israelx7wordpresscom

If you are the one who is able to move without anticipation, stop reading, this is obviously not for you. This is only to and for gamers like me who, in whatever form of relationship (yeah! even with objects) not only find every move they make is with some anticipation, or expected outcome/response and cannot escape it.

Even my car has been found to not be not playing fair (which is the way I prefer to view it) or it is playing by some set of rules I both do not know and do not like. I don’t like to find out it has made the move from 4 fully inflated tires to only 3 when I approach it to go to work. My anticipated next move by an unanticipated prior move by this vehicle has now frustrated me. Of course you find this ridiculous, after all “stuff happens!” Yes, indeed it does. Stuff happens. And we can’t escape it…stuff is even happening right now, here on this page.

And if we can, let’s be honest. Oh, what a move that would be, no? But were we to say “I don’t like the game, I want out of the game” either because the rules do not follow my own prescription (which may be the utmost of honesty achievable in such a case) or worse, are of some variety I cannot even begin to fathom…what would our next move be? We’d also have to admit (would we?) we are willing to end any relationship to a thing called (for lack of a better word) serendipity. Are we prepared to make that move?

I could be wrong (ha ha, what an understatement) but I cannot help but think we very much like the game when it seems to favor us…but when it seems not to, as almost choosing us out too precisely for what we think is disfavor, certain dread thoughts may arise…the which, when considered long enough and deeply enough appear to lose some of that dreadness [sic] to even some appeal. We now “play” with that idea. And again, I could be wrong (haha! too much understatement?) but some have succumbed with some anticipation they can make a move out. Stop it all. They think they (or even some “we” if we have ever considered) can make it “all” stop. The ultimate and final move (or so we may think) to end all moves, and again, if I may…even clasp or grasp at some notion of its being our ultimate success. We make the move…that trumps all others.

But (may I say “again”?) we are thrust back into some place where honesty seems demanded. (Is that a dread enough location for you? It is for me!) is it because the rules do not follow our own prescription(frustration) …or they are according to something unfathomable to me, or us? (Also frustration)

If we say the first, we are admitting to much. But if we dare enter considering the other we might have to conclude that the rule we may think allows us “that final one” is again, only according to what we embrace as our own prescription of rule…and be quite non-plussed at the possibility that “that rule” also doesn’t apply. For if we are so frustrated at the rules being out of our hands and/or also unfathomable we cannot escape the very dread notion of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire…as real possibility. Yes, perhaps every move of ours is destined to frustration.

Is this too much? Too much for you? It surely is too much for me. It surely was too much for Hamlet. Whose ultimate conclusion, as tortured as it was, was this: “thus conscience doth make cowards of us all”. But that’s a strange thing, isn’t it…at least if you are passing familiar with the quote “To be or not to be…”

For towards its beginning there comes “whether tis nobler in the mind…” And that is the crux, isn’t it? If I say crux, is it too much associated (if you are not religious) with cross, that you find it distasteful? Well, I am not religious either. So “crux of the matter” it is. For it is the crux of the matter.

There is some impelling toward a doing of a right thing. Some impelling to an inner consistency, an integrity of being integrated in ourselves to right or rightness, that won’t leave us alone. To Shakespeare, by way of Hamlet, he declares it a nobility. On the one hand he concludes conscience makes cowards of us all, but how then on the other, in that this thing we may call conscience, that is that which informs toward a doing or being right (or noble in consistency)…a thing working to inform of nobility (is that good to you?) is also the very thing that brings about cowardice (is that bad, to you?)? Talk about being in a frustrating place! The very thing showing me (something of) nobility is the very thing that causes my cowardice!

Now listen. I am not interested in arguing for or against Shakespeare as an avatar of all thoughtful depth. He simply is one who “got it” to whatever measure he did. Some inkling of being in the frustration. Unless of course you think Hamlet is not a form of Shakespeare expressed…a mere construct with a “life of his own” to speak apart from Shakespeare. I don’t buy it. His character, Hamlet, is only speaking out a place Shakespeare knew in visitation. This inner battle of to be or not to be…that is bounded by a demand of rightness, a demand for nobility of mind…yes…even adherence to some form of truth to being compelled to a consistency with it. If indeed, all is fruitless and only all of suffering (for who would bear the whips and scorns of time…etc)…and death is the ultimate end of such grief, and is already assigned inescapable anyway, as in “life is hard and then you die” then “cutting right to the chase” would surely seem the rightest form of action. The most noble. The most consistent to that form of trueness (if that is all that is seen) that could align with conscience.

You don’t like this very much, do you? For it does eventually require a coming to that place of admission of all frustration. It’s easier to stop reading than to come there. It’s easier to stop thinking than to come there. It’s easier to either believe one can end it all in either taking a bare bodkin…or simply going about with enough distractions (that will themselves show all fruitlessness and frustration) than to consider. Don’t you have something better to do anyway than read this tripe?

You see, I know you already know. I am persuaded “it’s in there”. Yes, even the grandest seeming winners in life’s game, who have seemed to beat the odds in life’s lottery of being born smart, clever, wealthy, able of success according to some metric of it…know. Is it a legacy you are after? As though you will “live on” in memory? Is that your comfort…you can look past your own death…and see something? Ha! The sun is going out soon.

Make any move you will for yourself and find out. You can’t avoid the experiment. Be as benevolent or noble to yourself as you can be…and find out. Be as craven as you need be…and find out. It doesn’t much matter. There is nothing of will that can make the rules…your own.

And if by something (could it actually be a someone…a consciousness at work?) unfathomable to you, you are somehow brought to understand, somehow, to sense somehow, to know somehow, to some place where even deniability is itself denied to a perfect frustration…there’s good news.

And new it always is.

Play as much chess as is required…as is even appointed. Make your move anticipating what must be the responding move then found made, till you find out there are not merely a million countering possibilities…but all. And find you are not made for all…unless you are remade. Go to the doctor to make sure you are well…but…you may find anything but. Go to the brilliant to make sure you are smart and of their company…but you may find out…

Try to join to the successful…(as you see it or them)

Try to win. Is all.

The house rules are against us…our only hope is to talk to the builder.

Mine to.

But why, O why would you do such a thing?

Well, we’re talking ain’t we?

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;

For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not.

But ye said, No; for we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and, We will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift.

One thousand shall flee at the rebuke of one; at the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of a mountain, and as an ensign on an hill.

And therefore will the LORD wait, that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that he may have mercy upon you: for the LORD is a God of judgment: blessed are all they that wait for him.

As gamesmanship is not something with which I am unfamiliar as my “go to” in any and every relationship I have ever known, it would only be utmost of falsehood to adopt any pretense that some innate piety would, or has prevented me from playing against God. That somehow “I knew better” than to try that on, or with Him, would only open the board again. I don’t want to.

Whether it is merely age wearing down to some weariness or just the fact of being checkmated enough to have finally learned something, is kind of moot to me now. I simply don’t know. Whether I am and have become mature or simply old matters not much at all. Where once I may have sought out maturity as some glistening from of knowing better to be worn with some relish of display…well…every move of that motivation has been too perfectly countered to some certainty of its being a fool’s game.

Don’t trust me on this, simply do the experiment. If knowing better still glistens in your sight as something to be taken to yourself for a wearing, or adorning of your self, I could tell you nothing but being worn out lay ahead. But I also know you would not, and cannot believe me.

You (just as I) have no control nor choice about what glistens to us. And it never glistened at all to me to discover you and I are precisely the same. I set out to be better than you. I have always tried to be better than you.

