September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

December 15, 2012

Comments

RonH,

Do you believe fairy tales make for reality?

Whenever a discussion about evil comes up and unbelievers launch the question about why "God" didn't step in and stop the actions involved, I immediately want to turn the question back to them: in your own lifetime, have you ever done anything at all that was not good? Have you lied, stolen, injured, hurt or _____? Why didn't God stop YOU? Why did He allow your actions to go through with their intent? It seems like denying God works when someone else is involved and we want God to step in and "prove" His existence. But the end of the story IS coming, and He will put all doubts to rest.

BTW, RonH, it's interesting to me that, when you embraced your wife after the tragedy, you "knew" her exact thoughts at the exact moment she thought them, and neither one of you had to utter a single word to express what you felt; neither one of you had to exclaim what a monstrously wrong, evil thing it was. If it was 21 or 23 years ago, and this happened to one of your own children, would it still not be a very wrong and evil thing? If not, what WOULD it have been?

Dennis Prager wrote an interesting piece that properly assigns evil its place--inside the individual. It's a good read:

http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=42452f97-f8e4-475f-98c9-0083811664c4&url=conscience-not-guns-n1469001

Carolyn,

I don't see what you're getting at. You ask, why didn't God stop me when I did bad things? But far from helping, this question just seems to further underscore the problem Christians face in explaining the existence of evil!

In particular, I am happy to be stopped from doing bad things. And if I weren't happy to be stopped, well, God doesn't have to let me know I've been stopped.

Hi, Ben, my point is that we don't really want God to intervene with our own actions--we don't want Him to prevent us from doing what we WANT to do (and sometimes what we WANT to do is not good); in other words, we WANT our free will to be free. But we demand to know why He doesn't or didn't stop someone else from doing what they wanted to do.

would it still not be a very wrong and evil thing? If not, what WOULD it have been?

Carolyn, I have the same question for you as for Louis.

By 'evil' do you mean something brought into the world by Adam of Eden?

You want an answer, Louis wants an answer, scblhrm wants an answer.

So clarify your terms.

"By 'evil' do you mean something brought into the world by Adam of Eden? You want an answer, Louis wants an answer, scblhrm wants an answer. So clarify your terms."

Hi RonH, evil was in the world prior to Adam, sin wasn't until Adam disbelieved God in favor of the Liar's scheme. Since then, men are inclined to desire sin substantially, thereby doing evil as proof of that base desire.

Evil is lack of conformity to God, summarized in the two Great Commandments, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind--along with the second "love your neighbor as yourself".

Is this the kind of clarifying you are requesting?

RonH,


I have put three (3) posts here defining both my terms of “evil” and also what I think or assume your terms are.


You are just ignoring this. Or, you cannot find a way to defend your own inner felt-reality as anything other than mutable whim which is wholly arbitrary and perhaps you just don’t want to define that in writing in the face of such a public slaughter of children. You even made the claim that without God “evil” can be “more than” just mutable taste and preference. I’ve yet to see your defense of that assertion.


So, just to satisfy your request a second time, I am going to Copy/Paste here what I’ve already wrote earlier.


First there is the post from earlier here at “Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 16, 2012 at 04:32 AM” in which I describe not only what Evil is, but what Sin is, and what Eden is, and I also added a referral to Brad B’s and WL’s description of how murder is a sort of eternal crime against the victim. Then I went into and described how the materialists describes Evil via the magical translation from whim “felt in here” to slaying “real” dragons “out there” which I consider to be an appeal to Fairy Tales and nothing more though the atheist will claim he does not live and die for Fairy Tales.


Then I posted another two posts in which I yet again defined Evil. I’ll copy/paste those there:


(You claimed that without God good and evil is not necessarily just a matter of tastes so I asked this) ---- If you appeal to something outside your brainstem, I'd like to know what that something is. Collective Tastes? Utility? Blind indifference? Survival of the toughest Tooth & Claw? Fairy Tales that come true? I think without Immutable Semantics within that Eternal Language, all definitions become mutable over time. At least while time exists. Posted by: scblhrm | December 16, 2012 at 06:19 AM


