Countering Anti-#BLM Lies

I saw a post on Facebook by one of my Facebook friends in Canada regarding the Black Lives Matter (#BLM) movement which pleasantly surprised me because of how accurately she was able to capture the essence of the movement especially now that we are noticing a concerted effort to de-legitimize the movement. I simply clicked the "like" button for that Facebook post and left not realizing that some serious discussions were raging down in the comments box. Somehow my attention was drawn to it, and upon reading the comments that followed, I realized that there were certain claims or lines of arguments that were being trotted out to silence the movement which needed to be countered. 

First of all, since I have now read them, I have to confess that I am baffled as to how people in other parts of the world can truly understand or empathize with the severity of  the terrible legacy of slavery and institutional racism in the US—especially how it has manifested in the lopsided or disproportionate incarcerations or killings of the black minority population—WHILE some people just across the border in Canada completely fail to recognize this. Are they truly that insulated, that aloof, that disconnected from these sad realities? Or is this just a case of intentionally turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the issue? I loathe to dismiss some with contrarian views as fundamentally comprehension-challenged, however it seems to be the most charitable characterization if one does not simply want to label them closet racists.

Now let's review some of the false claims now being leveled in arguing against the Black Lives Matter movement (claims which anyone with a functioning internet connection can check up on and refute):

Consider this quote:

…. If 6 months ago I started wearing a shirt that said White Lives Matter. Do u not think that would be offensive? Do u not think if I wore that around Regina or the University people would think I was a racist? I honestly find the entire black lives matter movement to be racist. It discriminates against all other races and perpetuates hate and disconnection.

White Lives have always mattered in the US and I suspect in Canada as well. Printing "White Lives Matter" on your t-shirt, if you are white, is just redundant. To use a terrible example, it would be like clamoring for a "Straight Pride Parade" day after witnessing a "Gay Pride Parade" day. Or for a "White History Month" after witnessing a "Black History Month". Anyone with any firing neurons would readily recognize that these days, parades etc are simply for recognizing and supporting minorities whose interests and vital contributions have not always been recognized. The unstated but obvious fact is that "Straightness" has always been the norm, the recognized, the celebrated. Or in the other case, that month was marked out to recognize and celebrate Black contributions—not because Whites did not contribute meaningfully, but that as the majority population, the rest of the months are, without explicitly stating it, already recognizing White contributions. As a matter of fact, you could argue that most of what passes for American history is "White American" history in this corner of the globe—even though there was significant contributions by people of other "races". 

Change, Thy Name Is Death!

Sometimes I let my mind roam. When I do, I find myself pondering some issues. Well, now I am thinking of that cold inevitable destiny of all living flesh—Death. Yes, it is a topic that people shy away from for its transparently gloomy nature. But if we are to fully appreciate each breath, each waking moment then we must make time every now and then to ponder on death. Oh that man could fully understand what lies behind the grey curtains of Mortality! That great veil cast formidably over all living matter! Would that people could experience, even if only briefly the transition brought about by Death!

You see, you've been told that at death, you cease to exist. You've been told that once you breathe your last, and lay down your once proud head in submission to the cold grip of Death, everything about you comes to a final end. You have been told that your body decomposes quickly to nourish the plethora of soil-inhabiting devourers of carrion, and that that's where the story ends. But of course, your intelligence rebels against this because you perceive yourself to also be something much more intangible than your material composition; something much more enduring; something much more profound. Your consciousness rebels because you find it difficult to accept that your rational incorporeal parts will simply get lost—thermodynamic laws or not! Why indeed should life exist—in a world of indescribable pain and suffering one may hasten to add—if Life's teleological imperative is nothing more than Death? And how indeed can you explain to other equally immortal fellow travelers, though they be blissfully unaware or painfully unimaginative, the great realms you might have traveled to when you allowed yourself to be rid of your ideologically-driven, perception-limiting, earth-bound shackles? For indeed, you do realize that you can shut your eye for a moment and be totally and instantly transported to vistas grand and indescribable in beauty; and in like manner, you can also find yourself, complete with your rational and sensory attributes, away from your present physical state or from erstwhile scenes of glory into scenes of squalor. With a clarity unfettered by the strictures of contemporary science, you know within yourself that you are part of some undying—though changing—life stream.