This joke or clever observation may be too pertinent, and even too revealing; for to say “we get it” makes plain an estate of a commonness we cannot deny. Whether it’s truly funny because it is so true is also moot in the face of any getting it. It’s simply too late for that consideration if indeed, we get it.

Two guys are in the jungle when they see a lion running towards them. Frantically, one of the men starts putting on his running shoes.

Surprised, the other man says ” What are you thinking, you can’t outrun a lion!!!”

” I don’t have to outrun the lion,” said the man, ” I just have to outrun you.”

Do you get it?

But if, while chuckling, I told you something other that either ruined the joke, (like an explanation, which I believe I will) or was, as a four year old might add to or misspeak with a knock knock joke by confusing two of them; well… that in itself might be funny when coming from a four year old. Even funnier perhaps than the original knock knock you had already heard a thousand times.

But were a professional comedian to do it (and you bought tickets) you could be disgruntled. And yes, you are paying something in reading…attention.

Nevertheless…what the fellow didn’t know was that this lion only likes eating faster people.

“There’s no lion like that, that’s not how they hunt” you might say or “what a stupid thing to say, it totally ruins any of the cleverness of the observation”.

Or…what would you say?

Anything?

There’s a lion that doesn’t get tired or seek to intuitively conserve energy by picking off the weakest and slowest…its taste is for the fast and clever.

But being “weak and slow” holds no appeal, no glistening that compels a seeking after.

No, it doesn’t. Until you are in the mouth of that Lion.

“But…wait…there’s no lion like that.”

Of course you have to do the experiment, you have no choice. You may grow old, you may grow weary, you may not. You may not wake in your bed tomorrow to have any time left to do or be either.

But you have some confidence you will…because you think you are different. Maybe even know better. Odds are…or chances are…or statistically speaking “I’ll be here tomorrow”

Oh, you like games, too! You too…play the odds.

See how much the same we are?

In our own thinking we are different?

With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.
For You will save the humble people,
But will bring down haughty looks.

Does that need explanation?

This?

It will be as though a man fled from a lion,
And a bear met him!
Or as though he went into the house,
Leaned his hand on the wall,
And a serpent bit him!

Yeah, I thought I was fast enough…even clever enough to play.

I had to do the experiment.

Certain things must be settled to us (understatement) according to the understanding and sight of spirit, even the Spirit. We cannot proceed from the faulty ground of assumptions and presumptions. Thankfully, the spirit who is given to reveal the Christ to us, is also given for our instruction. And again, thankfully, there are some who have left us understandings worked out to and in them that we dare not hold as less than vital to us. Of such is this given through brother Paul:

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

There should be for us not only a matter of difference as to form or type, but as to very nature in all. And, that for us, this difference is to be seen as vast and complete in nature. Though both appeared in flesh, in form of fashion as a man, essential substance and that from which all motions of life spring are entirely distinct. One Adam is not called a spiritual being nor life giving spirit, but a living soul. And there is no judgment for his being precisely how God had fashioned him. But there is not to be, and should not be, any confusion about, or equivalence made of the two. Yes, God spoke to Adam, Adam spoke with God. But no where are we told (nor to surmise) this communication is as the communing between Christ and the Father.

Adam as living soul knew God as “outside” and altogether other…to him, Adam…God being sometimes “there”…sometimes not. We are never told of a residence in the bosom of the Father, nor of his “being” in heaven while on earth. Oh, yes, to many his “place” was heavenly; and either a great deal of mercy will flow or the most severe judgement toward his observed action…by not only putting at risk, but losing such a “heavenly place” as Eden. After all, we might say, “he was even told the consequence beyond simply thou shalt not.” For God told him what would happen…”in the day you eat of it…”

But it is here we dare not forget Adam’s nature as living soul. And one will either find Paul knows of what he writes or tend to quibble. And no less (as Paul has also known, and as we may often confess) all things in matter of their truth even the truth of all things, can only be spiritually discerned. Particularly matters of life and death, good and evil. What would Adam know of death or its occurrence, meaning, or entry? Firstly, he had never even himself seen anything die in any sense. And do you not recall that time of your own when death held for you a far different shade than now it does…if indeed you be in Christ? All biological activity ceased as far as one could see summed it up. No heart beat. No breathing or self determined motion…etc…

But now, if there is any understanding of either (or both) life and death…it has come to one only by the work of another…that life giving spirit who is Christ. Can a soul be rightly (by us) condemned for not knowing what it cannot know because of the nature of its forming? We need to be very careful about judging Adam (and Adams) and the consequences of not leaving such in the only hands able to see all rightly. And minister right judgment.

No, it is not being said all must then be either excused or tolerated apart from any judging; but I will not relent from the recommendation of care. Nor will I neglect to say often the best lessons (that leave the most unforgettable “marks”) are to casually engage in such judging or condemning. Yes, God has a way to help us see when we fall into presumption. But I can only testify of how God’s patience and mercy can get a man who is most presumptuous of all through what feels to him as he must surely die under such chastenings. This is my testimony…of God’s patience toward a chiefest sinner. And God’s not slackness in dealing with unrighteousness. And to what feels at the time…too thorough. (And yet…even that shows my presumption as though I have “endured” much, if anything at all…when in truth…I may have merely been thrashed with a feather)

God’s judgement upon Adam is/was enough. I needn’t, nor any, seek to add to it by pointing out anything I cannot see plainly in myself. Ignorance coupled with presumption to pride surely paramount…but also not without that willingness to throw another under the bus for escape, and that’s the one I find a craven soul often willing to be an accomplice in; my own particularly. That the Savior would stop for one so vile is far more than a wonder. But it’s me I speak of, not another Adam. I do not know if there is ‘enough’ appreciation for such a stepping down and stopping, even to His own death. And of course, as it should go without saying, it is only the light he brought in his purchase of me that has allowed me to see who first I threw under the bus…the one I once blamed for all and everything I found unsatisfying…(and O! much was there!) while praising myself for every pleasure found. Every or any gain seemingly accomplished. But fault found? That was always for and due another. And any other would due when handy.

Yes, the reproaches with which I reproached Him were made to fall on a man. And His once being under the bus not only not phased me, and was once ignored by me, but in the grossest of ignorance could not see Him there and there placed…for me. Even by my hand, but yet by the purpose and plan of another. He alone…is the responsible one…yes, in character and all doing. He simply cannot be made subject to blame as “the one responsible” in any sense of saying He is responsible.

Here is what I believe I have been allowed to see of this salvation, this reconciling that is too wonderful and grand to be fully surmised in its glory…by one such as me. But what I have seen and believe, I believe I too have been given the spirit of faith to speak. God, in and through Christ Jesus has so humbled (and shown Himself so) in this reconciling.

In Christ Jesus’ being stretched to this purpose of reconciling He was made willing to take all the blame and blamely-ness of sin’s meritting into Himself. Yes, in every way it is a burying of the hatchet…but in a man, Jesus the Christ. Christ taking into Himself all the wrath of God for sin, and all the accusation, scorn and derision of man toward God for his estate of being “not God”. “The reproaches of those that reproached thee, fell on me”. Yes, Jesus “took it” from both ways as God in man, letting go of neither, finding fault with neither. Not divorcing nor disavowing the race of Adam heaping scorn and shame upon Him, nor His God and Father spending His wrath for sin out upon Him. A glimpse of this convinces a man “something’s gotta give” in the vessel in which this is taking place, truly the only vessel in which such is or has ever been contained.

But what has come out of “this house” in its hosting such a terrible terrible confrontation? Abiding faithfulness to His God and Father with no less a plea of mercy for man who “knows not” what he does. A joining is “in there”…never abandoned, complained of, nor regretted. And all the while more than 12 legions of angels available for the mere asking to put an end to this being thrust into all contradicting.

