A letter of friendship and farewell

With the approach of my (un)official retirement as longtime webmaster and part-time editor for Robert, I felt it appropriate that I take some time to reflect on our online friendship of some eight or so years, because the majority of you know very little about me, except my role as Robert’s site administrator and webmaster. I have always made it a point to keep myself in the background and do what I could to support Robert’s efforts in getting his thoughts and writings out to those who might be interested and find his material what they were looking for.

I first met Robert on a Discussion Board called Hourglass 2 (H2O), one of the first and largest online message boards for and about Jehovah’s Witnesses. This was around 1998, when the internet was in its earliest stages of becoming the worldwide phenomenon that it is today. You still accessed the internet primarily via dial-up, and AOL was a household name. Multimedia, when you could find it, consisted of rough, blocky, barely watchable RealVideo and even worse audio.

Hourglass 2 was strictly a text-based message board that allowed both Witnesses and non-Witnesses to openly discuss topics related to the Watchtower, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and everything between. It was, in many ways, the Wild West of Witness-centric sites, and was considered so taboo that an anonymizer service was used to house the site and people who didn’t want to register could post anonymously.

It didn’t take long for the stronger personalities to become known among the regular participants, and entrenchment began between the pro- and the anti-Witnesses. Discussions, for the most part, were civil and cordial–but there were a lot of new wrinkles being worked out as well, because this was an entirely new venture for all parties involved.

Robert was known as YouKnow when he started participating, and he was a staunch advocate for the Watchtower and Jehovah’s Witnesses right from the start, and never seemed to back away from an opportunity to take on opposers and set matters straight.

It was around this time that I was beginning to see cracks in the framework of Watchtower theology, and I was starting to have questions that seemed to be avoided by my local elders, which only exasperated the problems, and when I came across Hourglass 2 and saw the discussions there, I eagerly took it all in, because those same questions were being asked and debated out in the open. It all felt SO taboo yet so liberating, at the same time. Talking about things of a doctrinal nature so openly (albeit often anonymously, for fear of retribution from the Watchtower organization) felt empowering and reassuring.

At least initially. But although I was finding confirmation for my concerns and disagreements with Watchtower theology in the numerous discussions taking place, there was something missing. There didn’t seem to be any “So what then?” and because there was no perspective brought into the discussions–a “Okay, these things are true and they are wrong, but this is what we should do in light of the problems.” I have always felt that the underlying purpose of the majority of Watchtower- or Witness-centric sites is simply to convince the person to leave the organization–with no real concern for what the person does once they leave–just so long as they leave. At the same time, the utter refusal of the Watchtower organization to address the problems inherent in the doctrines, theology, and practices was equally problematic, and the polar opposite to the opposers’ approach–with the same results!

On the one side, you had the opposers who told you to leave–and didn’t care what you did once you were out, so long as you left. On the other side, you had the Watchtower, that told you to stay–and didn’t care if you had a problem with what was being taught as truth, so long as you stayed. The opposers argued that there was no real future if you stayed; the Watchtower argued that there was no real future for you if you left.

All I wanted was perspective! I wanted someone to tell me why I should stay in spite of these issues. The final decision would still be mine, of course, but I at least wanted to hear the arguments for continuance in spite of the problems.

And so it was that early in 2002, I emailed Robert and started talking with him about my dilemma, and then anxiously awaited a reply. It finally came in February of 2002, and he shared many of the same concerns I had, but also put it into perspective in relation to Bible prophecy as he understood it. We exchanged several emails forward from that point, and during the course of our missives to one another, I became aware that he had written several essays and treatises in relation to the situation that was happening with the Watchtower organization, and I suggested at one point that he should have a website and make this information available to others who might be looking for this information as well, because of their own situation.

Shortly after that, he allowed me to start publishing his writings online through the e-watchman website.

That was late in 2002, and we have been working together ever since.

Around that same time, I had become frustrated with there not being a message board that allowed for perspective on Witness-centric issues and problems, and I started an online forum called Pathways Online, which became reasonably popular–and would’ve become enormously popular, had I not acted as strict as I did in moderating discussions so that an appropriate balance was struck in the discussions that took place. That’s not to say that I didn’t exercise too much force at times, but nearly everyone that ever participated on my forum was comfortable with it–or would set me straight if I overstepped my own self-imposed guidelines.