Having convinced yourself on your own immortality—a conviction which persists in you despite the familiar taunting of Godless skeptics who would fain be addressed as scientists—you are once again left with the nagging question of why you are apprehensive and unsettled by the idea of death. Yes, that fearsome foe that has in time humbled all tenants of this house of clay! The truth is that no matter how much you try not to think about it, one thing is certain. It is the fact that with time, everything returns to dust; with time, the hair turns grey, and the breasts sag, and the powerful limbs grow weak, and the eyes grow dim. As Death approaches closer and blows his breath on you: your muscles atrophy, and the brain turns to mush and can hardly remember what it has always known. Yes, youthful beauty fades, adolescent vivacity disappears, and juvenescent strength is gone. Finally, when Death, like a punctual creditor, knocks at the door of this temporal tabernacle, to collect his due doubtlessly, the indwelling Man, without choice or resistance, links his arm with Death and trudges off into that deep dark unknown.

Stephanie and Josh: Love’s Growing Pains III

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains II

“Hey Steph,” Josh began, jolting Stephanie back to reality away from her flurry of thoughts; “I want to tell you that I am actually happy to see you again. You are looking very stunning by the way” Josh said in a soft measured tone. It was as if in the stillness of that evening’s drive, Josh had begun to think seriously about his future with Stephanie. He took a sideways glance at her and smiled.

“Thanks, you are not bad-looking yourself. All you need is to take a shower after and you’d be as radiant as I used to remember” Stephanie said smiling.

The discussions flowed from there as they began to talk in somber and serious tones about their present lives. Stephanie spoke about her company dramatically downsizing and letting a significant number of former employees leave. She spoke about how her drive and work ethic were the only things that helped to persuade her employers to keep her even though she took a little pay cut to retain her position. She also wasn’t too happy with the fact that they moved her away from New York City. But with the spate of firings going on around her as businesses began to crumble and disappear, she thought it best to remain with a guaranteed job until she could find something better. After all, it wasn’t as though she was not earning enough money to be very comfortable. She suggested rather comically, while looking at Josh, that it was providence that brought her back to Indiana, for she queried, if she hadn’t returned, how indeed they could be having this date.

Josh listened attentively and smiled whenever Stephanie chuckled. In his mind, he was remembering the spontaneous and free-spirited woman he used to love. As the discussions carried on, it became clearer to Josh that she was still fun to hang out with.

He looked sideways again at Stephanie who had strangely fallen silent, staring intently, as he began to talk about himself. This was because the cute smile on his face had disappeared and was replaced with a sad, somewhat pained expression. It was as if he was having great difficulty expressing himself. That keen expression struck a familiar chord in her. It was that same dazed, innocent and painfully-obvious look that he had when she first met him in New York.

He began by narrating about the loss of his mother to cancer the year before and how it completely devastated him and his only sister. Then he recounted the stress of his job, and how it severely impinged on his social life. He talked about his desire to leave Indiana for one of the really big cities out there where he could actually get to enjoy life in between the hectic hours at his current job of saving lives. Then he spoke of a recent heart surgery that he and his medical crew performed which failed to save a young girl—how the loss of that poor girl’s life sent him into throes of sadness and guilt for many days. It didn’t even help matters that he did not have a serious dedicated woman in his life at that time to help him out in his time of great emotional distress.

Atheists On The Run

In which a discussion is raised on the cowardly evasion of Richard Dawkins:

I don't know A. C. Grayling's reasons for not wanting to debate, but, if I remember correctly, Dawkins doesn't do debates anymore. There's a reason he hasn't done one for years. As far as I know, he declared himself out of debating theists even before Craig's current clarion call for a head to head debate. If anyone knows better, I'm open to being corrected.

I’ll start out by informing the initiator of this discussion thread that the president of the British Humanist Association Polly Toynbee has pulled out of an agreed debate with Dr. William Lane Craig in October claiming as her reason that she “hadn’t realized the nature of Mr. Lane’s debating style.”

