israelx7wordpresscom

To admit to any training of our consciousness, even our minds, is to no less admit to other influences, and perhaps by such admission begin to see how little is found of freedom or liberty in it (or them). Once a thing is directed, it is directed.

Even the man who might set out in some recognition of this and thus go about to establish himself as only to himself, has issues to face. No matter how scrupulously he may search to either undo, or seek to know, or uncover all other influences that he might recognize in seeking to know “his own mind”, may find even this inward bent to be free of other(s) influences is also, and no less, the result of a fundamental directing. Thus, even any motive to be free or believe one is in mind, may simply be bound to some directive of which he is not aware. A bit like a rebel furiously acting in a diaphanous snare.

But he may only rarely ask “Why do I so crave a free mind or to be free in it?”

What is this thing motivating to unboundedness?

The consciousness of man has a very profound motivating to both believe it can know things, and indeed, does. Even if all it seems to know is a desire to know. Even a need to know. In some ways it is voracious, of never ending appetite. Do you not find it so?

Let it see or find what is of some interest to it and it will explore for the knowing of it. Let it see what captures a greater, or even greatest interest, and it may spend a whole life time in pursuit of knowing. And the proportions of frustrations that come in all learning as some form of discipline, will be accounted according to the capture of interest. The greater the interest, the greater their tolerating. And the lesser their accounting. We are told Edison did a multitude of experiments with failed filaments before settling on tungsten for his light bulb.

But ultimately, what man sets his own interests? Or their bounds? What or who…influences there?

Yet, in all, and in all the explorations of things and matters of interest…is it not rare we consider, why? Why does this capture my interest? Why am I provoked or propelled to it or them? Is this not also of some directing…even if fundamental of it is not known?

If we are able to concede to some matters mentioned previously, as either functions or attributes of consciousness, particularly judgments entered by measurements; we might consider what often takes place. We won’t necessarily here address the question of those measurements being made by very peculiar and particular metrics. Just that it does…take place.

When asked or even asking one’s self of any of the “why’s” of those matters that might be observed…”Why do I like fishing?”…”Why do I like math?”…writing, reading, gardening, test piloting, doctoring, sculpting, religious studies, soldiering, public speaking, serial killing, song writing, nuclear physics, philosophy, baking, and on and on with none necessarily excluding any others, (for we can be like jugglers)…do we not generally supply, if to ourselves or others some reason(s) not only adjudged as sound, but most often for approval(s) in understanding?

Pertaining to interests, pursuits, actions and their pleasures derived do we ever think…”well, really, it’s just the rut I am in”? We tend toward approval of reasonable…reasons. And this is no less…a bent. To order things according to our own reasons and reasonings. Even to finding (or believing there is) some consistency in ourselves. And where would that even come from?

Really, if one concedes (do any truly concede?) that chaos and utter randomness is ultimately their only responsible paternity, why so ill at ease in it when believed perceived? Or if perceived? Do we know how much order it would take, must take, does take, to even recognize chaos? Or even say one can. Why do we so engage in the ordering of things? Even thinking we might recognize order (design) as opposed to something other?

;lkjdkuqrGKVBKjkhge;hjkKJHWEFGKJHLFEyVCHJjklgoiutgjknvbkjh’gnk’lb?

?

“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.

No, you are not re-reading part 9. There was some attempt in that section (9) to establish that motive and intent, by will exercised to some consequence, leaves the “alone man” (of only molecules in consciousness?) a certain quandary regarding his sense of justice.

And justice, that is our sense of “fairness” executed in judgment for consequence upon an object (no less a function of “our” consciousness) consumes much of our considerations. We’ve built whole legal systems for its handling. We often deal with one another according to it. Might this and these things, of the matters we call man’s law, and rules of judgment, no less show themselves with false foundation?

Again we seek not any proving of God in these reasoning(s), but only that by, and even in, any reasoning confined to those foundations upon which these systems are established can “hold water” within themselves by their own reasoning(s) for being. Are they consistent…and tight?

Any mention of God is held as appeal to those already established in some conviction of His being, but in all, there is recognition no thing based solely in or on “material”, even man’s most exquisite reasoning(s) and so called wisdom in clay establishes Him. In truth it always works not only counter to that, but even counter to man himself. Even that man’s reasoning can dis-annul his assumed (and presumptuous) properties of reason if left solely to himself for their establishing.

For if investigated thoroughly all matters of consciousness in its weights and measures, especially of judgments and a thing called justice are always and only particular to any one man. His agreement with others to the extent he allows does neither make these true nor right. All he has is agreement with himself or within himself (even if offered to others); but we might also understand truth is never a matter of consensus. A man either holds it or doesn’t, other’s agreement matters not a whit.

Otherwise the world would have been flat in 400 AD, mysteriously changing sometime thereafter.

So, in considering the matter of justice, particularly in regard to motive(s) man is very much left in the dark, for unless he can discern motive and intent (are these functions or faculties of consciousness also “real” things?) for in certain circumstance the law of man takes them into account, in others, they can be dismissed as unnecessary.

It is so often strange how man seeks to have things “both ways”, for there is an exclusivity (if reason also be a true thing) that if a thing is unnecessary to a thing, to that thing it is then always unnecessary. Yet we still hold “murder” and “attempted murder” wholly separate by their consequence, with motive assumed same. Or, in one instance a man is arrested for graffiti, in another a hate crime on a synagogue, just fashioning some knots, or displaying a noose.

And how many times have any heard repeated this legal nostrum: “The prosecution does not have to prove motive(s)”? Yet, in other circumstance it is more than willing to delve into what it imagines they are. For if motive is in all unnecessary in certain circumstance, it cannot then be called upon in other circumstance as added weight or for added weight for attribution of greater guilt. But it is. Always, and in contradiction of what it even embraces as first principles.

First and second degree murder, and manslaughter. (A dead body is the only fact)

Graffitti vs. hate crime. (Some forms painted or scribbled upon another’s property is only fact)

Yes, we get all mixed up in motive and consequence. God, not so much. He doesn’t have to “wait” on consequence, for He sees all motive from the beginning. Indeed, ultimately He is all motivator. But again, I am not seeking to provide proof. One has either had His proof made to them within and to themselves, or…not yet.

