For a game to work requires suspension of disbelief. Not unlike a movie, or story, it can only hold attention for as long as one is willing to “let go” of it being a fabrication, a contrivance, a representation of a thing by another that is less than all true and quite manipulated. (See that focus on a tear in the heroine’s eye? Someone really wanted you to know her love was pure and true) And one has to lend a sense of importance to it, as though by whatever means it mattered, or is of some consequence itself. And it must be found interesting enough for the giving of time to it in attention.
Also, and no less, it must have some inner congruence even if all fabricated; an adhering to some form of rule (for which penalties are also supplied when rules are abrogated) so that outcome is (ie. winning/losing) holds some form of legitimacy or a right of being assigned. A real winner and a real loser or losers.
And I do not know (do you?) that all and every game is nothing more at heart than a fight game. And there must be, at least to the game, some sense of fairness overall that lends legitimacy to the adjudging of winner and loser. No one would, unless so craven of heart and manifestly perverse (which actually is not beyond consideration, here) come to watch Mike Tyson take on a 4 year old. Or the Yankees take on a little league team of 10 year olds.
Yet, our love of slaughter is easily provoked by games and gaming, so that even such perverseness bears considering. It may be more satisfying to our own sensibilities for a time when our team “slaughters” an opponent of seeming equal (and how much the more of seeming superior?) stature; but eventually, the lust toward such slaughter cares little for how it is satisfied. Winning is all that matters, and against and over all comers.
Now I know that few, if any, are not merely un-fond but repulsed by notion that God is rigger of all. The house that cannot and will not lose. This in all seems not only unfair, but monstrous. He is simply too big to be “allowed” to set rules if also in the contest and is also able to fully enforce (answerable to no other, especially our own sense of fairness) all He sets down. What “choice” do any have in such…game? There is no “no playing” (or is there?) for all or any finding themselves now “on the board” or on the field of contest.
The question must then become but is God in contest, in competition, opposing anything…so He may “win”? One might have a very small god if thinking so. Yet a game seems so real, so ongoing, overarching, so established (“good” games last over millenia, like wrestling) and no less have that appearance and appeal of being so real. (Check the graphics on a video game, a very far way from Pong in a few short years)
If the “sure thing” (the house) is indeed a sure thing and cannot be played against to any winning (for all creation was made subject to futility/vanity…) tell us again what choice does one have, if part of that creation, in regards to any notion of winning? Things may be making themselves more clear…one might “hope”.
For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Or, as another (Weymouth) translation would say:
For the Creation fell into subjection to failure and unreality (not of its own choice, but by the will of Him who so subjected it)
And, no doubt, there are many translations.
Might it not be that in such failure and “unreality” we have sought to draw God into a game that seems so real to us, but of which He clearly has no part, but yet (He) determined we must do so?
Now, you must like this even less. More than repulsion, is some anger stirring? Finding we have drawn God (or some notion of Him) where He does not go nor fit for the justifying of our own game(s)…which He even determined we must do? Now the inescapable seems even more inescapable, confining, restricting in all and to such unpleasantness (never mind suffocating constriction) that at best we might only peep out with final breath…”Help!”.
And it will only be in the final breath in which this is found, if found at all. After that, though it may appear one is “living” (as one once only thought they did) it will not be my natural respiration.
No, it’s easy to see why such is too unpleasant to consider. Unless one has to apart from choice. That such matters have been chosen for him in his forming to be inescapable.
Do you think those Jews hearing on the day of Pentecost were described of hyperbole? You who may “stand on the Bible” as all of true and without contradiction in every deepest sense? Were they “cut to the heart” or only like so, only figuratively so? Do you not know what a cut to the heart does? A man with such has no doubt he is dying. Reverse your thinking so that the physical cut to the heart is not the real, but only represents by image a true estate given in the land of types and shadows…and know what real is. Am I too direct? Too abusing of unreality? Do you still reason from the below thinking you will apprehend the above? Or do you see from above to understand that which is beneath? And that, not because of your own will or desire to place yourself there? It’s simply where real…only is.
And the following only holds sense from there…or there. For it came from “there”. What so many may have some delight in embracing as the unbreakable word of God. And so, so many, have enjoyed taking some stand upon that for their own elevation. Their own game. (Too direct? God knows)
The Creator in speaking the unbreakable spoke this:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
How do you read? How do you hear?
Beyond even the most facile apprehension that God is both commanding and warning, are you able to see that if that second part is “just” warning how that it must fall on all in-apprehension? What does Adam know of death; has he ever seen it? Know anything of it…at all? Know enough of a thing he has never seen nor experienced to take warning of it? Does that seem…unfair?
Then this will seem even more so.
If indeed, as it is, what we may call that second part is not really warning at all, but not less than the declaration of “a day” that is, and must no less come to Adam, then we may begin to see the futility assigned the creature. Destined (or predestined) to eat and die. Even despite what at first (maybe all such who have ever read once held) as fair warning.
Adam compelled to play a game of which he had no idea of the stakes.
And one can only accuse that God of being or seeming monstrous in this…(and all and any that may believe in Him) if he has not seen the Christ. Yes, He cannot but be opposed till then. And none will win that game.
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
Now…who is going to “help” God?
Don’t suspend your disbelief, see the game for what it is. And see Him for both what He is, and what He is not. Why He is loved, but also why He is so hated.
A ruiner of the game for everyone.
Some are happy. Some are sad.
And only He can save from a great woe.
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
But who doesn’t want to be thought well of?
Depends upon where one is looking for eyes. And whose word one believes.
israelx7wordpresscom 