It will be useful to provide a little bit of backdrop to this story.

First of all, I’ll encourage you to disregard the duplicitous pretensions by Mr Dawkins in this matter. I’ll get to it later. Let’s just state that for brevity’s sake, Dawkins’ staunch and inflexible refusal to debate Mr. Lane Craig, a formidable apologist for Christian Theism, has lately begun to sit uncomfortably with his fellow university professors and other eminent personalities in the skeptical movement. When a lot of hullaballoo was made about his seeming cowardice on the matter, even as he continues to reap handsome profits from the sale of a God-bashing book, Miss Toynbee decided to toss her hat in the ring to protect as it were, the ‘reputation’ of atheism or secular humanism from charges of being intellectually incapable of defending their beliefs and convictions.

So, she signed up to debate Craig when he visits the UK this fall as he challenges the fallacious fulminations in "The God Delusion" and defends Christian Theism against the now-fashionable assault by many of today’s New Atheists. There had to be a reason why Dawkins was running scared of Craig, but of course at the time, it will be fair to say that poor Miss Polly Toynbee was not cognizant of this. So you’ll have to admire her guts or bravery for offering to take on Mr. Craig. But upon closer inspection, it quickly begins to look like that all-too-familiar arrogance and hubris that unfortunately affects a lot of these New Atheists. Who on earth could Mr Craig be anyway that one ought to think twice about a debate with him? What preposterous and laughter-worthy points is some so-called philosopher from America going to raise to successfully attack atheism or skepticism anyway? Why bother to do any research on this chap? It is not likely that he would be on the same intellectual footing as we fashionable God-abolishers with his mumbo jumbo about the existence of God, so why are some respectable academics in the atheism and skeptical movements apprehensive of a debate with the fellow? So with nary a thought, and of course brimming with her cocky self-assurance, she offered to debate Mr. Craig without as much as knowing anything about the man.

In hindsight, it is rather hilarious that the woman chickened out of the debate afterwards. In all honesty, I cannot blame her much. My guess is that not too long after she cavalierly threw her hat in the ring, her handlers apprised her of the formidable nature of her opposition. Now, I am not going to suggest that she was painted a flattering picture of William Lane Craig, but whatever she was told, she was made to understand in unmistakable terms what heavy intellectual and perhaps political toll would be her portion from a widely publicized debate in which her highfalutin secular humanism or atheism was intellectually, imperiously and conclusively dealt a devastating blow. The fact is that for all the bluster, or the haughty pretension to a superior knowledge on the God-question, many of these militant evangelistic atheists and secular humanists are shockingly and I daresay disturbingly under-informed on exactly what they are supposed to be against. She can thank her lucky stars that she got out of a very severe public embarrassment.

Considering Mildred

One day, during the past 90 days, whether in a vision or a trance I cannot tell, save that I was transported out of my busy and familiar bearings to some peculiar and distant place. As I looked around me wondering what manner of place this was, an unknown voice speaking in rich cadences called out to me and urged me to observe a certain damsel which was to be revealed to me shortly. I knew not what manner of assignment this was or indeed why I would be thus chosen to undertake this task but there was something quite urgent about the voice that spoke to me, which altogether ruled out the possibility of my disobedience.

I did not have to wait for long either—for soon after that imperious voice came to me straight like a bolt from the blue, I could see clearly in front of me, a damsel that I had come to know as Mildred. I looked at her and called out her name, temporarily forgetting my ethereal state, but when she looked in my general direction and then walked past me, it dawned on me immediately that she could not perceive me. I could follow her everywhere she went, overhear her discussions with the people around her, and even occasionally be privy to her innermost thoughts and feelings –all without her faintest knowledge about my ever-present supervision. This fact struck me with singular force; and for a while, compelled against my will, I was granted the ability to trail a friend so as to observe her in close quarters, for reasons which are, as far as I could decipher, unknown.

