How Can We Know God, The Trinity?

[ExCorde]

The subject matter of discussion for this topic seems to be: "[b]what can we explain about God and what is inaccessible?[/b]" Where can reason go and where does it [i]stop[/i]?

In a previous thread (it started [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=110800&st=40"][b]in this page[/b][/url] if you're curious), I welcomed putting into question how logical the description of God as Love in Three Persons sounded to me, even as I call it a Mystery. In our path to know and be close to God, there's things we know and things we don't know. The "Trinity" is one of such revealed truths that human logic doesn't seem to readily embrace. Images are applied, like St. Patrick's legendary use of the three-leafed shamrock.

I was told that it were those things we don't know that made little sense - that we [i]are[/i] actually meant to know God and therefore it was confusing how should reason [i]stop[/i] and call some things "mysteries". The question was "[b]how do we know that we can't understand?[/b]" (posed by [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showuser=9600"]Mark of the Cross[/url]). Again, from my perspective, the difficulty has always been God's silence - God's hiddenness, God's "invisibility". We're told in Sacred Scripture that no one sees God (Michael Novak's last book was also about that - [i]No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers[/i]):

«No one has ever seen God. Yet, if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us.
If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.» (1 John 4:12,20)

Dinesh D'Souza ([i]What's So Great About Christianity[/i], p. 194-195), in an attempt to clarify the concept of making "assertions without evidence", has said that one cannot use «empirical criteria to judge things that lie outside the empirical realm»; that we may not expect to have «evidence from a domain where the normal rules of evidence do not apply» and that «beyond the reach of reason and experience, the absence of evidence cannot be used as evidence of absence.»

He goes on to say that «the religious believer also does not know. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:1 that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."» He adds that «religious faith is not in opposition to reason» but that «[b]the purpose of faith is to discover truths[/b] that are of the highest importance to us yet are unavailable to us through purely natural means.»

In another important passage, it is said that «No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has revealed him. And this is the testimony of John.» (John 1:18-19a)

It is relevant, then, to understand that God does want to make Himself known. He endeavored to reveal Himself. The pinnacle and completeness of this self-revelation has been the Incarnation of the Christ, called Jesus: «[God our savior] wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.» (1 Timothy 2:4-6)

Notice how the way this "knowledge of the truth" reaches us is[b] through the testimony of the Church[/b], of those who have believed before us and that have been sent to share those good news (with an authority that God Himself wished for them to have) and transmit this revelation from one to the next age.

So with that out of the way, we can (hopefully) [b]focus on the Most Holy Trinity[/b].

Novak, for instance, said that God should not be abstract and impersonal (as is often the case in philosophy) but «thought of as a [b]Communion of Divine Persons[/b] — radiating his presence throughout creation, calling unworthy human beings to be his friends, and infusing into them his love so that they might love with it.» (From "The Love That Moves the Sun," in [i]A Free Society Reader[/i])

However, I think [b]we should not directly oppose a God of reason (impersonal) to a God of faith (personal)[/b], or the God of philosophers to the God of theologians, or the God of unbelievers to the God of believers. My personal attempt at reasoning about God as Love in Three Persons, was this:


[quote name='ExCorde' timestamp='1297286693' post='2210667'][size="3"]Love cannot Love itself, and Love is free. So Love needs a free person but not only one person. And yet not even two persons are enough because Love is directed for the good of the other as a free person and in the same direction it aims for the fruitfulness of the Love that two persons share. And this fruit is Love as well. So when there's three persons, Love is sublime and complete. Love loves Love but doesn't love just another: Love loves Love that mutually loves Love. Love becomes Love when it loves another together. God is Trinity.[/size][/quote]

Now, this is my personal logic, therefore I humble myself before the Mystery that God is rather than try to explain it away. However, maybe it helps to see how something can be reasonable enough in that we have intelligence and experience of the [b]creation that reflects God's being[/b] (e.g. ourselves, the family), and yet still be a Mystery. A Mystery in this sense isn't a riddle nor a secret, but rather the reality of being that by its own nature surpasses the understanding of the other. This means that it is continuously inexhaustible to the being in relation to it. So in a way, there's nothing to solve or get completely, which is liberating but can also be frustrating.

Discuss!

[Nihil Obstat]

I think we should start with the Fathers of the Church.




1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[ExCorde]

Nice Nihil, I also wanted to add [i]some[/i] important expositions of doctrine from the Catechism for us to keep in mind (references omitted):

[234] The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith". The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin".

