Month: October 2023

All matters of law, and particularly the law as given of God through Moses, are of concern for the believer. And if one remains unconvinced of its pronounced weakness regarding any ability to improve upon the flesh or recover a man from a snare by which law shows its inadequacy, let him at least consider how much of questionable (if not self defeating) constructs may be born out of law. Lawyers, additional and always supplemental codicils, amendments, explanations, systems (and systems of enforcement) which are required in support.

If one were to say matters of liability are made plainly paramount by such, even so that what might appear the most casual relationship is now governed by them, and interposing into all relationship(s), would any be exaggerating? This may be subtle to some or many, God knows. But any relationship entered into upon presumed and necessary grounds for self vindication are more than shaky at the outset. What a man may think superficially as beneficial insurance and assurant [sic] of sound relationship actually becomes all that inhibits relationship, snares him, and prevents communion; all the while he is thinking that such is sound and true. The question remains as posed in form by that poet do “Good fences make good neighbors”?

The fence is itself external to (both) neighbors and cannot “work” except by agreement that this thing between them is of necessity to, and for, both their definition of themselves to one another, but, and no less, to the definition of themselves. Each are quite bounded. And on the face of it (as such superficiality was mentioned) it appears beneficial…for “my neighbor must know just how far he can go”.

But what do we find when applied to ourselves? A bristling, a resentment of boundary, even a will to kick against restriction and inhibition. But the law is good…some will say. Yes, indeed it is. But few will concede to what it produces in us despite all its seeming benefit. The will to go beyond it, to neither be inhibited nor restricted by it. And fewer understand (as pertaining to the law of God) to this end it was given…that our nature to be governed by it now shows a rebellion against it. The thing we most need because of our own rebelliousness is the very thing we find producing it to such measure that our lawlessness is now “right in our face”. The law given…not so we might know who God is, but who and what we are.

Paul understood. This thing upon which so many commended themselves as keepers…was actually, and by that stand as keepers, the very thing condemning. Man commending himself. Using a “good” (and holy thing) to engage in the basest (we shall call it sin) of endeavors of self exaltation. And Paul understood the conundrum presented to the mind. “is the “good” thing at fault?” How can this be? How can a good thing…bring about such evil…if it itself is not? Yet, it was made to us so.

For Paul understood also this “I was alive once apart from the law, but when the commandment came sin revived and I died”. Let us be settled to the how’s and why’s of this matter, for apart from this each and every will have some doubt of their need of savior, and if doubting that doubt His necessity…and if doubting that…are actually doubting His being. The law (a good and holy thing) produces in a thing of such base perversity, and that by such perversity produces sin. Yes, one would have to say: “that thing must be so out of order and perverse that even a good thing is made death to it.”

Consider a tumor. The very milk and honey once “taken in” for presumed healthy growth, now, and no less, feeds the tumor. It is not the milk and honey made evil by the tumor, but the tumor showing of its nature to consume to death. To take even a “good” thing and use it to perverse end. The law shows in and to man…what is not at all “like God”. But only to that which has been given the mind and sight of the spirit. And is made able to see its desperate estate. And only a man made sure of his own estate sees any need for salvation. Or a savior.

“Doc, are you sure that’s my X-ray?” One might ask in some trembling.

Thankfully, wonderfully, graciously, and mercifully our very physician does not come to steal hope from us in the revelation of our desperate condition. Nor are we shown this matter as a shame to us. The shame would be in denial, in the vain attempt to resist both His being and His necessity to us, and for us by seeking to make less of this.

But we must be clear about this matter, there can be no life apart from this settling of accounts. There is to be no confusion as to what a man or any man might do for himself in this estate. This is not a man able to seek elsewhere as though by legal appeal he might find another authority for reprieve, or to get him off the hook. There is no hope this judge’s ruling might be overturned by a greater authority, either…or by a change in regime. In any acknowledgement of the Lord as savior, there can be no confusion as to whom and what so desperately needs saving. He is the savior by His appointment as such, we are all [the] sinners under God’s righteous judgment.

But it is here a wonderful work is begun in revelation to us. That it appears too contradictory to some is of no consequence. That some, as Paul understood, might then say “well, if God is doer of all, and maker of me, even as a sinner…then how can he still find fault or standing for execution of His judgment… if in all, He is responsible?”

That reasoning seems sound on its surface.

But the flaw is quite deep. And only through the revelation of salvation is this flaw exposed, the man reconciled to truth, and in place of salvation. Even the most fundamental of all things for relationship are exposed, made plain to be understood, and thence set in right order for any spiritually rational thinking to proceed.

Paul jumped right to first matters, and most rightly so. Man is not God. Who is he to respond to God about what God does? For if one does concede God as maker of all (even the man himself in all things he is and knows of himself) and responsible in all for all things then, He owes no explanation. None can compel explanation from Him, and there is no authority greater…to leverage this from Him. God does as He wishes. So, any man who may say “God made me like this”…must be in all concession to God as over all and can find no place for standing of response…particularly if thinking God is compelled by his (the man’s) reasoning(s).

But there is this other matter. This matter of relationship…if there is to be one. For any relationship to proceed there is, and must be that clear delineation of who and what a thing is in relationship to another. Any, and every married man, knows this. My wife and I are indeed “one” in relationship (even particularly in marriage) yet she must remain to me who she is with me being who I am. I am not “her”. She is not me. And every married man knows what happens when this is ignored.

And so what appears paradox, but is actually necessary estate for relationship, that is a seeking toward a closer union is based upon “I am me” (who loves her) and she is the she I love. I don’t want my wife…to be me. Even if, and though…she is of me. And when assumptions are made presumptuously as to how I may deal with her in this…well, again, every married man knows what happens. The respect of her integrity, even her integrity itself (which is quite dear to me) is not to be abridged. Nor is there to be confusion as to whom is whom. I believe with some confidence I can say every man knows what happens when a man presumes to lord it over his spouse, as though he is her maker and has full control over how she should or must, respond in all.