Mildred—that verily is her name—I soon came to discover was a complex daughter of Eve. At this juncture perhaps, I should attempt to describe her outward form. She was roughly 5 feet and 5 or 6 inches, with a chocolate brown skin which I can imagine might be described as flawless in some fashion circles. Her face was oval or perhaps more accurately round, with the cutest pinchable cheeks ever. She had a full shock of flowing jet black hair which she styled as differently as her mood permitted—sometimes, all shifted to one side of her head concealing one jewel-adorned ear; at other times she would let them drop gradually in front of her face scarcely concealing her somewhat prominent but expressive forehead. Set in that beautiful rounded face were a pair of bright, oval-shaped and as I beheld them, very earnest eyes. She had a piercing glance when she looked at you as though she could see into the very innermost recesses of your soul. If, as they say, the eyes are a window to the soul, her window though being large were somewhat covered with a blind—so that even though you may look upon her face, and see the expression dictated by her expressive eyes, you may not fathom what strange, shatteringly complex thoughts were roaming freely in her mind.

Of Ethnic Chauvinism In Nigerian Circles

(A Fashionable Restaurant and Bar in Lagos. As usual, Nigerians of different ethnic groups are present. They are having a discussion in between copious servings of Peppersoup, Amala, Isiewu, and other Nigerian dishes, and of course lots of beer)

(Yoruba man): I just broke up with my girl. She is Igbo, and so, I cannot date her any longer or marry her. Igbo women are ridiculously expensive and high maintenance. They are too materialistic and stubborn. Besides when you eventually marry her, you are also marrying her entire family! For what? It is not like there is anything special about them!

(Igbo woman): Shut up! Who the hell are you? This is why I won’t even consider marrying a Yoruba man. Yoruba men are notoriously unfaithful in relationships. They can cheat on their wives with their wives’ sisters. They leave the entire job of running a family to their wives because they are like cowardly little boys who never want to grow up or accept responsibilities!

(Yoruba woman): Go to hell! See how you are flapping your gums here? May Sango bend that your neck for you! How about your Igbo men—are they any better? Igbo men are uneducated market touts; unsophisticated greedy traders. They are too bossy; too controlling and unromantic. Why would any woman want to date or marry a caveman? That is why whenever they think their girlfriends or wives are doing better than they are financially, they go insane and KILL them. Abegi jare!

(Igbo man): May Amadioha dislocate your jaw there, you ugly woman. You have the mouth to come here and rain insults on Igbo men. What about you Yoruba women? The truth is that Yoruba women have poor personal hygiene. Yes I said it—you Yoruba women are dirty compared to the rest of Nigerian women. Besides, you are rude, loud and uncultured market-women. No wonder your Yoruba men are always running after Igbo women. It is not uncommon to see a Yoruba man being chased around by his crazy pestle-wielding Yoruba girlfriend or wife. Your cooking is horrible—you are just like bush women. Go and tame your men—those little player wannabes! But maybe this is futile. Look around Lagos. All these Sisi Eko prostitutes you see around are Yoruba women.

Nwa Baby: A Detailed Igbo to English Translation

There is a popular Igbo Nigerian song on YouTube by Flavour N’Abania. It is called Nwa Baby. Anybody who has been listening to the increasingly amazing dance-worthy beats that are now emerging from Nigeria on a constant basis would not fail to have heard this particular song. Now, a lot of what Flavor and his friends were saying on the track were in the Igbo language, and while that has not stopped a lot of non-Igbo listeners from appreciating the song, I felt compelled to give a full translation of this song to English for the benefit of those who might be wondering exactly what was being said.

In this fairly detailed translation that you are about to read, I’ll attempt to translate the lyrics of this song as they should be understood in the best context—it is not just going to be a shoddy, simple, word-for-word translation. I’ll try as much as I can (granted that I am not Flavour himself who can improve on this), to explain what the song is saying.

The words of the song will be rendered in bold font after which I’ll give an underlined direct translation where necessary. Then, in brackets, I’ll explain it in detail.

Don’t you wish someone would do the same for all those other songs you are inconspicuously drawn to even though you know not the meaning of the words?

Flavour – Nwababy

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains II

One evening, after a week of restless nights, Stephanie decided that she would ignore her fears and worries and call Josh. What’s the worst that could happen? At most, he’d politely decline and then I’d get some sort of closure here, she mused.  Trembling with anxiety, she dialed his number and listened anxiously as the phone began to ring. Sweat beads were already forming on her forehead and she wondered if she was not really being silly in attempting to reconnect with a guy she had unceremoniously let go five years earlier.