If it appears a pompous reach that both part 9 and 10 began with the same sentence, I little doubt some already hold some sense as to its salience. Man so often (have you found it so?) uses his consciousness (with reason and logic attributed) to, by these, both reason and logic…exclude God from the consciousness…in short “do away with Him”.

Obviously no man can kill God, but if intent is so, and God sees all intent…what difference? And if there is a proposition offered that God is Himself giver of consciousness in clay (again, no proof provided nor attempted) then such “turning of a given thing” against the giver is of some consequence…even if by no consequence possible: “no man can kill God”, even with all intent. A failed murderer is a murderer, nonetheless. And Jesus had much to expound upon in this regard to “law” when speaking of adultery, and where it truly takes place. And murder also. Motive and intent are not changed in nature because circumstance is either not favorable nor found. Nor even under threat of punishment. Behavior may be; but nature? No.

Why such a foray into matters of seeming legalities, jurisprudence, questions of motives and intents when it seems consciousness was presented on the table for consideration?

Besides the fact as mentioned, that man has fashioned legal systems for determinations of certain matters with whole apparatus’ devoted to prosecution and defenses, rules of evidence, admissibilities vs inadmissibilities, calling of witnesses, standings and testimonies; it is all structured after some fashion for determination of a thing called truth. Murderers, fraudsters, thieves, assaulters may sometimes admit to their offenses, yet often they do not.

And if truth of matters (as so many of man’s endeavors seem concerned with finding it, believing it to be “there” as a real thing to even be found, in sciences, belabored studies of history, maths, legalities, philosophies) the very largeness of these structures so devoted; their intricacies and abundant rules of operation point to a certain matter belieing what many or even most men individually hold to their own heart…”I know the truth when I hear it, or see it”.

Really?

So the question then remains, if truth be pursued as a “real” thing to be found, uncovered, even known (in consciousness)…is consciousness a real thing?

Do you think it impossible a man might might recognize a false answer?

“He used the very gun given him by his father to maliciously execute his father”, the prosecutor declared.

And to be frank, since I am neither prosecutor nor lawyer of any sort, yet with some sense of what could only be called my own useless sense of justice, I have never understood how both the charge and penalty for attempted murder is rendered the lesser than actual murder.

I do understand a difference in result(s), but what is the difference between an actual murderer and a simply failed murderer? If the law already recognizes and assigns intent as same to both, that is murder; and the only consideration is therefore of result, then the man who merely grazes another with a bullet should probably get no more time than the man who accidentally causes a scrape on that leg, torso, or scalp, no?

“He only accidentally wounded him” says the defense then, absurdly. For he surely would not add, “while fully intending to do away with him”.

Yes, man is bound in his considerations of both intent and result or consequence. Especially in the matter of his own sense of justice.

He seeks some kind of “fair balance” he calls justice. Just as the prosecutor in the first sentence above is seeking to add some heinousness to the crime with “the same gun his father gave him” to show a greater depravity…using a gift to execute another from whom gift was given. Implying a very reprobate form of character.

But what of God? Does he “have to wait” to see consequence? Or does He see all intents clearly? Even from the beginning. And even further, as God, would He then not be in full apprehension of His own assigning of those intents as maker of all, and for which and to which each is formed, assigned, ordained?

Did God not know that giving consciousness in and to clay (or dust of the earth) was, even in that assignation to provoking clay to seek to be “more” than it is? To be even as God? And would at opportunity try to do by any and all means presented try to do. This, of course, can never make sense to clay, even with any awareness or merely “self awareness” of being in, and of clay.

“We’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff…even that we’re all just molecules slapped together perceiving stuff”. Yes, this would stand, and actually does, quite adequately. (But only if there is no thing other)

I should love to hear that defense. “These molecules over here just had some loathing in them for those molecules over there (the deceased) and did something to them to stop their movement, speaking, acting, breathing activity as a discrete unit.”

But we do believe life, as perhaps indefinable as consciousness to us (but hey I have it! That’s good enough for me!) is a real thing; that not only can be judged as real, but that the consequences of messing with it illegitimately (another consequence of consciousness…lawful, unlawful) puts certain slapped together molecules in jeopardy of confinement…or worse.

“The defense calls as their next witness the noted evolutionist, molecular biologist, and physicist to the stand”

“Please explain briefly to us the nature and most fundamental essence of man, if you will. And why he does things.”

“Well, first…”

After all, what harm is there in “messing with molecules?” Personally, I do it all the time. I do experiments…all the time. “Will wifey’s molecules “like” being told my own have something to say about that meat loaf?” Let’s try it and see!

Have I gone too far into the absurd?

Nevertheless, being somewhat absurd myself to myself…I may think one thing, say another that contradicts what I think or am thinking, and then often do another that contradicts them both, and yet I am most often absurd enough to often think myself as “one” of some unity, even (ha ha ha) of some integrity. (that nature of being fully integrated in one’s self and to one’s self)

“No honey, I didn’t notice that co-ed with the short plaid skirt, green blouse and tousled strawberry blonde hair that might have had green eyes and wore burgundy lipstick. Didn’t give her a second thought. You know sweetie, I only have eyes for you”

Now am I being too absurd…or just telling on myself? Or many, many…men?

Even absurdly?

“How deep is this dive, anyway…into this thing of consciousness? And, no less, “will there be math on the test?”

Oh yes…on the complete divisible-ness of what seems “one”, and the utterly, perfectly, ineffably exquisite indivisibility of true unity.

Even of which we may know so very little, but enough in glimpse to propel and provoke, where it is entirely salubrious and righteous to say “I may not know much about Him, but I know He is in His goodness, and that’s good enough for me, and even moreso!”

Even the slightest parting of the veil of our own consciousness by the intervention of another, even with His, is abundantly sufficient for all that pertains to life.