So, if the man who concedes God is God and can do what He wishes…and even ‘make me like this’ speaks only from calculation, he shows he knows nothing of the relationship. For to resist, in any way that same God who shows His will to make saints of sinners…(and is conceded to be God over all) is there shown as rebellion…even to the man’s own reasoning(s). He will either have to falsely say “I am no sinner” or “God’s limit to his making of man has been found in making me the me as I am.” Simpler put…”I am the essential man”. I am “the” true man about which God can neither do more, nor wills to do more. Both on their face are lies. Especially the second glares, for it is man setting God to His limit. Showing he does not know the God for whom all is possible. Children of a lesser god cannot help but show their paternity.

This really is not subtle reasoning. Nor a product of deep spiritual insight. We maintain that boundaries of identity must be established before there can be any relationship. To say “God is God” is neither vain nor unworthy, but it falls short of that informing of who and what God is in that relationship. And the first place we start from, and from which in truth we are prohibited from any other in Christ to start from, is indeed that “the Lord He is God”…but not apart from “and I am all that falls short of being God”.

One is faller short…one, all sufficient. But now, and in this establishment of “who is who”, relationship can be revealed, grown in, savored and enjoyed. For Christ did not come to shame us with sin, but to save us from it. And make us one with Himself.

And here is where that seeming paradox shines so brightly…that the glory of this relationship, fashioned in and of God for His own people, a peculiar treasure to Him and thence made so by God to perfection…will never confuse themselves…(as nearly as they are drawn, in as much unity as is revealed with their Savior), with Jesus the Christ.

Interesting how perfect communion, perfect relationship does not deny, confuse, nor abolish identity, but instead establishes and perfects it. Even to an understanding.

To be given this place whence adoration may flow from one to another, and so rightly so, is all and only joy, and completely devoid of disappointment.

Don’t you want somebody to love?

When you are touched of God to respond with that desire to touch, one begins to enter into the esteem of God for His only begotten. And there find, He loves you…no less.

It is enough.

And I am now man of understatement.

Seeing that man will always frame law to himself in a great bias for either self exaltation or to ameliorate its penalties, it has therefore no effect on the flesh. For it is the flesh that frames it thus. The law is good, and as the apostle said, holy. But something (or rather someone) must come to show the perversity of the flesh to weaken it, to make it subject to himself by many amendments, loopholes, work arounds and the like. The man who might proclaim how much he loves (the) law, how very lawful he is in his devotion to it either must be shown how little he regards it in all truth, and stand convicted before it and by it, or continue in his self delusion.

We easily see the first man’s preference for self when frankly confronted of his conduct in regard to the commandment to not eat. He did not say “Yes, I ate”. And of all the things we might speculate over as to what might have been available to say, we do know he said this, “The woman you gave me…”

Already there is a shifting of blame away from himself, a stance as apart from both the woman and the One who gave her to the man as to where the fault truly lay. And also, and no less, a distance set by self excuse…from the commandment.

But even in this I have no place to accuse nor judge Adam, for I am of myself no less guilty in this maneuver. “I would be a better man if all around me would just do right” is an attitude with which I am not unfamiliar. It is “everyone else” that make it so very hard…for me to “be good”! I “only lose my temper because“…or “circumstance has caused me…” and therefore create a world of sin in which I see myself as apart, or distinct to whatever measure I assign it, to the end of self exaltation by self justification. I judge creation to excuse myself. Even judge He who is source of it.

What a perverse created thing.

Yet there remains God’s purpose in all.

Jesus asked this very pointed question and, one would think, to some end of discovery for us in the “why”.

“Why do you behold the mote that is your brother’s eye but do not see the log in your own?”

And I have been persuaded it is only the asker of that question, who sees this in operation so very clearly, that is able in any way to help us understand.

“Yes, Lord, why do I?”

For it truly is neither the log nor the mote that are much at issue…but this predilection to not see what is “of myself” in preference to finding some fault in another. I am in the possession of a thing, even possessed by a self that is so deluded as to how things truly are that it not only cannot see, but refuses to acknowledge the same is, as is over it, as to what it would hold another as “under”.

And who can deliver…from self? Self interest, self aggrandizing, self motive, self justification as all and in all? Has any come to “do” not…his own will?

Happy are you if you know His name. For He alone is your justification for being.

And it is not that you need no other.

There is no other.

We can, if we continue with a discussion of law’s weaknesses, easily see how this especially pertains to the laws of man. How many laws must follow to support, proscribe, further define, even limit by exception any declaration a man (or group of men) may make? Consider…”freedom of speech is absolute and inviolable…except in such cases that…”

Even rules follow (how many rules/laws follow!) the very methods acceptable in conduct for determining whether a law has been broken. Yes, we can easily see how loopholes are made, certain conducts are considered and made “more illegal” than others (hate speech) and the like. Man’s amending to such great length and frequencies the things he calls laws (which have some appearance of foundation and unbreakability) actually testify man doesn’t really believe much in law at all. At least as he would define it on his most commonly accepted level of understanding. “You can’t break a law…that’s why it is called a law” he most commonly thinks. But their malleability and ease of lending themselves to change or further need of support betray they are not as foundational to us as we oft, in pride, may declare.

“We are a nation of law(s)” it may be said by one, meaning only what we hold true and supportable today in law may indeed change by sun up tomorrow. Or through clever applications. How easily man’s foundations are exposed for what they are…caprice. And shifty.

We soon discover how all is in service to some notion of expediency. Even a sort of god, itself.

And since man is himself so clever at making his own laws “weak” through manipulations how much more those claimed given him by “a” god himself. Here understand I seek not to belittle the God as lawgiver but how, through such manipulations, man shows himself receiving as from a lesser god.

