.jpg)
.jpg)
|
Home
Opinion
Taylor, Ervin
2011
|
Clifford Goldstein: The Light and Fallen Humans
Submitted: Oct 3, 2011
By Ervin Taylor
From his bully pulpit in the Adventist Review, my good friend Cliff Goldstein has again waxed philosophical in an article entitled, “The Room and the Light.”
Cliff says he visited the Hirschhorn Museum in Washington DC which stimulated him to recall the distinction the late 18th Century Enlightenment German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, made between phenomenon (the world as it appears to us) and the noumenon (the world as it actually is).
Cliff then proceeds to do a quick analysis of, and commentary on, the implications of the distinction between these two concepts. To quote Cliff, “the exhibit at the Hirshhorn showed how much of what’s out there comes to us interpreted by our mind, a fact that leads to the conundrum of trying to cross the divide between reality as it is filtered, distilled, modified, and maybe even polluted by our minds, and reality as it truly is, apart from our minds — what Kant call the Ding an Sich, the thing-in-itself (a concept that I’ve come to doubt is even feasible).”
At that point, Cliff introduces a favorite concept of Adventist conservatives and fundamentalists; ‘fallen humans.’ To quote Cliff: “As fallen humans seeking to understand reality, we have three strikes against us getting it right: 1) the limits that our minds place on how the world appears to us, 2) the subjectivity of how we interpret what does appear, and 3) the tiny slice of reality ever within our view” He earlier suggested, “Because we’re so limited in what we perceive, it’s silly to make grand assumptions about all that we don’t which is mostly everything, based on the little that we do.”
What is Cliff’s solution to this fundamental problem? We must, “live by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor 5:7), because sight is not only subjective, limited, and contingent — it’s temporal as well.”
What always amazes me about this approach is that those who use it never seem to apply the implications of the category of ‘fallen humans’ to themselves. I assume the reason for this is that unlike other ‘fallen humans,’ they (the ‘nonfallen humans’ or ‘exempted fallen humans’?) have acquired some special source of over-information and over-understanding not available to the rest of us ordinary fallen humans, which exempts them from the consequences of being fallen. They have what they call ‘special revelation’ that allows them to by-pass the limitations of the rest of us. What this point of view seems to ignore is they also are ‘fallen humans’ and their purported understanding of how the purported ‘special revelation’ works is also subjective and highly limited. Cliff says it’s, “silly to make grand assumptions,” and then proceeds to do that very thing in most of his writings which, among other things, sometimes turn into jihads against current mainstream science.
Next time I talk to Cliff, I think that I will suggest he should go back to major research university and get a Ph D., degree in philosophy. He would have no problem in such a program since he is a smart man. In a good graduate program, he might just learn something that will help him realize what the differences between his current theological phenomenon (classical Adventist theology) and a larger theological noumenon (theology informed by the real world). As a concluding aside, Cliff is always identified as the ‘Editor of the Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide.’ I’ve always thought that truth in advertising would suggest that his title should be ‘Editor of the Institutionally-Sanctioned Official Adventist Theology Sabbath School Bible Study Guide.’
Log In to Post a Comment. Log In | Register
I would suggest that if one wants to discuss "special revelation," certainly atheistic science claims to have its own "special revelation" far and above what they think any believer has. To use the writer's own words it "allows them to by-pass the limitations of the rest of us." May I suggest Irv go back to school at some seminary and and get a Th.D. to help him understand and perhaps be more sympathetic to the other side and enjoy a larger view of contemporary Adventist teaching. I would suggest Andrews Univeristy. But he may want to be more ecumenical and chose Liberty College instead. I also understand that Amazing Facts offers some sort of degree or certificate as well.
The problem of perception goes even deeper than Cliff realized. I'm interested in what living by faith means, especially when the perception flaws are in the mind. Wouldn't that affect our understanding of faith? How do we deal with a flawed faith?
What you describe is a distorted picture of Christianity, yet it is one that most secular nonChristians hold (and some Christians). Actually I have yet to meet anyone who was not self-centered to some degree, and that basically is what "fallen" means. It is a state of being that makes us unsuitable for life in a new earth. Yet through Christ all (not just those who have heard about Him), have access to salvation through the Spirit. Only if they reject that Spirit of love will they be blotted out. For the saved it is "pleasures forevermore." Of course, you know that Adventists do not believe in eternal torment.
