The three classic ways of thinking about God are univocally, equivocally, and analogically. Univocally means that what we say of creatures can be said of God. Though it is sometimes helpful to understand God in a sort of one-to-one relationship with what He has created, ultimately, this leads to all kinds of problems. For instance, we can understand a lot about God’s love for us through our love for our children. However, this can be pushed too far when we start seeing God as a heavenly Father who has “spirit children” through a heavenly goddess; which is what Mormon’s believe. In reality, God is radically different than His creation. This, of course, leads to the equivocal way of thinking about God, meaning that there is no real relation between God and the creation. The downside here is if we cannot be led from the knowledge of one thing to the knowledge of another, then, no reasoning can proceed from the creation to God.

A third method of thinking about God is that of analogy. God is the cause of the world. Therefore, every object reflects some perfection of the cause from which it proceeds. Hence it is possible for the human mind to conceive of the perfections of God from the consideration of the perfection it finds in creatures. How we do this is by removing all imperfection and potentiality from the creatures that we are relating to God. The resulting idea of the nature of God thus comes by way of analogy through the perfections or good we find in the created universe.

An example of the analogical way of thinking about God is to look at existence. First, we note that things in creation actually exist—pretty simple. If they didn’t exist, we couldn’t see or know them. Okay, now we strip away the imperfections. We notice that things come into and go out of existence. Humans are born and humans die. If we remove this aspect of creaturely existence we come to the conclusion that God must be eternal in His existence. We also notice that we are dependent upon things for our existence (i.e. food, air, water, etc.). If we remove this dependency from God what we have is that God is self-existent. Get the picture?

Now let’s think about thinking. We know that plants do not think like we do. Flowers, for instance, respond to sunlight and soil as they are inherently designed to do. Animals, however, have some intelligence that is able to respond to the environment in particular ways and through instinct. Man, on the other hand, has the ability to build up a knowledge base by a gradual and laborious process. It requires first of all a number of years of physical development for the optimum operation of the human intellect. It rises slowly from single physical perceptions to general ideas of things and finally to abstract truth. The terminology for this is “discursive reasoning.” If we remove this slow and laborious process when we think about God, we would come to the conclusion that God knows all that He knows instantaneously, without any labor and without any outside perceptions.

Angels are between man and God as far as their intellectual abilities are concerned.

The angelic intellect, entirely free and independent from matter and senses, needs no process of development. It is in the full possession of its power from the very beginning of its existence. There is no need of gathering elements of knowledge bit by bit, of adding ideas to ideas in order to discover truth, as is the case with us. Having been created in the full perfection of its nature, the angelic mind neither develops by gradual growth nor does it suffer any decay; its knowledge does not pass by consecutive steps from the haze of confusion to clear insight. From the beginning of its existence the angelic intellect is able to grasp the objects within its own sphere and focus on them without any fatigue in the process. Its intellectual power is not subject to waning into old age and dementia, as is the case, unfortunately, with the human mind in this life.

Since angels are higher spiritual beings and closer to God, they receive more of His light, that is, a greater power of understanding. These are said to be “infused” ideas rather than ideas gained by the slow process of reasoning. We might conceive of their knowledge as mind-pictures representing the external objects that exist in the seen and unseen realms. Medieval theologians conceived of angelic knowledge as a placid gazing on these ideas or mind-pictures which exist within their intellects from their creation, initiated either by the angelic will, or the need of the moment.

There you go, that’s how angels think.

Recently, Paula Zahn, anchorwoman at CNN, has seemed terribly agitated about the fact that many Evangelicals and fundamentalists believe that—due to the current conflict in the Middle East—Christ may return soon and that Armageddon could happen in the near future. Ms. Zahn has broadcast several video features about high profile Bible teachers like John Hagee. Essentially, Zahn has seemed nonplussed that conservative Christians could actually believe that A) Christ will really return and B) that our current headlines are in some way connected to things foretold in the Bible. Her low-grade hysteria seems to me to be associated with the recent invention of a new term for Christian Bible literalists—Christianists. Journalist Andrew Sullivan is credited with inventing the word as a way of maintaining the media myth of moral equivalence between Islamic Jihadists and Christian conservatives. Only one little problem—Jihadists believe literally in the Koran, they get up from their worship and go blow up innocent people. Christian Bible conservatives get up from worship and go to the fellowship hall for a potluck. The elite media mavens can’t quite seem to get their heads around the difference.