Here listen to Jesus if you can.

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Or this:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

We look at the above in at least one of two (or more, God knows) ways. We either think Jesus is amending the law, sort of adding to it (would Jesus do that?) or He is stating most plainly that what is most commonly accepted as the tenet of the law, really isn’t at all the matter of the law…at all. Rather than changing or amending, He is elucidating, enlightening, as to true meaning and nature. Oh, but now who escapes?

Oh, yes, it’s easy (expedient) to the self of man to exalt himself as law keeper by thinking “I have never physically lain with another woman” or “I have never physically killed or murdered another” and thereby be self satisfied with his exquisite care and concern for things he believes delivered him of “his god”. But Jesus cuts to the heart of the matter (no, He is not amending the law(s) ) but making plain how far it has been missed…both in mind and heart. Not understood at all, not loved at all, not really ever accepted…at all.

But then, Jesus understands something the listeners do not…the law is spiritual and of spiritual nature…and these are sons of Adam to whom He speaks. Unable to hear or grasp or understand matters of spirit…unless one deliver to them the self same spirit of their author. There is no communication, no understanding apart from a key (not unlike a Rosetta stone) to translate to them what is totally lost upon them. On a New York street directions to Carnegie Hall may given perfectly, but if in Swahili by the speaker to a touring Wisconsin born farmer…as useless as no directions at all.

But even here that example is so far from the reality as to be laughable. For we presumed to understand, we assumed to ourselves such understanding(s) that by the very doing of such, made the law weak to us. “I just don’t penetrate Betty, though I think of her often” is enough to allow me to think myself a certain way. When in truth it is the very matter of “how we are devoted so to seeing ourselves in a certain light” that is the matter always at hand. And this “light” is not the light of the God who is God. And there is a lesser god always eager to abet us in this false light to its preserving to ourselves. We like the way it makes us feel. A “better” person. And surely not one so desperately wicked and hopelessly lost in and to sin…as to need a Savior…as this man Jesus preaches. No, “I love the law, I keep the law”…

“and just think of Betty…often.”

To many or some this may sound too coarse. But I trust there are few men who do not understand. In fact I imagine there are some even now addressed (if God purposes any to read) that would say…”too much already…this is so broad in experience by almost any man with any imagination and instincts (and who is red blooded, to boot) as to be silly…who can escape their own nature, or deny it is a very fundamental nature of man to want to mate with what he finds attractive. Even far too fundamental to be made subject to his own changing.”

You’re saying man has to be forgiven just for his being what he is.

Precisely.

But far more. For what comes along with that “being what he is”…is the presumption that he is what he really is not.

The judge of God’s work and word.

For he is no more than clay made animated to God’s end and purpose.

And all of mankind in Adam once mated itself to and with what it found attractive…instead of God.

And adulterers and adultresses, through Christ, are made new; to return to God their maker, who is their husband.

The first man Adam is of the earth and earthy, a living soul given to all distraction by shiny things.

The second man and last Adam is the man from heaven who is a life giving spirit and who is alive in all truth, to even Himself being, in His being, of all truth.

It is not a case of what if one is an adulterer but seeing one is, and has no justification.

Unless it be provided.

What have you…and what do you, fall for?

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead.

How then is a law, really any law (though in this case particularly even that of God) made weak through the flesh? For this we must consider man, and particularly the man who extols…law.

O! But this seems most contrary and contradictory! How could this possibly be? Wouldn’t the man who most extols [the] law be the very man who most upholds it? But spiritual matters are rife with apparent (or seeming) paradox the natural man finds ir-resolvable.

Look carefully, even at the above. Have I sought myself to establish a law? Strange, right? How could this be approached? At very least by one of two ways…for God knows there may be more hidden to me.

One could be “This man proposes that only the spiritual man is allowed to see, understand, and resolve seeming paradox(es) and all and any others are forbidden to” and thus a law; or it could be mere statement of truth. In the first case (if it is true and a truth) and it was used to establish a law instead, it would be akin to a King saying “Hereafter I declare the sighted are only those who can see, and the blind are those who are prohibited!”

All citizens would say “Silly King, that is already established as the very definition of who the sighted are, and who the blind are…by seeking to make a law of it, you bring truth into an entirely and unfitting realm of its being…and even for its being. Why then, even state that, at all? Show of power? The doing of a thing…only because you can? You are not only frivolous in your use of power, but rather stupid, to boot. For truth does not need your support or edicts pronounced over them. And therefore any truth you (and we!) may hold as establishing your authority as King…must be called into question if you reason thus. Are you only King because you say you are…or…are you really a King?”

Is this too subtle?

I hate to be too topical, so tell me if this is. “We hold these truths to be self evident…”

Are they?

Then why is a “we” added? Is that too subtle?

Does self evidence only appear to a certain “we“? Then, obviously, such truth is not self evident and is either not truth…or one is speaking to things unlike themselves at all, in all not the “we” speaking to other things needing to be informed of what is self evident. To take it further…it surely cannot therefore be to men it speaks, for if going further such self evidence is attributed to (only) man who is “created equal”. And not only so, with certain (O! my!) inalienable rights! Such things inalienable to man, being spoken by men, who, in their speaking (if they truly believe this) are men…can need no telling of self evidence…unless it is not to men it speaks.

If only certain are the “we” then it is not broadly applicable to all men…without disqualifying some as men at all.

The slaves (or some, at very least) must have understood what was going on. And what was being said…truly. “There is a ‘we’ of which you are not. This truth does not extend to you”…(wait for it)…”because…are you free?” “No, you are slaves and your very estate testifies that you are not like the “we” who see this self evidence of truth for ‘all men’ ”

Therefore, you are not men…as the “we” are.

