Month: February 2024

It may be of some interest, though I am not entirely sure, how much is often come to in recognition of debt. A discovery of an owing, most often in gratitude, to things we once formerly overlooked or were once in all of ignorance. It can range from an appreciation of parents, teachers, friends, instructors, even to those things more vague to us in impacts of experience(s). The forming of who we are, and if at all content in it and beyond some wishing we were someone other, we learn, is owed mostly to those people and matters over which we recognize we have had no control.

Now, of course, the embittered person may sense none of this nor care for such considerations, and may rather view those things uncontrolled as having done nothing but harm to him. And I am not sure the very proud will have much, if any, appreciation of these thinking he believes he has arranged himself according to his own good choice(s). The very self made man. (If there really be such a thing)

So, to those who may even have only the vaguest sense of that which I speak, I speak. And I have some hope to, even according to a man whose way of thinking also has impressed me much. Who was not reluctant to describe himself as debtor. And who came to understand to whom all ultimate sense of debt, even though un-repayable, was owed.

But even this in experience may not be strange to those who have come this far in reading with some sense of that which I speak…for myself having deceased parents to whom I must acknowledge much; there is much gratitude though it is without any hope of repayment. And a great part of that, this depth of gratitude, is in some measure deepened by seeing they would have neither expected it nor sought it. How much the more then is sensed as owed! Do you not yourself find some feelings of gratitude for those who have done right by you, simply believing it was all, and only right to do so? Not in service of some other agenda? I really don’t know of greater love, nor example of it.

Therefore, though it may be oddly received of some perhaps, how I now must acknowledge some form of debt to those who have stridently resisted me…and particularly those who call themselves atheists that have done so. Whether of my pretense or sincerity, where I may have sought to present a thinking God as a, or even the reality, some have resisted to such extent to press me (who believed he served this very conscious and thinking God) to think…even more. And to do so convinced this is done in the presence of that God I believe.

And that, of course, is the crux of all these matters that may be in contention, is it not, that there is a thinking and conscious reality of [a] Being, even responsible for all? Or not…that all is random and of a chaos without order or orderliness or design…adhering to “sometimes” laws (as we may know them) but subject to finding them contradicted in certain circumstance. Or by certain experimentation.

For under duress, or extremes of observation even what we call the material universe can be observed to behave far differently than once we thought. Really bringing all into question about what we do, or may call, the material universe. (For anyone who cares to, you may read about Lord Rutherford and the impacts such discovery had upon him. Even to a man afraid to leave his bed)

https://www.factfiend.com/physicist-scared-falling-bedroom-floor

We may both, or all, believer and professed atheist alike…speak of beginnings. And if one is a strict materialist (if there be such a thing) the easily poked holes into some claim of “everything had to come from somewhere or something” that one may propound as irrefutable proof of a conscious initiation of all matter, should be plain. For when asked or confronted with “therefore even (a) god cannot be exempt from such a thing as a beginning” by that argument, is often odious to the believer. “No” he may protest, “God is what (or who) has no beginning nor any end” and the facile argument that “everything” must have had a beginning outside of itself (by an initiator) must no less, crumble. For the materialist might then respond with “if you make an exception for a “something without beginning or end” in such argument…who is to say such might not be as easily applicable to the material?

And I have heard many arguments and contentions, often being part of them, myself. And the matter of beginnings, of what is real vs what is of imagination and conjecture or speculation, are often rife with these contentions. And again, as it cannot be over stressed, is the matter of consciousness and thought “present” to all, even sustaining all, or just the apparent randomness of material acting in all materiality according to its own being of restrictions upon it.

But this also cannot be over stressed, such verbal arguments (or written) are acknowledged as owing to thought and/or consciousness in observation(s) and expression. Apart from the existence of consciousness (and thought) such do not (can they?) take place. To me this is prima facie and any contradiction otherwise would be far more than absurd. Then the question must follow, even to each, “is thought/consciousness real?” And though I, for the purposes of this writing may seem to equate them (thought/consciousness) I am less than convinced that in all things they are the same. But there is enough for us to consider them, for now, at least coupled. Unless one cares to disagree, to which I cannot but be receptive of hearing.

Now, that question of “is consciousness real?” has far deeper implications than I can express. And none need answer, to each inwardly they already have. Unless you are one unconvinced they think in reality. And that such thinking is (actually) real to them, perhaps with nothing other more real to them than their thoughts; for it is all and only by such we even have and hold any notion of reality and any hope of expression of the observable. We are either “truly” in some form of consciousness or consciousness does not exist; or taking that proposition to a more absurd end that one (them self) is sole possessor of it. As in “I know I think, but I am not at all convinced you do”. Which actually may be a far more prevalent attitude than one might admit, or care to consider.

