How Complete Is God'S Foreknowledge?

[helix]

I've never figured this out. Our Jacob chapter 5 is a great example of this. One one hand, the chapter explains that God knows how the future will turn out, how periods of time will accept the gospel. On the other hand, when things aren't going well, God lays out a plan to improve it, and weeps when it doesn't work out. Why would God weep at the occurrence of an event for something he has perfect foreknowledge of? Having perfect foreknowledge is akin to saying history transcends time, you know the future as perfectly as the present. If so, the moment an event happens shouldn't trigger an emotional reaction.

Using reason, I would conclude that God has a good idea of the general concept of the future, and that we have agency and can change that future. He hopes we can change the future, and is saddened when we fall away.

However, the above reasoning is only using just that, reason. I wonder how many unknowns could change that line of reasoning.

Fortunately LDS philosophy helps somewhat. Our beliefs our souls are eternal, co-existing. That is, God did not put us on Earth knowing we would fail, but gave us our own chance according to our own merits (this nicely gets around the issue of the Problem of Evil). We also believe in the concept of deification. This means that perhaps one day, we will also gain the same level of knowledge and foresight that God now has. This doesn't solve the issue of perfect foreknowledge vs a God of passions. But it at least helps with regards to agency.

[Danzo]

If God infallibly knew yesterday that I will rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am, I cannot change God's past knowledge that I will rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am. I cannot do other than rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am because, in effect, the act has already occurred. There is no other possibility open to me. And if I cannot do otherwise than rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am, then I do not act freely. Whatever agency I may think I have is illusory.

For a more detailed discussion of the argument and the premises, see http://plato.stanfor...-foreknowledge/.

God is the predictor, not the cause of your robbery, if you weren't going to do it, he would not have predicted it.

I don't see how this is hard to understand. We predict many things that we do not cause, weather, being one. I can also predict with a good deal of certainty what my children will eat and what they will not, without causing or denying their free will. If they surprise me it is an indication of my poor prediction skills.

[Duncan]

God is the predictor, not the cause of your robbery, if you weren't going to do it, he would not have predicted it.

I don't see how this is hard to understand. We predict many things that we do not cause, weather, being one. I can also predict with a good deal of certainty what my children will eat and what they will not, without causing or denying their free will. If they surprise me it is an indication of my poor prediction skills.

that's the thing though is God a poor predictor, if he is then why is he a God?

[Stone holm]

I've never figured this out. Our Jacob chapter 5 is a great example of this. One one hand, the chapter explains that God knows how the future will turn out, how periods of time will accept the gospel. On the other hand, when things aren't going well, God lays out a plan to improve it, and weeps when it doesn't work out. Why would God weep at the occurrence of an event for something he has perfect foreknowledge of? Having perfect foreknowledge is akin to saying history transcends time, you know the future as perfectly as the present. If so, the moment an event happens shouldn't trigger an emotional reaction.

Using reason, I would conclude that God has a good idea of the general concept of the future, and that we have agency and can change that future. He hopes we can change the future, and is saddened when we fall away.

However, the above reasoning is only using just that, reason. I wonder how many unknowns could change that line of reasoning.

Fortunately LDS philosophy helps somewhat. Our beliefs our souls are eternal, co-existing. That is, God did not put us on Earth knowing we would fail, but gave us our own chance according to our own merits (this nicely gets around the issue of the Problem of Evil). We also believe in the concept of deification. This means that perhaps one day, we will also gain the same level of knowledge and foresight that God now has. This doesn't solve the issue of perfect foreknowledge vs a God of passions. But it at least helps with regards to agency.

In order to preserve the concept of free agency, One has to consider this in terms of the distinction between macro and micro knowledge. There is no free agency problem with God knowing that certain activities will happen in the course of the development of civilization and the progress of humanity. There is no agency problem with the God knowing that by such and such a time someone will have done something bad. The problem is when He knows for an absolute certainty that a certain specific person is going to do something bad.

[CV75]

CV thanks for the response,

Pretty deep post. It leaves me wondering what God has faith in. Us? Is the guaranty of salvation based on His faith in us? I dunno if I am reading your right here.