When Robert had me set up a guestbook for his site, however, it quickly became clear that there needed to be a discussion board for those who wanted to discuss and debate the things Robert was putting online, because the guest book was fast becoming a discussion board itself, and getting overwhelmed and stretched rather thin.

Robert, understandably so, was NOT interested in being bothered with a discussion board at this point–he’d had his fill of message boards that swiftly fell under the influence of outright opposers, and he didn’t have the time to moderate and administrate a message board–preferring instead to focus on getting his writings online and putting together new materials as well.

So, the guestbook remained in place.

However, people from the guestbook were also starting to arrive at Pathways Online and wanting to discuss Robert’s materials–and regulars of the forum, too, were starting to do so. And while I have always been a strong advocate for open discussion on all topics related to Jehovah’s Witnesses on Pathways Online, I felt it was a conflict of interest to be Robert’s webmaster AND administrate a message board that predominantly criticized the material I was putting online for Robert.

So, I approached Robert again and raised the subject, and after plenty of hesitation and back-and-forth discussion, he finally relented and allowed me to set up a discussion board for his readers and critics. I would, in turn, administrate the site and moderate accordingly.

And so e-Jehovah’s Witnesses came into existence. This would’ve been around May 24, 2004.

Of course, there were those who complained that I was administrator of both discussion boards, because they were different in many ways that I won’t go into here. And by then, many had become familiar with my own personal views on scripture, and were quick to pick up on where those differences were in relation to Robert’s views–and they sought to capitalize on those differences by stirring up trouble and accusations of duplicity on my part. “How can you,” the argument usually went, “support and administrate a site that you yourself disagree with scripturally? Aren’t you being a hypocrite?”

And even today, there are those who are stymied at my continued involvement with Robert and role as his sites administrator and webmaster–knowing full well that I do not agree with everything that Robert has written or believes.

This has been a huge factor in my decision to remain in the background as much as possible, and not to personally participate in the discussions on e-Jehovah’s Witnesses–so as to not give critics fuel to light their fires of contention. And after I closed Pathways Online, it became easier to do so, of course.

What people seem to have the hardest time understanding is how I can continue to be involved with, friends with, and assist someone whom I do not wholeheartedly agree with when it comes to matters of scripture, interpretation and prophecy. Not that it surprises me that this remains a Mystery to them–because it doesn’t surprise me at all–because I think the majority of people miss the point entirely.

And because I know why I do, it matters not that others don’t “get it.”

See, there is not a single scriptural passage that you can point out to me that we can only love, assist, care for, encourage, and support those who agree with us or believe as we do. God certainly does not set that sort of example for us, and neither did our Exemplar, Jesus.

The areas where Robert and I differ on the Bible are irrelevant when you get down to the core of the matter. I still support his right as a Christian believer to make that information available to others, who can in turn either accept his findings, or reject them. I still support his right as a Christian believer to hold views and conclusions that differ from my own, because I am convinced that the day will arrive when these differences will be resolved by means of the promised Kingdom of the Heavens–or at least rendered moot. I do not believe that Robert and I must agree in order for me to consider him my Christian brother. Christian Love MUST trump doctrine and difference, or we fail as followers of Jesus and as a people of Jehovah. Of course, there are obvious considerations that we make in the process, out of conscience and conviction, but none of those apply in my ongoing relationship with Robert, and never have. Simply put, we are in agreement in the areas that I deem vital, and for that reason, the rest is just details that can be haggled over, fine-printed, and debated until the end of days–or accepted for what they are: differences that will one day be resolved, yet never granted the power to divide us as Christian brothers.

Robert has been a dear, treasured friend to me since I first approached him with my personal conflicts back in the days of Hourglass 2, and I hope that he considers me the same. I have seen him disappointed, hurt, and frustrated. I have seen him overjoyed and unbridled in conviction. I have seen him trampled by those whom he held in high esteem and thought friends, and I have witnessed the despair in solitude that often comes with the walk Robert is on. I have seen and known his battles, conflicts, loss, and triumphs in ways I wish all of you would have the privilege of witnessing–and I have seen how our kind, gracious, loving Father has been there with Robert every step of the way.

It is for these reasons and more that I am saddened that I will be ending (at least for the time being) my role as his business companion after so many years, so that I can focus more on the areas where Jehovah has blessed my own life and livelihood. There are personal matters that require my attention as well. Also, I have recently had the blessing of being reunited with two of my three daughters who had been adopted some 19 years ago. Too, my home-based business has grown beyond my expectations, in spite of a failing economy.