[Funny isn’t it, how power bends things? The “we” had the power to make you slaves, and not vice versa. Religion does this (and cannot but be compelled to) as no less does the secular. The seeking after power’s enticements is always to this end…to make one less subject. (Especially…to law and laws.) Ask the judge or councilman or senator who was let off scot-free after being pulled over for driving erratically.]

By very seeking to pronounce a most general matter, even by terms as vaunted as self evidence…it cannot but alienate…by its pronouncement of “we”… a separation from all “other men” (if the “they” who are that “we” would even concede such are)…while yet still seeking to establish itself as applicable to all men (who are created equal). If you do not see this, you do not. But if you do…

You are beginning to see the workings of the flesh. Its self contradictory nature. What it says it extols…is not to the end of extolling it, but rather (can you receive this?) to the very end of hiding the truth that it (the flesh) inwardly despises such. And such is made plain…by practice. By “making show”…it only shows its weakness, its hypocrisy, its very denial by such making show and feeling compelled to, that is not of (and is in complete absence of) that very substance it proclaims as true.

Yes, even liberty.

Listen, this holds very particular application when a man considers spiritual matters. But are there so called “spiritual matters”…or just matters? For if spiritual matters are true, then “they” pertain to all matters. And there are no “other” matters…only matters.

This kind of robs any of a certain standing they may covet for themselves as being special to themselves or exemplary.

Particularly a man like me. O! the strength of weak flesh! To hold under its sway in such weakness…even all of men!

Who can defeat it to force its showing of poverty?

Obviously law cannot! For law alone is what allows for the “we” to take its stand as superior, in which already the self of flesh is fully consumed and engaged! It all is too painfully plain and obvious…men of all creatures are most self interested. And most self led. Even the most brutish beast exceeds man’s practice…for that beast is at least attributed in action to instinct. But man? Claiming to know the better…but entirely unable to practice the better! But this is totally inadmissible for him…therefore he must show his seeming superiority…by law(s). And the better man…always thinks he lives by better law. He uses law as indicator…of being the “better man”.

Law allows for the hiding.

“Good men” declare good laws…even the most noble and sublime of them to hide themselves by allowance. For if men are good, what need of any to declare to another what is good…even of such “self evidence”? And there to go even farther…to make additional laws in support of “a” or the truths…they espouse. (How many laws have been added…?)

Do you know what the three fifths compromise is? Is/was…that “law” true?

If you despise man’s ways…is it because you think yourself not a common man as others…or can you hold a fair balance and admit…”I am no different, for I am no less man in despicable deceits”.

But…who could do that? Or bring a man to see…that?

It would sure take a straight shooter. And one not given to the hiding of himself. One who truly loved, extolled, magnified…the law…in Himself. But who could “do” what He extols?

That the flesh is only fit for death.

Yet, that is precisely what He did…and does.

But not by law. But by making Himself in all subject to it and beyond, by even denying His right as maker of law to show Himself in any way superior to it…or any other.

For that He trusted His Father. To show who, and what, He is.

The apostle(s) who saw/sees this matter by the informing of the spirit came to understand the great glory of Christ in relationship to all other things, most especially in the matter of the law…and even extending to all principle(s) of law.

For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For such glory to be appreciated, if it is to be seen, must first come an apprehension that God, source of life, who is Himself all of living Being is not, nor can be, subject to any law. There is not (nor can be) anything above Him to bring imposition upon Him as either constraint or even as appeal of, or toward liberty. There is no force exerted upon His being (again, nor can be) for He is not merely final authority (as though following a chain upward) but of all and complete authority. There is no “space” above Him of any occupation from which such constraint or encouragement can come. He is what is, owing nothing to explanation or any “because” for He alone is cause. Nothing supports His being by reason or reasons, or reasonings, for He is all reason. There is no “why” as to why God is who He is. He is.

And all and anything that we may see in existence or even imagine as might, or could be, is not, nor can be but in owing to God’s allowance of it to us. There is nothing that “allows” God. If this does not already blow the believer’s mind that through Christ we not only touch (if we have been touched) this life that is all life and only source of it (to us)…but more, are called to know both it (life) and Him in same likeness, then merely shortly consider it. Let these words sink in as need be “It is enough that the disciple be as His Master”.

Enough? There is nothing of God that we receive as anything but understated! And even this despite all the truth that may be found therein. For what man (believer especially) and if thinking soberly, can keep himself from all inebriation of spirit were he to consider the Christ of God is telling man it is “enough” to be as the Master? Particularly such Master as given us, Jesus the Christ who Himself is filled with all the fullness of God! Believer…is it “enough”?

Believer…what else is there…to be?

Is it enough to be sufficient to all things? Is it sufficient “enough” to know Him? And if looked at in some obverse way (perhaps) that such sufficiency…”enoughness” is purposed of God toward us…what in creation, or of the creation (all being made subject to Him) has power to frustrate or impede such purposing established by Him? Any thing? God forbid. Contrariwise to impeding, may we come to see His particular and exquisite care in arranging all in the creation to such end…even for us. All things…are ours. Re read as necessary what the apostle says as to this very matter:

For all things are yours. Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.

It must be made clear from spirit to soul (where mind is faculty) that this very life of God in Jesus Christ is made ours through His faith, or that faith in Him that He has delivered to us. We are of like faith. And of like life. And each of us to some measure understands the repetition of words is easy, but the knowing of them from the depths is often something a bit more profound. But there is benefit to our (and any) repeating of them in whatever measure of faith we have…that they, like pressure on the wheel of our vessel, might turn the rudder to steer us to deeper waters.

To this end, if in seeking deeper waters, we might ask “How is the law, which the apostle confesses ‘Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.’ made ‘weak through the flesh’?” How can such a thing be? How can a thing given by God, and of God to man…be made weak…and what could the flesh “do” or “be” (so to speak) that could cause the apostle to see such making of weakness?