I am glad that you choose to not usually demean the beliefs of others. For me, I would have to "suspend my rationality" to believe that my computer evolved or created itself and much more human life.
If one is not confused at some time in life, they aren't living.
Why would anyone want to go to one of those schools when they can get all the training (and power!) they need from the Holy Spirit?
I want to suggest that you read the book "Unchristian." It's a real eye-opener about how the cultures of North America relate to Christians. One of the big lessons is that traditional evangelistic outreaches drive more people away from the church than they attract. So we need to use other methods to win souls. When I asked God that question and to show me the ministry He wanted me to have, the answer He gave me was a surprise. I lead a team at my church that does home repairs and other things for people. That ministry is bringing people into the church without preaching or giving a Bible study. That ministry with others has our church growing faster than all other churches in the conference except Spanish-speaking churches.
I'm going to make you a prediction: when you seek the Holy Spirit and accept the ministry He gives you, there's a greater than 90% chance that ministry will have nothing to do with preaching, teaching, giving Bible studies or any other traditional outreach method.
Having Doug answer all the questions would surely avoid the influence of several teachers and guarantee duplicates of Doug. At only $1,000 a month, it's still not cheap, but then what should one expect--unless such graduates become their next pastor. Pity the congregation that is much better educated than such a pastor.
Joe, your suggestion of the world's best ethical standard--"Do unto others--" has never yet been improved upon. No matter one's religious belief, this can be applied to any and all situations. Of course, it has not, and there's the problem. It is much older than the Bible and is found in more than a dozen cultures throughout the world, testifying to its longevity as the most practical of all rules for living.
I like your suggested alternate title for the Sabbath School quarterly.
I have always thought that those three things are the greatest reason to accept the idea of universal salvation. Interesting to see them coming from Cliff!
I thought it was "GC's Best Money Spinner"!
What would people do without the devil to blame for everything that is unpleasant? Do you believe that every action of humans is either caused by God or the Devil? That's an interesting categorization to be able to simply divide everything in two classes.
When you eat your breakfast, did the Devil or God make you do it? When you study, who is behind it? Driving your car; talking with a friend; scanning the internet; watching the news? Can each of these be put as either the action caused by God or the Devil? If rain falls on the raisin farmer and destroys his grapes; but it falls on the orange grove which is beneficial to their growth, who is behind that event? Very simplistic ideas.
Good questions.
I think some neurological explanations for human behavior are adequate and are being illuminated via neuroscience. Schizophrenia can be explained in part by protein mutations in the post synaptic density of glutamate neurons same with autism. With regards to very evil behaviors I suspect they are genetic as I do not think people necessarily choose to be evil. For example Aspergers syndrome where a person may be an intellectual genius but have no "social intelligence."
Getting more evil? No, it has always been around but we have much more effective 24 hr/7 ways of communicating poor human behavior. Thus, I suspect the the number of bad deeds remains as a constant % of the human population.
When you say "everything is not normal" what is your reference comparison? If its the garden of eden perspective that is hard to digest as that story to me is a myth.
When you saw a man walking with tumors, I would remind you we are living longer and healthier than any time in our past due to advancements in medical, nutritional and exercise sciences.
Conservative Christians certainly do not claim to be un-fallen, we claim to be fallen humans who have encountered God's grace. Also those of us from an Arminian perspective would not claim that this is a special gift unavailable to the rest. The Holy Spirit is working throughout the entire world desiring to lead all to truth. God is not willing that any should perish. You may disagree with this perspective of God and truth, but it is disingenuous of you to claim that we deny our human fall, or that we view others as also being unable to encounter the same grace we have. You know full well that Goldstein does not hold to either of those positions. It should be possible to argue with Goldstein's theology without mischaracterizing it.
To SS: You say that "The bible says that death is the result of sin." Being a Seminary Student I trust you know that it is Paul who said that. Might I ask you "What kind of death" is Paul talking about? Being a Seminary Student, surely you have the correct answer to that question.