RonH to clarify......What I mean is, the Immutable precedes Time, invents Time, breaks into Time, and outlasts Time. That our necessary everlasting uncaused Free Lunch exists is self-evident by Logic's eye whether we are atheists or theists. Now, if that Lunch houses no sort of Moral Ought kind of stuff, which in all of our semantics here inside of Time links to Person, then I don't see how you can appeal to anything that really is just mutable definitions to define good and evil. Ultimately, humanity will cease to exist, so "survival" is a sinking ship if that is "evolution's good". It is, like all things, mutable. And, lots and lots of ugly things can help "us" survive. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that outside of God there is something Immutable still. Fairy Tales just don't come true. Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 16, 2012 at 04:32 AM

So, RonH, I dove into Eden and how it dissects Evil and Sin one from the other (Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 16, 2012 at 04:32 AM) and then there is all the rest as well. Etc…..


We’ve answered you quite specifically from Eden and beyond. This is an old topic and one which you are well schooled in. The slaughter of these children is what it is. I’ve described what the evil/wrongness of it “is” in very clear terms and I’ve also offered what I think is an accurate description of a materialistic approach as well. There are Values to lives which transcends human whim. The ground for such lies in the Other and Outer beyond human whim, in Eternal Love wherein we find the immutable semantics of that eternal language which speaks of the everlasting worth of the created in concrete terms which no amount of evolution or human voting or human feeling can ever mutate and should any evolution or any human voting or any human feeling ever contradict God's Immutable Semantics of Love they will be forever evil/wrong and Him forever good/right.


RonH,

Regarding Eden, see "Posted by: scbrownlhrm | December 21, 2012 at 02:50 AM"

Brad B,

Evil is lack of conformity to God

will do just fine.

If this is what you mean by 'evil', then you know I don't believe in 'evil', so don't ask me if Connecticut was evil.

On the other hand, if you have a more everyday meaning for the word in mind, then yes, to paraphrase Carolyn: if anything is evil, then Connecticut was evil.

There, now that wasn't so hard was it?

RonH

You were the one evading the question, RonH; it wasn't hard at all for anyone else. Merriam/Webster's defines it easily enough!

"if anything is evil, then Connecticut was evil"

I still did not hear a yes or no from RonH on "Was this slaughter evil?"

If you don't know what good/evil looks like, then one can answer with that sentence, but then one surrenders the right to call ANY act good/evil and in fact is NOT calling this slaughter evil at all, and thus still has not called it evil.

But if one answers "yes" then it still remaines to be answered, "why?"

In other words, you can call it evil and define evil however you like. But the yea/na is missing from RonH, still, and, also, the definition is missing from RonH, still.

The rest of us have been honest and up-front.


RonH,

Do you really find it that *hard* to call this slaughter evil?

If you do, I will ask you, "On what grounds" and Etc.....

You know.......

RonH to clarify,

By "On what grounds" I mean on what grounds are you finding it necessary to, still, not offer your own ya/na on "Was this slaughter evil"?

How about "bad"?

If bad, then on what grounds?


And didn't you claim that outside of God this bad/evil definition can be more than just taste?

YA/NA is missing.

Even settling for "Bad" is missing.

Defining either evil or bad in your own terms is missing.

The explanation of your earlier assertion that without God your own bad/evil definition can transcend taste/preference is missing.

Is this really that hard for you?

Carolyn,

I was getting a term in the question clarified.

Louis wouldn't do it, but Brad B eventually did.

And I answered.

I think you know this.

Yet you speak as if you don't.
______________

A dictionary gives possible / popular meanings.

It doesn't give the meaning in the mind of any individual speaker or writer.

I think you probably know this about dictionaries.

Yet you speak as if you don't.

scblhrm,

The explanation of your earlier assertion that without God your own bad/evil definition can transcend taste/preference is missing.

I would think that you know that morality transcends taste/preference without my explaining. Are you really asking for this to be explained?

RonH

RonH,

Yes.

Also,

Was the slaughter "bad"?

If so, how do you define, or what defines, 'bad' in that or any event whatsoever.....


I'm sure you are aware that we are asking about your ultimate claims on that.....not just your own personal taste....