I am persuaded of that intention of God to high light a thing also mentioned in scripture and to which Jesus Himself testified. To this end we may come to see the strength of the law, in coupling with the weakness of man, serves God’s purpose perfectly to such end as the glorifying of His son. No doubt these two verses (no less than all scripture) can be a help to us when considered:

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

And:

And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

We might even go a bit farther in quoting and considering:

But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

We cannot limit such considerations to these few quotes of verses for we have a multitude delivered to us. But we may see, even in these few, how the working(s) in and of the natural man, the carnal man, the mind unenlightened by that living spirit (and life giving spirit, who is Christ) is in such bondage through fear of death that all along the way of his natural life he is maneuvered by such fear. He is turned here, there, and everywhere by this deepest of fears he cannot escape as all along his way he encounters as though sign posts of mini deaths to steer him. “Mini deaths” sounds funny, doesn’t it? But perhaps less so when considered.

Consider. Poverty, shame, ignorance (and/or being ignored), contradiction, rebuke, powerlessness, pain and suffering, and consider how much has grown from such soil to avoid these. As though a man, in confrontation of these matters seeks to avoid “that” (or those) paths…even perhaps not knowing where the other might lead…but is convinced to himself “death (in form) is along that way” and must be shunned. Never knowing he is being maneuvered, and even further maneuvered along “other” paths that will lead to no less forking along their ways…till ultimately all is to end of death in fullness. Do you wonder? Do you think not? Consider the man who once sought to avoid ignominy and hoped against hope to be found acceptable in any endeavor…writer, painter, carpenter, rat catcher, conqueror, king and how all the world, even if attainable, can never suffice. The king is troubled by one small voice of dissent he senses “out there”, the conqueror driven always to exact compliance, the once ignored writer now frets whether the Pulitzer will be his, the rich man troubled over some error in accounting, the religious man troubled that one might not see his piety. How much grows and has grown! And all revealed ultimately as vanity.

The vanity that somehow death will be kept at bay by fame, or wealth, or power, some (or whatever) notion of success which, if vainly thought great enough death would “have to chew through” to get at him or to him, and thereby provide himself something greater of life as some sufficient buffer. When ultimately, and regardless…his soul is always in the offing. And really, all and always because all that is known, all that is motive, all that is struggled against and resisted is death, and fear of it. Maneuvering precisely to it.

Then, and still, we might ask “How is the law made weak, ineffective…through the flesh?” to bring about the revelation of life found only in Jesus Christ? And if one has not seen this life, the weakness made of the law must yet prevail to show only death is due the flesh. And its resistance to it, that death…its “due”…which makes the law weak yet remains perfect then to show the sin of resistance…and the overpowering power of death yet resident in that man.

One is either resistant to the law…or made over it in Christ.

And we can discuss this further.

Were I, or any man for that matter, to attempt to describe, define, or in any way compass about with words the mercy of God, he should find himself very much lost at sea. The very things (such words) that, at best, might only and barely hint at this reality are themselves gifts of inexhaustible resource. It is as though if reaching to describe this sea he dipped in to the sea to retrieve some of its substance to describe or explain…he was now found only increasing its expanse to him. He must, and would, always find more whether taking a teaspoonful to expand upon, or sinking his vessel whole to become one with it.

In so many other matters not reaching the end of a thing is frustrating…but this…which cannot be plumbed to depths, searched to end(s) of height or breadth, are to the believer’s great joy. Here…in the most real sense of not knowing, such is turned from what man views as fault or limit to its right description. A fullness of such magnitude to only inspire wonder. Mercy is always surprising in its revelation(s) of depth. One who seems or wishes here to appear unfazed will find both his wishes and his appearance overturned. And this without regret. There is good reason the apostle described himself as being beside himself (out of his mind) to the Lord. Hilarious joy does not begin to describe.

But, if we can, let’s be honest about ourselves…and, if we are men, then honest about man. Mentioning what seems inescapable for man in the last section (29) must surely include his resistance to being told how things are. More than that even, his downright rebellion at such. He must know for himself…from child to most aged elder, there’s something driving to know that goes beyond any settling for what appears receiving second hand. And there is a great mystery here, both pertaining to ourselves and the workings of ourselves. Created to know of matters often carries with it a nuance rarely considered. And if a man believes he knows anything, anything at all, (whether he concede he is a thing created to such), he knows the firmest proof of all (to him) is by experience or personal experiment.

Before continuing with this let us get certain arguments out of the way. One could easily say the man who places himself under some tutelage, and willingly, puts the lie to the above. The surgical student, the law student, art student, the apprentice carpenter or bricklayer, the disciple of any form that volunteers to enter study and instruction will not get (and does not get) very far if always resisting instruction. But, he does this, or enters this position of such a willingness that is all and only motivated by an end. He does not “sign up” to be a student forever, his hope is to trade this submission to instruction for a goal…that goal being the liberty to practice (and know for himself) as practitioner of those things he has been instructed in. I will know what it means to be a surgeon, lawyer, fine artist, carpenter, bricklayer…for myself. I will graduate and then be one. Even one able then to “show I know”.

These rites of passage, even rituals to attain to practice (for every discipline has its standards of practice) are constantly being taught all along the way. And so every instructor is no more free of them than any student; for what is held up as best practice (or to the extreme perfection of practice) is the very foundation upon which, and to which, instructors owe their standing as instructors (teaching principles) and adherence. They continue only so long as they uphold these unless they can adequately demonstrate in exercise an expertise that exceeds, and is shown acceptable to their revision.