"I assume the reason for this is that unlike other ‘fallen humans,’ they (the ‘nonfallen humans’ or ‘exempted fallen humans’?) have acquired some special source of over-information and over-understanding not available to the rest of us ordinary fallen humans, which exempts them from the consequences of being fallen"
In the parenthesis you offhandedly suggest that "they" (who I assumed to be Goldstein and his ilk) view themselves as "nonfallen humans." Next, you portray them as believing in a truth source "not available to the rest." You know full well that no Conservative Christian views himself as a "nonfallen human." I think you should also know that from Goldstein's perspective the "over-information" and "over-understanding," (IOW special revelation given to us by grace) is certainly "available to the rest of us ordinary fallen humans." To put it another way: no conservative Christian views themselves "unfallen humans" and only Calvinists view themselves as having something unavailable to the rest.
You are right that Goldstein and other conservative Christians believe in a connection to Divine truth that is superior to human understanding. Your only mistake was in claiming that we view this connection as something "not available to the rest." You are also correct that we believe there is a right way to interpret Scripture and a wrong way to interpret it. While, we would not claim that there will be complete agreement between those who interpret the Bible correctly we would argue that it will show beliefs to be false and others to be true. You seem to hold the modern view that any theological claim to be right and others wrong is hubris.
On a different but related note, I wonder if you have ever read, "The Cognitive Principle of Christian Theology" by Fernando Canale. In this book, he attempts to construct a distinctly Sola - Scriptura (which he believes will also be a distinctively Adventist) hermeneutics approach. I haven't read much of the book yet, but I'm taking the class from him, so I have a pretty good idea of the approach. I don't know that I agree with all of it, but he's definitely quite thought provoking. The debate between progressive Adventists (and I don't mean in the standards sense, I mean in the broad theological sense) boils down to a debate about hermeneutics. If we don't understand each other on that then we're just talking past each other because we have different foundational principles.
I read your review of Canale's book which is part of why I brought him up. I look forward to his response. He attacks liberal theology and classical theology on its timeless ontology, which is a realm conservative Adventist theology, to my knowledge, has not ventured into before. I would be interested to see the liberals and conservative dialog on this deeper level.
Your final question leads to a question of identity. That is, what makes a person a Seventh-day Adventist. The question as I see it, is: why is there a Seventh-day Adventist denomination. If one's beliefs go against that reason for existence, then it makes more sense to leave and fight against the organization than stay and try to change it. So I would say one's hermeneutic needs to at least fit within the purpose of the church. I don't yet have a full answer to what that purpose is, but it certainly seems like it would include central doctrines of Protestant Christianity plus the Seventh day Sabbath, soon Second Coming, and Sanctuary doctrine.
I should make it clear that I don't favor purging the church of those who don't agree with our identifying doctrines. I think that is mostly a straw man. People like Goldstein, I think, are mostly just puzzled as to why these people choose to stay. I do think the Church should make these core beliefs a requirement for ministers, as it would not be honest to spend the money of faithful Adventists to support a non-Adventist message. It also makes sense to require belief in our identifying beliefs in order to become an Adventist. However, I don't know if that is a terribly important issue, since there really is very little reason one would want to join the church if they didn't believe the message - and that is one reason why I don't see liberal theology succeeding in the church.
As to "eternal torment:" I would not want to accept a god who preserved people's lives so that they could be tortured. Well, enough of that. I hope to read more of your comments.
Seminary Student:
The belief that each of us has "free will" is a complete fallacy. We are all subject to our parents and training, education, national origin, and much more. Are you contending that the slave "boy soldiers" in the horn of Africa have free will to choose or reject their being conscripted into the army? Does a underage girl in Afghanistan have free will to choose NOT to marry the man her family has chosen? There are hundreds of like situations were free will is a hollow concept devoid of practicality.
Well said and I might add there is a genetic component to behavior that we are just starting to understand. When further illumiated the "free will" discussion will get to be very controversial.
Indeed, but I don't need Dr Taylor to discredit Dr. Goldstein. Goldstein does that all by himself. I read his SS quarterlies for yrs until I finally just threw them into the fire. Actually they are good for something.
You address me yet as you can see I have no other posts on this blog 'sides this one...
Howbeit?
♥T
I see your point. I was responding to a comment that said Mr Joy has a right to his opinions. Yes he does. My point was after reading the OpEd offered by Erv and reading most of his OpEd's I do not get the impression that he uses the forum to impress anyone with his intellect.
♥T
I suspect that these lesson quarterlies are useful to some but I have outgrown them. I know what Adventists believe and my journey has become more of a quest to understand why people of particular faiths believe the way they do. Getting back to the point of the OpEd posted by Dr. Taylor, Cliff says we are not to trust sight as its subjective and temporal, we are to have faith. I do not understand for the life of me why if one is skeptical of the senses why they would not apply the same skepticism to faith as it too is subjective and temporal.