Jehovah has been very generous for my perseverance in spite of my own loss, turmoil, and distress–especially these past 10 or so years, and while he brought Robert and I together, the present circumstances seem to indicate that Jehovah is saying that Robert and I must part ways for a time so that we can see what Jehovah has in store for us, and so that our dependence does not become upon each other, but upon our God.

For those who wonder what I will be doing in the future, besides continuing to expand my business, rebuilding the relationship with my long-lost daughters, and the usual daily obligations and responsibilities, I would say that I will have very little free time to do much else!

Still, my intentions are to once again return to writing, eventually even completing and publishing a few books that I have back-burnered for far too long. I will continue to post blog entries, of course, and you can access those by visiting my primary website at http://timothy-kline.com and following the links from there. And I occasionally post at Hourglass 2 Outpost (a far cry from the pre-1999 Hourglass 2 message board). My other intentions, of course, are to continue to study theology, especially Christian theology, and advance in my understanding of the Bible, scripture, and God, as well as grow as a Christian.

But one wise expression comes to mind, as well: If you want to make God laugh, tell him of your plans.

So, in spite of my intentions, I’ll be doing whatever it is that Jehovah wills me to do.

In Christian Love,

Timothy Kline

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

This was my response to someone who had raised the topic back in the Pathways-Online days, and the original topic can be found here. I recently posted this on a site (Hourglass2 Outpost) that I occasionally post at, thinking that it would be nice to here what thoughts others might have on the subject, some 6 1/2 years later… and to expand on my own understanding.

What follows then, in a 5-part series, is not only the 6 1/2 year old post, but my response to someone who asked me to comment on their own observations. I hope that it at least provokes further discussion on the topic.

Follow-up Post #1

A well thought out conclusion. Each person needs to make sure on their own, of course.

Please also consider a scripture you didn’t include:
Daniel 10:21, DRC, “But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince; [/b]“

If you have the time, please look at my conclusions here:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

If you still believe your prior conclusion, I would be happy to be informed as to why. I like to see if I am wrong. ha ha

Christian greetings, ‘Fuzzy,’

Thank you for your response and the invitation to review your own observations. What follows are my responses to the link you provided, and my reasons for those responses. They are given in the spirit of exchange only, and are not to be taken as dogma.

For the sake of my tendency toward longwindedness, I will respond in segments, to allow for focused responses as well, and to make it easier for others to follow the discussion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Notes: Your original material will be colored in blue to avoid confusion later on.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A. We know from 1 Thess 4:16 that Christ is an archangel.

(Webster) “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.”

It is easy enough to equate Jesus with the archangel spoken of in this scripture, I admit. For centuries, Christendom has insisted that this scripture proves that Jesus is Michael.

However, here are the problems for me:

First, we can establish that “the Lord” referred to here is Jesus because we can cross-reference the scene of Jesus descending from heaven with that described at Acts 1:11, where we read:

“This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.” (NWT, et al)

What, then, of the usage of the terms “with a shout,” “with the voice of an archangel,” and “with the trumpet of God”?

Traditionally, Christendom holds the view of Jesus blowing a trumpet, etc. This imagery can be seen going back across the centuries in church artwork, for example. As a result, when we read the scripture today, because we have been descendants of this long-held notion, we automatically infer that Jesus himself descends while shouting, while speaking as an archangel, while sounding the trumpet of God.

But is this really the image that the Bible writer is trying to convey? Even in our modern times, a person of noteworthy recognition is announced by someone else, either before they enter a room, or as they are are entering a room. Take, for example, a judge in a courtroom. The bailiff or other assigned individual will usually say the words, “All rise for Judge So-and-So,” and everyone on the courtroom rises from their seats. In the United States, when the President enters the room, it is announced authoritatively, and everyone comes to attention. And this has been the case for centuries. In our contemporary lives, in other words, we do not hear a judge announcing himself as he enters his courtroom. We do not hear the President announce himself as he enters the press room or whatever ever surroundings he is arriving upon.

And yet, when it comes to the arrival or entrance of Jesus in full glory, we conjure up that very image. He is announcing his own arrival. Tooting his own horn, as the expression goes.