And one may even expand upon some premise that all communication is to find whether one is alone in their thinking, or may, somehow, reach by communication a mind not unlike their own, also “in thinking” and consciousness. Able to find and establish connection. And we could also argue whether communication ever actually takes place or we are just screaming into a void and at best, only receiving a vague echo from images we believe real. And, we could “go there” if one cares to.

But if you are unconvinced you are the only one who thinks (or possesses consciousness) we then have basis to continue.

The proposition (not unlike myself) is ridiculously simple. And it is offered to the strict materialist whether of “Big Bang” persuasion or something other as to beginnings. (For one could easily ask “what was before the Big Bang”? A more remote beginning of material, one could suppose.) And this would not in any way establish a theist’s contentions. Material (and energy) one could simply argue “always is”…even if we can only see or theorize back to what our observations inform. Inform to our consciousness.

The proposition is again simple. At least if one has any concession to consciousness and thought being a “real” thing. Is it more or less real than a rock…which at best is only considered “real” by consciousness and thought(s) about it? Consciousness may be the most fundamental “matter” of all we are allowed to consider, reasonably. For unless we confess to it, make some claim (even if only to ourselves) as having it, upon what other is anything constructed for knowing? In that sense it is prima facie proof and of all necessity, especially if we no less consider communication as a real thing.

The simple proposition: If material (and/or mindless energy) is truly all there is, and “in the beginning” is all and only material from which, and of which all we observe (your house, my house, your car, my car, that star or that star all present in some form of material) is all and only the real and true, and that consciousness itself was “not there” in whatever beginning we may ascribe, then whence came it?

Could what had no owe-able consciousness “at beginning” then create from itself something that never was, or in it, or to it, before? Yes, materially my car and yours is in there somewhere, this and that star, this and that rock, our bath towels, bananas, and toenails. But if consciousness “is/was” not there (as some might contend) seeing only arrays of atoms, subatomic particles as building blocks being acted upon by all and only ignorant forces, whence your intelligence? (Such intelligence that even “projects back” to occupy that space of time looking for intelligence)

Of course this is no “proof” of anything, (much less God or a god) but unless one is prepared to deny their own consciousness as real, there are matters we might consider. Even beyond what are called the material. Or mindless energies.

If you are my atheist friend, you may see the conundrum presented if one says “consciousness always was…and is” at very least in potential in all material and is not something new to material at all, nor not present already in all matter. Then you may be at best a pantheist.

For in that mix of material was/is also what constitutes your brain whether one believes it really thinks or not. (How one could think they do not actually think…would be curious at best)

Yet it, your and my brain, may not actually be the seat of consciousness. But that seat is worth searching out.

For if one’s consciousness is all and only of random or chaotic construction, how can it be trusted for any reliable data?

You expect more from your speedometer, and a pilot their altimeter.

Can there be reason in a thing apart from reason for a thing?

And in this universe, do any of us ever truly claim to have no reason?

Even in ourselves?

Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, addresses the matter of the passing perishable (and its necessity) to the putting on of the imperishable. He speaks of death, sin, and law in their relationship to one another for the stirring of hope in their being delivered from through Christ. There is no other way of deliverance Paul has always stoutly maintained and, of course, remains unrelenting to this premise throughout. Christ alone is able, has done, does, and is the only source of such deliverance to the believer. Reliance upon anything other will only show the vanity that under girds such misapprehension.

That this must be settled to us as not merely “Paul’s stance” but made to us as true in all, God will patiently show…even through any or all of our own misadventures. And only in following God’s Christ do we truly begin to learn and see both our own folly and the strongholds of such “other thinking” that run so deep; that we may come to know only the miracle of new birth severing at root the natural and its inclinations, is sufficient to us. Yet, we are to be renewed in mind from a, even that, life giving spirit that is Christ. We must be trained to “think anew”.

We learn a significant part of that training is a rebuke to our old ways, not yet enlightened by spirit. We might like to have it some other way of ourselves…but this is not, and cannot be so. In one sense God has allowed for us to “make our own mistakes” that such learning be real to us and that rebuke, once a thing so strenuously sought to avoid is itself even changed to comfort through the Lord’s word.

“As many as I love I rebuke and chasten, be zealous therefore and repent”

And what would one exchange for the knowing of such love? Is the seeming comfortableness of “no rebuke”…worth it? God forbid! Therefore we needn’t hold pretense with or among one another that “some of us” have come to anything apart from a trail of often painful correction(s). As though “we got it” or get it, either better, or in some other fashion than another.