So would it be too much to ask for maybe just 3 good reasons for thrashing the SS Lesson.
Here are some good reasons why I enjoy the SS lessons:
1] It has drawn me into a closer walk with God in Christ Jesus.
2] It encourages personal daily bible study and searching of the scriptures
3] Keeps me out of mischief and provides a daily systematic structured study which we can share and thereby edify one another during the weekly discussion, especially when a humble, teacheable and pleasant atmosphere prevails during classes.
On the other hand, what then would you suggest? That we publish a cultural Adventist study guide customised for the average culturalist guru? It could contain but not limited to issues like:
♥T
You illustrate the contrasts in how differently people view the quarterly. I am glad you find it useful. Personally, I find it too boring to give more than a glance. I get a far greater blessing from sitting down with my e-concordance and doing topical searches to see how things are described or used through the Bible. I've discovered some real gems that way.
You are correct, they are not on the top of my reading list. I get them sent to my home and not quite sure why I am on the mailing list. Maybe my dad put me on the mailing list in 2007 before he died as kind of humorous reprieve. I also get the PUC recorder always on time and never requested it but receiving the A-Today hard copies is a little more capricious. Sometimes I get them and sometimes I do not :). But, I will get that worked out.
From reading Cliff's comments on this blog and other things he has written he is no doubt an intelligent word smith and I can understand why the SDA review utilizes his talents. Cliff has very concrete views with regards to who is and who is not an SDA and I appreciate his honesty. With Cliff you always know where he stands. I suspect I would have a great time with him discussing theology and religion over the dinner table. I wish I could have the opportunity to meet him.
With regards to the concept of "fallen humans" I do not understand the theology because there is no clear frame of reference as to what the original state of human existence was in the "beginning." I certainly subscribe to the notion that we are "flawed" as biology is not perfect. In addition, if God is offering grace for our flawed condition I am in no position to reject such grace. When General Patton was paralyzed and in a hospital a catholic priest came to minister to him and the generals aide reminded him he was "not catholic." The General responded with "hell, look at me, I will take all the help I can get, please come in father." Thus, like Patton, if Gods grace extends to my flawed condition, I will take all the help I can get.
I think most of you realize on an intellectual level that the SS lessons are written for the world field and for people so varied in education, understanding, age, and mindset, that it would be impossible to meet all their needs. I think they do a great job considering the diverse readership. One doesn't have to use them, but they give the feeling of a global family.
You mentioned something important: "I think some neurological explanations for human behavior are adequate ..... With regards to evil behaviors I suspect they are genetic as I do not think people necessarily choose to be evil. For example Aspergers syndrome where a person may be an intellectual genius but have no "social intelligence."
I agree with the roots of "bad behavior" in those who are mentally ill--it is like having a physical illness which may be inherited. For example those with ADD have a difficult time being organized or disciplining themselves. It can be a life-long struggle like Paul's dilemma. But God's grace is sufficient for one to live with it and still be a success in their sphere of influence. That is why we can't always judge one's Christianity by their behavior.
I once corresponded with a serial killer in prison. Voices told him to kill, and he felt he had no choice. In prison he became a Christian, and took medication. He said that the voices were still there, but they no longer bothered him--he ignored them and became a Christ follower. He repented and was forgiven. He no longer had evil desires triggered by the voices.
What I am saying is that God will save anyone who turns to Him and does not reject His spirit. ( I tend to believe in universal objective justification.) Being "good" doesn't mean we are not "fallen" (theological term--find another one if you don't like it--try "selfish"). Whether one believes the Adam and Eve story to be myth or not--it is truth in a story. It means that God will find a way to save us in spite of our wrong choices. I believe He did that through His Son, Jesus, and they planned it before the foundation of the world so that all might be saved.
Sorry to respond so late. I have been so consumed with grant writing, teaching, papers to write etc. So I don't know if you will see this. With regards to your pen pal, serial killers are not common and is linked to paranoid schizophrenia. Although this man was "converted" he also took the medication which is very effective in putting the "voices" aside. So I am not sure if it was the "conversion" or the "medication" which amelorated the desire to do such misdeeds.