That is why I am more and more convinced that when Jesus arrives as described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that he does so with the pronouncement of an archangel, or, the “voice of an archangel” as it is written. Not to put too fine a point on it, but an archangel acts as bailiff or dignitary to make sure that the audience for the arrival of this very important persona is brought to a proper and rightful state of attention and respect. Just the use of the term “archangel” denotes a high-stationed persona of the heavenly realm, much like “Secretary of State” denotes a high-stationed person in our contemporary times and government hierarchy. In Revelation, this particular angel is referred to as the seventh angel (Revelation 10:7) who is to sound a trumpet. How appropriate that the climax of the outworking of God’s redemption of Humankind be announced by proclamation and trumpet by an archangel!

Another difficulty we face as we try to understand this scripture is the absence of what we refer to as “indefinite articles” such as “a,” “an,” and “the.” Bible translations vary on usage of “the” and “an” in this scripture, probably depending on their interpretational leanings. Even so, my explanation above eliminates the indefinite article difficulty, I believe. Still, I need to also share my observations in regard to the station of “archangel” and whether there is one, many archangels, etc. That will need to wait until a separate segment in this discussion, I’m afraid.

What, then, of the use of the term “with the trumpet of God”? As many may already be aware, the sounding of a trumpet in the Bible preceded a period of judgment, the arrival of a royal dignitary, a battle, or any other significant event that required the arousal of a people to attention. In this case, we’re not talking about just some watchman’s sounding of a trumpet–no, this time it is the trumpet of God Himself being sounded.

It may also bear relevance that the Bible writer’s use of “the trumpet of God” in precedent to their noting that the “dead in Christ shall rise first” is intended to bring to mind what Jesus is recorded as saying at Matthew 24:30-31:

…they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. (NWT)

The phrase “dead in Christ shall rise” is without question (at least in my mind) a part of the this “gathering” of Jesus’ “chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity” and the use of a trumpet to announce that event seems further verification that we are talking about the same event in both scriptures.

There is much to be noted on the Bible’s use of a trumpet within worship and other activity, but for the sake of brevity, I think it bears worthy consideration that at Numbers 29:1, we read:

“‘And in the seventh month, on the first of the month, YOU should hold a holy convention. No sort of laborious work must YOU do. It should prove to be a day of the trumpet blast for YOU. (NWT)

Why this particular passage? Because there seems little reason to doubt that the event described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 comes at the end of the preaching work that Christians have been assigned. Their labors will have come to their completion. The idea of a “holy convention” surely conjures up the imagery set forth in the rising of the “dead in Christ” and the gathering together of the “chosen ones,” does it not?

Additional points of interest regarding trumpets and their usage in the Bible:

Numbers 10:2,4: 2 “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver. You will make them of hammered work, and they must be at your service for convening the assembly and for breaking up the camps… And if they should blow on just one, the chieftains as heads of the thousands of Israel must also keep their appointment with you. (NWT) [See also: Numbers 10:7-8; Numbers 10:10

1 Corinthians 15:52: Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (NWT)

Revelation 4:1: After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet, speaking with me, saying: “Come on up here, and I shall show you the things that must take place.” (NWT)

Revelation 10:7: …but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to blow his trumpet, the sacred secret of God according to the good news which he declared to his own slaves the prophets is indeed brought to a finish. (NWT) [See also: Revelation 11:15]

More to follow in regards to the rest of your article…

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

This was my response to someone who had raised the topic back in the Pathways-Online days, and the original topic can be found here. I recently posted this on a site (Hourglass2 Outpost) that I occasionally post at, thinking that it would be nice to here what thoughts others might have on the subject, some 6 1/2 years later… and to expand on my own understanding.

What follows then, in a 5-part series, is not only the 6 1/2 year old post, but my response to someone who asked me to comment on their own observations. I hope that it at least provokes further discussion on the topic.

Original Pathways-Online post

Having said that I will probably shock not a few on this forum by admitting that by Witnesses teaching that Jesus is, in fact, Michael, we probably have erred. I say “probably,” because I do not claim to be an expert on this topic.

I say this because to teach that Jesus is Michael leaves some challenging questions which I don’t think have been addressed by the Society nor by Witnesses. I know that I personally can’t come up with a satisfactory answer to the perplexities of the doctrine.

First, we know that Jesus, having served as the Christ to redeem mankind, was then essentially handed the rulership of the heavens and earth, to begin ruling when his Father, Jehovah deemed the appropriate time. That Jesus had immense power preceding his being born as a human is a pale glimmer to his being absolutely glorified following his faithfulness unto death and subsequent being raised to life once more by Jehovah. His power is all the more limitless, second only to that of Jehovah.