Is it too late to admit, or admit again that in the matter of consciousness I am as much at a loss to define or expound upon it than any other? But, if we agree it is “there” or “here” as a real thing in which we, together, are…as even in consciousness together…perhaps even in some sense locked up in it and to it…can we also agree that nothing (as we know anything) can be understood or defined while confined in it?

The rock must be observed from “outside” to be fully known…its length, breadth, width, comparable density, et al…that make for defining any particular rock…or anything other for that matter. The thing observing, if in the thing for observation, is very much at a loss for any full knowing. Maybe even any knowing at all…except that it is. And we might have to admit the only thing we observe or even recognize consciousness with…is consciousness.

Yet once we perceive and are even convinced “it is” and think about thinking, or what such a thing as our own knowing is, (both which may be only a function of consciousness and not it, itself) we may approach waters less than familiar for navigation. We may even admit to some trepidation. For who knows where that rabbit hole leads? How deep is this matter? What is thought…and the awareness of it, or even them, as thoughts? What is consciousness? What is it of? What is in it?

Have you experienced a “gatekeeper”? I am attending to one right now, aren’t you? Shall I continue to write, and if so…what…and will you continue to read (if you have gotten this far) or not? There’s some matter of will mixed up in this thing that is always working in it (consciousness), but as though over it in regards to attendance.

How could I doubt you have (no less than I) approved some thoughts and continued in or with them, while rejecting others. Probably with even some success depending upon circumstance “I will think about this now” or “I will not (or even cannot) think about this now”.

The man now being chased by a thug with a gun may not find time to consider what he previously was in planning to wear to the award’s dinner. Thoughts and/or consciousness we may discover are most often subject in circumstance, and to them. That too, then, becomes a matter not to be ignored in a sense…being constrained in consciousness by circumstance.

It would seem that any right exploration to any true understanding, that of pure and basic nature of consciousness, would no less require freedom from, delivery from, or escape of being “in circumstance”. I am not to myself, are you?

All my folly in any of this writing could be displayed in an instant as in owing to nothing more than the good meal I had last night. Were I starving to death, would I be doing this or looking for something to eat?

“Pretty girls just seem to find out early, how to open doors with just a smile”

Their circumstance is favorable to its learning and practical usage. How to “get to a thing”…like an open door.

But what control, really, has any man over circumstance(s)? No matter how he try and control to the uttermost to and for himself, and even learned of many seeming practical usages from them, he remains subject to them, in all. Is this not true? Always some finding of limit, even by or in circumstance(s)?

And these (they) are always constraining upon the consciousness. I may be made very unhappy in my consciousness when discovering the boat I had planned to purchase has now gone up $2,000 in price and is now out of reach. Or…when I stub my toe. Or some diagnosis comes.

And on and on and on. And I would be worse than a fool to imagine I can discuss these things as though “freer” of circumstance than another, as though my self is more able to purely touch some essence of it. But…we might admit we are at least, in this together. At least for now as circumstance allows. You and your knowing, and me in mine.

Were we to admit to any of the above and previous considerations of multiple outward influences upon our consciousness, our awareness(es), our thoughts and thought processes; our head might swim with how much it appears subject to. How very much was even formed before we knew of any gatekeeper, of things “put in” prior to any form of developed discerning (at least as we might recognize). In that sense, though to each of ourselves we appear as the normal to ourselves; our constrainment and/or containment within each of our selves leaves us only our “normal” as determined…normal. Did any of us have choice as to parentage and in what milieu we would be reared? Oh, but we are so subject to circumstance!

No condemnation here for that. Nor can be from any man toward another man.

But if we are able to admit (are we able?) this is so, and that we with “our consciousness” observe, measure (judge), and then employ our own logic and reasoning(s) as either faculty of, or mere manifestation of consciousness, knowing that only “it is” apart from any defining to what it “really” is, another question arises.

In what other circumstance would we employ anything for accuracy to judge or measure for accuracy, apart from some knowledge of its working(s), workability and trustworthiness? An altimeter in a plane? The gas gauge in our car? The oven dial with thermostat? Measuring cup to dispense pharmaceuticals to our children?

Yes, we do a lot with our consciousness (or seem to) even much observing and judging amongst and between matters and things, yet our being in it does not much give any indication of really what it is, nor its accuracy. At best we might only concede “I may not know how it works, why it works…but I got it”. And there blithely, perhaps even abysmally ignorantly, leave off all and any matters of any accuracy with “all I know is that it’s good enough…for me”. Yet, we do not do this with anything else. We trust our gas gauge unless or until it proves itself untrustworthy. And all things in material are subject to change.

Again, and as often sensed necessary, I will repeat that this is for no proving of God or even “a” god, but only, if necessary to see foundations so seemingly and strongly supported by both time and most common of assumptions that do not have the foundations they boast of…especially in our own reasoning(s) and logic. Those elemental things that cannot bear their own boast.

And where they do most often seem to “hold” their supremacy is in the contradictory, and even self contradicting nature of what only appears as agreement among men.

Something there is that would elevate man’s logic, reasoning(s) and even all functions or faculties of consciousness above the knowledge of God. The believer should know who and what sits in this assigned seat of abetting.

The man of sin is appointed to be revealed.

It is good to have one who “gets” you, understands you (to whatever measure they do) even receives you in all your weaknesses, foibles, and even contradictions of yourself that others might easily call hypocrisy. Yes, it is good to have someone who with whom you not only can be, but with whom you are as open as you can be, and are open to you as you are.

To say this is rare among men and in the earth, even exquisitely rare as to be beyond precious to a man would only be contradicted by any who have not traveled much in relationship(s). Our facades, even any man’s facades, only become known to a man through this journey with another.

(Marriage is not easy…but it is real. Its very hardness is what testifies to its being quite real.)

We learn (or may) just how much of artifice has been constructed, and in that may see just how much of work and energies and strenuous labors have been, and are able to be spent, and even perhaps yet still in the offing to be spent, for the maintenance in service to what we could call our personal identity. This thing we present one anther in total reliance upon their feedback for verification.

It sounds silly to say it, but it is a sort of passport we present for all our commerce amongst one another. “I see Mr. So and So, that what you present here is saying who you are and that you are you, and I find it acceptably verified. You may pass through”. And, we are accepted.