I really enjoyed reading your view on A&E story. Your description is much like Marcus Borg's view in Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. The "truth" and counsel is within the story. That is God did not intend for such a state of affairs that we have today to be the norm. I whole heartedly agree.
It was a combination of becoming Christian and taking medication, wasn't it? Having some reason to change his life and the medication made all the difference. Prayer works best when used with good medical advice.
Physics deals with relatively idealized simple objective realities perceived by imperfect minds including Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein, etc, its relative simplicity offers an interesting platform as a model to get at Truth.
Commonality of perception of physical phenomena irrespective of any single observer constitutes objective states of the physical world. Theories governing such phenomena are attempts to formulate the underlying working principles or Truth of the physical World.
A great assumption is the physical universe is comprehensible. The logic circuitry of imperfect human mind is capable of fathoming the working of that Universe. Hence the first step a physicist takes in studying physics is his assumptive faith that he can get at albeit in increasing degree of proximity to how the universe operates or the Truth of the Universe.
Conflicting theories are put to the test by experiments. The falsification of a theory gets at crucial deciding tests of competing theories. The outcomes of those tests are the ultimate deciding evidence of reality. The theory that best predict the state of our world at one space-time point from another point wins. It is Truth up to that moment.
Thus physics evolves from a gross descriptive of ancient time to the absolute rigid space and time Universe of Newton. Einstein extended Newton’s Universe to a relativistic space-time continuum framework of our Cosmos.
The Quantum phenomena resulted from one of Einstein’s postulates had the Grand Master perplexed for ‘God does not play dies.’ Nevertheless the quest for Truth in Physics marches on. On this point I argued that our God does not need an infallible Scripture to reveal His Truth. Only lesser gods require infallible scriptures to affirm their ‘truthfulness.’ As an extension to that assertion is there is hope that fallible human being can know the Truth just as Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle had brought human observation threshold to unprecedented precision.
Now the Truth of God includes but transcends the physical realm into the Spiritual realm. I like to open up that discussion to the Spiritual quest for Truth. Any taker?
Ervin,
I should have used the more conventional 'inerrant' rather than 'infallible'. Some obvious discrepancies of Scripture had caused some ex-belivers to throw out the baby with the bath water and turned atheistic or agnostic.
My thinking of our God not needing an inerrant Scripture arised from a dilema of teaching a Sabbath School class to a group of junior high students by using parallel gospel accounts of an event and ran into the problem of how to explain to them about obvious descrepancies among the Gospel accounts. Unlike adults, junior youth tend to see things more black and white.
While comtemplating the dilema I thought of the apparent inprecision of a fuzzy ball picture of the electron cloud surrounding a proton as the quantum mechanical picture model of the hydrongen atom being a more accurate protrait of the atom than the exact orbit of an electron around the nucleus. The wave equation of the s-orbital is exact but the location of the electron at any moment is probabilistic.
In stead of resorting to explaining away discrepancies due to translation or other 'alabis' I told the students that God is so great that He does not need inerrant accounts to affirm His Truth. Eye witnesses account of an accident scence is a sufficient paradim to establish His Truth since He used fallible human agents to write down Spirit inspired Words of God in contrary to other religion or insecure Christians claiming inerrancy of 'scripture' in its original toungue. I did allure to the probabilistic model of the electron orbital. They were very receptive to the idea.
It seems profound but it is just that simple.
I would think that there are many who would appreciate the approach that says that God does not need an inerrant Scripture. One might mention to these students (and adults who may not be aware of the fact) that the idea that the Bible is inerrant or infallible is not a Biblical concept at all but was an idea invented by apologists in post-Biblical times and mostly in the 19th century). Instead of explaining away discrepancies, accept them as the natural result of human fallibility.
I’m going to have to think a little more about the analogy between the concept of probabilistic model of an electron orbital and statements in scriptural narratives about certain events and concepts. My gut reaction is that this analogy has real possibilities. What do others think?
Whether inerrant or infallible, how does that relate to the common definition of the Bible as "The Word of God," something that cannot be found in scripture? For those who confidently believe that every word is the "Word of God" it poses a dilemma, yet is so commonly used as to be considered a doctrine.
Honestly I ask my self what happened? It’s possible that they never experimented the saving power or the Bible? “The word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart”. My prays go for you that you can experiment the transforming power of the word of God.