The slaughter of these children is what it is. I’ve described what the evil/wrongness of it “is” in very clear terms and I’ve also offered what I think is an accurate description of a materialistic approach as well. There are Values to lives which transcends human whim. The ground for such lies in the Other and Outer beyond human whim, in Eternal Love wherein we find the immutable semantics of that eternal language which speaks of the everlasting worth of the created in concrete terms which no amount of evolution or human voting or human feeling can ever mutate and should any evolution or any human voting or any human feeling ever contradict God's Immutable Semantics of Love they will be forever evil/wrong and Him forever good/right.

Hi RonH, although you'll also most likely maintain your obstinate denial, you are informed enough about what is evil, [lack of conformity to God], which is really needing the further definition provided of obeying the 2 great commandments as defined by Jesus.

"Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."

and

"Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, Rom 2:15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,"

So, scblhrm and Carolyn are right to tenatiously hold the point toward you and your stubbornness as you refrain from making a definate statement calling obvious evil "evil". Even though your worldview doesn't provide footing to ground it as objective and universal, that doesn't stop most people from borrowing from the Christian worldveiw to state an obvious fact that slaughter of children is unvarnished evil--plain to see by even those with all but the dullest of senses.

With that said, as we compare ourselves with standards of good or evil measured against our common creatures, we ignore the offense that we bring before The Holy God. It is easy to call Lanza evil, but how many of us have thoughts and deeds that when inspected and measured against God's law are also evil. There is only one remedy, one hope, and God did it/provided it as Rom. 1:16 says above, we need it [the gospel] initially and continually.

Carolyn,

Well I agree that, in general, I don't want my choices to be thwarted. I think I'd feel differently if I understood they were only being thwarted to protect the well-being of others, and not at any great expense to my own well-being. However it's hard to say without actually being in that situation, and so you could be correct that I don't really want God to curtail the consequences of my choices.

The thing is, I don't claim to be omnibenevolent. Sometimes I really do look out for my own interests first. Human as I am, I often put my own well-being ahead of the well-being of others.

But why should God respect my selfishness? Why should he put my selfish desires ahead of the well-being of other people? By the same token, why should he put someone else's selfish desires ahead of my well-being? That's not consistent with omnibenevolence, and that's why it doesn't help to point out that we human beings don't always want God to step in to protect the well-being of others.

Ben,


He values Personhood, and part of personhood involves a nuance of choice, which you claim does not or cannot exist. In the Triune Power Who wills His Own Image, Choice is quite apparent there in Eden’s Triune Fabric. And, as written elsewhere, such a pattern is the path to Man's Best. If Man's Best includes A and B and C, and B brings D, then so it is. He has it all well in Hand. There are no roads unaccounted for within Man’s Agency.

Love is the Ultimate Reality, and we find it to be Triune within Love's embrace there in and among the I, and the You, and the Singular I-You within the We which forever proceeds.

If you mean to demand Love as our Final Felicity, you have only that Eternally Sacrificed Self who pours Himself into His creation, and thereby glorifies it, and makes of it His Image, which will be Love, and it, thereby, shall then glorify Him. Love will be our Final Felicity both in Person and in Image. In this odd Triune God we find all our appeals satisfied on all Fronts should we seek a single reference point through which all vectors pass in such a description from the highest to the lowest.

This has been described to you a number of different ways, Ben. You just don't like what it shall require of you. You don’t want to be thwarted. Because you value your Self above all things. Even above the Uncreated Other should He avail Himself to you.

Thwart the Self? You will have none of it, Ben. When Truth comes, you, in your own words, will ask first, "Will this cost me my very fun experience in the now?" If the answer is "Yes" then you will not value Truth. In your own words.

Now, we must know the following, for we see it in Love Himself: That which necessarily Loves, necessarily Dies. Love is the most costly thing in all possible worlds. And Love does not rape the Will of another. Whatever choice is and whatever our Marriage to Him will be in that Final Amalgamation of Word and Flesh is found within those immutable semantics of His eternal language there within uncreated love.


You value Self above Truth, in your own words, and, Truth is Love, and, Love Dies for Other. Not in "gesture". Not in "theory". Not in "intellectual fashions". But utterly.

The Spiritual experience will show you Him, Ben, but Truth is costly, and a certain form of Trust is the bridge to that Joy which you value, and Joy truly is the serious business of Heaven. You will not find Him beneath any rock in this or that country. You will not find Him in this or that super nova. You will not find Him in this or that intellectual stimulant. You will not find Him in any theory. You will find Him in and by Spirit. The Pascalian Night of Fire will be on His terms, not yours.