Listen if you can to the greatest fool of a man. I once thought I knew something about love but was shown, not how little I knew, but that all I thought it was…it wasn’t. Less than “knowing nothing of it”…I was opposed in every way to it. Yet even after confessing Christ Jesus as Lord in obedience to the faith found working in me and being shown I knew nothing of love beyond its being a word…I still thought I was learning better of “what it is”.

But tasting is not at all the same as knowing the fullness of ingredients. Nor do I make any present claim of such other than having learned where the fullness lay. In whom and the only whom in which all fullness is.

Yes, I tasted patience toward me…oh, I saw or tasted as a man might, savoring a mouthful of exquisite wine…”yes, patience is ‘in there’.” O! and mercy…ahh yes…mercy too is in there in abundance…no less truth, and grace and a graciousness of giving that calls no attention to itself. Ahh yes…they are all in there for the tasting. Even for the glorying in as gift from another. And yes, I trust you also know something of this, and quite probably a great bit more. For I am a very slow learner. I am just at the beginning.

But when I came to this, when I saw this place, this truth made plain..and so very plain but waiting for me to endure what little I have endured in Him…I marveled at all He is and all I still do not know. And marvel still. I heard what He was saying with ears now opened slightly to the depths of His sufferings in that taste of sharing with Him.

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

I seem quite unable to get past a frequent mention of this, nor the wonder in me it arouses. For I have come to know a man who, when in or faced with suffering…wants out. I cannot deny it. Whether it be some form of relief, some form of escape, some form of power to exercise or reduce the experience…yes, I know him.

But for the love of Christ hear what our Savior has said. And of His who-ness and how-ness He is in communion and relationship to the Father.

For this will take some exposing, even some exposition that is serviced by mention of what it is not.

It is not nor “was” it a statement that could engender any disposition toward some imagination of hearing the Father answer thus: “OK, son if you really don’t want to go through with it, I’ll do as you ask”

Or any such…”Well you know that’s why I sent you but if you can’t do it or bear it, OK, I understand…here’s the more than 12 legions you ask for”.

No, God forbid. And again no, and God forbid.

There is nothing less in Christ’s stating that either implies (nor God forbid we infer) anything less than “Yes, Son, surely… I’m on it for you!”

And that love, in and of that union, for the bearing of all that none other could or would bear if full escape was also accompanied by no less than already fullest of approval…well, in some knowing of a man who would jump at the opportunity of escape, makes me all the more marvel that such a man would do and be as He is even for such a man so easily tending toward self pity. And escape.

Yes, I marvel. Not only at what He has done and is…but that He makes His union with that Father also ours…and no less in fullness.

You know, there are perks to being an only child. But Jesus the Christ would have none of it.

He cannot deny Himself.

And by that a man is saved…only by Jesus being…who He is. And now we see…even many membered.

And once in a lifetime a man may be awakened to see nothing is as he once thought. And he is not sorry it is so.

https://youtu.be/rqtTINkDH64?si=5YFnjpxX9Hm3xhv7

For many, and not exempting myself, Adam is a useful foil. He’s easy to observe and speak of in his doings. God knows I have done it, and do it. “Look at Adam” is easy… “look at Adam and see what he did!” But “look at Adam and see who he is” (beyond being the one who fell by transgression and passed it on to his whole race) is a bit different…as in: “Look at Adam and see yourself”.

Yes, that may be more a something we are rarely given to. We often prefer to think of Adam as “other”.

O my! how could he? Look at what he exchanged! I have heard some folks even say “If it were me (why the if? I would wonder) I “wonder” if I might have done differently” Why wonder?

To have any remaining of “Oh, Adam, how could you?” as in “Look at what you have done to (an) us!” is to clearly display how very much one remains in Adam, even as “an” Adam. For to blame Adam is no less than Adam did when confronted with his disobedience “…the woman you gave me…” and shows that very strong kinship. Adam shifted the blame to the woman…but far more importantly, and by inclusion, to the One who gave her to him. Ultimately…Adam sought to shift the blame to his maker. “This the ‘why’ I did it.”

Do you know what a rift is?

Better, have you seen how it is healed?

First it might behoove us to consider what may not seem like a vast difference in attitude, understanding, and even tone of words expressed. But it is…vastly different. One can say “He (or some person) is responsible”. One can mean so and so is a responsible person as in an endorsement of some virtue. Or it may mean ultimately so and so is in charge and responsible for all taking place.. But it may also mean, if something is found amiss, by use as reference, another is the responsible party for it.

Is there any doubt of Adam’s attitude when found disobedient, that the last sense of things aligns more plainly with what was said? He wasn’t asked “how” it happened either in sequence or ordering of events. He was only asked if he had eaten of the tree from which he was told to not eat. His adding of “the woman you gave me” before admitting to eating is salient. But if you’ve never sought to shuck off responsibility or answering directly for some matter of disobedience, this may be lost on you. But if you understand the man who tries to shift what looks like blame coming, or being called to account…you’ll recognize someone not much different than Adam (if at all). And also a man just like me.

Yes, we have authority issues. It’s fine at some distance, at some remove, and even in many ways often convenient for us. We often enjoy what appears a latitude of doings, and not infrequently thinking we know better what for us, is best. The joke about the woman being pulled over for speeding might say it all:

“Ma’am, you were clocked going 50 mph, didn’t you see the sign that said 35 mph Zone?”

“Oh, yes officer, I saw that sign. It was you I didn’t see.”

Obviously there are matters there up for picking apart. The cop did not create the woman, and the officer did not even make the law, he is strictly enforcement. But if we find any shade of understanding of how that is an amusing take on things…even revelatory of an attitude we well understand, then there’s no denying we get it. Even the frank cleverness of the response, of being almost too honest about how we are regarding authority, caring little or nothing about “its” rules until we encounter the power of enforceable consequence, can merit a nod. How we are and respond to law when we either do not think, see, or do not believe “an” authority is present.

Some matters have been addressed elsewhere as to how the law is made weak through the flesh, though the law itself being neither weak nor less than good. It simply has no power to change us. And that, surely into nothing perfect. In fact it only avails (by such weakness of flesh) to only show how we care nothing for its authority by a working in flesh of mechanism that causes us to resist, to cast off, to hate its impingement upon us. To even show how great a defect is, not in the law, but in the flesh; and how that even a good thing provokes such contradiction to it…by sin’s residency there. A mechanism over which no man has control once provoked by law’s presence. And sin brings death.

Yes, it is a terrible thing. Paul understood the dread place of no seeming escape of this wretchedness. Of the utter hopelessness of depending upon a will that has no power to bring any conformity to even that which it inwardly may see as good. If there is no plea found there in this frank assessment, of how only resistance arises to even that which may be acknowledged as good; how self condemning a man is in his estate…and that with no hope. He is, himself, the very thing given to all rebellion.

But Paul held that plea, having had it revealed to him as superior to the law and its work to show such a desperate condition. Only the mercy seen in Christ can give life where otherwise…death alone can reign and have ultimate “say”. Yes, Paul even went so far as to say he was “sold under sin” and to it, knowing unshakably there the necessity of being purchased out from it. And his only hope was in that purchaser and in the revelation of Him made to a man. Her had given up a will ineffectual (his own) to do or even be “better” …for a will not his own.

Now to many, and even a many remaining, Paul understood that in broadcasting this understanding, this sight, this revelation succinctly distilled in:

Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

that some would turn this.