Silly, no?

But so silly it is true? Or even, so silly because it is true?

To say we are always in need of some verification of who we are, some feedback that not only are we real in the sense of a recognition from outside of ourselves, but that without this we would be lost to the insanity of either not knowing anything at all, or worse, imagining we are the only one who does. Know anything.

Have you ever been down that road? Did you discover some form of terror in the isolation you make for yourself? Thinking you are the only one who really knows? Not yet?

Too soon?

You needn’t worry if you haven’t, or can’t yet concede to the folly that any would ever think of you as one who inwardly embraces being the only one who “really knows”. The steps are perfectly ordered anyway. They all start with “I know better than that.” And are even continued in, and reinforced by, “But now I know better”.

A man is just a witness. Even a witness as to “how he sees himself”.

We, who may have anything to “do” with Jesus Christ from merest curiosity, to some interest, to some deeper interest…even perhaps on to a thing called devotion are in some level of awareness of this thing of “how we see” and/or even, “how I see myself”.

Some may be a little bit more aware of the smoke and mirrors of it all, others may be just gaining entry. But a good start is a good start and none should despise the day of small beginnings.

This is merely part 1 of this treatment. Part 2 starts with the acknowledgment of God as God and from that point on He and you will begin to write a part 2. And its totality is far to grand for me or any man to write of you…or for you.

But for now Part 1 stands as to the frailty of all our smoke and mirrors before the eye(s) of Him that searches all, sees all…and cannot be fooled. And offers mercy for those who are caught in fooling even themselves as to who they are. And from there seeks to make a fool of every other man in that deception. Thinking he can puff himself up enough for another fool to believe he is who he says he is.

Every king but one must end in disdain for those of his kingdom seeing how easily they are fooled by believing he has something they do not. Or that he is something they are not. “I have a divinity or divine right”…you do not.

A king over fools only finds himself King of the Fools.

To one King and one only it is precious to Him that His own believe He is who He says, for He is/was not ashamed to be just as they are. And to give all of Himself honestly without deception to, and for, His own.

Of myself I can do nothing.

The Father is greater than “I”.

Have you yet seen anything greater than your self?

Or…are you still the judge of all others?

Eventually you will find your very own self in that docket and forced to be a witness against him.

Happy are you if you believe there is one who will judge that case with mercy. And grants repentance.

It was said in the last section that the unbeliever faces a two fold problem/issue/conundrum in any handling of the matter of consciousness. While the believer is free from this.

For the believer is convinced mind, awareness, and thoughts are real things as either attributes of consciousness or even some definition of it, itself. And further the believer embraces that there is both a mind/consciousness overall (and full) that is and always has been; in its “allness” of being continuous and uninterrupted well before he first even became aware of any in, or of, himself. Simpler? God knew us before we knew ourselves as anything. Before we apprehended anything…as being. Or even “having” being. Or had any notion…being…is. And would now move, or be active in being.

And, of course, even further…perhaps far further. For the believer is instructed that the true witness of God, even His living and active word (Who is Christ?) discerns among these things of thoughts and intents in, and by, His righteousness. Someone is very aware (even all aware) of all taking place in a, or any man. Even of such matters that might spring up from beneath or outside of a man’s consciousness and awareness; from those places that of him (the man) might be described as his unconscious.

He may even discover his mind, like an iceberg, has more depth and weight below the surface apprehend-able of him, than he ever imagined. But he is nonetheless convinced God sees and knows all of him. Even of what is not apparent at all to himself. That should not be a strange thing for a believer to know or understand.

And were we to further investigate the matter of the mind’s communications, its touching and being touched of “other” mind(s) continually, not unlike the respirations of a sponge in a sea of mind(s), always absorbing and always in expirations of some expression (even when silent), another book would be called for.

For everything in being has expression. Yes, even the rock is in expression of itself. The atom. The neutrino. Everything that is in being, yes, even space, is assigned some expression. Time is even so constrained.

But God? Who, or what assigns Him, anything? What could? Constrain Him to expression? Constrain Him…to anything? And again, if one has such a god who is constrain-able by anything above him, ask (or demand) to speak to his Boss.

What does not matter here for present consideration are the decades of refutations of minds (often speaking or given to words) that have been experienced by this writer as in opposition to presentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And here also the writer makes no claim of ever having done so in any fullness, correctness, obedience upon which he might take a stand, or anything other. There have been to him, even in observing the presentation of others who are, and without doubt, nobler; certain frank (and often strident) resistance(s), displayed.

Arguments in contradictions and counter claims have abounded. And, if distilled at all correctly they are presented in opposition to the mind(s) and words of men presenting the gospel as witness to the workings of another mind (even of all intent) that has delivered the Christ for manifestation among us. (That I am heartily persuaded of a something furiously at work to resist a mind over itself, of all consciousness, and power, and will, may even be a moot point)

Nevertheless, I have seen what I have seen, and only apprehend with my mind as much as is allowed by that mind of all superiority…which is of all power and will.

In the distilling of argument (not intentions, another matter all together) the contention is generally, if not overall, that there is/was no consciousness (nor conscious being) responsible for, nor initiating the universe of material things. There is no conscious intent to it, no reason attributed of it to a particularly conscious being, for its being. In short, there is no God.

If pressed with responses from the believer such as “No thing can come from nothing” another one might concede to it or protest that he is not saying that at all. Or that he does admit to some agreement. But where the believer has placed God as one having no beginning nor end, (and in full consciousness) he ( the God denier) simply ascribes the same to materiality sans consciousness.

If the believer can say “something is” that is unending in time and of being, he the denier, is not prevented from saying “I find it to be likewise for the material.” And in nature he does have some support by laws of conservation of mass. And were he even familiar with nuclear fission where matter is converted to energy (no less part of the material universe) there remains a conservation overall, but only in a closed system.

But regardless of all counter contending, once presented from one consciousness to another it can now “land” in the believer’s mind. Oh, he can shut his ears and close his eyes and repeat “But I do believe in God, I do believe in God” as though by such strenuous exercise he can “hold on”.

