“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.
And to be frank, since I am neither prosecutor nor lawyer of any sort, yet with some sense of what could only be called my own useless sense of justice, I have never understood how both the charge and penalty for attempted murder is rendered the lesser than actual murder.
I do understand a difference in result(s), but what is the difference between an actual murderer and a simply failed murderer? If the law already recognizes and assigns intent as same to both, that is murder; and the only consideration is therefore of result, then the man who merely grazes another with a bullet should probably get no more time than the man who accidentally causes a scrape on that leg, torso, or scalp, no?
“He only accidentally wounded him” says the defense then, absurdly. For he surely would not add, “while fully intending to do away with him”.
Yes, man is bound in his considerations of both intent and result or consequence. Especially in the matter of his own sense of justice.
He seeks some kind of “fair balance” he calls justice. Just as the prosecutor in the first sentence above is seeking to add some heinousness to the crime with “the same gun his father gave him” to show a greater depravity…using a gift to execute another from whom gift was given. Implying a very reprobate form of character.
But what of God? Does he “have to wait” to see consequence? Or does He see all intents clearly? Even from the beginning. And even further, as God, would He then not be in full apprehension of His own assigning of those intents as maker of all, and for which and to which each is formed, assigned, ordained?
Did God not know that giving consciousness in and to clay (or dust of the earth) was, even in that assignation to provoking clay to seek to be “more” than it is? To be even as God? And would at opportunity try to do by any and all means presented try to do. This, of course, can never make sense to clay, even with any awareness or merely “self awareness” of being in, and of clay.
“We’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff…even that we’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff”. Yes, this would stand, and actually does, quite adequately. (But only if there is no thing other)
I should love to hear that defense. “These molecules over here just had some loathing in them for those molecules over there (the deceased) and did something to them to stop their movement, speaking, acting, breathing activity as a discrete unit.”
But we do believe life, as perhaps indefinable as consciousness to us (but hey I have it! That’s good enough for me!) is a real thing; that not only can be judged as real, but that the consequences of messing with it illegitimately (another consequence of consciousness…lawful, unlawful) puts certain slapped together molecules in jeopardy of confinement…or worse.
“The defense calls as their next witness the noted evolutionist, molecular biologist, and physicist to the stand”
“Please explain briefly to us the nature and most fundamental essence of man, if you will. And why he does things.”
“Well, first…”
After all, what harm is there in “messing with molecules?” Personally, I do it all the time. I do experiments…all the time. “Will wifey’s molecules “like” being told my own have something to say about that meat loaf?” Let’s try it and see!
Have I gone too far into the absurd?
Nevertheless, being somewhat absurd myself to myself…I may think one thing, say another that contradicts what I think or am thinking, and then often do another that contradicts them both, and yet I am most often absurd enough to often think myself as “one” of some unity, even (ha ha ha) of some integrity. (that nature of being fully integrated in one’s self and to one’s self)
“No honey, I didn’t notice that co-ed with the short plaid skirt, green blouse and tousled strawberry blonde hair that might have had green eyes and wore burgundy lipstick. Didn’t give her a second thought. You know sweetie, I only have eyes for you”
Now am I being too absurd…or just telling on myself? Or many, many…men?
Even absurdly?
“How deep is this dive, anyway…into this thing of consciousness? And, no less, “will there be math on the test?”
Oh yes…on the complete divisible-ness of what seems “one”, and the utterly, perfectly, ineffably exquisite indivisibility of true unity.
Even of which we may know so very little, but enough in glimpse to propel and provoke, where it is entirely salubrious and righteous to say “I may not know much about Him, but I know He is in His goodness, and that’s good enough for me, and even moreso!”
Even the slightest parting of the veil of our own consciousness by the intervention of another, even with His, is abundantly sufficient for all that pertains to life.
israelx7wordpresscom 