When Truth comes, you, in your own words, ask first, "Will this cost me my very fun experience in the now?" If the answer is "Yes, at least for now" then you will not value Truth. In your own words. Clearly Self is your god.

Now, we must know the following, for we see it in Love Himself: That which necessarily Loves, necessarily Dies. The Dying God will be our Final Felicity, for Love will be our Final Image, our Best, our End.


Love's Immutable Semantics are found mechanized within Love's Eternal Language within His Eternally Sacrificed Self there on that Hill.

Ben states, "That's not consistent with omnibenevolence" making the assertion that the existence of evil is incompatable with the truth of God's Goodness. This short-sighted arguement has been quite easily shown to be illogical and incoherent so many times one hardly knows where to begin......

Ben, "If Evil, then no Good-God".

Is that the best you can do?

Ben,

Since you claim that Truth has no value unless it satisfies one or several of your appetite's very fun experiences, this is worth repeating:

Evil and God's Goodness are obviously not incompatible and has been dissected to no end really..... on STR and elsewhere.


And, once again:


The reason Truth will remain elusive to you has to do with the truthfulness of the questioner, which in this case devalues Truth and values A Very Fun Experience (in your own words). Truth is, in your own words, not valuable in any Self-Evident fashion. And yet you ask “What is Truth”. Logical Error, or what we call a lie, is, again in your words, “bad” only if and when it happens to interfere with your Very Fun Experience. There is this: Love costs. It costs everything. And, at the end of that death of the self there is this: Joy really is the serious business of heaven. You are close to the truth of all things in your value of Joy, only, you think that is the only entity which is worthy of value. And that is the problem within the questioner here: Love will cost him what he loves most: Himself and that Self’s Very Fun Experience. I can tell you that God will insist on this loss of self to the Nth degree, and I can tell you that He will give you in return such Full and Good and Lovely things which you didn’t even think about asking.


Some things we carry through the thread of Self Evidence. If you doubt this, then we both know through Logic’s Eye that Aristotle’s Free Lunch exists. There really is an everlasting, uncreated, uncaused cause. Everybody gets that. It is just self-evident. Now, if you need convincing of the Free Lunch, you have only Logic to use, and, here we come to the heart of the matter: When Logic presents you with a Truth which is in your present Capacity only available to you via Self-Evidence, it is Logic (and Love, but that is another issue) which we already know that you do not value and especially if it will cost you your Very Fun Experience. “Self Evident” and “Logic” are in use by you even now, but with that Uncaused Cause or Free Lunch it does not cost you your Very Fun Experience and in fact it may even boost the Fun-Factor for you as you are at heart a logician. You love logic, but you love Self more. When Logic boosts your Fun-Factor you embrace it, and should a Logical-Error (a lie) boost that same Fun-Factor you have gone on record as valuing that too, because, at bottom, what you value is Self above all else.

You therefore are faced with this: Self-Evident Logical Coherency can come up to you and sit down at your side, and, should it cost you everything, you would rather the lie. Logical Error (a lie) is not bad *unless* it costs you your Very Fun Experience, as you’ve stated in the past.


“What is Truth” demands a certain *kind* of questioner should an answer ever be given not because an answer is withheld, but because though it is given, it takes a certain *kind* of person, a prepared person, to embrace it.


The God Who is Love reveals Himself along all sorts of vectors such as His Triune Fabric and inside of His Cross and even inside of all human experience whatsoever where He reveals that the Self which necessarily loves necessarily dies. I will also say this: Material's vectors and Logic and Love and the Triune Fabric of Epistemology (which you see already, only without realizing it) and the Triune Fabric of both Person and Love all bring us to the necessary End of ad infinitum, and though we cannot know infinitely as we peer through to that End, we can know meaningfully.


“But why should God respect my selfishness?”


The God Who is Love hates selfishness and in no way “respects” it. Evil, all evil, is ultimately brought to an altar of both Justice and Mercy. Ben prefers his own timetable for this and thinks God somehow indebted to his schedule, but, apparently, God’s Timetable will remain in play despite Ben stomping his feet. I think we all stomp our feet at times.