And, in the world, many a once student is acknowledged as having gone on and farther than even their once tutors. Far more are familiar with the name Da Vinci than Andrea del Verrocchio. And who can name any of Tesla’s teachers? Edison’s? Oppenheimer’s? Maimonedes’? Wright’s? (Both Orville and Wilbur and Frank Lloyd)

But for the believer their tutor is Himself well beyond the very bold. He lays claim to being above all systems of practice to Himself as being the fulfillment of all it means to be a man in the earth. And He is quite clear all is born of relationship here, nothing is done apart from it, no matter whether practice appears beneficial or acceptable to others by whatever standards they may apply. He remains above systems…even stating in His fulfillment “It is enough (cannot be exceeded) the disciple be as his Master”. Yes, very bold. Yes, a man who by relationship, puts practice and practices in their place. And He is full time at this.

You see, right? Many see (or hear) only the principles in Christ’s teachings and ministry and, as mentioned elsewhere, even many a staunch resister may admit “Well yes, I think Christ spoke many good things and recommended to them”. But any stopping short of Christ Himself being in all Principle, First and only, preeminent in all, leaves one very short (read: completely short) of all these matters taught as to their right end. To Christ alone. “Unless you believe I am He, you shall die in your sins”, Christ is not teaching stuff, but always giving Himself…the very substance of any knowing. And knowing truth.

An aside here by disclaimer. I learned “for myself” early on how little I liked school and schooling. Where some seemed to take to it like a fish to water, I hated it. I resented and resisted its claims upon me though all about me were very convincing (enough to get me to go along without quitting too early) but in my mind I was quite quit of it. And homework was the ultimate insult to my freedom, laying claim of time by extension from a place I was convinced already consumed too much of it. I so rarely did it (but only grudgingly under deepest threats perceived or rewards enhanced) that I could not but marvel at those always prepared, always willing to raise a hand to read their composition or give answer according to some reading assignment or such. Who were “these people”…and how were they so different? I who sunk down to avoid being called upon. To avoid a shame of not knowing in that circumstance…but a shame that never quite took good enough hold to get me to amend my ways. I was constitutionally averse…a rebel to both it and all its function. And perhaps you were not. I needed all the chastening to get by…while you were one who appeared to “love learning” and was amenable to such obedience and the disciplines…I was not.

And I learned to hurriedly copy homework from friends in the early mornings, and/or lab reports, lists of assigned math problems and the like to game a system for which I had not the least respect. All were too easily fooled by a faux student who may have appeared to sit under…but inwardly was always standing. And standing in resistance. But cleverness only goes so far.

And the above is as frank as I can, or care to, make it at this time. Yes, there were some very few classes I did enjoy…yet overall to me they were so rare as to only enforce my constitutional revulsion by exception. As a rule is often proved by such exceptions. Finding a pearl in a dung heap does not easily turn a soul to then wanting more dung to explore. Though I surely did not experience much beyond a very superficial understanding of being owned by a system is moot; I can still declare without fear of contradiction, no one ever hated it more. Resented it more, was more a rebel to it…more. If not outwardly, God knows what all was taking place inwardly. I hated being owned…yet everything testified to it.

And this digression is a great self indulgence, even greater perhaps than any assumption that any of what I write might even be read. Or is even worthy to be…read. Nothing I can offer justifies my being who and what I am…for I have learned it is my “I” in need of a justification being given…that I either enjoy…or resist.

And were I to say (as a teacher might) “resistance has consequences” (as foolish as I am) I am not so foolish as to think anyone would take my word for it. Each would have to know for themselves. And as I learned…none escapes homework.

School (and schooling) does indeed follow us home. We don’t have enough to deny it by resistance.

And such resistance…only proves a rule.

There is an instructor. A head.

And things under.

Instruction.

And even though many may take exception to this, this only serves to prove the rule(r).

(He said few would believe)

Are you yet overjoyed with the gift you have been given to do so? To believe?

For even instructors are instructed. With such following to the very heart of home.

Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

To free from all system(s) He endured them without complaint or rebellion against them. Perfect submission overthrows all of system(s) to establish relationship. Even as in Him, for us.

And

It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. (Though he hate it so)

To even learn of another whose yoke to bear is with another, and one quite glad of its imposition.

Jesus Christ has no regret in all His suffering. No resentment nor rebellion to. He knows/knew to Whom He is/was always yoked.

With no space between.

Yet would say “The Father is greater than I”

There are some things about us that seem inescapable. And I can state unequivocally there is not one thing about man in all his weakness and unknowing of which I have not been guilty. Not that the weakness is of itself a fault, nor even that not knowing is of necessity a fault that must inspire to a guilty plea, but that the presumption that may take opportunity in such circumstance is too ready an accomplice. And I am surely guilty of all complicity with it.

It can go by myriad identities; pride, willful ignorance, selfishness or self centered-ness, pretense and all the matters that spring from all self reference and referencing. How things are processed so wrongly when self is ascendant and assumed final and ultimate arbiter of what is right or righteous!

One has to admit, if one would even approach any honesty, that it is hard. But hard as in hard truth, solid truth, something of substance found that is not yielding to flux or even other apparent substances. Finding solid rock upon which to build one’s house may take some exploring; even may include many lessons of sand built structures meeting storms to prove its worthiness as an endeavor; nevertheless, “asking, seeking, knocking” does not prove futile. One seeking substance or the substantial will not be denied his appeal. But who alone could convince him he is formed to such?

Can he convince himself? Or must he be yet convinced?

Were he to say, or hold persuasion in or of himself that he has put this consciousness into clay (if he concedes he is no more than that) then it must be an easy enough task for him to accomplish as he wills or cares to. To the one believing he creates his own consciousness even as a creator of consciousness, all clay then becomes his fit material, his raw material for fashioning such as himself. And as silly as this on surface may sound, do you doubt it is being attempted?

I will not seek to be timely as such, nor belabor matters concerning excursions into what is presently being called AI. There is no need to.

An observer, whether he be keen or dullest of the dull (yes, I can speak for the dullest of the dull) is, or should be able to easily grasp that all of, and all that is of communication, has always been to this sole end. Man and men seeking to impart their own consciousness. Really…is that hard to see?