And obviously if the argument has upset his own reasonings by its own seeming reasonableness, showing that his own faith is in some owing to his reasonings, he will be shaken to whatever extent God allows. But, in Christ he is always invited/instructed to dig deeper, go farther, ask more, seek more, knock more; till by God’s grace he find a better establishment. This is birthright. Our rooting in God is always past any and every place we of ourselves can reason to, even into His very foolishness that is greater.

But the believer is assigned the handling of things, which surely include those things of argument and contention that would seek to exalt themselves over the knowledge of God. If he might learn to bear appearing foolish to himself in whatever he encounters as by God’s hand, even to a seemingly unbearable frustration, he may find a door prepared.

May we never lose hold of “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten…” and such chastening, even of whatever form eventually lands in the mind (consciousness) for consideration. Stubbed toes on bed frames at midnight, no less. When we may discover everything “not” gratitude…comes pouring out of us in an instant. What a gift is repentance! Everything is assigned by God to the believer’s good end. And repentance there shines! As gift, and not work produced of man. But in a believing man as gift to Him by Christ.

This is all the most open of all open book tests as we come to discover how open Christ has made Himself to us, and for us. Yet, even if we doubt, God is neither shocked nor grows weary.

But shaky arguments can be exposed and even must be, first in us…lest anything that remain of shakiness, or instability whereby other shakiness can find hook to grab, or home to land…and there trouble the believer. But God grants peace.

We may leave the argument or engage on the grounds proposed if finding grace to do so. But regardless of that, if there be any unsettling in us we will find God has well equipped us for its tearing down.

Let one (mind) concede to the system as closed, even one’s own if need be. And begin your own argument, as would then need be.

“I will think about this. I therefore have expressed a conscious mind with will to do so. I accept my own consciousness as real, a true thing in this system I propose as closed. Even if I may have any doubts to any other consciousness in it. Of this I am sure, I am conscious in it. But if I say there is no consciousness and reason for it, but yet know (of myself…even now) I find consciousness and reason (as I reason within myself) even in it, and the system is indeed closed, this cannot be.

Either the system that to me I propose as closed has always held consciousness in some form that I now have it, or am in it and of it, or it is absent in all. For a closed system cannot come up with/create/manufacture a thing not already native to it, and “there” in either full potential or manifestation.

Therefore if I say ‘consciousness has always been’ I admit to a consciousness always being (God) and refute my unbelief. If I say consciousness ‘is not’ I refute myself in both my being and my reasoning(s).”

Yes, life is very hard for the unbelieving. He abides in all contradiction of himself with no escape…if left to himself. In only a closed system.

Listen if you can. Even if conceding (as is often popular today) that the “Big Bang” is mother/father (for most also concede it cannot be “seen” past or beyond or before) of all we see, perceive, imagine, or propose, then all seen was there. My house (and yours) were there in all elemental substance of cellulose, my car in iron, carbon, and aluminum, (and rubber and plastics, et al) my children, you me,…all that we may describe as “in being”…was/were there in form. A closed system cannot contain what is not in some form, native to it.

So, how do we see, perceive, or even handle, this matter of consciousness?

Even this “thing” with which we do all, and have all to do?

Our relationship to what was called often in the last section, that is the material universe, is peculiar. We explore such as can be discerned of it with the natural senses which inform the mind of our consciousness and thence and there, seek to bring it into some conformity of understanding. To grasp a consistency of it. To find, if possible, the nature of it, even some law or laws of it. But it can never be disregarded nor overlooked we “do this” with a consciousness present, as much as anything else we might find, in it, and of it. Our own consciousness is therefore not separate from the material universe.

But of course, this can only be an acceptable proposition to those who are able to admit consciousness, and admit to it, as much as anything else we might find in the universe. As much as we may like to think ourselves observers of the universe of material things (and what observer can rightly observe unless he be a thing apart from what is in observation?) we are as much in it as anything we might imagine we can observe of it. Even again, a trap we are trapped in. That is, unless one believes his mind/consciousness can escape the bounds of this inhibition…to even observe and discern the material universe as though from outside of it.

But here an even more peculiar consideration must be endured. For if convinced of this, or any ability to escape there would be a de facto admission that the consciousness is not of material origin, nor dependent upon it for its knowing. That it then can step outside all its confines with something that then must be immaterial (nor material dependent in nature) to observe and discern. Is this an odd proposition?

Well, we might say, both yes and no. No, if we propose its immateriality, but yes if we concede to its being materially dependent or that its origins are solely of universal material.

The problem here for the unbeliever is plainly two-fold. Which in hope will be addressed later.

And please here remember we are not seeking to offer any “proof” of God but that such argument that may arise against His being are to be, and can be torn down as those proud things that would seek to exalt themselves (and confound the believer) over Him. This is a birthright accorded by Him to we who believe.

And here, even in arguments presented and torn down, the believer may find his own false foundations shaken, in order that any and all establishment come from only one. That we know whence our faith comes, and only can, and must.

And yes, we may be led to discover many shaky places otherwise.

If we hold this alone as proposition of our faith, we will then, sooner or later, come to its expression as, or for, our faith:

“Everything has to come from somewhere…all the things in material seeing (of the material universe) had to come from somewhere, and therefore is my faith in God…as the immaterial and eternal God who always was and is” Such a man may be led to learn he is still only reaching out with his own reason and reasonings. Even in support of a god he does not yet know as is of elemental formation.

When he meets the clever he may be dumbfounded. Yet even rightly so. He may meet the man who says “You propose or attempt to explain all away of material things (in having to come from somewhere) with something you may then say has always been, is un-created, and doesn’t “have to come” from somewhere.” Do you see how that shaky contention invites a clever response? “For what prevents me (the unbeliever) from saying then, that the material and all energies have always also been in some form?”

The weakness of this, if it be our sole foundation, is exposed. Indeed, it is shown as a mere function of yet man’s reasoning from the material, for its foundation of materiality is exposed.