[236] The Fathers of the Church distinguish between theology (theologia) and economy (oikonomia). "Theology" refers to the mystery of God's inmost life within the Blessed Trinity and "economy" to all the works by which God reveals himself and communicates his life. Through the oikonomia the theologia is revealed to us; but conversely, the theologia illuminates the whole oikonomia. God's works reveal who he is in himself; the mystery of his inmost being enlightens our understanding of all his works. So it is, analogously, among human persons. A person discloses himself in his actions, and the better we know a person, the better we understand his actions.

[237] The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God". To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

[251] In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: "substance", "person" or "hypostasis", "relation" and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, "infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand".

[252] The Church uses (I) the term "substance" (rendered also at times by "essence" or "nature") to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term "person" or "hypostasis" to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term "relation" to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

[253] The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

[254] The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

[255] The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

About the knowledge of God, see also [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PA.HTM"][b]"Ways of Coming to Know God" (31-49)[/b][/url] and:

[286] Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."

[ExCorde]

Now here's a particular contention that was put forward previously and I don't want to dismiss it:

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1297737830' post='2212480']
I have read where other people have said that the triune, whatever, description of the Trinity is not true but we don't understand what it really is. I was just hoping that someone could explain that for me. .
[/quote]

After reading all of the above, Mark, what do you think wasn't explained yet?

[ExCorde]

For a Catholic forum, the subject of reasoning about God Himself doesn't seem to attract enough attention!

I'm convinced a lot of people think their faith doesn't have to make sense - not to others, not even to themselves. Simply put, they are busier living it than explaining it! "Sense" isn't what they're in it for; love is. And love often doesn't make that much "sense".

I found a few interesting quotes in one of the oldest threads in the Phorum (from back in 2003) that recently got bumped up. The question was "what religion makes the least amount of sense?"

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1057378747' post='977']
I voted Catholicism, the only religion courageous and truthful enough to not make sense.

And that is why it must be true.
[/quote]


[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1057381954' post='1023']
I voted Catholicism.
It was created by God.

All the others were created by man. Man tries to make sense. God doesn't have to.
[/quote]


[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1057382742' post='1031']
Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
[/quote]


[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1143664911' post='927273']
Hands down its Catholicism


The last shall be first
The shy folk get all the land
We're called to suffer
No Catholic worth his/her salt is ever completely secure that they're going to heaven
Few can do guilt like we can

Its completely based on love (and who can make sense out of love?)

It is completely illogical and from an objective view, total lunacy.

And I am deeply in love with the Faith!
[/quote]


[quote name='ThePenciledOne' timestamp='1295935098' post='2204101']
I say Catholicism as well.

I mean, it clashes entirely with our nature as human beings or at least our fallen human nature.

Praise God, that we have been brought into divine revelation with the Light of Christ!

Praise Him!

(And I second Jamie's statement.)
[/quote]

But then it comes down to one's perspective...:

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295942693' post='2204112']
I understand why people want to say Catholicism in a Chestertonian/paradoxical sense, but I don't agree. From a purely logical standpoint maybe, but I believe that the Catholic faith resonates very clearly on a phenomenological and spiritual level for many people. I know that's how it is for me.
[/quote]

...Or does it? [b]Well, no I don't think it's really only a matter of perspective![/b]

In fact, as Blessed John Paul II famously wrote:

[size="3"][quote]Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is [b]incomprehensible[/b] for himself, his life is [b]senseless[/b], if love is not revealed to him, if he does not [b]encounter[/b] love, if he does not [b]experience[/b] it and make it his own, if he does not [b]participate intimately[/b] in it. (Redemptor hominis, 10)[/quote][/size]

[b]Life only [u]makes sense[/u] with love[/b]. So no matter how senseless and foolish love seems, it is accepted for true, [b]meaningful reasons[/b] - to the point of giving one's life for it. As JP2 said, we need to encounter, experience, participate intimately in it and that is what removes the senselessness and incomprehension out of a person's whole existence!

So clearly to say that something like the Crucification (that sums up a lot of the difficulties I quoted above) "makes no sense" isn't just a matter of perspective, [b]it has profound implications to the meaning of life[/b]. Hence, we cannot treat the matter this lightly and we should uphold the accessibility of the faith to human reason, which is to say, the human experience of meaning!

One could quote a lot from the First Vatican Council to benefit the topic (especially[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#Chapter%203%20On%20faith"][b] Chapter 3[/b][/url] and [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm#4.%20On%20faith%20and%20reason"][b]Chapter 4 [/b][/url]of the Dogmatic constitution on the catholic faith), but I hope people will join in the discussion first. As you'll see from the text, that Council was really "serious" about the issue and looked at things thoroughly. Doesn't leave many things up to "perspective".