“Hello?” replied a female voice on the other end.

Stephanie felt like hanging up the phone immediately. This must be his girlfriend or fiancée, she thought. How incredibly silly she had been to call at this time of the day. She should have gone to his job—at least if he was there, and he recognized her, that would be better than having to explain herself to some random stranger over the phone. These thoughts were dashing around madly in her mind when she mustered the courage to speak after a long pause.

“Hi, my name is Stephanie. Please, I am trying to reach Josh. Is this his correct phone number?” she blurted out trying to sound as formal as possible.

“Hi Stephanie.  Please if I may be so bold, what is this in reference to? He is a little occupied now” replied the female voice excitedly.

Stephanie could hear the pitter patter of feet scampering in the background. Then she could hear an unmistakable manly voice.

“Give me my phone now!” the male voice demanded.

“No, you come get it” the female voice replied laughing.

Stephanie could faintly make out that the lady on the other end of the line was running around the living room with the phone while the man gave chase. Stephanie could not take it any longer. She felt like she was an unnecessary intrusion into another man’s life. Then she sadly ended the call. After what felt like a long time (but it really was like five minutes), her phone rang.

“Hello”, she replied dryly.

“Yes, someone called my phone from this number a few minutes ago but my sister was toying with the phone and she made me miss the call. So who is this again?” replied the male voice.

“My name is Steph…” she started to say.

“Stephanieeeeeeeeeeeee. Is it really you?” Josh shouted.

“Yes! Long time Josh. How have you been? You sound happy” Stephanie replied.

“Of course I am. What did you think? It’s been five years!” Josh intoned.

On Divine Omniscience and Freewill

Trite, superfluous and mundane as internet chat room discussions usually are, there are occasionally flashes of real serious and interesting debate or dialogue. It is usually at times like that that I would start paying very close attention to what different people often say when they start waxing philosophical.  It is usually at times like this that you would be truly impressed or disappointed at the astonishing depth or shallowness of arguments or viewpoints that one may not have bothered to contemplate closely.

One of such discussions was taking place recently, when a usually infrequent but popularly known regular of the chat room started a much-needed and thematic deconstruction of Christian Theism. If you asked him, he would deny that he was launching any personal attacks – as a matter of fact he simply maintained that he was just philosophically analyzing popular belief and pointing out the fatal flaws and inconsistencies of the positions advocated by Christians. This sort of critical analysis of faith-based or religious claims are usually seen by the majority Christian theists in the room as a premeditated attack on their faith, but I beg to differ. I welcome such philosophical ruminations, because it helps to strengthen and bolster theistic belief when it is properly understood and seen to be free of some self-referential incoherence.

At any rate, the young man – I’ll just call him Kendoll – made a statement to this effect:

God’s Omniscience negates Free will. They cannot both exist. It is either human beings have free will or God is not omniscient for both cannot exist at the same time.

That statement was very confusing to many people at the time, as I noticed.  Indeed, it was of a sufficiently complex nature to many people that he actually had to stop typing his viewpoints in order to get on the room’s audio feature to speak on it. When he did, he seemed to be quite passionate about the topic that he set out to discuss.

Before he got up to speak though, I had been partially engaging him on the subject to get a feel for how he would actually explicate the position. I have to say, in retrospect, that his answers to me were unusually brief and curt, and lacked the enthusiasm which I had expected of one who had decided on a philosophical interjection in a room dominated by theological banter.

But if we examine the claim critically, is it really the case that God’s Omniscience negates human free will? Is it really true that if God knows everything in the past, present and future then it is not possible for human beings to exercise their choice as free moral agents?

I’ll beg to differ. I had wanted Kendoll to flesh out his position – not because I have not heard the argument before – but because I had wanted to see if there was any new angle that he might introduce to a raging philosophical debate that had already been tackled by considerably more astute Christian philosophers. But why think that Kendoll’s argument is true? It sounds deceptively plausible, but is this rudimentary elucidation of the Newcomb’s paradox of such compelling gravity? I am not so convinced it is.