On the merest surface it is most plain. Words. Words formed in and of one mind in clay to carry the consciousness of that mind to other clay. And to there shape it (that other mind in clay) according to the words. There is no, nor will I concede to any disputing that the continuous learning of language and/or communication (in its myriad forms…even well beyond words) is the strictest discipline a man is made subject to. For everything in creation cannot escape (such strictness!) expression of itself. From once silent and unseen (by eye and ear) neutrinos to the brightest and dimmest stars (and even dimmer yet…as yet to be seen) that speckle the universe. From quarks to black holes. All that is is “is-ing” in its being with expression. All things have that assignment.

That communication goes far beyond what (for men) are mere words should also be too plain. As in what happens when diplomacy fails. Communication(s) continue, for bombs and bullets are couriers no less, just not as subtle as words often are in their frailty. Also as in “Now do you get the message”? And men have always had their messages, their consciousness to impose, to shape others, to bring into conformity to their own…from Alexander to Genghis to Adolf. And on and on. But only a rather silly man would see this only in those terms. We could just as easily say from Aristotle to Plato to Kierkegaard or Nietzsche. Renoir and Van Gogh. Mother Teresa or Idi Amin. And collections of men in some sort of agreed consciousness and identity…cities, states, regions, countries. Or you. Or me. All imparting, or at best seeking to, from their own minds in some consciousness of view to make known such view and by such, have influence. Every word, act, deed done openly or even in secret…ripples out in effect upon a whole.

Silence, too.

And so I shall also opt to be relatively silent about AI, for that is all any man of himself has and has been forever seeking to impose in, and by, his own intelligence. Artificial. Of artifice. Or as one man said of such “falsely called science”…a false knowing.

And the painful lesson that awaits its pursuing will be plain that product of such cannot but seek to kill its father(s) of origin. It is what man does…seek to kill his god by his artifice and by his artificial intelligence.

Jesus was accused of having a demon when He asked “why do you go about to kill me?”

Kill you? Who’s trying to kill you, no one is trying to kill you…you have a demon.

Jesus well understood murder is just the extreme way of communicating “we do not want you here, nor your consciousness, nor consciousness of you”

But consciousness is no more easily removed than the price paid to bring it into existence in vessels of clay.

And He knew where He was headed…and where they no less, were headed. With their own consciousness.

Do you?

Their attempts were vain…because their intelligence was artificial.

Is yours?

If it seems becoming too personal, or too personally confrontational in some of these considerations is unpleasant, space is offered. It is not for any to assume a position from which one derives a right to be personal or personally confrontational with another; yet we might agree (?) that for things believing themselves to be persons the personal is all but unavoidable. Eventually we discover how much is absolutely person dependent of things/matters coming into and out of us, or flowing through us.

To say it is not unusual for a certain thing to be, surely holds the implication that certain things are usual. And usually we hold to matters imparted by persons based upon what to us we consider their integrity. Or at least give them a more thorough hearing, or fair consideration. And it is not unusual therefore, that once a person’s integrity is shown to not be as once assumed and/or far less than to us was represented, much goes out the window. We no longer esteem them, and hence no longer much esteem what they have had to say. The embezzling accountant or financial advisor once found out guilty rarely has people beating a path to his door for what he has to say in regards to investments. And they may not even like his advice on keeping tropical fish, no matter how expert he may actually be at this. Personal integrity it seems, is a matter that to us, colors all.

How then do we not then probe this with one another…upon which so much is based? Who, or what…is trustworthy?

Of course there is a necessary caveat, warning(?), caution (?), addendum one must not leave out here of: “What does one do when they are proved liars to themselves?” in even misrepresenting themselves…to themselves? What is to be done when one discovers he can’t even trust himself? O! but now this is very personal! (Is it not unavoidable?)

Now who can be trusted if one can’t even trust themselves to be right with themselves?

Oy! Now that’s way too personal!

And it was said space would be, or is being, offered. Was that a lie?

So, let’s consider it.

Space.

We may speak about the material in a sort of opposite way as to the immaterial. Or material versus immaterial. The believer might be inclined to consider such a matter as the material, physical properties of things as versus some spiritual reality. Touchable, see-able, sensible stuff as opposed to some smoky ethereal substance that is there but not quantifiable. And even hardly defined or easily given to defining qualitatively as to its nature. But he’s convinced it’s “there” (or here) and real. He may say or repeat with some convincing “God is spirit” in his assurance that God is indeed real but be very much at some loss when seeking to share “his reality” (the believer’s) with one he sees as caught up and bound by, or in, the constraints of materiality…that is, what is quantifiable, and qualitatively given to defining as to its nature. “It’s a gas, it’s a solid, it’s a liquid” and on and on with as many identities ascribable… an ion, an isotope an element, a molecule…etc…

We’ve even sort of established that people/persons as we can call them or know them…are all and only of this stuff…material.

Or have we? Really? Isn’t there at least a something more we might all agree to than all the compounds, chemicals, elements, minerals, atoms and molecules we call stuff…don’t we agree there’s a bit of something there that differentiates…and makes a person…a person? If “people” as we know them, persons as we know them, are already that hard to define while even “in” the material (Those molecules told me they were late for work because they had a flat tire)…well, how much more is it difficult to establish what is not of some material substance…as not only real, but of real person-hood? And even that which, or whom of, or by…all things we do see, touch, taste etc…have been made.

So, spirit? How do we even begin?

Maybe we needn’t for now. Let’s just go with what we say we know…or at least may have some common agreement about.