There seems to always be a tension between "love" and "truth": praxis and doxa (action and doctrine), charity and reason, to do/practice or to speak/teach... We should embrace both! And I say this as someone who balances a healthy dose of apologetics with the "[b]heart[/b]" of things, through beauty and goodness, because it's something beautiful and good to know, speak and live the truth.

Come on, isn't this a great topic?

TL;DR: [u]True[/u] [u]love[/u] [u]matters[/u]!

[ExCorde]

In retrospect, I think people may have meant that Catholicism went "beyond" sense at least, or "above" it at worst. Either way, the above still stands to correct the implied inability of faith to interact with real human existence and experience. God is the source and He is surely beyond certain of our capacities, but by no means can it be said that the mysteries He revealed about Himself and His Providence (sacraments, Church) makes the least sense among the other realities known to us.

[Maria]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3180.htm#article4"]From Article 4 of Question 180 of the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa:[/url]
[quote][b]Objection 3[/b]. Further, Richard of St. Victor [De Grat. Contempl. i, 6 distinguishes six species of contemplation. The first belongs to "the imagination alone," and consists in thinking of corporeal things. The second is in "the imagination guided by reason," and consists in considering the order and disposition of sensible objects. The third is in "the reason based on the imagination"; when, to wit, from the consideration of the visible we rise to the invisible. The fourth is in "the reason and conducted by the reason," when the mind is intent on things invisible of which the imagination has no cognizance. [b]The fifth is "above the reason," but not contrary to reason[/b], when by divine revelation we become cognizant of things that cannot be comprehended by the human reason. [b]The sixth is "above reason and contrary to reason"; when, to wit, by the divine enlightening we know things that seem contrary to human reason, such as the doctrine of the mystery of the Trinity[/b]. Now only the last of these would seem to pertain to the divine truth. Therefore the contemplation of truth regards not only the divine truth, but also that which is considered in creatures.

[b]Reply to Objection 3.[/b] These six denote the steps whereby we ascend by means of creatures to the contemplation of God. For the first step consists in the mere consideration of sensible objects; the second step consists in going forward from sensible to intelligible objects; the third step is to judge of sensible objects according to intelligible things; the fourth is the absolute consideration of the intelligible objects to which one has attained by means of sensibles; [b]the fifth is the contemplation of those intelligible objects that are unattainable by means of sensibles, but which the reason is able to grasp; the sixth step is the consideration of such intelligible things as the reason can neither discover nor grasp, which pertain to the sublime contemplation of divine truth[/b], wherein contemplation is ultimately perfected. [/quote]
So, as though we didn't already know this, the only way to know God, the Trinity is by grace, by "the divine enlightening." And, as Thomas says [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3180.htm#article5"]elsewhere[/url],
[quote]As Dionysius says (Ep. i ad Caium. Monach.), "if anyone seeing God, understood what he saw, he saw not God Himself, but something belonging to God." [/quote]
And, just as obviously, our faith does go "beyond" or perhaps "above" sense, whether by sense you mean sensible things (things that can be sensed) or even reason (for, if reason, then we know that there are "things that seem contrary to human reason"). But I don't think that means that Catholicism is the religion that makes the least amount of sense. I mean, it makes sense that our minds wouldn't be able to grasp/understand God Himself, and most of the "things that seem contrary to human reason" in our faith have to do with Who God is and why He chooses to do things a certain way, which would be related to Who He is.

[Amy G.]

When you fall in love, you are attracted to the goodness that you see and experience in another person. This person is completely "other" – not you, different from you. There is something about them that remains a mystery to you, because you cannot know completely their unique interior life. But there is something so good and so unique about them, that you desire to know them more and more intimately. You can never fully 'possess' your beloved with your mind, meaning you can never know everything there is to know about them (even if you've known them for years). Another human person is an inexhaustible mystery. But that doesn't mean that you say – "I love you, but I don't see the point in trying to get to know you better." Or "I love you, and that suffices. I don't need to know you...I don't need to know what makes you who you are." No, to the extent that your love deepens, your desire to know more about your beloved grows. You are thrilled when they reveal their secrets to you, and you treasure and ponder these secrets. You want them to open up to you; you want to understand who they are more deeply. The relationship will begin to decay if you think you already know all there is to know about them, and give up on discovering them more profoundly. It is a joy to frequently rediscover the other, as if for the first time, with a deep familiarity and yet a freshness - a new profundity.

