though the exact future was not yet set it stone. The end of the physical world as we know it and the game of chess have something in common: a defined ending. In chess it is when one player takes the other's king, in the end times it is when Christ returns to reclaim his church. God, like a master chess player, is constantly maneuvering his pieces; adjusting his approach and preparing for the end of the world all the while doing so in instant reaction to the events taking place on earth. Since we are only ever in the present God reacts instantly to these scenarios and is therefore always in control. Because of God's unlimited power and abilities he is able to not only guarantee the outcome but also give specifics on how it will all happen. This model of God accounts for his abilities of omniscience, omnipotence and all-loving nature while still allowing for the true existence of our free-will.

So in summation, does God know the future? If the future can be known, then yes, but to assume it's quantitative existence and therefore, it's ability to be known, is an assumption that I feel is quite dangerous to make.

I don't want to seem like an elitest here but seriously, if you're using Internet Explorer you gotta get with the times and break your dependency on that outdated and featureless web browser. On the Mac use Safari and if on the PC there's this infinitely excellent little browser that's free and simply amazing called Firefox. Download it immediately.

And there was much rejoicing. . .