Where the LDS definition of faith [http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/faith?lang=eng&letter=f ] involves such descriptors as hope, confidence, and assurance; a principle of action and power; and an outgrowth of obedience and knowledge obtained by the testimony of others (hearing the word), I believe that God has faith in the following ways:

He has hope, confidence and assurance that we can make the right choices with the agency He gave us. I believe that all that He does to assert His power is a reflection of faith in Himself and His principles, as exemplified in His sending His Son to help us. I think the guarantee of salvation is based on His faith in His Son as well as our ability to choose to follow Him in faith, repentance, the ordinances, etc. When we don’t do the right thing, His power may be manifest differently than when we do, but in either case He exercises faith in executing the actions that realize the consequences (the Judgment, for example).

You seem to have spent some time on the subject, this statement is more "compressed" than the previous. I want to make sure I am understanding you clearly. To state my interpretation of what you have said... In order for man to have free agency all facts.. past, present and future can be fully known save one. That moment being the point in which one becomes an exalted Son or Daughter to stand aside their Honored Father as peer. God doesn't take the last step for you, to that end, and doesn't know if you will take it yourself. Am I close?

Yes, I think that is very close to what I am saying (thank you for the reflective listening!); we can discuss any finer points to your satisfaction.

[bcuzbcuz]

God is the predictor, not the cause of your robbery, if you weren't going to do it, he would not have predicted it.

I don't see how this is hard to understand. We predict many things that we do not cause, weather, being one. I can also predict with a good deal of certainty what my children will eat and what they will not, without causing or denying their free will. If they surprise me it is an indication of my poor prediction skills.

What your child "chooses" to eat has been laid out as a pattern by you since early childhood. If you haven't introduced your child to 'moo goo gay pan', there is little chance they would choose it. In fact, free will doesn't play a part because of the limited experiences you have provided.

Free will sounds nice, but is entirely inconsistant with real world experiences.

[TOmNossor]

If God infallibly knew yesterday that I will rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am, I cannot change God's past knowledge that I will rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am. I cannot do other than rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am because, in effect, the act has already occurred. There is no other possibility open to me. And if I cannot do otherwise than rob a bank tomorrow at 10 am, then I do not act freely. Whatever agency I may think I have is illusory.

For a more detailed discussion of the argument and the premises, see http://plato.stanfor...-foreknowledge/.

Mudcat and Nevo and ALL, Hello!

I wrote most of this before I saw Nevo's post, but my posting rate is about nil. Still this is an interesting topic so here is a big pile of words:

The argument that God’s certain foreknowledge limits our freedom is pretty simple and sound IMO. It does hinge on a view of freedom called libertarian free will LFW. This view is the default view of non-philosophers IMO, but it is the view that creates problems. Basically, an action is only FREE if at the time the action is performed the agent could do other than they actually did.

If God foreknows our actions perfectly, then at time t, God knows I will do “A” at time t+1. If I have the power to do “not A” then my action at time t+1makes God’s foreknowledge of my action FALSE. If I do not have the power to make God’s foreknowledge false, then I do not have the power to do “not A.”

The idea that I do not have LFW is viable IMO. The reason I reject it is not because I perceive I have LFW (I think we all perceive we have LFW and I do not believe we are as free as we think). I reject it because I reject the absolute determinism that the absence of LFW entails. And I only reject that because I believe such is necessary for BECOMING in a morally significant way (and I would reject if I was not a LDS because the God who creates ex nihilo becomes the SOLE author of every evil act through an unbreakable deterministic chain).

I am quite convinced that I could not turn to the fellow sitting near me and try to kill him just to demonstrate (via the future news reports) to MADB that I have LFW. I lack that power. I think I could choose to type a curse word in this post just to demonstrate to MADB that I have LFW (or I could choose to not type such a word). The former is so at odds with my character I lack the freedom to do it. The latter is something I do have freedom to do. If I want to BECOME a murder, I can start at cursing, recreation drug use, a little pornography, and ... I believe choices I can perform lead me to places where I can perform other choices. We BECOME through our choices which hopefully are chosen through interaction with God’s atonement and love.