I think it's possible to liken this human experience of being in love to our relationship to God (as was alluded to earlier on this thread). We become attracted to God, His infinite goodness, His truth, His beauty. There is just [i]something[/i] about Him that we can't fully articulate…our desire for Him is awakened by it. We have faith in Him, we begin to fall in love with Him. And our love demands knowledge of Him. We want to better understand this Person whom we love.

It is impossible to know God better without faith. If we don't believe in God, we obviously don't love Him. (You can't fall in love with someone you've never met). It is only within this relationship of love that we can begin to know something of who God is. That's why, I think, it is impossible to truly study theology as an atheist. St. Anselm defined theology as "[i]faith[/i] seeking understanding." My study springs forth from my belief, my love, my relationship with God. I believe in Him, meaning I believe in His love for me. I have faith in this relationship. Even if everything else crashes down around me, it is my faith that His love for me will remain. That's why this faith is the center and basis of our life – next to Him, everything seems trivial; without Him, nothing has meaning.

I study theology because I have been given to know some of Him, I realize that I've merely scratched the surface of something very profound, and I'm thirsting to dive in and know more! That does not mean that my studies will tell me everything there is to know about God. He is the inexhaustible mystery. I cannot contain complete knowledge of the Creator within my created intellect. I cannot possess God within my intellect. He is someone, He is completely "other." But this is part of what is so attractive about Him! If I could contain Him, fully explain His essence with logical sentences and rational arguments, this would not be a relationship of love. God is mystery. Yet, He desires that we know Him intimately. He thirsts for an intimate friendship with each of us; this is what He has created us for. Only within this relationship do we find ultimate happiness and fulfillment in our lives. So He has revealed Himself to us, in order to invite us into this relationship. And we come to know Him through what He has revealed of Himself. It is good to study this revelation. We are meant to love God with our whole heart, soul, [u]mind[/u], and strength! God has given us the gift of our intellect. The human intellect is an important means by which we can get to know God, our beloved, better. John Paul II said that faith and reason are like two wings (and both are necessary, not just one) upon which we fly towards God. It would be wrong to leave this gift of God (our human reason, intellect) unopened, unused. St. Irenaeus said, "The glory of God is man fully alive." Part of being fully human, of being fully alive, of imaging God, is using our intellect to its fullest capacity! So it is good to reach towards knowledge of God by using our intellects.

Our Catholic faith is [u]reason[/u]able. Yes, there is a poverty of the intellect – it cannot possess complete knowledge of God. When we possess something, we have a certain domination over it. This domination cannot exist within a genuine relationship of love. We can never fully "possess" or explain the essence of the other. If we try, we will reduce the other to something that they are not, something that is false. The other is beyond us. But we can get to know the other better! Our human reason is a vehicle God has given us that we can and should use in order to know Him better. We [i]can[/i] talk about God in a reasonable, sensible way. The contents of our faith are not contradictory; they do not offend our intellectual sensibilities. So the study of theology is a very good use of our time! It is an important way in which we humbly get to know our Beloved more deeply.

This has turned into a bit of an essay (oops!), but it is meant to be in response to those who find our Catholic faith to be in conflict with reason...I hope it is at least of some benefit. As I cannot explain this nearly as well as I'd like (and I have the tendency to ramble!) – I would definitely recommend reading John Paul II's encyclical [b][u]Fides et Ratio[/u][/b] (Faith and Reason). I'm sure many of have already read it…it's amazing!!! Also, a side note - One of my classes this semester is The Mystery of the Living God. The class deals with the mystery of the Trinity – the inner life of the Trinity as well as the relationship between the Trinity and mankind (creation, redemption, etc.). We have been talking about what we can say about the Trinity in faith, using reason, and based on what has been revealed...while maintaining that we can't explain away everything, because that would reduce God to our level (and, therefore, it would no longer be the truth).

[Ed Normile]

Faith, I thank God for it. I have never felt the need to question The Blessed Trinity, The Immaculate Conception, The Ressurection or any of the tenants of my faith. In my faith I am happy just knowing God, I feel as he is an All Powerful God that there is nothing beyond His scope. I always look at threads with questions like this with amusement, I know that God must look at it that way too, afterall we know from Jesus words that we are not to put Our God to a test. He must look at us with a sense of pride and humor that we as finite creatures with limited knowledge are so vain as if to demand that we have proofs of His mysteries, at least I hope He does as His wrath has been as intense as His mercy. If I ever make it to heaven I know He will reveal to me all that I am capable of understanding, whatever I need to know and I will be happy for that, almost as happy as I will be to just be in His Presence.

ed