“Why should he put my selfish desires ahead of the well-being of other people?”


The God Who is Love puts Man’s Best, the Felicity of all Men, ahead of His Own Self. He pours Himself out and thereby glorifies us/them. That is what Love does as it shouts Other and not Self. Selfish desires, including Ben’s, are simply brought ultimately to an altar of both Justice and Mercy.


“By the same token, why should he put someone else's selfish desires ahead of my well-being?”


The God Who is Love puts Man’s Best, the Felicity of all Men, ahead of His Own Self. He pours Himself out and thereby glorifies us/them. That is what Love does as it shouts Other and not Self. Selfish desires, including Ben’s, are simply brought ultimately to an altar of both Justice and Mercy. The God Who is Love hates selfishness. Evil, all evil, is ultimately brought to an altar of both Justice and Mercy. For one who, by his own assertion, favors pleasurable lies to uncomfortable truths, Ben seems to think God magically indebted to his own particular timetable. Ben must prefer his own timetable for this and think God somehow indebted perhaps to his schedule, but, apparently, God’s Timetable will remain in play.


All death, all tears, all evil, all mutability, it seems, gives way to that Final Bliss that is an everlasting amalgamation of the Mutable and the Immutable, of Word and of Flesh as God-In-Man, Man-In-God is finally birthed. Love begets yet more Love, and so on forever……..

Love Himself is found Manifest Everywhere and Always. M-Theory’s mathematically incomprehensible Triune Topography emerges within its Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscience. Epistemology itself is laced all through with its own Triune Topography as our friend Ben describes quite well, though perhaps unintentionally, for the Self knows within the Self and within Relation and by Relation both the Known and the Keeps-On-Knowing. Ontology too reveals its Triune Topography within Being’s singular and pleural I and You and I-You. Self-Evident Free Lunches seem to emerge as necessary regardless of which Vector breaks through. Logic seems to regress to Self-Evidence as well and such is comfortably housed quite easily within Epistemology’s Triune Topography. Through all these windows an everlasting Free Lunch emerges atop a sort of terrain that has multiple yet perfect fronts all of which comprise a singular whole. All available evidence points towards the Immaterial as the source of that Free Lunch. We find in all this that there are strong vectors emerging from the Other and Outer which echo a staunchly Triune, Immaterial, Eternal, Uncaused Cause. There are patterns of such a Triune Topography mechanized within the immutable semantics of a perpetual one-way incline in an eternal language comprised of Word’s material manifest wherein Truth precedes the Corporeal. In all these things Love’s own Triune Topography casually ebbs and flows quite unobstructed and buoys up illumination of what Necessarily Exists. From Timelessness and into Time and back again into Timelessness these self-evident Triune patterns swallow up whole all of our formulas of infinities, all of our equations of pain, all of our rules of suffering, all of our blueprints of the purely human, all of our diagrams of multi-verses, and all of our prescriptions of the purely inhuman, and in all these the Triune holds fast to the satisfaction of coherence as it houses multiple perfect distincts which effortlessly furnish us with their singular reality laced with ports and bays saturated with Ships that easily set sail and satisfy the demands of all these equations and serenely traverse all ad infinitums. In this set of patterns all things merge unhindered and in all these things we find that unique Eternally Sacrificed Self in Whom both Logic and Love confirm the Triune Topography of Epistemology and of Ontology, of Will and of Love, and even of Perfection itself and thereby brings us to our Necessary End of all Ad Infinitums comprised yet again of those immutable semantics mechanized within that perpetual one-way incline flooded with that eternal language of the Everywhere and Always. This set of patterns of a singular whole freely self-manifesting in this fashion fully accounts for all that we see, all that we observe, all that we perceive, all that we feel, all that we cry, and all that we scream out as we sit within our ivy tower armchairs and as we trip upon corpses in all our fields of carnage. Ten thousand strong vectors, in fact all vectors whatsoever slice up the skies above our heads with the glaring light of the Truth of all things.