But it can only be turned by those who do not yet see the very hopelessness of being sold to sin, and by such thinking sin was what produced and was producing this grace…and therefore could either conclude (or accuse Paul of saying) “let us go on sinning to see more of grace” All this clearly manifests is that one has either not yet seen the Christ of God in whom is all grace and truth (and without sin) and alone from whom such flows, or has not yet apprehended this work of God. Mercy and grace are ministered by God through Christ, and as eternal issue and issuing are not sin dependent for their being. That God has purposed His way of making His grace and mercy known is to His glory, and even in His choosing alone of “to whom” it would be made known. Even the chiefest of sinners. And it may well be that only a “chiefest of sinners” might even begin to approach some right appreciation of this gift.

The test is simple. Just summon up in mind, if you are able, the one worse off than you in sin…and if you have, or can, or do…well…Christ is still waiting patently for your seeing. If you are made able.

There is nothing more delightful than being proved wrong if you can succeed in the first part of the experiment/test above.

And this I know by some kinship I will not deny…to both Adam and Christ. I am simply…unable.

And also that some would turn this to saying something it is not.

It is, and can only be by seeing the last Adam we even begin to see the first; and that “the all responsible One” who made him of clay to be a living soul with no fault to be found of any in his being what he is, or any fault aimed at the maker of him creating him thus. For even in that making was purposed the revelation of a second man.

As a lamb slain…

And to miss Him, is to miss all. And to still be seeking to assign blame…to someone, or somewhere, or to some thing…for your being the way you are.

Do you hate being just dust?

Christ has shown that for us…it’s still a good start. Is it good enough…for you?

To hold a treasure in an earthen vessel?

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

We cannot see Christ if we deny God’s order and orderliness. For us.

Yes, till then, we think we know better.

The matter of “what happens?” when we find out we are being led to a place we did not expect, nor even much care for (understatement) is not without consideration.

Much was made in the previous section in regards to what we receive as the inspired writings, in this case of Paul, and whether they came to him “out of thin air” so to speak (though indeed spiritual) or were made real to him in true experience…and therefore true. It may be moot, God knows, whether a man is used to communicate something he doesn’t really understand or know by experience, but nevertheless, once a matter is relayed as being (even if only as a possibility) that possibility has entered the realm of being and is up for consideration.

And this particular matter under consideration, mentioned by Paul, is this:

But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

That’s a strange place isn’t it? Do you think Paul understood that of which he wrote? Might it even have come to him in form of true experience? It seems so contradictory or paradoxical at first (and maybe even hundredth) glance. But here is something now presented, and presented as that possibility in “if”. It is now in the realm of being.

What could seem less the “reward” for doing (as what most any “christian” might confess) a good thing…that is seeking after Christ for justification…than to find one’s self displayed to one’s self as a sinner? Talk about finding what one didn’t intend to, or set out to know…or want to…find out! This seems so amiss, so out of what appears as to how things should appear (by our own reasoning) that something must certainly be quite wrong. It is very much a case of the soul saying “I was engaged in a good thing (or so I believe) that only shows how wrong I am!” This simply cannot be! And Paul understands our propensity toward a blaming, our assigning fault for a matter we consider in all the should not be’s we encounter. “Someone or thing is responsible”, and mostly, since things are ascribed all moral neutrality it is a someone we seek to find culpable.

Thanks be to God the spirit had Paul write “God forbid”!

And yes, Paul does not draw back when talking about possibility here. Even as he seeks to nip it in the bud with that “God forbid”, for he understands (is it real to him in experience?) the soul’s propensity to assign blame. “I am seeking after/following after Christ for justification (or could be) and all I see being displayed is myself as sinner! Is it Christ then, Himself, that is ministering sin…to me?”

Oh, yes it may sound absurd when so phrased “Is it Christ then, Himself, that is ministering sin to me?” But to those who would immediately resort to a so called spiritual “pearl clutch”…drawing back in outrage, or high dudgeon, that any might ever consider such a possibility of existing or even being mentioned…well…it’s a bit late for that, isn’t it? For, forasmuch as Paul adds God forbid, he has already acknowledged the possibility of a questioning. And perhaps our reaction of high dudgeon…even indignation at the possibility, (or God forbid thinking so!) only shows we do not yet understand. Or even the what of “what is happening”.

In short, sin is being show for what it is.

Unless we proceed with this understanding, that Christ alone makes things/matters clear in His true light…we are ignorant, or worse, presumptuous of how things are. This goes to all matters, material and spiritual, but of all that is most of necessity to us is the understanding of spiritual matters. We truly do not know the nature of sin. Oh, yes, we may say (even as devils do of God) “I know there is such a thing” but as to its true nature we remain in the dark. Just as the devils know there is one God, but as to any apprehension of His goodness of nature, there is none. And here I must tread lightly for there is a subtlety to be made plain, and no longer obscured. And God forbid I present myself as having plumbed the depths or seen the heights and breadth of all of God’s love. I am as ignorant in all as any I might “point out”…for though I be convinced it is (the love of God) I must also surrender to that place of “I know it is, but no, I do not therefore know all about it”.

But, like things once tasted that delight in a more than unexpected manner, so is the love of God. Yet, it is even rather crass and surely falling far too short to compare the love of God to anything. How He suffers me!

But if we have tasted that the Lord is good (in all kindness and patience toward us) then these matters of finding out what we once surely felt not to, are set in place. And if we are among those blessed in, and by this everlasting love, this once uncomfortable place becomes a source of great joy. We are at once advancing in spiritual matters with understanding; that is to the nature of sin, how it may take advantage by a mechanism but also, and far more importantly we are tasting the love of our Lord for a sinner chosen to know Him. To begin to understand the heinousness of it, even producing all discomfort and often repugnance, is to no less gain the sensing of our Lord’s descent to have us. Needless to say to the some who are my elders in the faith, have grasped and clung to the cross despite such great opposition and know, with that experiential knowing of spiritual matters, that our feelings (especially about how we appear to ourselves) are being, and must be dealt with at the root. For it is no great thing to understand how much has previously been devoted in energies, attentions, at the neglect of Christ…to pursue feeling “better”; and that, particularly about ourselves. May God help us here and with these matters that we come to understand what it means to join Him outside the camp:

For the bodies of those animals, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate. Therefore let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. 

Ours is not a communion of casual backslapping or flatteries rendered to one another that feign a show of unity inside the camp. Our union with and in the Lord…who endured far more than we yet know to have us is all and only paramount; and from there is our communion sealed, even with one another. For of the many things that may be attributed to the work of the cross is the abolishing of those differences and once distinctions we sought for ourselves in both cherishing and maintenance to secure our own identity. As the Lord has brought us into Himself to be one with Himself, He has no less accomplished that for us…the beneficiaries.

For we are no less made one with one another.

A thorough looking into the Christ of God cannot but reveal what He has done in His own body with us and for us. And be blessed exceedingly in this fellowship we have with Him, and one another.

It is no other way.

There is…no other way.

What happens when you discover you cannot make Jesus’ words work?

What happens?

What happens when one discovers they are sold out to utility in such a way and to such an extent that if, or when one comes to that place of this isn’t working for me in the way I once thought or hoped and are now left facing a matter most unpleasant? Perhaps, and at that time to them, the most unpleasant of all ever faced?

That apostle named Paul spoke of such a condition, such a coming to as a real circumstance of possibility And we might even here, and for the purposes of this consideration, ask whether such matters were “real” to him as he wrote of them, that is of some experience; neither fabricated out of thin air, nor the result of some form of automatic writing.