Only in (or from) the material have we learned “everything must have some beginning”. As in, “the radio did not make itself” if our faith only rests there. But, even so, it is not a bad beginning (as nothing is if it is understood as only beginning), but it cannot stand as conclusion. It remains shaky and shakeable. And God does not rest upon, nor will, our reason for support of Him. This, even all and any of our own reasonings, must be shaken. And it is good they are.

We must enter into the foolishness of God. And I am persuaded that not only those of the faith of Jesus Christ can, but must. Where all our own reasonings must fail us. What remains of my own also, and no less.

I said it was not a bad beginning. Especially if it be recognized as only a beginning. For the call remains “that we may know Him”, and not merely of His existence. And only what is of the dauntless one, Jesus the Christ of God, will remain undaunted. Experience of shakings may be many; who doubts He said “now is my soul sorrowful, even unto death” but yet endured? Yes, our souls experience many things. But the power of the spirit is not to be denied. Nor can be when seeing the Christ. For it is even the spirit alone that gives such revelation. And it is only in the knowing of Him as our sole salvation, that is our salvation. Yes, all “else” has to go.

This brief section of scripture as to what is “not bad” as beginning addresses this:

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

As wholeheartedly as one may be in belief that God is, the question is simple. Does the demon’s knowledge of God’s existence provide them salvation? Or is one convinced their knowledge of Him, even their sure knowing of Him as Being, should, or is intended to exceed, what God provides His very own children? God forbid! Our birthright runs far deeper and is beyond what they could know or might explore. And I am also convinced grace remains to their great confounding. Those beings that furiously strive, but only to their own end.

Our labors, even if they could be described as such, are for more delightfully provided. To both see Him and know Him as He is, and for the child of God in Christ, there is no prohibition nor law against. Knowing Christ is knowing the Father, and the Father, through the Christ, is always calling His children to know Him.

The weakness and futility of man’s reason to apprehend God is already mentioned. There is no presentation of any logic or logical working of reason attempted here to prove that God is. That is neither assumption nor should be concluded. God alone is able and holds all proof of His being.

No conclusions as to any contention in last part (4) can be taken as a “proof” of Him. Even if one concedes that he has discovered, in whatever part, consciousness to be true as a real thing; even were he to extend that to “then all consciousness/reason in whole is” either in collective or sum, does not prove God.

Not at all, for we may be honest. One could easily say “the sum of all consciousness is only found on earth” or if he is inclined to believe possible some other life forms in the universe likewise say “the all of consciousness is found only in the universe”. And he could not be proven incorrect. We may not know in whom, what, or how much there is, but it is contained to some limit. Just as the amount of stones mentioned, even if astronomical (ha ha) in number, could be found of some limit.

Would it be better if I said atoms rather than stones? And yes, I concede the possibility here to either a vanity, my own construct (which is a vanity, also), or very wrong thinking; for I am here found in some proposition that what is called the material universe, the cosmos, the “all” that materially is as man might perceive (including such a “thing” we call energy) as a closed system. And though we can be quite persuaded of what would be called the “vastness” of the universe in all its splendor and curious being (has your consciousness touched a black hole? Dark matter? The surface of the sun? Did it survive?) infinite and/or eternal matters, at least to me, remain outside of all these things of the material creation/universe, which are bounded.

But, if once we seek to labor in what we call the infinite (or eternal), we enter a place where the all is not even measurable, then another matter is plain. All possibility “is”; and even the all of probability there becomes…the certain.

Mathematics lends itself to this, doesn’t it? How many numbers are there? Even if one decides to work in that “space” between just 0 and 1, how many fractions…are in there? Or to be frivolous, how many are between 0 and 1/trillionth? Yet…do we not hold (if only in the merest wisp of even “our consciousness”) and even work in it, even if it be all of unknowing to us…the infinite? If not, put aside counting and your tape measure. For to have some perception or understanding of limit also concedes to the infinite. Again, a trap. Who can escape? The measurable as against the immeasurable.

We could spend the very whole of our natural life writing down ever number between 0 and 1/trillionth and die not having made dent. What we had done, we had done; and may have generated a veritable mountain of reams and reams, leaving them behind as our “life’s work”…but as impressive as it might seem (or silly) they are all and only a testament to futility. Of bounded-ness.

And when we speak of God we cannot speak in terms of limit of amount, limit of what we might call freedom, nor of even consciousness. His power is limitless, His being eternal, and His being in consciousness is of all knowing, yes, even infinite of such knowing…of things being and (what to us) would seem “not being”. And He is in all unhindered by time, space, fluctuations, no circumstance is new to Him, no concept, thought, imagination ever foreign to Him as unknown; for He is all that is in being and unchanging. He is above all as even cause of all. Unless He come down, reveal Himself, even the concept of Him is all to futility.

And this should (if one is ever allowed a should) not be, at very least, a strange understanding to the believer. We may find, despite our dearest holdings that to think or even speak of God as less than this…puts Him in subjection to our “less”.

And one should better ask to speak to that god’s Boss.

The obvious folly of that suggestion can still be a help. For the man might meet his own boss. In his own limit of knowing. Pursue as one must. To even all of limit. A door can be found as a given thing. No one is forbidden asking if the question is supplied.

This seems illogical to pursue, no? Doesn’t our logic want to grow and enlarge in establishing apprehension(s) for our consciousness? Yet, it is a standing assignment. For a man to discover the exquisitely bound limit of his limits. But who could pursue unless summoned? Who then, would?

Yet even among men what can be pursued if one has any notion of truth (even as only a concept) and therefore honesty as its only right response, are plain. We can pursue arguments and contentions that seek to appear true (and honest) through logic proposed and find whether they can hold water even according to their own logic. If not, they are manifestly a lie. Wrong. Ill begotten. False.

The active word of instruction (to the believer) is in the faith of being equipped by God through Christ and His knowing (and knowing of Him) to tear down vain imaginations and show their weakness(es). Even every proud thing that would seek to exalt itself above God (and our knowledge of Him). They proceed from the basic elements in creation. And of these we can be both made aware and find equipping in Christ for their demolition

Through the speaking of Christ and His glorious gospel we encounter many matters. Resistances often and not rare at all. Even as spoken, these are appointed both to us and for us. We may meet them from other believers, we may meet them from unbelievers. And as mentioned, we may even find them in ourselves. We may learn about…cleverness.