Amid our fields of carnage there is this other different approach:


M-Theory’s mathematically incomprehensible Triune Topography emerges fated to a fabric of Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. Epistemology itself is laced all through with its own Triune Topography as the Self knows within the Self and within Relation and by Relation and these are so with both the Known and with the Keeps-On-Knowing. Ontology reveals its Triune Topography within Being’s singular and pleural amid the I and the You and the singular I-You for Being itself regresses to Love's embrace among the I and the You wherein the Singular-We streams uncreated. An Uncaused-Cause of the Just-Is type testifying by Self-Evidence that it just is a sort of Everlasting Free Lunch emerges as Necessary regardless of which vectors break through as No-Thing ever escapes Necessity's uncaused IS which forever shouts through all known vectors I-AM. Logic feigns a regress to Self-Evidence and is found sustained quite easily within Epistemology’s Triune Topography. Through all these windows our Uncaused-Cause is Self-Evident as a necessary Everlasting Free Lunch emerging atop a sort of terrain that has multiple yet perfect fronts all of which comprise a singular whole and all available evidence points towards the Immaterial as the source of this Everlasting IS which exacting Necessity inflexibly testifies of. We find in all this that there are strong vectors emerging from the Other and Outer which echo a staunchly Triune, Immaterial, Eternal Uncaused Cause. We find patterns of such a Triune Topography mechanized within the immutable semantics of a perpetual one-way incline in an eternal language comprised of Word’s material manifest wherein Truth precedes Corporeal. In all these things Love’s own Triune Topography casually ebbs and flows quite unobstructed and buoys up illumination of what Necessarily Exists. From Timelessness and into Time and back again into Timelessness these self-evident Triune patterns swallow up whole all of our formulas of infinities, all of our equations of pain, all of our rules of suffering, all of our blueprints of the purely human, all of our diagrams of multi-verses, and all of our prescriptions of the purely inhuman, and in all these the Triune holds fast to the satisfaction of coherence as it houses Multiple Perfect Distincts which effortlessly furnish us with their singular reality laced with ports and bays saturated with Ships that easily set sail and satisfy the demands of all these equations and serenely traverse all ad infinitums. In this set of patterns the entirety of vectors merge unhindered as all threads converge on Love’s Cross within that peculiar Eternally Sacrificed Self in Whom we find Power’s eternal merging of death and life, justice and mercy, law and liberty, wrath and ransom, suffering and joy, Word and Flesh, Truth and Corporeal, Immaterial and Material, God-In-Man and Man-In-God and in Whom both Logic and Love confirm the Triune Topography of Epistemology and of Ontology, of Will and of Love, and even of Perfection itself and thereby brings us to our Necessary End of all Ad Infinitums comprised yet again of those immutable semantics mechanized within that perpetual one-way incline assembled by the eternal language of the Everywhere and Always. Love’s embrace breaks through in the Triune God as in Him the I forever embraces the You and eternally begets the Singular-We. At an infinite speed all these vectors pierce the triad of Mind and Spirit and Body for an inescapable vacuum left in every vector’s wake reaches through eternity’s triune fabric and pulls Generation out of Timelessness and into the fated genesis of granted Will’s motion into the Created Self or into the Uncreated Other whereby the Zeal of the Created plunges The-Now into Time’s Degeneration in which Joy and Pain, Mercy and Justice are hurled into Regeneration’s return to Timelessness. The Zeal of the Uncreated withstands all Offenses for we are Dead, and not only Dead, but embalmed within Regeneration, and not only embalmed within Regeneration but also Alive in Re-Creation’s Delight and these three Ages thrice emerge in Mind, thrice emerge in Body, and thrice emerge in Spirit. Within His embrace my soul awakes to the sound of three harmonious contradictions wherein my soul’s bedrock called Existence testifies of incessant Need which itself testifies of unending Joy as it discovers that though it has but Nothing to offer, and in fact offers up Offense, the Uncreated Beloved declares this soul to be of an everlasting Value. The Uncreated Beloved here Manifests face to face and spreads His arms wide high atop that Tree called Life and pours Himself out and this He does for Love’s I and You and We. These infinite sets of triune patterns of a singular whole freely self-manifesting in these fashions fully account for all that we see, all that we observe, all that we perceive, all that we feel, all that we cry, and all that we scream out as we soar to our highest within Ivy Tower armchairs and as we descend to our lowest stumbling over corpses in all our fields of carnage. Tens of thousands of strong vectors and in fact all vectors whatsoever slice up the skies above our heads with the glaring light of the Truth of all things.

The comments to this entry are closed.