What would be meant by that is as matter of communication. Did Paul sit at desk with paper and pen (so to speak) and suddenly writing appeared on page of matters with which he had no experience? As though God moved his hand robotically over the course of several epistles while Paul remained in some unknowing and/or oblivious trance-like state? Maybe even like a monkey at a typewriter able to compose a sonnet? It sounds silly, of course, when phrased that way.

But the question is real, especially as regarding the scripture(s). I am persuaded we often do not know how much of superstitious thinking infects us, how much we are given to certain views that are perceived a certain way, but cannot bear examination. And it is not uncommon at all to find a some or many who view inspiration as something other than what it is.

And there are at least a few of us, who, and if examined, imagine the scriptures penned thus of God. One may even hear such things as this is the whole of God’s word…from start to finish…as though every word were written by God Himself in some form of that “automatic writing” that must never be examined, or can never be examined without greatest peril, and of which the least would probably be wearing the assigned label of heretic. Or escort to a stake. Or some fiery end ministered of God, and yes, if necessary with a little help from pious men to light the match. I have little doubt that in some circles the scriptures are very much held as “The Magic Words”. As in, no man can touch the magic words and live. Maybe that’s why some don’t see them…or want to?

A god of superstition terrifies them greatly.

But I will, by grace believed, speak of the more terrifying God. Or the God of no utility. Even the God who is not able to be used as means to an end…but is all beginning and end in, and of, Himself.

It is interesting (to say the very least in its regard) that it would be Paul himself who helps us out a bit here. Yes, God purposed Paul to be a help, and I hope you find him so. And if one has no perception of Paul’s esteem of the scriptures it would be less than moot (and of no utility) for me to try and persuade any of his esteem of them.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, (Paul wrote)

To say “highly esteemed” would probably fall short, but why would or should…any believe me? Nevertheless…

Yes, nevertheless, do we accept such writings attributed to Paul as “scripture” in no lesser sense than, let’s say…Isaiah? Or any of the other books “in the Bible”? And indeed, for some, or in regards to that other “some writings” there are even comments made in the “newer” writings that may lend themselves, or tend toward that automatic writing point of view. That once the prophets were given things too puzzling to their own understandings:

Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

These matters are undeniable. And, as said, they can tend to some form or view of matters in a certain way that tend toward a leaning. “God is moving their hand” in such a way (and I do not doubt it is always God moving a hand) that what they wrote was by them without a depth of knowledge confirmed yet to them.

Were they inspired? Yes. Were they puzzled…well, also yes. At least to the extent that they were provoked to search out and be informed “this is not for you…yet…but through you for ministry to others”.

Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you…

And yes, no one should monkey with the scriptures. God forbid any speaking or writing here be taken as such. But Paul helps us with our view…even as one himself in most enmity to any or all superstition and any especially about our God.

Regarding the scriptures the men writing are inspired, and that which they write is no less inspired. So, does it not behoove us, if believing the scripture(s) true in every or any sense, to seek some understanding of them? For what do we do now (with Paul such a help) where in his writings (do you accept as scripture?) he comes to such place as writing this:

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 

Now we have here (is this scripture?) a man saying/writing:

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord:

A man rendering opinion with such distinction he not only wants to make clear, but does make clear…”This is me writing and not the Lord speaking” (And yes…it’s in the Bible)

Now, what do we do with “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it” while lifting a Bible with some attitude toward it…that is not born out in support of such attitude? Why, brother, there are “words” in there clearly stating they are not the Lord’s own words…but testified to (by an apostle…do you believe?) as his own, and not the Lord’s.

What then is there, what happens…when…we look into this and seek to find (are they scripture?) their benefit as described (by this same apostle) as:

profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

What is there in that “there”? Might it not be precisely for the tearing down of such attitude that lends to what is commonly called “Bible thumping”? Yes, indeed, Paul knew these weren’t/aren’t the magic words of themselves, but that as true and truth of matters their “utility” was for the changing of ourselves and not as some force we might use as against another. Even over another. And may God help me for the many times I have sought to bring men to the bar of, and by, my own accusing. It is enough to believe (and come to some understanding) of rest in Christ’s word…”and the scriptures cannot be broken”

Might we, if able to see, how that Paul…rather than make use of (availing for his own utility) his calling as an apostle and with what authority is there present to not only know, but be extremely careful about distinction between himself and the Lord…that he dare not prescribe his own opinion as commandment or law, or ascribe it to the Lord? Being so meticulously careful about such, having learned and been taught (by experience in the Lord) even perhaps not forgetting the easily assumed disposition of “lording over” of which each and every man must be disabused. Yes, Paul found a “me” (himself) secured “there is a crown laid up” in a very profound maintenance of the Lord’s identity alone…being over all. No confusion left as to “who’s who” and “what’s what” in the reality of Christ.

Christ alone remains the only worthy to “open the book” and that also to anyone He cares to. May we all meet Him on the road to Emmaus. And if, or when we may even be tempted toward any “throwing of it (the book)” at a them, only shows we have yet need and must first have it opened to ourselves. Indeed Paul himself wrote (“with such wisdom as God gave him” testified to by Peter) that in his relaying of matters in which he was wholly convinced (yes, even as an “apostle”) saying no more than “and I believe I too have the spirit of God”.

Today we might think or say “Paul…is that you saying ‘you believe’ you too have the spirit of God?” “Man, but you are a star in our universe! We all agree ain’t been many (if at all) like you…deep, true to death, rich in wisdom and understanding, labors and sufferings, vision and clarity!” C’mon man…we have hung a whole lot on you…as being one of God’s ‘great generals’ in this our christian army”. C’mon, ain’t nobody we know like you…or sure got ‘more of the spirit of God’…than you!” “Man, doncha know you wrote most of the “new testament!”.

“And I believe I too have the spirit of God”?!!! Man…where’s that coming from?

It might behoove us to know.

Strange place. Strange stuff. Strange way we learn. There ain’t nothin’ we got that we haven’t received. Ain’t nothin’ that originates in us as men that is true. (And we would be just as proud were we to believe lies solely originate with us.) Anything that we may have is given; and that so particularly is reduced to the very matter of knowing or knowledge. “All knowing” may be a defective attribution when used of God in any comparative sense; as though a man knows some things but God knows all. It is perhaps then better understood as present and active, that any knowing at all, is only in God. Who Himself is the “all” of it.

But here we see the weakness of our language, and I especially of my own to even use a word such as “it.” For some knowing…or even knowledge that is in part may suffer being referred to as it, but the utter deficiency of useful implication in referring to all “the knowing” as present and active without limit as an it, here quite plainly displays all poverty of use. And it is not difficult then to understand how one prior exclaimed “Who is equal to such a task?”

Omniscience is not a useless word, it’s just that the God of all creation and quite present to every bit of it, knows precisely of our understanding when we use or consider it, and also knows all the whys of our usage of it. It only becomes a useless word when we believe it is a definition of God (even though true) that can be handled to forming some outline of Him. As though God Himself must be conformed, or pressed to occupation within a word of our construction.

Does this seem a silly matter? Consider this then. If I were to be talking to you about a friend or a person you had not met, of whom you had no knowledge, if I were to be speaking of him to make him better known to your understanding there could be a number of avenues taken. Factually I could say he is 6 foot 2 inches, weighs 205 lbs, has brown hair and eyes, born August 12, 1962. I might say “he is handsome” or she is …whatever. I could give all the facts I know, or any and all characterizations of personality, integrity (or lack thereof), status…etc. And these matters could run the gamut from the more objective (Born Aug 12) to the subjective in the extreme (handsome).

But, when we speak of God, we are first speaking of the “objective” of all, although whatever experience we may have of Him is allowed (for such time ordained) subjective in our interpretations…but, far more importantly…He is present (and the One truly present) to our (and any) conversation. All is done in His presence…even if to some (as has been made in accusation) He appears as absent…the peculiar derision cast at the believer for having an “invisible” (read: nonexistent) friend.