The view I describe is a limited LFW because even though I perceive I could murder in the next few minutes, I really cannot. But, I am absolutely free to perform acts not as inconsistent with my current character as murder. Thus, God is not the one who arbitrarily saves or damns me (or if you reject creation ex nihilo, my determined path from an eternity ago is not absolutely fixed), but there is less freedom at the edges of our character than we suppose when we make a decision.

God knows all in two way. God knows all the past absolutely perfectly and has it before Him with perfect clarity. God knows all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path. God is free in His actions consistent with His omnibenevolent character and as such responds to the actually choices to bring about ALL of His purposes perfectly (of this we can, and should, be perfectly confident). It is also postulated that if the future is open, then God could know ALL THINGS because a future contingent act is NOT an actual thing at all until it is actualized.

Blake Ostler dragged me kicking and screaming from the idea that God knows all future events perfectly, but I do not think the world in which we are determined as this view entails is as beautiful as the world in which I believe we live.

Non-philosophically minded LDS are as committed (at lease almost as committed) to God’s absolute foreknowledge as non-philosophically minded non-LDS Christians, but when either group begins asking these questions there is a lot more gray area than initially supposed.

Charity, TOm

Edited June 26, 2013 by TOmNossor

[Nevo]

Blake Ostler dragged me kicking and screaming from the idea that God knows all future events perfectly, but I do not think the world in which we are determined as this view entails is as beautiful as the world in which I believe we live.

Excellent post, Tom. You're much better at this than I am. I hope all is well with you and yours. It's great to see you posting here again!

[Questing Beast]

...

God knows all in two way. God knows all the past absolutely perfectly and has it before Him with perfect clarity. God knows all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path. God is free in His actions consistent with His omnibenevolent character and as such responds to the actually choices to bring about ALL of His purposes perfectly (of this we can, and should, be perfectly confident). It is also postulated that if the future is open, then God could know ALL THINGS because a future contingent act is NOT an actual thing at all until it is actualized.

...

Charity, TOm

"God knows all" says it all.

God cannot know "all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path", and yet not know which path each person takes throughout their immortal lives. Just because God knows it, does not in any degree mean that God did it and the person in question did not choose. Knowledge is not action or responsibility for another's action.

I cut to the chase and ask "what is it for?" And I mean Existence In The First Place. The evidence we see in the world of humans is that Joy is what it Is for. If this life were all there is, and death annihilates the mind, then I would define "God as a monster", intent on the whole spectrum of feelings and emotions without discrimination: we and all living things would be better likened to "nerve endings" to God, leading to the "pleasure center of God's mind", where each tingling sensation of misery and fear of death is just as desirable as Joy. I do not believe that is what "God" is about at all. Joy trumps all other emotions, infinitely so, imhi ("in my humble imagination"). That is why I believe that "God" is all about creating sovereign, free will possessing sapient beings of uniqueness, and providing immortality within spacetime in which to discover what brings an increase in Joy. The resulting "high" to "God" is incomprehensible to finite immortal minds, but we do get glimpses of the enormity of the Infinite Joy that "God" feels, enough so that we crave as much of it for ourselves as we can handle....

[Calm]

Excellent post, Tom. You're much better at this than I am. I hope all is well with you and yours. It's great to see you posting here again!

Hopefully he will be sticking around....yes, please?

[Bikeemikey]

Did God give us agency? Satan tries to take it away. God tries to preserve it. I think agency is an eternal part of each intelligence/spirit ,but it can be lost/given up . As to the OP . I KNOW that if a cat comes onto my property while my dog is there to see it, my dog will run towards the cat. Does my knowledge affect the action of my dog?

No god did not give us agency.

If we have agency it can not be given up. Determinism is multi-directional.