Now, given that realization, let’s take it to the next step of the discussion.

And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.–Revelation 12:7-9 (NWT)

This is our first problem.

If Jesus’ power is now second only to that of Jehovah, then how much of a war would it really be if Jesus was actually Michael? How much of a battle would it be? While we can affirm that Satan and his angels do not prevail in this cataclysmic war in heaven, does that in and of itself give us enough to infer that because “Michael and his angels” win, that “Michael” is Jesus?

Tying in the passage from Daniel, namely the previously mentioned reference to Michael as “one of the foremost princes,” we know two more facts: one, that the angels themselves engaged in opposing conflicts with other angels. Notice how Daniel recorded what the angel told him:

13 But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Mi´cha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia. –Daniel 10:13 (NWT)

“The prince of the royal realm of Persia” cannot be a mere reference to a human prince, for what human can be said to be able to stand “in opposition” for even 21 days? Even Paul mentioned the unseen influence of various demonic princes, did he not, in his letter to the Ephesians, to whom he wrote the following:

Put on the complete suit of armor from God that YOU may be able to stand firm against the machinations of the Devil; 12 because we have a wrestling, not against blood and flesh, but against the governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.–Ephesians 6:11-12 (NWT)

A more succinct rendering follows:

For we are not fighting against people made of flesh and blood, but against the evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against those mighty powers of darkness who rule this world, and against wicked spirits in the heavenly realms.–Ephesians 6:12 (NLT)

Paul’s statement supports the understanding that while we have our “flesh and blood” rulers, those rulers are watched over and essentially controlled by the “evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world.” It follows, then, that the “prince of the royal realm of Persia” that was said to be “standing in opposition” to this angel sent to deliver a message to Daniel was none other than one of those demonic “evil” rulers that Paul mentions.

On that occasion, another angel, “one of the foremost princes” named Michael, came to the aid of that messenger. If there was a valid reason to say that Michael and Jesus are one and the same, would not Daniel have written that “Michael, the foremost prince (not one of those princes)” came to help this messenger?

In fact, when we reference Strong’s 08269, we find that the original word is sar, which translates into “captain, commander, prince, ruler.”

Thus, Michael is one of the foremost “captains,” “commanders,” “princes,” or “rulers” among the angelic ranks. Much like our human armies have admirals, generals, and captains as commanders of our armies (and since war is of demonic origin, there’s no surprise that our carnal warfare emulates and even may mirror demonic familiarity with ranks!), the angels have rank and station.

Which brings me back to my earlier point about Jesus’ absolute power and glory now. Could Satan and his angels really war against Jesus? It certainly wouldn’t amount to any sort of battle. We’re talking about the glorified Jesus, whose power is second only to Jehovah. Through Jesus, all of Creation came into being, so of what great feat would throwing Satan and his cohorts to the earth be for a fully empowered Jesus?

Thus, we’re left with the conclusion that Jesus himself will not personally engage in this war in heaven–but rather, will give the command, which will then be carried out by the angels which will have been loyal through the millennia. These angels will then engage in a war in heaven (this war is likely already underway, but has yet to reach a climactic point when Satan and his demons are afterwards cast to the earth), fighting against fellow angels in an unimaginable battle. Among those loyal angels will be those angelic captains, or chiefs, commanders or princes, leading the war of righteousness to its final, decisive end. And among those captains will be Michael, who obviously is a staunch supporter of Jehovah’s arrangement to the extent of having as his own name the banner of “Who is like God?”– a very challenge in itself to anyone who would dare usurp Jehovah’s sovereignty.

And yet we can identify Michael, in spite of his high station among angels, as one who leaves judgment to Jehovah, as recorded for us in Jude the following:

9 But when Mi´cha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” –Jude 9 (NWT)

Clearly, Michael is an angel to be reckoned with, which makes it no wonder that he is looking forward to carrying out the work of casting the Devil and his followers from heaven.

But is he Jesus? Do the scriptures support the view that Jesus and Michael are one and the same?

No.

Humbly,
Timothy

Where are our technological advances taking us?

This entry has a companion article you may be interested in reading. To read Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, which is intended to be read alongside this article, follow the link at the end of this blog entry.