The implications of God’s being toward us who believe are very great. Exceeding all that might even be found comparative in the word “great” by all means. Endless. Boundless, and eternal. And here, in saying implications of God’s being I am not at all speaking of the assumption, hope, nor speculation that God exists…but of God’s being Himself. Not even the assertion that “He is”.

Just as you and I might speak of our “being” as the sum of all we know of ourselves to whatever extent we believe we know…we cannot but allow that anything at all we believe we know of God is totally reliant upon His disclosure. But here is where the all that is the all of difference lay between us. We, at best, only know ourselves in part, if indeed we do know anything of ourselves. But even what we may say we “know of ourselves” to us required informing otherwise how could we know it? And although this may appear again as mere playing with words there would require some knowledge (understanding, insight, apprehension) of what “knowing” actually means when it is said to know a thing.

Yes, the implications are great. And it matters not much (if at all, actually) whether we speak to one another or only hold court within ourselves. If we are truly convinced (as we might repeat as “a” believer) that “everything is open and laid bare before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” we might begin to discover how many machinations, manipulations of so called knowledge and understanding we handle in a place we believe privy only to ourselves to some end of securing ourselves or for ourselves. Yes…God sees how I try to frame my words to Him in such a way as to “get what I ask for”. Or in whatever manner of my doing or speaking I might arrange things believed under my control to either present, or represent myself, in a certain way. Here the absurdity of all my attempting becomes all too plain to me as to be beyond laughable. Here my understanding of even what I thought I thought absurdity “means”… folds like a house of cards.

What then? How am I to understand? What…am I to understand? (And only God knows whether I can speak for man as a man and whether this is at all applicable to you)

That this entrust-ment of the gospel wherein any truth of God is found alone through its guarantor, Jesus the Christ, is made to a man (like myself…or not at all like me) to the end that he might learn it. What it means. And that any instruction therein found or impetus to share it is actually far less (as at first sight understood) for the purpose of others…but so that man himself might come to understand the things he says, or preaches, or teaches with any confidence. It also behooves a man (like me) to say that God’s economy is perfect, and that any work in the gospel as for the gospel (which remains Christ’s work alone) is always fruitful. Whether vessel through, ground watered from, or any word of its power, it is always at work…toward all things and everywhere.

In the world and its ways, it is entirely different. A man is deemed proficient enough to now pass on or teach by his achievements. He is considered some sort of expert and given a teaching chair. Whereas what we are given to learn, yes, even in instruction toward any “going” has far more to do with the revealing of our own inadequacy to all things, even our ineptitude…but for God. No doubt this is a hard word for some. That starting as it were, with some illusions of sufficiency we are then brought to knowledge only of our great dependence and necessity. And it would be remiss to let go without saying as in the above “but for God”…that therein lay all the difference and all the reality that becomes the truth of the disciple’s life. But for God is not only enough, it becomes to the disciple…all there is. If God be for us…

It remains interesting (to say the least) that toward the end of his life and ministry Paul would say what he has said in writing to his “son” Timothy. Yes, he kept the faith, yes, he saw a crown laid up (not only for himself) but that his only claim as testimony of his own self was as chiefest of sinners. Surely he had learned much along the path laid out for him. Perfectly prepared for him. And (or is it But?) he came to see his dire necessity for another to rescue, to save him from all he knew himself to be. He is even so bold as to say the “why” of his calling and choosing, not due to any expertise or greater grasp, not due to any better obedience rendered, or ability to see deeper or higher…..not due to any thing at all but God’s purpose to display both to and through such a one…His exceeding patience.

So many, even “like myself” tend to see, may even want or claim some desire to see (or claim) Paul as a worthy example in some following after. It would be silly if so, if extolling him as a pattern…to not come to the same understanding as Paul did, who not only remarked this of himself…but in such boldness also said “it is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation”.

Are you faithful? Am I? Are we?

Together.

In this?

These things, this writing cast off in my not knowing (in my deepest sense of knowing) are set adrift very much like messages in a bottle. This is in part, as I consider what motive is extant for their being, due to the considerations that have occupied and led me to the conviction I am, myself, just a message in a bottle. What then can I produce that is not “of me” or like me? Like you, I am no less consigned to some expression of being. As no less a neutrino, and as likewise, I am only set for the finding out. As I am in a container…even so any messages so sent out must be opened up (as I must be) to see anything of what is going on inside. Actions, behaviors, attitudes…even words come from a place disclosing who, and what we are. Here there really is no such thing as fiction.

As even, in some sense, the greatest fabricator of stories, the most skilled novelist or storyteller of yarns spun from what appears greatest fantasy…knows he is writing an autobiography. Unless he is too dense to yet see it. Even so called historians, or writers of non fiction show themselves by what history or subject they deem worthy of note. Yes…even scientific journalists. We all are always giving ourselves away. It has become for me, inescapable. I am, to whatever extent I am, surrendered to it. It is less saying “I do not want to hide”…than…”I simply can’t”. Whether shown (or believed to be) liar or as one approaching some truth, I cannot escape. And, yes, I do believe the same of you. Don all black clothing or the most screamingly vivid day glowing tie dyes…it matters not. Plaster a vehicle with bumper stickers or keep it showroom clean…it matters not. What may appear as the most trivial of choices to us are always some expression of who, how, and what we are.

And it may well be only the most destitute, whose choices have either been robbed (or surrendered to some extent) and are often the most easily identified, are as being the truest in congruence to their estate. Our only salient question may well be “Am I able to live by what I give off or give ‘out’ ?”

Can I live with my own poverty?

If I seek attention…how much can I bear? If I seek to be hidden, how much ignoring…can I bear? Many is the celebrity that laments being unable to now “be” without prying eyes everywhere. Yet, what did one think would happen in seeking to be a somebody? Oh! how we wish we could control consequence(s)! Make them conform in circumstance to the pleasures we seek in circumstance. “Yes, all eyes on me while on the red carpet, but please, when I want to go out and just get a taco…really?” No wonder the world becomes too small for some. They have made it so for themselves.

“What does it profit a man…?” someone said.

I have made no secret of being strongly moved by the persuasion of that someone. So much so He has persuaded me He is even as He said…once dead…but now alive. And surely…He was once dead to me. In truth, my recollections of that time of his being dead to me was fraught with far less troubles in any consciousness of consequence(s). What I mean is that…yes, there were many troubles but few, no actually none, that were by me attributable to not caring at all about His deadness to me. I was quite settled into being blind to Him, stumbling and bumbling through what I considered the most normal and natural of estates. I was no better nor worse off than any other except for what I might eke out by a native cleverness to try to control consequence. Yes, I really thought I could control for them, and by such thinking even control them.

But now, being convinced persuaded of His life, the reality of consequence(s) has not diminished…in many ways been heightened to a point where it is made too clear I surely do not, nor ever have had any control over them. Indeed, I must be told what they are.

How different are you and I?

Reaching for the brass ring, even desiring the brass ring by consideration of its glitter (in whatever form it takes) as something desirable, already puts a man in the circumstance of consequence. He will either press himself forward to overcome fear of falling and failure, or not. If he draws back, self loathing ensues. He may come to see (or will if enlightened to it) he is not what he wants to be.

If he reaches and falls, small comfort may be “at least I tried” in his broken estate. He, too, will lament his form. But if he reaches, stretches himself beyond all he thought his own limits…and succeeds…he may not know he has come to the most precarious place of all. For if one is at all keen to seeing by a grace not their own, here may be established in a man “I am and have all I want or need to be”.