If I chose via agency to give up my rights to future autonomous decisions I have not given up my agency, I have simply used my agency to decide I want others to make future decisions on my behalf.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

God knows all in two way. God knows all the past absolutely perfectly and has it before Him with perfect clarity. God knows all possible future actions to the billions upon billions of forking paths AND the probabilities of each path. God is free in His actions consistent with His omnibenevolent character and as such responds to the actually choices to bring about ALL of His purposes perfectly (of this we can, and should, be perfectly confident). It is also postulated that if the future is open, then God could know ALL THINGS because a future contingent act is NOT an actual thing at all until it is actualized.

Blake Ostler dragged me kicking and screaming from the idea that God knows all future events perfectly, but I do not think the world in which we are determined as this view entails is as beautiful as the world in which I believe we live.

Non-philosophically minded LDS are as committed (at lease almost as committed) to God’s absolute foreknowledge as non-philosophically minded non-LDS Christians, but when either group begins asking these questions there is a lot more gray area than initially supposed.

Charity, TOm

I don't think God is even required to know the past and present perfectly.

He is only required to know the past and present as perfectly as it can be known. There is a big difference between knowing something perfectly and knowing something as perfectly as it can be known.

It is also important to ponder the why of Gods omniscience. How would it help him (presumably it doesnt help us because God clearly doesnt share much of his knowledge with us), why would he have it, which of his plans would be frustrated by simply having lots of knowledge about possible future events, vs all knowledge of future events.

What theological problem is omniscience solving and what alternative problems are produced by the absence of omniscience?

As for LFW... it is an unworkable prospect:

"If I have the power to do “not A” then my action at time t+1makes God’s foreknowledge of my action FALSE."

This statement is simply not true. Having the power or capacity to do something is fundamentally distinct from having the inclination or disposition to do something (which is I think part of what you were suggesting). God is concerned with the narrow question of our inclination or disposition, not all possible acts we have the capacity to make.

Another question. How far ahead does God need to know something? Does he need all foreknowledge infinity before the event takes place (that is, has God always been omniscient - which would be problematic if he developed/grew into Godhood... Can you have present knowledge of a future time in which you will be omniscient with out presently knowing all things you will know when you become omniscient?), or is knowing of future events with enough time to impact said events sufficient?

God knows enough, thats all I care about.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[thesometimesaint]

Hi all,

Been a while since I started a thread, so for those that may not know me. I am an EV Christian, my wife and her side of the family is LDS.

Got in an interesting discussion with my FIL a couple days ago. My own view is that God's knowledge of all future events is just as certain as his knowledge of all present and past events. My FIL, expressed that he did not think God had a complete foreknowledge, in the sense that God didn't know exactly what everyone was going to do. He did suggest that God fully knew what He himself would do in any possible situation.

What started the conversation, was actually a discussion on Calvinism and Arminianism.. as he was reading a reply I was putting together in response to Calvinist.

The conversation got a bit fragmented because, I was more or less on the fence trying to field questions about my own particular beliefs. Some of the Scriptures that shape my view on the topic, present some challenges to his position, in that they seem to point to God's awareness of specific future events... but it wasn't an argumentative type conversation. Regardless we didn't get a chance to discuss why he believed as he did on the matter. IIRC, I have heard some form of his view expressed on this forum in the past and thought I would inquire.

I do not know if there is a lot of variance on the view of God and foreknowledge or if this is one of those gray areas that there is congecture on.

If you hold to a limited view of foreknowledge, why is it that you do? Are there Scriptures or logical deductive reasoning or something like that to support your view? If so what is it?

Regards,

Mudcat

After 41 short years. My wife and I are so well in tune with each other we can complete each others sentences, but she still has the ability to surprise me on occasion. I can only imagine how it will be in the eternities.

Not a perfect analogy but pretty close.

[Stone holm]

No god did not give us agency.

If we have agency it can not be given up. Determinism is multi-directional.

If I chose via agency to give up my rights to future autonomous decisions I have not given up my agency, I have simply used my agency to decide I want others to make future decisions on my behalf.

I agree, God did not give us free agency it is part of being human.

[Garden Girl]

I think my view of his view qualifies as a limited view of his foreknowledge. I know he knows everything that will happen, because nothing that happens is new, but I don't view that as a limit on what we can accomplish. It's just that he knows everything we will do from among all we can do because he knows all the possible choices we can choose from.