As to the signs of the times, I have no idea whether or not Armageddon is immanent. I admit to being a Christian Bible conservative but I am with Jerry Falwell on this one—no one knows the day or hour. My guess is that the current Middle East conflict is another flash-point of the ongoing clash of civilizations between Islam and everyone else. Fox News heavy-hitter, Bill O’Reilly, is convinced that the American public, at large, has not come to grips with the fact that we are in World War III. I happen to agree with O’Reilly on both counts: we are in denial and we are in WWIII.

For those who struggle with the idea that we are in WWIII, I recommend a powerful and fascinating new book. Ralph Peters is a columnist for the New York Post. He has a reputation for clear and independent thinking. His latest book is “Never Quit the Fight.” His thesis is that faith and not political ideology is the dominant international issue of the 21st century. The 20th century was marked by the titanic struggle between political and economic ideologies. Western free-market democracy won that battle and now great religious ideas have moved from the back burner to boil over into worldwide conflict. Peters makes the case (as does Samuel Huntington in “Clash of Civilizations”) that the hot and cold wars of the 20th century were just a “blip” compared to the much longer and greater struggle between the major world faiths. He contends that the key issue now is “what does God want for humanity.” Islam has one answer to that question and it is Sharia—Islamic, all encompassing law—symbolized by the Burka.

Like it or not, as Peters points out, Islamic Jihadists, if they could, would push a button and annihilate the West. Whereas diplomacy, economic sanctions and bargaining were tools that could be used during the Cold War, they are totally useless against an implacable enemy that is religiously motivated. Unfortunately, most Americans and virtually all of Europe are still living in 1968 and hoping the UN can talk sense to Jihadists. Meanwhile, Jihadists want nothing more than to cut off heads with a butcher knife.

Bottom line: I’m thinking we are in for a long battle with Islamic Jihadists. Maybe this is Armageddon of a very different sort. The stakes are very high. Who has the answer, Muhammad or Christ? One thing I am sure of, we aren’t going to like it when Islamic Jihadists get the bomb.

You may not know that there is an ever widening gap between our economic growth and happiness. In the past 50 years we have experienced an explosion of personal income, the purchase of luxury and recreational goods, and the size of our homes yet without any corresponding increase in feelings of contentment. In other words, the gap is growing between our economic blessings and our feelings of satisfaction. The more we have, the less satisfied we think we are.

This situation has led to the development of a new sociological discipline with a number of books published on the subject of our discontent. British economist Richard Layard has written one of the most interesting and respected. His book “Happiness: Lessons From a New Science” delves deeply in to factors of our discontent. One of the biggest culprits is television. Layard recounts the amazing true-life story of the Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan. Bhutan is an isolated kingdom in the Himalayans whose king, in 1998, decided to make it a national objective to increase its “gross national happiness.” Unfortunately, in 1999 the king allowed television into his country for the first time. The results are shocking. The people lapped up television consumption like thirsty puppies with devastating effects. There was nearly an immediate “sharp increase in family breakup, crime and drug-taking.”

What Layard and other social scientists conclude about television is that it demonstrates that our feelings of happiness do not so much depend on what we have but on how we feel our “stuff stacks up against the rest of the world, like the guy across the street.” Therefore, the people on television are another means of comparing our lives and possessions. Only, with television we are comparing ourselves with the glittering fantasy of make believe. A sure way to increase your dissatisfaction is to watch a lot of television.

Correspondingly, as Layard points out, “we all know one of the secrets of happiness is to be satisfied with what you have.” Also, social scientists have been surprised to discover that the traditional pathway to happiness still works. That pathway is a greater investment in those things that really do make us happy—“family and friends, meaningful work that we enjoy, community involvement, less getting and more giving.” How about that!

Aristotle, in the Rhetoric stated that happiness is, "a certain kind of activity of the soul expressing virtue." Happiness is nothing so cheap as a fleeting feeling or a passing fancy. It entails "a complete life," lived according to virtue and measured right up to its end.

My good buddy Aquinas wrote: “For imperfect happiness, such as can be had in this life, external goods are necessary, not as belonging to the essence of happiness, but by serving as instruments to happiness, which consists in an operation of virtue, as stated in Ethic. i, 13 (Aristotle’s work). For man needs in this life, the necessaries of the body, both for the operation of contemplative virtue, and for the operation of active virtue, for which latter he needs also many other things by means of which to perform its operations.”

Essentially, both Aristotle and Aquinas are saying that it is what we give and not what we get that makes us happy. It is how we use our “goods” to act virtuously and not how many consumer goods we have that will determine our level of happiness. Hmm…I think Jesus said something about this…how did it go?

Matthew 25:21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'