And we will meet according to the measure of our faith given and apprehended, and these, for growth. There is a stretching toward we experience, and a necessity of hearing:

Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;

And the strengthening of stakes, the being driven deep, even if it seems to come at some expense of labor (but really it is only by the power in the instruction of the one giving instruction) we learn is great benefit for the always stronger winds to come. And yes, we are appointed to hear whatever may come appointed as opposition. Stakes are driven…deep. For the very highest of stakes is given to know.

We are to know the how of faith’s establishment. And by whom. If we are confused in this, God knows, and God is patient. And gracious to give. Even the most confounding arguments as one might perceive…to even show He remains God. Even over all confounding. Even over all that seems…confusion. But when exposed…must take its place of belonging.

The thing not yet mentioned is really the fundamental matter in all. The you reading (and I writing) are both the consciousness addressed, and addressing. The we that together we are, are our consciousness(es). And though as writer and reader presumptions can abound as to positions in this, as though “I” as writer am addressing you, that is false on its face. The consciousness you are, that is the “you”, is nonetheless addressing me with no less immediacy. Whether a word is spoken or written back (to the “me” so to speak) is of no consequence. We are both (even all) responders. Respondents. Yes, even as to summons. We are both in circumstance and responding with “our” consciousness(es) we seem to have or hold. Even, right now.

Yet, in some sense it then becomes either redundant or foolish to say “I” (or you) have consciousness; for the “I” that is “I” and the you that is you is the consciousness that is speaking (or thinking). But nevertheless we do hold, do we not, even if it seems redundant or foolish to say, some measure of fundamental convincing that we are in some position of observation…apart. And in, and by observation, some seat of judgment. As though our “I” has consciousness and observes it, and can; rather than is in it. At best, being simply witnesses to it. This “thing” we are in.

Listen…you and I daily, even moment to moment judge (even as though above) what we understand as our own thoughts, do we not? Second piece of pie? Trust working under that vehicle with that rusty jack as only support? Shall I say this? Or that? Shall I not? But we are always limited here, are we not? And to only those matters that to us, are made the possible to consider.

Whether good ideas (as perceived and judged by us) pursued and/or expressed in whatever fashion, bad ideas abandoned or suppressed…unless…desire of whatever form exceed by will to usurp (even in us) the place of observation and seat of judgment. We might even call it lust in its potency rather than mere desire. We may act…( have you ever?) even counter to the judgment we perceive as ours. And we cannot escape this, for we are always in circumstance. And circumstance provokes. And even further what circumstance might so provoke, even be so provocative that lust might be so clearly displayed as both to its presence, and no less, revealed as to its nature? Can it be escaped?

And neither, if we are left to ourselves, can we escape the experience and seeing of circumstance as always in flux, always changing, never understood in any full continuity. Time stamps circumstance(s). And as much as we would like to control circumstance to our pleasure, what comes to us, comes to us. And we respond. Even with more ideas and/or actions for their dealing.

But it cannot be left there, only, as though circumstance(s) are always and only of the un-pleasurable or unwelcome variety provoking response with idea to modify or contravene; for if we inherit a fortune we might now consider “should the new boat be 75 or 100 feet?” And new ideas, perhaps never considered, are in owing to new or differing, circumstance as we perceive. We are subject in all. To circumstance(s).

But here we are more interested with the initiating (or birth, or rise) of that convincing we all hold of thinking we are set apart in ourselves as though we have any ability to observe objectively and then judge effectively that may lead to any acting effectively. It should be plain (yet it doesn’t feel it, does it?) “the” or our consciousness cannot go outside of itself…as though the you of you, or I of I, is yet all unbounded. For the very boundaries of “our” consciousness define to us who we are.

Inside (so to speak) is the “me”, outside is the all other. Our identities, because they are peculiar to us, particular, and even precious to us, also hold limit…I am me, you are you, and are neither up for escape nor exchange by us. No matter how much the “I” might perceive as in any ascension over in presumption of any ability to be objective or judge rightly, it is all of locked up to, and in, the self.

I speak to those with some understanding of the natural man.

But this does not mean the self is either content or at ease in this estate, it can be found either seeking to escape the bounds of itself by expansion, seeking to be a “bigger” self by acquisition of things, positions, titles, (or even souls!) by incursions into the identity of others.

A married man should have no difficulty understanding this. As much as he may think he knows his wife or knows of her, he will learn there is a place in attempting excursion of his limit of identity by an unrighteous incursion into hers, where strong opposition is met. And surely it can be the other way around. There is always a doing of harm in this, whether it be clearly made known in consequence or not to a man or woman. It can and does happen with friends…and may extend to even all others. Attempts at usurping. To the end of self expansion. A self not content with, or in itself.

And, unrighteous incursion cannot be over stressed. For it raises, at least in possibility, there is such a thing as a righteous incursion. A righteous presentation or penetration of, and by, a self not one’s own that by consideration is shown greater than one’s self. And is therefore brought into submission as the lesser to a greater. But who is able here? What is able here? What circumstance is, or even could be, that not only allows for an objectivity to judge among all selves that even one might be found greater than another that is found lesser…and how would be such matter accomplished that there be no harm in it, at all? What consciousness would be over all, and is there?

The believer has had this question answered to himself and in himself. If it is not clear yet, it is not yet clear. But it will be.

Of God are you in Christ Jesus. And He in you.

But I am not yet seeking to limit any exposition to the one who either call himself believer and/or is, for in the matter of consciousness, so to speak, all are in the same boat.

For if we admit to any consciousness (and it would be a curious argument to hear that argues against it) then we likewise admit, if even not knowing it in extent or sum…that all consciousness is. In natural terms and of natural things, once a man identifies a stone as stone he knows, if even again not knowing the full amount of them in the universe, that all stones that exist, are in existence…even if it only be that one. He knows there is or are…even from one stone, a sum of all stones. But here we are speaking of something not at all tangible, to us quantifiable or even subject to some qualitative measuring. But this does not matter at all, if once we admit consciousness is. Here we are trapped, all of us.