This is about what I think... and I will use my patriarchal blessing, generally, as an example...

In my blessing, which is quite wonderful, it is evident to me that God absolutely knows me, knows my nature, and gave me my blessing based on that knowledge (things which the Stake Patriarch couldn't possibly know about me as a 14-year old faithful LDS teen). My "purpose in life" was clearly laid out... and the blessings I'd receive if I stayed faithful in the gospel... then... then came some very specific warnings of how the Adversary would seek to destroy me... and what I needed to do. And how I could protect myself... and finally, the blessings that could be mine... I'll share part of one phrase I find very interesting: "Finally, if you live up to these things, you shall have had a full and useful life, so much so, that you will come forth among the Redeemed Daughters of Zion.... " And then as with all blessings, mine was sealed upon me based on my faithfulness...

In other words... God knows me personally and had/has foreknowledge of the trials I would face... and knew the choices that would be before me... but he didn't know exactly what choice I would eventually make because of my agency... so he gave me loving counsel and warnings.

Well, as I've told here on the board, I did not heed that counsel and at age 20 made choices that took me away from the gospel for many years... and there were promised blessings that I gave up during those years... years that from time to time I'd receive promptings to return to my faith... and finally I heeded the promptings, and here I am. And since I returned 18 years ago, I can see many of the blessings restored... and I feel "redeemed"... as in being a "redeemed Daughter of Zion."

I got curious about the "daughters of Zion" so I looked up Isaiah 3:16-26 ( and realize they are a metaphor for Israel) and read about how they were filled with pride and walked in the world in their fine linens and jewels, etc. (I loved the comfortable life I was living)... but there was an emptiness in my core until I finally heeded the promptings and returned to my faith... and I am heartened by Isaiah 4 when the Lord "washes away the filth of the daughters of Zion." And so they are redeemed... as I feel redeemed.

from the beach... GG

[Questing Beast]

No god did not give us agency.

If we have agency it can not be given up. Determinism is multi-directional.

If I chose via agency to give up my rights to future autonomous decisions I have not given up my agency, I have simply used my agency to decide I want others to make future decisions on my behalf.

"The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" Moses 7:32

[Bikeemikey]

"The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency" Moses 7:32

Just another example of why we should only read the D&C.

If there was no agency until the Garden of Eden how did we chose to come to earth in the pre-earth life?

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Questing Beast]

It doesn't say that: it implies that even in the second estate (earth life) God continued to grant man his agency, as in the preexistence. You are ignoring or not noticing the fact that our "knowledge" is given by God. Without knowledge there can be no exercise of free will.

I find your cherry picking of what scripture is valid ironic....

Edited June 26, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Bikeemikey]

It doesn't say that: it implies that even in the second estate (earth life) God continued to grant man his agency, as in the preexistence. You are ignoring or not noticing the fact that our "knowledge" is given by God. Without knowledge there can be no exercise of free will.

I find your cherry picking of what scripture is valid ironic....

Not sure about your use of ironic... but sure, if you like. I never said it was not scripture. Something can be scripture with out being either clear or very useful.

It is more likely that the word agency in Moses is being used in a narrow theologically specific way, rather than a general word to denote capacity for choice. Certain aspects of our eternal and uncreated nature suggest that just as we were not created we were not given the capacity for choice/agency, that it to was coeternal...

http://www.lds.org/s....29?lang=eng#28

agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Ahab]

Not sure about your use of ironic... but sure, if you like. I never said it was not scripture. Something can be scripture with out being either clear or very useful.

It is more likely that the word agency in Moses is being used in a narrow theologically specific way, rather than a general word to denote capacity for choice. Certain aspects of our eternal and uncreated nature suggest that just as we were not created we were not given the capacity for choice/agency, that it to was coeternal...

http://www.lds.org/s....29?lang=eng#28

agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is ^bplainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Capacity for choice works too, for what God gave Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. He gave them a choice, and they had the capacity to make that choice both there and before they got there.