“What does it profit a man…” someone said.

There are fellowships of the fearful, and of, and with, some form of cynicism. Likewise the broken who behold the reaching with a “better knowledge” of what can happen, also observe with a form of cynicism. But the successful to themselves? They become to themselves alone sufficient.

The world’s powerful achievers in leadership (of any ilk) may occasionally meet together, even be forced by circumstance to come together briefly, but each holds himself securely apart from the others. The pinnacle of success has isolated them. From whence they survey all others…as “other”. There may even be the grossest and transparent feigning of some camaraderie for a brief moment of conjured smiles and handshakes; a play performed for the underlings of fear and brokenness that “their leaders” are of a salubrious unity. But their deepest cynicism steeped in that cup of self sufficiency, and the accompanying conviction that all can be fooled but themselves, is most hardened of all.

“What does it profit a man…” someone said.

I have been often reminded, and am again of the trenchancy of this statement attributed to Nancy Astor:

The penalty of success is to be bored by people who used to snub you.

Is that cynical? Or does it more align with our motives for success as we call it…to “be” more than what or how we are presently esteemed (of ourselves and others) to grasp something to get us “over”.

I do not doubt, like any who may read, I have known fear’s force toward withdrawal, I have known some brokenness of utter failure and even some of the flushes of what a success feels like. That heady feeling of having made it in, or through some endeavor or circumstance; or shown some superiority to, or in it. How very rare is any knowing that all that is just a prelude to a fall.

What does it profit a man…?

To understand one’s self as on that continuum of brass ring chasing where contentment may be even lauded but is illusory, requires some form of intervention. For even that success, of what might be called achieving contentment, is fraught with no less danger to the soul than becoming king of the whole of the world. There is an unremitting lurking of “I have done it!” waiting to show itself in all or any motions of our own toward success, or what we would call it, see it as, or define it as to ourselves. It is a, or the worm in our goldenest of apples. The fall waiting in every success of grasping, and even desire for, that brass ring.

Call it consequence if you must yet see it as subsequent, call it an inclusion in that golden apple (as though worm and apple might or do exist apart) or know it is that worm itself giving the apple its only claim to glowing golden in your (our) sight. Without that “I have done it!” as inclusion, as part and parcel; not as thing separate or consequence to it, but the very thing itself inspiring all the glowing and thence reaching; there can be no exit from this merry go round, this treadmill, this hamster wheel of both self condemnation and pride securely stamped upon all the coin of this realm. They are the sides that make up the whole of it.

What does it profit a man…?

Again, it would be a lie of omission to not admit I am just as subject to shiny things as any other. Indeed in some ways I know myself as worse off as it has been shown to me. I like to pretend my shiny things are of a finer or more exquisitely subtle nature, and for, and of, a better refined palate. Yes, I hold court with myself and within myself and acquit myself every time of every fault I merely attribute to a slight miscalculation. I will “do better” next time…because now I know better, and… I am better.

Who then is showing me as the most craven liar of all?

Who is daring to humiliate me?

A me who is already king of all his own world?

Can I drag him to my court without He dragging me to His?

Oopsie.

This chewing through psyches, this finding of inclusions, this finding of what was described (in last section) as a great big hole through one’s center as resident there, but not identifiable as self and is therefore “other” to it, unknown to it, as a hole filled with all mystery to a self (is it hole full? is it hole empty?) is it even really there? Is it a fabrication where all blame can be dumped…where all ignorance for matters attributable to miscalculation (and therefore self justification) can be justified for dumping “It came out of my not knowing“. Out of that hole!

Well, as handy as it may be, it really is far more troubling than useful. It really does not submit well to utility, no not at all. Not when one stands at its edge…and not at some remove for blindly throwing over ones shoulder as into it. One facing it.

Not looking does not mean a thing is not there. As there is consequence in observation, there is consequence in refusing to.

And beyond what one might tend to describe as a silly or clever trope for a movie scene by which a man might stand accused as having a bumper sticker mentality for its presentation, or bubblegum understanding, or deeply steeped psychobabble-licious propensity; (all of which I am not unrightly to stand accused) one may find others have visited. How far from the edge each has or may come is quite incalculable, for the edge loses all definition once faced. It has no edge one finds. It is all and only of capacity to swallow. Consumer of all. It eats all in any beholding. It eats all refusing such beholding The refusing believing they establish their own edges in their own discrete-ness. Their own different-ness established of themselves as to themselves. The borders of their kingdom they believe secure.

“He has also set eternity in the hearts of men“…is written.

Is it written in you?

Another man answered this question posed above:

Can I drag him to my court without He dragging me to His?

in this way

“If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you”

Whether he himself, Nietzsche, discovered he was staring at a hole full, or a hole empty and was answered by emptiness or fullness is as moot now as ever was in the face of that abyss of all mystery. He only confessed to ascribing it some also “conscious looking” into a man looking into it.

Yes, the mysterious abyss has a face. And it is not mine.

For I am the liar.

And I am made to know difference. Of who is who and what is what. For I am no different than any other…but that one.

The Placer of eternity in the heart has put a face to that abyss of all mystery.

Look.

At all cost(s)…look.

See who reigns over even all a man would call his darkest fears.

And I turned to see the voice that spake with me…

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

There is no other response to the one responsible for all.

Turning is a gift.

Dying in turning, no less.

A gift from the same voice that says repent and believe the gospel.

The same voice that says to the dead

Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

There is an interesting operation (or function if you will) that takes place in observation. We could even call it consequence if we are careful about the use of that word in some point of understanding that this consequence is unavoidable. For generally speaking we tend to think of consequence as a thing that follows after, linked surely to an action or activity, but in some later following. Rarely do we recognize its immediacy is already in the action, even as bound to it. For us it (consequence) holds seeming possibilities, but this, in immediacy spoken of, is unavoidable and sure.

And observation is cause of all we experience as effect.

And this point now should be approached (as I might hope) in as much surrender to absurdity as can be summoned to the limits of the understanding of that word. Actually I should say “word and words” for surrender is a word no smaller than absurdity.

It is too late for us.

We have already surrendered to the notion of being conscious. Surrendered to a thing we can neither define (except by words made up in consciousness, or so we believe) to describe such thing we each believe we have according to that word, but cannot in any other way lay hands on. The defining in defining is all we have of it. We may chase after understanding it, but we must admit it is only by definition it is barely known to one another, and such definition as we trust as coming from a consciousness that is true, or real. In this way it is too late for us; we have already accepted without either any (or much) understanding of it, a thing we believe real. Untouchable, but fully malleable; unseeable but totally convinced can be made plain, in full necessity for any pleasure to be known, but also the source of the greatest of sufferings which men have been able to inflict upon one another. It has created poetry and the rack alike.

I will not belabor the folly of the man who, either by inward conviction or outward speaking says “there is no God”. He is plainly holding or saying he is neither of, nor from, consciousness. And if he does this with, or in his consciousness, (does he not? mustn’t he?) he is stating he possesses in sole or greater measure than that from which he has issued. He is to himself, that breed apart. He is his own creator. That’s fine for that notion can be handled, too. And is being handled. No man can boost his own consciousness, only betray it. That he not only has it, but by some strange working of his own self in it, he can determine where it either is, or is not. And he may project his own consciousness back to a thing he might even call the “Big Bang” (if he is so inclined) and with that consciousness…”look around” and be convinced he sees…none present. Yet with “his own”. That to him…has come as from no where. And, not unlike truth, he is self convinced “I’ll know it when I see it”.