And I dare say yet some remain convinced of either the superiority of their own due to their convincing they have truly only found one “real” as ascribed to themselves. As in “this may even be the only stone” but it is. But that only shows lack of exploration, and not a condemnable offense.

If that seems too lofty or of some presumption, God knows. I cannot continue without you. Nor would “I”. Whether you know it or not, accept it or not, it is too late for me to see you as anything but gift given as help for me to even know of whom, and where, I am. And that surely I am not alone in consciousness. I once thought it could be otherwise.

I am debtor in all.

May God help me not lie of it.

Before anything of this, especially in the last two posts begin to sound as if this must all be worked out, or even in part, for the faith of Jesus Christ to be revealed to a man…God forbid! God alone knows what has been learned “while” in Christ (for we may see many things) and what a man has as from the Christ of God. I can only testify that as tortuous a road it may seem to some or many, I see these matters only while in Christ. And if for no one else finding any merit to them, or benefit to be derived from them, grace and peace to you. And your liberty in Christ extends to reproof and rebuke of a brother you believe in error.

Yet were we to proceed in any engagement to consider the mind of Christ, even as made ours through gift, even declared to be ours through that faith in His name; I am persuaded we cannot escape at very least some consideration of mind and minds. There is no claim I consider rightly, but only consider.

Perhaps like me you have found yourself presented with, to some greater or lesser degree, a scorn of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and even particularly some strident resistance (even to mocking) at the whole notion of God. Such may come from men who call themselves atheists, or don’t even call themselves so. It doesn’t matter, after all, what a man calls himself. They may think themselves rational or realists (more on our judging of reality, later) and find God, even ‘a’ god a quaint and benighted idea, left to both the superstitious and/or fearful as a construct of a feeble(r) mind. I don’t believe this is, or even should be, strange to the believer. We must be prepared for resistance, and are particularly told of it, even of persecution to death as need be for the Lord’s sake, and His name. Vital matters cannot be vital to us until they are shown worthy of defense with all of life.

These matters of opposition could easily consume the whole of a book of themselves, particularly if including oppositions we may even find at work in ourselves when revealed. Where we find our own mind even rebelling at the truth of certain things. Vain imaginations, whether of ourselves or coming from outside are indeed for the tearing down. And we may find, if we are pressed to some honesty, how clever man (even ourselves) can be in argument. And even how some arguments and contentions can affect us, as though by infection, if allowed their cleverness whereby they are allowed to gain entrance.

A clever man can turn an argument, a contention, even a declaration, and steer it to a direction either originally unintended or to grounds in which he feels comfortable in and for his refutation. A place where he finds his own reason justified and justifiable. Have you not found yourself here? Who hasn’t, really, in anything? It needn’t even be about the gospel per se (though the believer comes to see eventually all things are actually about the gospel of Jesus Christ)…but in almost any situation where a man finds himself with another in contention. And again, yes, this can take place within himself. This exercise of reason and reasonings as a faculty of our consciousness can be very potent. And the man who is solely reliant upon his own we contend, is in very much jeopardy. But…how can he even know this? Who could show any man this? That all of the “if…then” matters through which he has built, by his own logic and reasoning, his own house on sand, or of cards, is set for the falling and failing? For the very foundation of the “ifs” a man is restricted to for any proceeding till Christ is revealed are precisely, and can never be more than, mere speculation(s). All doubt is held in “if” till it be revealed as resolved by Christ. Another greater than “if” must enter as, and for, foundation. And this is alone the work of God.

We can easily jump to:

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Surely we can read the above with some claim of understanding. And we as believers are appointed to that understanding. But learning the depth and heights of it are, for us, in some ways incalculable. For they include the wisdom of God, and no less, the foolishness of God; the power of God, and the weakness of God. God in all. From His weakness to strength, from His foolishness to all wisdom. Who is made to us of all authority and power? Even He who was crucified through weakness. Who is made all wisdom to us but He who suffered all contradiction of sinners against Himself? Suffering even being told “thou hast a devil”. Or His own believing He is “beside himself”.

In these matters our own logic and reasoning must fail. There is no “if” about it. But until we are made all content to appear as fools, to appear as those beside ourselves, and yes, as need be told we too are even demonized…and without complaint or even defense by our own reason, there are things still appointed to our tutelage. Things no man can teach himself nor even would seek to.

Listen if you can. See, if you can. I have known a man who no more likes his intellect or reasoning insulted, himself made subject to mocking and scorn for what he holds to as dear, and being turned to a laughingstock amongst those who are considered wiser or more rational, more educated or enlightened, than any other would like it. I have suffered in and with this man being “with me”. But the why of it had to be shown. The why he bristled. The why of his irritation and even loathing at such things, the why of his response in striving to “come up” with either better, or more clever argument that might keep him from suffering such…insult. I simply didn’t know…he was dead. How could I? He made himself to me all of alive to these things by his plain response to them. There was much…motion. But as I would describe now as a chicken flailing after beheading, appearing to yet hold some life by much motion, but as surely beheaded as it could be.

What seemed to keep it alive, even as being alive to me, had to be revealed by the Christ’s presentation. He showed a man yet esteeming cleverness, yet esteeming his own intellect and reason, yet easily swayed by what he perceived others thought of him; so that when this man suffered what he considered insult to any of these, he likewise suffered in them and under them, himself. He was yet…subject to them…because he esteemed them.

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

It is a very interesting (how far short is that word) place when one finds himself told of the Lord “you may think you are serving me, but it is only yourself you are serving”. O! it’s killer. To hear…even as by a seeing (in the revelation of Christ) “serving one’s own intellect and reason instead of His knowing”, and “serving one’s feelings rather that His endurance” and “serving one’s esteem of one’s self in place of the Father’s esteem of the Son”. Oh yes, killer.

Yet mercy triumphs over those righteous judgments. And something other than the self comes clearer into view.