For me to handle this objection, it may be necessary to define some terms and introduce others. The simple and proper Christian definition and understanding of Divine Omniscience is that “God knows all logically possible propositional truths or facts”.

This definition is actually more precise than many Christians recognize. Divine Omniscience for example, does not entail that God knows “everything” where “everything” might include things which are logically inconsistent or factually false. By saying that God knows everything, we cannot just assume that we can say or propose anything at all and have it be the case that God already knew that. If I say something like “John McCain is the president of the United States”, God’s omniscience does not require him to know this. For some skeptics, the fact that God cannot be said to know this absurd and false claim means that God obviously does not know everything, and for them, God would cease to exist or otherwise be divested of the attribute of Omniscience. This, as any theist would readily agree, is a poor objection.

Another objection is the skeptical thinking that since God is essentially morally perfect and cannot experientially know what it means to sin, then God’s knowledge is somewhat incomplete and thus, he is not omniscient. This objection fails to see that God’s Omniscience or knowledge of all things does not include things that are by their very nature antithetical or logically contrary to his character. God’s Omniscience simply informs us that God already has a logically and chronologically prior knowledge or awareness of ALL propositional truths of facts. In other words, anything which can be determined to be true is already known by God. Therefore, God does not know, by way of a shoddy example, that “1+1=4”. As you can see, these are rather underwhelming objections which palpably demonstrate a poor understanding of what theists understand by Divine Omniscience.

Granted the definition above, does it follow then that since God knows all past and present propositional truths, that he also knows future contingent truths? If in 2012, President Obama does not get re-elected as the president of the United States, does God at this time in 2010 already know that this will be the case? It does not necessarily and logically follow that God must possess this knowledge just by virtue of his all-encompassing knowledge of past and present propositional truths. At best, if we want to remain logical, we might grant that a any being with such a magnanimous scope of knowledge, may be able to accurately infer what could happen in the future. There is no logical constraint that demands that such a being has to also know future-tensed contingent propositions.

Nevertheless, Christians also believe that God also knows these future-tensed propositions. They believe that God also knows what will be; what will happen in the future. However, this is not part of his Divine Omniscience. This is more appropriately called his Divine Foreknowledge. The reason why Christians have to try and understand the difference in the meaning of these terms is so that they cannot be trapped in subtle or not-so-subtle skeptical rhetoric. This is because future tensed or future contingent propositions have no present reality, and cannot be described as facts. Granted, this distinction only makes sense with the more intuitive Tensed Theory of Time, but the point still stands. These future tensed propositions will merely become facts when the time finally arrives. God’s knowledge of all logically possible propositional truth (Divine Omniscience) should not be conflated with God’s knowledge of the future (Divine Foreknowledge).

It is plain to see from the above that neither God’s personal awareness of all truths nor his personal knowledge of future truths has any immediate and discernible bearing on the free will decisions and actions of human moral agents. That free moral creatures can and do act according to their wishes or as a response to external stimuli is and cannot be invalidated because God already foreknows it. His foreknowledge of free human actions may be chronologically prior to such actions but, and this is a huge distinction, it is not causally prior or causally determinative of these human actions.

As a simple example, if you are a dog owner, you will know, by constant interaction with your dog, certain ways in which your dog would react when placed in certain situations. You may know for example, that if you left some doggie treats in his doggie bowl when he is hungry, and he happened to pass by his doggie bowl, he would of his own accord choose to eat the contents of his bowl. You know your dog enough to say that you don’t even need to tell or instruct your dog to go and eat from the bowl – you just instinctively know that he will do this. Now, while you have a chronologically prior knowledge about your dog’s future action (a rudimentary foreknowledge at best), it cannot be effectively argued that you have robbed your dog of its own “free will”. It cannot be effectively argued that just because you knew what your dog would likely do then such an action on your dog’s part is now causally determined by you! For all we know, your dog still reserves the choice and may indeed, on occasion, contrary to any expectation, refuse to eat from his favorite doggie bowl!