[Bikeemikey]

Capacity for choice works too, for what God gave Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. He gave them a choice, and they had the capacity to make that choice both there and before they got there.

Again, I do not belive God gave us choice. Choice has always been present. We are coeternal with god, neither created or made. We can not be made.

29 Man was also in the ^abeginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

[Ahab]

Again, I do not belive God gave us choice. Choice has always been present. We are coeternal with god, neither created or made. We can not be made.

beginning with God. ^bIntelligence, or the^clight of ^dtruth, was not ^ecreated or made, neither indeed can be.

Our intelligence, or our "sentience" if you will, can not be created or made, but we do perpetuate our species and thus increase the number of persons there are who are the same kind of sentient beings we are. We come from our parents, in heaven, rather than from nothing at all, and what our parents have within them is passed along to us whenever they perpetuate the life they have within them. Thus life does not begin at conception or when our parents in heaven give birth to us in heaven. We are already a part of them before they give birth to us, and the life within them is simply perpetuated when they give birth to their children.

[Bikeemikey]

Our intelligence, or our "sentience" if you will, can not be created or made, but we do perpetuate our species and thus increase the number of persons there are who are the same kind of sentient beings we are. We come from our parents, in heaven, rather than from nothing at all, and what our parents have within them is passed along to us whenever they perpetuate the life they have within them. Thus life does not begin at conception or when our parents in heaven give birth to us in heaven. We are already a part of them before they give birth to us, and the life within them is simply perpetuated when they give birth to their children.

So you view our intelligence or sentience as distinct from our agency? God was able to give us agency in virtue of our preexisting intelligence, rather than intelligence itself being a form of agency?

[Mudcat]

First off, thanks for all the contributions to the thread. Based on the variety of responses, I at least have concluded that there isn't an LDS fixed position on the topic.

It's busy today, so I don't have much time.

Pointing this mainly at Tom and Nevo on the notion of LFW. At one point I was a supporter of LFW but at present I have come to other conclusions. The difficulty I had was two fold.

One would be that , if it were possible for me to choose something that God did not know, then God is not omniscient. Seems the easy fix is to simply say God is not omniscient. However, I think the Bible paints a picture of an omniscient God, so such a decision is problematic for that reason.

The other, is more complicated, but probably the driving reason of the two. If I have the ability to choose otherwise, then the independency of that sort of will points more to randomness than something intelligible. If LFW were true, then it would seem to me that if it were possible to repeat the exact series of events that led up to a persons particular choice, over an over at some point they would choose other than what they did choose. In a sense LFW would seem to me to be self defeating because for the will to be free in that sense, isn't it really saying I have the ability to choose other than I would choose?

I don't think this is what someone who holds to LFW believes. It's likely they would agree that we percieve processing information in tandem with our background knowledge, etc.. to reach a determination. However I think this is ultimately where a LFW goes in a reducto type way.

I think the idea that we process information, background knowledge and so forth to arrive at a decision between things is what goes on. I think in any given circumstance we will choose only what we choose. I have opted more for the language "self determination/self will" rather than "free will" because I think it expresses my thought more clearly.

On Nevo's bank analogy, I think the difficulty linking God's foreknowledge as the causal mechanism of the fellow robbing the bank at 10 the next day. I never have been able to understand that part of the LFW argument. Say God knows a fellow will rob a bank at 10 am a year from now. This fellow doesn't know that God knows this ergo he doesn't factor this in to his reasoning to rob the bank.

Tom on your splintered future concept. My thinking isn't that from it, other than to say that I think all counterfactuals were frontloaded at the point of creation and we have been moving in a singular reality rather ongoing counterfactuals in future events that filter into one reality as present become past.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mudcat

[TOmNossor]

Nevo and Cal,

Thank you very much for the welcome. I hope to say things occasionally, but I need to remember that I have a very full (read blessed even) life and must balance my time on the Internet with my time IRL.

Charity, TOm

Nevo and Cal,

Thank you very much for the welcome. I hope to say things occasionally, but I need to remember that I have a very full (read blessed even) life and must balance my time on the Internet with my time IRL.

Charity, TOm