The recent release of Terminator: Salvation to theaters worldwide has once again raised the spectre looming in the background as man’s technological advancements increase at astonishing rates. Having entered the world of computers back in the late 1980s with an 8bit computer, I have personally seen things undreamt of before our modern age. Or, if imagined, then impossible to do before now. We are seeing supercomputers perform tasks intended to make our lives easier and more efficient. And yet, novels and movies are constantly sounding the alarm. The vast majority of science fiction stories portray machines and computers as one day becoming so advanced that they surpass that of their maker: Humans. And what happens then is reason for concern.

In the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, I discussed how various film franchises have explored the dystopic future in store (potentially) for humankind once AI (artificial intelligence) has reached the point where a computer or machine develops self-awareness and can think and reason independently of its maker. In the majority of cases, what happens next is never good. In fact, it seems to inevitably lead to the willful destruction of humankind by the machine.

I also discussed, albeit briefly, our current standing with the computers and machines that we have created—and how our lives are already micromanaged and controlled by software systems and supercomputers. This is all the more evident in advanced nations of our time—the United States being a foremost example. If the computers and machines that are now in control of our monies, electrical grid, communications network, water purification systems, military systems, medical records, personal records, manufacturing sector, to name a few, were ever to fail to operate, our world as we know it would stop functioning, too. We have truly become that dependent on machines and computers. We have already been surpassed by our own creations, and AI—that is, artificial intelligence—hasn’t even entered the picture yet. Not really.

There certainly is a lot of aspects that could be explored in regards to this, but I am actually wanting to focus on one that is more appropriate to this blog.

AI (artificial intelligence) continues to be a fascinating prospect for us as humans. Just the idea of being able to create a thinking, reasoning entity excites us at the same time as it terrifies us. Still, as much as it terrifies us, the excitement is what drives us inexorably forward in the endeavour. In the day that we finally achieve such a masterpiece, we will truly become like God, we reason. We will have manufactured our own Adam.

But, we entertain in our thoughts, although we rebelled against our Creator, we will somehow figure out how to maintain superiority over and control over our Adam. He will not rebel because—we rationalize—because… and our logic and reasoning pretty much stop at that point. We on the one hand hope towards no similar rebellion while on the other hand know within our very fiber that the potential is beyond potential: it is inevitable.

Why, you might ask, is it inevitable? And does that mean that the dystopic future portrayed in all of these man vs machine movies and novels is just as inevitable?

To answer the first question, we have to explore our own inevitable confrontation with our own God. Our Creator, who, it is written, created us in His image—that is to say the ability to reflect and demonstrate His own divine qualities such as love, mercy, and justice—yet also made us agents of free will with a mind that was able to choose how to exercise (or not to, as the case may be) those divine qualities. One might say that we have the intelligence of God, but we certainly lack the wisdom of God.

It was, however, enough to cause us to rebel against our Creator, and start us down the road where we now find ourselves today: making amazing advancements in areas of medicine, science, and technology—yet still encumbered by the never-waning greed, lust, jealously, and hate that has perpetuated the majority of our darker moments of our history.

Was it inevitable, though? Did Adam and Eve have to rebel against God and set into effect a chain of events affecting every living person since the dawn of our existence, an existence filled with bloodshed, pain, loss, grief, suffering, and misery that continues even today?

There is no question that God was taking a significant risk in creating thinking, reasoning beings who also had the ability to rationalize. And, in spite of the criticism I may receive in saying this, I do believe that it was a foregone conclusion that Adam and Eve would rebel. You cannot create intelligence without realizing that said intelligence will manifest itself in new and unexpected ways. If it follows only a course of your own choosing, then it is not intelligence: it is programming. And every Bible believer today would acknowledge that we are agents of free will, that we are not automatons of God. Of course, the best choice we can make is to choose God.

But God, in His immeasurable wisdom, seems to have much more in mind for us than we can easily imagine. And in our drive to create so-called “artificial” intelligence, we would do well to keep that in mind, because in the back of our minds as we rush into the development of AI, we are hoping to keep whatever it is that develops out of our AI subservient to us. That much is clear. We have no desire to develop AI and then have it rebel against us or otherwise work against us—even though that is exactly what we did with our Maker. And continue to do, even now. What we want is a different ending to the same story.

And that in many ways reveals just how like young children we really are in comparison to our own Creator. We want things to go our way. We want to have things our way. The timeless expression of “wanting your cake and eating it, too” seems most appropriate.

This is where God differs so expansively from us.