This serves to illustrate the erroneous assumptions behind Kendoll’s claims. God’s Omniscience is a total non-starter in this discussion and should be dropped; I suspect that he is thinking of God’s Foreknowledge and how it might impact human freedom or human freewill. However, as I have argued, there is nothing about the proper meaning of God’s Foreknowledge that says that he intentionally acts to rob moral agents of their libertarian freewill. Indeed there is nothing about this divine attribute that suggests that his simple keen personal knowledge of future free human choices therefore causes or mandates that choice. It is indeed possible for anyone to choose any course of action, but of course, any such action would already be seamlessly and effortlessly known to God.

God’s Divine Foreknowledge therefore can be likened to impeccably accurate meteorological radar. The radar does not determine the weather; it does not dictate what sort of weather patterns will form. All it does is to simply and accurately foreknow or record what weather patterns will eventually form. This is but a crude human example, but it appropriately illuminates the misapprehension in Kendoll’s position. God’s foreknowledge does nothing to invalidate or negate human libertarian freewill choices and actions.

P.S: There is another divine attribute which is even more perplexing. It is called God's Divine Middle Knowledge. It is popularly known as Molinism. I will not get into that topic now, but if the need comes for it in the future, we can  flesh out the discussion, in the likely case that Kendoll's possible reaction involves an expatiation of that term.

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains

“Life is not always a bed of roses”….. “Despite our best laid plans, things always happen to throw our lives into a tailspin”…... “It is better to have loved and lost than not to have loved at all”. These and many more thoughts raced through Stephanie’s mind as she lay on her bed wondering her next course of action.

Five years ago, in New York City, Stephanie was dating a tall, handsome and laid back guy called Josh. Stephanie was 22 years old—vivacious, bubbly and eager to experience more of life. She was attractive by NYC standards; she had an amazing sense of fashion. She was also very kind and generous especially to people in need.  She was one of those people who loved to be the life of a party.

It was therefore very odd how she got romantically involved with Josh. One day she was walking through the aisle of a grocery store when she saw this tall, handsome but passive man approaching in the opposite direction. Their eyes met briefly and they continued past each other till they got to the end of the aisle. As they tried to turn the corner, they stole glances at each other again and their eyes locked again. Obviously, there was some physical attraction between them. They started walking to different parts of the store. Unfortunately the fire had been lit. Josh fumbled around for a crate of eggs and a gallon of milk. After a while, he started tracing his way to Stephanie’s direction. At last he came very close to her and pretended to be examining the different cereal boxes sitting on the shelves. This, he did, as he sought an opening line.

Josh, 26 years old, was a very laid back and self-effacing character. Despite his imposing physical attributes—his height and his looks—he was the sort of old-fashioned gentleman one might read about in books. Josh was from a little town in Indiana and had just come on a visit to his sister in the Big City. This explains why he still had what one might sneeringly call his small-town values. Unlike the alpha males that run around in the big cities who seemingly have no problems talking to and wooing women, Josh was rather respectful of ladies to the point of shyness. If it were just about a show of brute strength, Josh would easily prevail but when it came to the issue of women, he was still one to open doors for a woman, help a lady carry heavy groceries to her car or just address a girl as “ma’am” until they were on a first name basis. Stephanie was the exact behavioral opposite.

Stephanie must have sensed Josh’s quandary. After what seemed like an eternity of suspense, Stephanie turned around and faced him.

“You are not from around here, right?” She asked curiously.

“No ma’am. How could you tell when I have not even said anything yet?” he asked.

“Well, I know this neighborhood very well. Besides, something about you is different. My name is Stephanie” She replied

“Thanks. The name’s Josh. I am just visiting my sister from Indiana” Josh volunteered.

“Oh my God. I am from Indiana as well! I have been here in NYC for a long time though. Someday I’ll be back . What a coincidence!” She exclaimed.

From there, they chatted animatedly till they paid for their groceries and left the store. They eventually hooked up and began to see each other. There was something about the earnestness with which these two souls pursued their relationship for the three weeks that Josh stayed in NYC. They seemed to complement each other perfectly.  It was with a bit of sadness that Stephanie eventually had to say goodbye to Josh when he left for home. They promised to keep in touch with each other.