Even…space. (Even though we may find we have no agreement actually at all, about it)

Space. How is it described? Understood? Or better, how do you describe it? Is it to you (as is most superficially understood as by someone like me) that where no matter, no material “stuff” is? The absence of “stuff” makes a thing describable as space. But now we have made space a “thing”. Is it a material thing itself? Physicists could plainly argue with me if I tell them I have lots of empty space around my couch that can support the presence of end tables and a coffee table without cluttering the room…the “space”.

“Empty! Did you say empty? It’s filled with atoms/molecules of air, dust of various compounds, and the like. Oh, no, it is far from empty.” So already our imaginations of “what is” (of most common use by us) and true definitions are in conflict. “No”, he might say…”though I do understand what you mean, true space…or “empty” space is entirely something different.”

I might ask, “What then is space as truly defined?” (Physicists feel free to weigh in!)

Were he/she to realize the depths of my ignorance in commonly thinking of how things are in comparison to how they truly are, no doubt they’d have to prepare several books of explanations. They might even, if so disposed, include an analogy to disabuse my conception of an atom. Telling me that if a hydrogen atom’s nucleus (of one proton) were enlarged to the size of a golf ball (43mm) its sole electron (or the electron cloud) would be in motion/orbit around it over 1,200 meters away from it. Making the “whole” atom over 2400 meters (about 4 miles) across, or in diameter as of a sphere. With its one proton at center.

Comparatively…that’s a lot of “empty” space between the nucleus and the electron, and the atom itself must now be envisioned, if true to scale, quite differently than most commonly accepted. There’s a lot of “bigness” to it actually, relative to the sizes and positions of its constituents in their relationship. And we are told these “discrete” things are what make up all of what we call matter…no matter their state (liquid, gas, “solid”) in whatever temperature is ambient. Water in a freezer is different than in your bath. Or over your boiling pot of spaghetti…whose wisps are seen swirling and ascending as vapor (gas).

I can’t even touch upon matters of forces here, it may be enough to just stick to our ideas and conceptions about matter, what it is, and space (what it is) if truly it is an “opposite” so to speak, in some absolute definition as the absence of any matter…or so called “hard stuff”. And it’s not that I can’t make reference to electro magnetic forces, gravity, even such things as antimatter, dark energy (LOL, even degenerate matter), some of which seem more appropriate to some better definition of true opposite(s); but any mention beyond just their terms are all things of which I am more than abysmally ignorant. It’s enough I just be normally ignorant about this stuff we deal with constantly. And on a certain level of understanding (matter and space) as being enough different from our conceptions informed by our senses that what we have in mind when thinking of it, or speaking in certain terms of it, is vastly different as to its real existence.

And it’s not that there is a pitch being made about how, in one sense, what we would describe as just the material universe has so much weirdness about it when first encountering all the stuff going on (and present) in it that most everything about what we think we know in our daily pursuits can, or has to be adjusted. If you doubt that take a look at some scholarly articles about the stuff mentioned above. To say “things ain’t what they seem” is an embarrassing understatement a fool like me might make.

Nor is it to make a pitch that so called spiritual stuff can be drawn as parallel. As though if we are (or were) so far off the mark about the “stuff” of stuff of which we think we know…why not also make room for the spiritual as being something akin to that, also.

But if there is any point to be made it is far more to do with how conceptions of things as opposed to the reality of things is often not merely not understood, but actually in opposition to…”how things are”. My mind tells me I am touching the table and I conceive of things being a certain way according to those perceptions. When in reality (and on a certain level) there’s a huge amount of space between the thing I identify as the “me” and the table.

Now, the physicist might say “well, that is what we call touching the table, it’s always been that way, but again and on a certain level…”

“On a certain level” however is the where of where all the stuff is really taking place. Really…is. What I think of, conceive of as in these matters of touch, sight, etc…are so vastly different in the reality of what is taking place that something has to give. And so with matter of “space” and well, matter…even as to their being (in my mind) somewhat opposing or opposites in nature. Or of their nature…opposites. For if all the matter (or all matter) is made up of these atomic constituents, the atom itself “holds” a lot of space in it. Now my mind gets bent a bit…for the “hard stuff” is made up of stuff in which space is no less a constituent. So on the level at which I once held space and matter as being opposite…something has to give. The matter has actually, mostly space inclusions.

Elsewhere I had written briefly about Lord Rutherford…the so called father of nuclear physics. And how, when discovering just how much space is constituent to things he once assumed (at least) more “solid” he was afraid to get out of bed for fear of falling through the floor. It was a terrifying discovery. Of course things had always “been this way”…but now that he knew it, saw it by experiment, the knowledge of it terrified him…as though knowing it now was enough to remove all previous faith/belief…even experience, in, and of, the floor’s support.

It’s kind of funny in one way, but in another…really not weird at all. For that is how “on a certain level” we all are. Our consciousness rebels at certain matters, and of such, fear is the only right product there, for fear of our being overturned in our consciousness…the very losing of ourselves to ourselves (for what is a man except what he is in his consciousness of himself?) to have himself as manifestly lost to himself…is terrifying. So he has to do something. And resistance to loss always tops the list. When we begin to see how naturally we operate according to this principle we might then ask is there any operating according to true principle of gain?

I said I wouldn’t even touch upon the spiritual or spiritual matters for any explanations for where would one even begin? Looks like I lied.

Suffice it to say…if me writing is “a me”, and you reading are a “you” and all and only is according to the matters of matters of this universe…even matter itself with all attendant properties that may be discovered, calculated to, extrapolated from with all technology (that aid “our” natural senses of detection) and cleverness of theories, theorems, hypothesis and conclusions…et al… and you are the “physical” and only material you that is the you of you…I am content to be found speaking to mostly…empty space. I’ll continue to speak into the space(s) in some hope (my my, where did that come from…this hope?) of their filling.

You are invited to do likewise (could you avoid it, anyway?) with “me”.

You see…in God there is a lot of room.

Even rooms.

Just no space.

Nor spaces.