For those whose subjective experience is sustaining, fine, far be it from me to discount your beliefs. But, for me, it just is unconvincing as a basis for accepting all that accompanies it. It somehow seems just immaginary.
The Mormons get a "burning in the bosom" which is their subjective experience; Pentecostals also experience a highly demonstrative expression of the Spirit of speaking in tongues.
Many Protestants have such an experience with the Bible. Catholics get it in their adoration of the Cross or the Virgin Mary. Whatever floats your boat.
Private knowledge differs from that which can be sensed by more than one person. Of course, one's interpretation of private experience can be reported, and the reports of private experience can be the data which are studied scientifically.
More on this later....
Been an adult and after tried almost every single think, I was privileged to experience (if you wanted to call subjective experience that is fine with me) the saving power of God. Nothing compares to that, the internal peace and serenity, the joy of sharing, and many other positive experiences. You are right the subjective experience is very personal is only between you and the Creator. Is like pain or love no matter how well is described it will never be understood until is tried. No wonder the blind man in John 9 stated "I Was Blind, But Now I See”
Could it be that my countless earnest hours of what I thought were sincere prayer, along with years of scriptural study, spritual surrender, deeply felt belief, were just not enough? I never really believed in predestination, but perhaps what I had to offer was just a Cain's offering--not what God wanted. Could it be that many are called, but only a few are chosen? Regardless of what they say or do or believe? Perhaps my belief and surrender were too naive, or maybe, not naive enough....
Probably as you I tried almost all and I meet all kind of people (intelligent, brilliant, beautiful, millionaires, celebrities, presidents, poor, sick, comedians, etc) and I never wanted to change places with them. The only time I desire that, it was when I meet with a person several years ago. By the standards of this world she was not much, but she had a life full of joy, action and serenity. She introduced me to the Bible and to the Lord. When I decide to pray and ask for forgives, an overwhelming joy and peace came to me. Is difficult to describe but that was best experience I had. I learned the essence of Christianity (summarized by Paul. Faith Hope and Love) is practical. Maybe for some people this is an illusion but for me is a reality. This reality is contagious, some of friends even my wife also experimented the same. Don’t give up.
The experiences I had 45-55 years ago included great joy and peace, along with agonizing and soul searching over how to maintain that within the context of the church and its restrictive teachings that seemed to me to be somewhat at odds with the good news of salvation. Fortunately, I gave up on what I came to believe was a deceptive illusion. Even while my faith experience was strongest, I found the threat of everlasting torment versus the reward of eternal paradise to be disingenuous. I felt that the Christian life itself was terrifically rewarding, and I did not see how rewards or punishments had any place in the order of things. I found the endless hand-ringing over minutiae that is so common among adventists very unseemly and trivial. I feel so fortunate to have escaped all this guilt and sin and trivia. Instead, I have lived a full and rich and mostly joyful life with very few regrets. I'm so glad I did not spend my life avoiding wine and cheese and milk and various delicious foods. I'm so glad I did not spend my life trying to figure out how to avoid understanding the abundant evidence that amplifies understanding of our origins and environments.
I guess I check in here from time to time to see if I missed anything. My impression is that I did not miss much. The same discussions are going on here as at PUC 50 years ago. The world is a wonderful place, with all its beauty and diversity. How sad to judge people who have different orientations or perspectives, rather than loving and valuing them for who they really are.
Kendra, thank you for writing an important essay. Some in the church will agree with you. Others, especially those whose expressions of holiness are strongest, will claim you are being a tool of the devil. Don't let their hatefulness discourage you. Your message is far closer to the message of Christ that is that of the homophobes.
Joe because your post was referring also to me here is my reply.
My faith is founded in a solid conviction. My acceptance of Jesus as the Christ somehow was done with extraordinary events comparable to the ones of the apostle Paul. Already passed several years and I don’t regret my new life of faith hope and love. I don’t have time to duel in restrictions because my focus is doing positive things. My life has been blessed in every single aspect and I was able to accomplish more that I could imagine. Still I have 25-30 years more of productive professional life and I plan to make count every single minute. I prefer to engage in positive projects trying to alleviate to the much suffering that exist in this planet full of diseases. I’m glad the days of thinking that we are product of random event are long gone. Also I don’t miss my past habits including the vine that once almost literally kill me with pancreatitis. Again joyful I can say, “I was blind but now I see”