After 2 months of their long distance relationship, Stephanie began to show signs of frustration. She was no longer just content with the long and passionate phone calls they shared, or the countless hours they spent together on the internet messenger. She yearned for his touch; she wanted to go out on dinner dates or to the theatre or to concerts with her boyfriend by her side. She wanted to show him off to her friends; she wanted to have all the ‘fun’ people usually have in serious committed relationships.

When she expressed her angst to Josh, he suggested that she could move back to Indiana so that they can be together. Stephanie was devastated by what she considered to be Josh’s reckless answer because she had expected that Josh would try to abandon his life to come and be with her in New York. Besides, Stephanie never wanted to leave NYC for a number of reasons; chief amongst which was the active dating scene. She wanted to have a full social life and to keep her options open because of the vast number of potential love interests in a big city like New York. She was completing her studies in Business Administration as well, and what better city than New York was there for her to seek employment in?

So she went ahead and broke up with Josh and forgot all about him. Years passed—Five years to be exact.

In five years, Stephanie had grown a lot wiser. She got a great job after school and was financially buoyant. Her romantic life was however in shambles. To make matters worse, her company started downsizing because the economy had gotten very bad. She was offered a position with slightly less pay at the company’s Indiana office or given the option of tendering her quit notice. Many of her colleagues were not so fortunate as they were unceremoniously let go. After long deliberations, she decided to continue working for the company at their Indiana office. In no time at all, Stephanie left behind the beautiful city she had grown to love (and now to hate) and moved back to her hometown.

At this point it is necessary to recount all the woes that Stephanie suffered at the hands of the smooth city slickers she dated in New York. She was fatally attracted to the dashing, smooth-talking alpha males that were simply out for an adventure. She loved the posh cars, the free flowing drinks, the dancing and grooving in swanky clubs, the endless parties—all the unmistakable attributes of the New York night scene. She was a social butterfly. Nevertheless she was never truly lucky with men, love or relationships.

One by one, she dumped or was dumped by the men she met. One was dumped for deceiving her into his bed when he already had a wife, a girlfriend and a child; another dumped her for another gorgeous St Lucian who might have been a model of some sort; another still dumped her because he claimed she was just too bossy; she dumped yet another when she discovered that the guy was bisexual; she dumped another man whom she called a witless workaholic; and on and on and on. In the end, she became very disillusioned about men in general and began to seriously question whether she was ever meant to find true love.

It was with her sad history of failed relationships that she came back to Indiana to start another chapter of her life. She remembered Josh and the careless, mean manner with which she broke off their relationship five years ago. She wondered what Josh might be like now and whether he was seeing someone now. To say that Stephanie seriously regretted the way she treated Josh is to say it lightly. In five years, and having dated as many men as she did, she had come to regret bitterly her unwise choice. If she could turn back the hands of time, she would never have treated Josh the way she did. For many weeks since she came back to Indiana, she tossed and turned around on her bed each night restlessly wondering what she should do.

At long last, she did some private investigations and discovered that Josh was still in Indiana and very much single. She even managed to get his phone number. On many nights, she would pick up the phone to give him a surprise call: her courage would fail her and she would drop the receiver.

Stephanie was still attractive. If anything, she had more to offer a man now. She had her gorgeous looks, a great career, rare and uncommon street smarts, a radiant personality and above all, humility and modesty which come from having experienced the harsh and painful lashings of Life’s lessons. She was no longer the thrill-seeking 22 year old of yesteryears. But she was still very indecisive concerning her past flame.  What should she do? Should she call him? If yes, what would she say when she calls him? Should she send him an email telling him that she is now closer to him? Should she just pop up at his house to see whether he’d be excited that she was back in town? Or maybe show up at his workplace thus being a welcome distraction in an otherwise busy and stressful work day? Should she just count her losses and move on? Should she just call him, monitor his vocal inflections on the phone and possibly save herself the embarrassment of an awkward physical meeting if he sounded like he was still bitter over the past? What on earth should she do?

“Life is not always a bed of roses” she mused once again.

Read Further:

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains II

Stephanie and Josh: Love's Growing Pains III