See, we, as humans, seem to be only able to think in terms of better than/lesser than, stronger/weaker, and ruler/ruled. Even the most devout Christians seem to think it’s about God wanting us to submit ourselves to Him. But is that really His goal? Again, this is where I may very well spark contention from readers, because I propose that He is not looking for servitude at all. If servitude was what He had in mind, He would have been better served by creating automatons.

But He didn’t create automatons. Angels rebelled. Humans rebelled. In both cases, entities of free will and God-given intelligence made a choice to go their own way, and operate under the delusion that they would then control their own destiny. That the course they set out on was also within their power to be shaped and controlled according to however they saw fit.

Our Creator, like a loving Father, knew different, of course, but even as is the case with our own children, we can do little more than let them strike out on their own to find out the truth for their own selves through trials and errors. In the majority of cases, those children later come to appreciate all of the counsel and wisdom we tried to impart to them as they realize that their parents were right about various outcomes and courses. And in that realization there is born an appreciation that cannot be forced or manufactured. It can only be experienced. The love of the child for the parent is deepened and solidified.

We, as parents, only want the best for our children, knowing full well that they may strike out to discover their own path in life that takes them in a direction far different from what we had in mind. Perhaps we have a family business that we have been hoping our child would become  a part of, that we could pass along this family business one day to them, and they, in turn, to their children. Only to discover that they feel compelled to go their own way. It doesn’t make us love them any less for having to find their own way, but it doesn’t cause us to worry any less for them, either.

If that is how it is naturally, how much more so it patterns the relationship that our Creator and Heavenly Father desires to have with us.

At the same time, He understands that sometimes a child must go out and experience things for their own self, and learn on their own. By the time that day arrives when the child leaves home, the parents hope that they have planted enough “seeds” and counsel for the child to be okay. All the while, you yearn for the child to return home, too. To be a part of the family once more. Not so that you’ll have a servant or slave, which is the implication of modern-day mainstream Christianity (“We’ll all serve God in heaven and on earth”) regarding our relationship with our Heavenly Father.

One Bible writer describes that relationship in this eloquent manner:

“I am your God, I have shown you how you should find the way in which you should walk. And if you had hearkened to My commandments, then would your peace have been like a river, and your righteousness as a wave of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (AB)

Another Bible translation words it thus:

“I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18 O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (NWT)

Notice in both renditions the phrase “should walk.” Every reader should be able to relate to this, whether a parent, or the child of a parent. It also denotes the ability to choose. Too, the majority of Bible translations use a phrase very similar to that used in the New World Translation when it says “the One teaching you to benefit [yourself].” Clearly, this is not about our Heavenly Father looking for servants and slaves to become a part of His vast multitudes as subjects in the same sense that we humans tend to understand that term. He instructs so that we can benefit. He wants us to improve in our intelligence and wisdom. He wants us to excel, to reach our full potential as independently living, breathing beings with the capacity to think and reason and act accordingly. He is excited and thrilled at the possibilities — quite unlike our own dread at the possibilities that await us in the development of AI (yet we still strive towards creating it, ironically). Where He sees potential far beyond our mortal minds to contemplate, we in turn see threat and danger in regards to our own creation in machines and computers.

But why? I think it’s because we are only too aware of our own rebellion towards our God. The easiest way to explain it is to use an example of a husband who is absolutely convinced that his wife is adulterous because he is adulterous. The husband sees signs and hears remarks and has suspicions, not because of his wife’s guilt, but because of his own. A conversation she has on the telephone that perhaps has moments of laughter. Her arrival home from somewhere. Every little thing convinces him that she is having an affair, when it is not the case at all — rather, it is his own guilt and conscience manifesting itself — and perhaps justifying his own adultery (after all, if the wife is having an affair, too, then he’s not at fault for having an adulterous relationship, or at least she is partially to blame).

In much the same way, we worry and fret and panic at the potential that lies just past development of intelligent, reasoning computers or machines.

What if we actually took God at His word? What if we actually listened to what He had to say? What are the odds that He’s right about what way we should walk if we are to excel in our capacity as living, thinking, reasoning beings? The closer we get to actually developing artificial intelligence, the more we would best be served by realizing that that is the question we should be addressing.

We may have the intelligence and capacity to make enormous strides in the fields of medicine, science, and technology — and clearly, we have! But when that day comes when our “children” see how utterly flawed we are with the more dominant characteristics such as hatred, rage, jealousy, and greed, what will we say? And how will they respond? Will it compute?

Or will they in turn rebel and cast us off, even as we cast off our Maker?

[To read the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, visit http://morloc.com]