But I have already belabored these some issues in my self indulgence through “Betrayers of Consciousness” (parts 1-53). A sort of verbal rack itself.

But God forbid, in all or any speaking of consciousness, these workings of mind(s) to which every man is subject in his own there be a neglect of including that influence one to another. No matter how much any might like to think of themselves as either their own man with their own mind, “No Man Is An Island” in all its implications holds true. We are as subject to “other minds/consciousness’s” as to what we call “our own”. We are subject…to consciousness.

Don’t think of a pink elephant.

Now (which for me is about 15 minutes after writing the above about the elephant, but for you seems immediate) one could say “this man is trying to be tricky with his use of example” or even perhaps…”well, ain’t that a decent example of how we influence each other’s minds even with a thing called ‘don’t do’…that causes a doing?”. And there could be a million other responses, no doubt. But this is what is meant (at least what I think I meant) by immediacy of consequence through observation. And I would be committing a lie of omission were I not to say (even believing I see it as so) I am no less caught in it as any. For that 15 minutes was spent considering “Am I just being clever?” “Am I just trying to take advantage of someone who may be reading?” or, more likely “Am I…just a smart ass cleverly trying to make a point?”

You may be observing a “me” as you read with some consequence (O! but this guy is so tedious and full of himself!) But, I was no less and also forced to observe and consider myself…and that I made (even in that silly example) consequence…for myself. All doing (who would exempt thinking or such as may be described as “working with or in consciousness”) holds consequence. How much more…communication? For we are always in expression. Which surely does not exclude all behaviors that can be observed…even how one changes a tire. “That man is not too bright using that severely rusted jack”.

“Oh! but I was not trying to communicate anything to anyone by the way I change a tire” becomes moot.

“Oh, but I was not seeking to communicate anything by wearing this Rolex or carrying this Gucci bag” no less so.

We are all caught in it.

And even neutrinos cannot escape the expression (communication) of their being.

Being has consequence.

No less, consciousness. We may try to adjust them or for them (consequences), by something called knowledge and/or foresight (knowledge is power!) seek to control them (consequences), even hold some hope for their influence toward others for a thence from others (I tend to myself prefer amens to “he’s bat shit crazy”) so that in all consequence(s) may be made subject to us. But, they never are.

Even the very act of, disposition toward, desire for controlling consequence(s)…has consequence in it already.

Being has consequence.

And it’s far too late for any of us to not be.

“What makes a man like Ringo, Doc?”

The hole. The hole right through the center of him is what makes him as he is. (is a hole a not thing, or is it “other”…only appearing…as a “not there”?)

That’s some hole, then…for the seemingly empty to make a man what he is.

Or as another man put it “That’s some catch that Catch -22”

Why yes, indeed it is. May you find that the very perfection of its all encompassing entrapment is so perfect, and too perfect indeed, than to do other than speak of its very purposeful and conscious imposition perfectly accomplished. Upon man’s consciousness.

You, and I, and all things…are being handled.

Even by the not thing.

That huge hole filled with everything that appears “not there”.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

If you’ve gotten this far I’ve had my mind changed. I’d be delighted with “he’s bat shit crazy”.

It came from that huge hole. That not only has power to make a man what he is, but to change him according to a will.

Try to fill it with all your own preferences…and see what happens. I surely have.

Do the experiment.

Skin that smoke wagon and see what happens.

Oops, you and I already have.

It’s too late for a do over.

Now what?

This unyielding need we have, often to the point of lust, for the knowing of a thing or things for ourselves surely stretches gaping mouthed into any matters concerning truth. Indeed there is nothing we would say we know in our (assumed) fullest understanding of that word know that does not presume such has been made ours…to our own self. And no less, when we say we know a thing this is strictly bound to our conviction we know it in some truth…the truth of it and the truth about it. And though we may readily admit we don’t know all about a thing we are yet convinced that what we do know…we know.

Yes, I can say I know mathematics. I know how to add, subtract, divide, multiply. But then a brilliant mathematician comes and presents some equation or formula and asks me to solve it. I do not really know if he has written this upside down or sideways, and I am at more than a loss for I am not even sure I recognize it as mathematics.

And very much depending upon the disposition of the advanced mathematician I could then be held up to ridicule “This fellow doesn’t know math at all as he says” or amongst all the other things that might be said he might say something very strange “Don’t worry or fret, I too started with only the tools of addition subtraction, et al. but I can teach you.”

Now either I must compromise what I have said, amend it, frame it better to its limit “I know some math”, or if obstinate (now my disposition comes into play) and persist “But I do know math!”, I insist. And find, by such obstinacy, I must be answered a very specific way. A harder way. For I am refusing to submit to one with a mastery plainly shown.

But here’s the thing in this very poor example. I know enough only to get into trouble. What I believe I know of numbers and functions (and I really do believe I know) does not allow me to receive his sigmas, deltas, curlycues and what all or be seen as math at all. There are no Greek letters in math! Math is only ones and twos and fractions and such. My knowing (as perceived as such) has actually limited my knowing.

As I said previously in not being able to even recognize whether his equation was upside down, sideways or such allows (even coaxes) me to take that space, place, or position…”this fellow is only making all this up; fabricated only to the end of shaming me with ignorance.” And in some sense not hard to understand (I trust it is not) it is my disposition toward imposing my motives (which I do not yet recognize as my own) upon him as fraud has now called into question…and very much so, his integrity.

And if so…and now…is any able to see how absolutely unbelievable it would be for me (or any) to have any expectation, let alone consideration that “Don’t worry or fret…I will teach you” might be heard?

Yet here I will tell you, and you alone, even if no other ever reads this, this has been all my way with the Lord, and all His answer. I have gotten into the deepest trouble (knowing only enough to do so) to either doubt or wonder at His word, and in so doubting His word, cast aspersions upon His integrity. Or wonder about it. Yes, this is me. And He knows this of me. He knows how I have “weighed him”.

Any matter of preference here is more than moot. It would be a lie for me to say “I would prefer I think of myself as one who hears and obeys” or “I would prefer to be seen as one who follows with some loyalty and devotion and obedience”. My preference has now become the lie even though I know very well I am still in possession of some. And if one were to say “O! but this is too hard a way” or “no one could ever like this” I couldn’t agree more. But is truth made subject to our liking, for if it is…only a thing able to be made…subject to…

Do you see?

Only God can settle this matter to any man. But how? How? How can a man be convinced (and as need be over and over…even as every man need be…over and over) of any truth to which he has no chord nor string in, nor of himself, to resonate? The man himself would have to be made into a different species of person.

Yes, this would be necessity.

But how?

Could he do it for himself? Make himself into what he is not?

Or, would it all be, of necessity, only a thing he must have done for him…as to be in him?

In your inner court, yes…that place right there (how visible it is!) from which all issues, even the temerity to speak…do you hear yourself? And if you have been given the temerity to speak from there…do these words frame themselves upon your lips and tongue as one who desires “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”? In both thinking to yourself and of yourself within yourself and/or even now with such boldness as to publish to others (by lip and tongue) as speaking true of you?

Or would you say “I love lies”?

See, here’s the thing we both know. One is a pleasurable way to think of one’s self, and if one can even be convinced they can convince others this is so…it appears as pleasure, too.

You see…we both know this.

And this, this “what we know” is all and enough to only get us into trouble.

That we love pleasure…not truth. And that we make truth in service to it.

And what is “truth” we make up?

There’s a word for it.

What could be made able to admit the truth of that?

It would take a different species of person.

Something that would have to be made able to come out of such inescapable self condemning of itself as loving lies.

Lies.

Yeah, that’s the word. Yes, that’s it.