God forbid we lie to one another or accept to ourselves some better station that has exempted us. Indeed, one may be so bold, if one could do so apart from accusation of “other brothers” to note that those chosen of very foundational ministry (apostles) have their own stories to tell of their own mistaken-ness, and that without shame.

One may begin to see the wisdom of Christ in such calling and choosing of such men…not to be seen as “always” paramounts of virtue, loyalty, clear thinking and astute spiritual insights…but rather as example of what Christ can do with “the most common of men”.

But I dare not sound as though by such they are “brought down” in accusation…but that only each would come to understand, teach, lead by example of being a product of the miraculous power of God…that He can take what is most common…and transform.

That I bang this drum loudly and often is a must for me, a man so easily given to think himself so “very special” as to have heaped all manner of griefs to himself by such silly presumption. Yes, for me it is safe. To be reminded that only God can make a man, and it is enough to be one, despite all my occasions of trying to be “more”. Or see myself, or present myself…as “more”.

In one sense God finds in me a full time job, yet I have never found Him growing weary in it. He is always ready, willing…and quite able…to rebuke. It’s almost like He has a pleasure to show someone other than the one I so naturally gravitate toward for viewing. Nah, forget “almost like”…it is that He has a great pleasure in showing someone other than me…to me. Yes, for me it is safe. And the “who” he shows instead has never left me disappointed.

So looking “through” Paul to see Christ (and I am persuaded Paul was fully joyous in being made able to “look through”…as transparent) I find a strange turn of phrase in his exposition about law, sin, and death. He says this in one place:

“The sting of death is sin”…[and the power of sin is the law.] 1 Cor 15:56

At first glance I think otherwise, or tend to want to. Shouldn’t it be otherwise?

“The sting of sin is death”?

Isn’t death the sting? But that is not what is written, and this all despite our understanding of the wages of sin, how it “pays out” (even to death) so that death would seem the ultimate unwanted consequence in all? That is where the “sting” is made known, no? Yet he writes

“The sting of death is sin”

Have I been “all wrong”…again? Or what is being said…in order to be understood in better light?

Might it not be that Paul, in his wisdom learned, his revelations given him saw something quite differently…but true nevertheless, that is to be considered?

Could he possibly be saying in my “getting it wrong” about death being the sting, the totally “unwanted thing” that must be refreshed, renewed? It must be. It cannot…but be.

If we take death as the “signal” of wrongness, that is sin, then dying is the immutable proof of sin’s presence. And this is not inconsistent with the necessity of the flesh’s death, surely. But on the other hand we dare not let go of the Lord’s promise of deliverance from sin (and even death)…that even such promise given to what is, and while in, these earthen tents.

Is it therefore, not merely possible…but true, that there is a death that does not speak of, nor indicate the sin of the “dying one”?

Of course! But whose alone is it? Who died a true death…yet not in consequence of His own sin…having none? Ahh…do we not see a blessedness held out? A promise even there that dying need not hold all pointing to the shame of sin in us? Yes, we accept the consequence of being in a perishable tent (didn’t He?)…but if or when we come to such compelling in us to hold to the Lord’s glory alone, that even He be glorified in our mortal bodies by His alone quickening spirit…do we see that there is an acceptance of “a” death that is not pointing to sin in the embrace of it? And this, not only so as something to grasped at, evolved to…but actually already given us in Christ!

Oh, I know how silly I sound…that almost every child can repeat:

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Yes, it is true…and often so very widely accepted and repeated, as well it ought to be.

But now the reality of “a” death apart from pointing to the shame of sin is made ours, is made real…a death so precious (if indeed it is precious to us to even glorify the Lord in a temporary tent) that all our falling short in any or whatever sense…is not being held to some ultimate end of showing all our imperfections as indicated by the suffering of death.

To those of whom this may seem “old news”, that are very well exercised in the Lord’s death as to be ho hum about it, no doubt I sound a fool. But for a man who is all too familiar with his own failings, his own strivings, his own utterly failed and failing attempts to appear “more than a man” (even thinking that that the Lord might be rightly served in this)…it is a glorious relief. A “christian” man, a “spiritual” man, whatever kind or sort of man is held out with illusory promise of making one “better” that the shame of his failings be not “so obvious”…has hope! A man…no more than a man. And never called to be other…but to learn, as only through One, how OK it is to be “just a man”. And that only God…can make a man…when all illusions of being “self made” are being shown for the folly they are.

What a relief to not seek to be a “better” man. There is no such thing. But there is God’s only begotten Son…who alone is “true” man. A man so good and true in all He does not withhold His death from sharing as though clutching it to Himself to hoard all glory to Himself.

But this man:

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

And He was sent…to die…without shame. He gloried in it.

His Father’s will.