“If I were hungry, I would not tell you…” speaks the psalmist by the word of the Lord. It is an hypothetical established by that leading “If”.
“If such a thing was or could be” the Lord is saying, “this is my disposition in it”. And although it goes on in all reasonableness of extrapolation that is totally consistent with any thinking man’s consideration of a supreme being; that is, that as the ‘maker’ of all things, the all things are already his and in his power of, and for, disposition, saying:
“…for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.”
Of course that makes perfect sense. The One who makes and sustains all things to which He grants being of whatever sort, is never in owing to them for anything, and could never be, nor brought into, an owing to or for them. They can exercise no matter of need, nor even lesser, i.e. of desire, as though ‘over Him’ to some exertion. For if we conclude rightly that any consistent consideration of God is that of all supremacy with nothing ‘over’ Him in His sovereignty as both Creator and Sustainer, we could not even rightly say God ‘has to’ create, or sustain. That He may show Himself as Creator is not owing to His having to prove it, or anything to anything…in the creation. Much less sustain. He has nothing (again) over Him of force to either create or sustain. We may learn a little bit of some care in saying anything even slightly akin to “God has to” in any regard…or even that He ‘has to’ be, as we may resort in argument. These may be our ‘have to’s’ that in folly we have been all too comfortable in projecting.
In most short…”He does as He wills” with no requirement to explain Himself. For requirement, as need would have to be ‘over’ Him to make Him occupy place of necessity ‘is not’. Nor ‘can be’. (We will presently leave off the even deeper quandary of saying ‘nothing’…as though in our minds there is even a ‘vacancy’ over God’s head, unoccupied…for even all we might consider as ‘nothing’ must also be ‘in Him’, not around, not above, not beneath) But let us touch this before our ‘leaving off’. Of whatever things we may, either presently or one time or another consider as nothing…may have more substance in God than any man can imagine. Our ‘nothing’ may be turned to a ‘great deal’ of a something in God; if or when eyes are opened. As one (perhaps even as myself) could be fully convinced the square root of -4 is neither problematic nor not really found ‘in Him’. As is even all our disposition to ‘play’ with numbers…with mathematics; which we believe most often, our purest attempts in, and at, perfect reasoning. A ‘system’ able to be shown of all consistency. Or so we think.
Ha! “The numbers don’t lie!” Maybe think again if able. For to lying man everything is also…lie. (too much? or maybe just too soon?)
And it is not without recognition of my own estate in part, that I write. I cannot justify my ramblings. Nor can I anymore make full claim of knowing my estate, having learned in part what a liar I am. Even that has some presumption that may be found in it. For a man would implicitly be stating he has had some exposure to truth that has shown him to be liar.
But who (even if so) has had or has…enough exposure, or any knowledge of truth to justify his being? Much less speaking or writing? There is only one manner of being justified in all (His) being, that is not in requirement of justification. And that cannot be ‘in’ a created thing…it is either given, or not. The peach can say “I am”, but for it to say “because” will only betray all attempts (and assumed quite rightly) as being in some form of requirement to justify itself…for its being. A very present odor of self serving. Who would believe it…when so obviously given to self serving? And I am no more nor less than any other ‘thing’ in creation. Unable to justify, even if in some way awakened to its own being. But talk about a quandary! Among men (if I might ask) and that particular form of being we recognize as man, who, or what is not so fully devoted to some form of justifying their being? Their ‘right’ to be? We give many many reasons ‘for’ the why of our why we are, or the ‘way’ we are, do we not all…do that? Even if we might say “I am only here by happenstance, I am only product of chaos or some ultimate and random throw of dice”, have we not ‘shunted off’ our reason for being as being ‘owed’ to a something? (too stupid? or not stupid enough to make sense?) For in all, don’t we mostly operate so far above these first assumptions as a priori(s), to not even consider them?
Might they even be the nothing appearing things…that turn to be quite a ‘something’ in some other place?
“Of course!” we might say all too dismissively, “Of course men and man ‘do and say things”…never, or rarely considering if there be some ‘why‘ to it. But here’s the kicker, if you will. If you can. If you are able. You pretty well think you know the why’s of why you are, even some of the why’s of why you are the way you are (I am smart, I have done some investigating/experimenting/research/discovery/I am informed/ I see things rightly/My self would never lie to me about things perceived/ I trust myself to know myself…even as myself) And every man who is, who has ever been has had some conviction of himself being himself without question…and having enough understanding of himself…to be himself. In short…”I am smart enough to be me” I am sufficient of myself…to be myself. It really is all and only those others that need to justify their being…to me. And for being ‘the way they are.‘(too close to home? too close to describing…man?) We consider an Einstein or a Mother Teresa, a Lincoln…yes even a Hitler as having some justification in their being (even if it only be sole purpose of showing ‘what not to be’ as lesson)…but the obscure to us, the unknown to us, the smithy who lived 500 years ago in obscurity to us, the present woman in China drawing water from a well to carry home…to us it is very much as though, unless otherwise provable by them or by a societal pressure to know them for a ‘something’, they have little, or no reason to be. At least to some ‘us’. And in that same respect…as ‘we’ to her.
And if man has any brilliance at all, it may be in his most devout ignoring of connections.
But now you don’t like hearing how much you are like me. It’s OK. I didn’t like hearing just how much I am like you, either. At least at the first. I thought I was special. Special enough…to be me.
Just like everyone else.(too crazy? or just too soon?)
israelx7wordpresscom 