Phamous Philsophical Phailures

Phirst:
"During 2011, Americans spent more at commercial casinos than they did on music, movies, and outdoor equipment combined."  My wife, who took a friend to a casino at the frined's request as an "outing," found it an exceedingly grim place.  No bells or cherries; people are so hooked that they just feed numbers into a kind of calculator. No one smiles and even the occasional "winner" goes right back at it with doubly serious intensity. The handicapped spaces are always filled up first thing when they open.

I think this is the ultimate irrationality of Darwinism--a grim place where greed proceeds and precedes and outvotes everything else, and it's every person for him/herself. And what's the key word? Not even such  pleasurous sounding words as "luck" or "Dame Fortune," but now the idea has been reduced to a no-frills "random chance." Luck ain't no lady no mo'.

  As one atheist said of the human race, "We got lucky." and won the cosmic lottery.  But from chance-no-dance it quickly degenerates to the raw question, what did we win?  The Responsibility for the Planet, as most now acknowledge, this being common knowledge from Genesis onwards until the Mighty 19th Century came along. Most people have abandoned Manifest Destiny as leftovers from the Divine Right of Kings. This of course tends to drain life of all purpose and meaning if not replaced by something at least as compelling--so how are we supposed to conjure up the energy or organization to deal with our self-made greed problems when we have undercut all telos? So that "existence" is all there is?

Which is only to say, isn't it "speciesist" to even try to save ourselves?  Suppose we are just like the very successful species of dinosaurs, doomed to extinction?  Why wouldn't we succumb, eventually to supposedly sinless, neutral or hostile nature?

It has struck me in particular that white Americans have lost most of their reasons for existence, now that public philosophy is not only a mere clone of existentialism but "value neutral" at that.  It may be that the "Global South" may go on to greater things, if they learn from us--but chances are they won't.  There is no way to globally prop up a  human world like ours except on Darwin's terms; esp. since since Darwinian philosophy is what we have exported to the world most successfully.

There is the  the added consequence that, just like a colony of mold or bacteria, we are limited after all in our growth by the toxic wastes that we produce. This being so, any given species can eliminate itself, and success seems to be particularly deadly, and success by rapid succession even worse.  We don't learn fast enough to exceed our grasping nature.
 
Some may see this as hopeless--and of course it is, in itself, whether we speak of the species or the individual. But this is simply failure of philosophy which leads to an unbalanced failure of will to live or especially to reproduce. Philosophy is usually a late development in any given civilization but it is not an entity in itself and so cannot balance itself in the face of its own inner contradictions, certainly not enough to face up to the unseen capacities of Reality as seen more thoroughly than we can yet imagine. At worst it is simply an excretory toxin specific to our species.  At its best it could serve as a corrective to the more extreme kinds of human behaviors but it soon busies itself, like all other human institutions, in becoming a self-justifying entity with a professional elite who compete amongst themselves but have no use for the rest of us except as appalling demonstrations of ignorance. But since human ignorance is universal, the kind of hubris that increasingly oozes from department "chairs" et. all, all are poorly armed to be able to point fingers at others on the basis of mere human wisdom and our 15 second rushes to judgement.  Of, say, "the wrong sort of white people"

One might call this musing a kind of prose Psalm--I wouldn't want to set it to lyre music--and only in that David often thought similar thoughts, and then turned to God at the end.  But in other Psalms, God is much more than an addendum; so I will devote more time next time to the Parallel Universe of God.

"BIRD OF HEAVEN" --IONA

"Catch the bird of heaven.
Lock him in a cage of gold.
Look agaBellin tommorrow
but he will be gone.

Lock him in religion
gold and frankincense and myrrh
carry to his prison
but he will be gone...

All the things that man has made
cannot hold him anymore.
Still the bird is flying as before.

Temple made of marble
beak and feather made of gold
bell book and candle
but he will be gone.

Bell book and candle
cannot hold him anymore
still the bird is flying
as he did before."

How does one get the reputation of being a rabble-rouser...

when you haven't roused any rabble? (not even once)

"THE FIRE NEXT TIME"

I  find it more and more amusing when authors and advertisers use Scriptural terms in a Biblically illiterate society.  But the book by James Baldwin is different in one way--he knew exactly to what he was referring. Baldwin came directly out of a Bible-soaked culture of various black denominations; and if there's one thing besides the Gospel itself that is known most thoroughly by African-American Christians, it would be the Book of Revelation. And the title is a parallel to that book, in fact, to the entire Bible, which refers throughout to a Final Fiery End, after God promised to never flood the earth again.

Baldwin was not a Christian, but like many, used Biblical terms and concepts frequently. His fire was more referring to African-American struggles and of the "judgements" of such events as the Watts riots. Far more than the South is "Christ-haunted," to use F. O'Connor's memorable phrase. 

Nonetheless, wildfires and burning heat are certainly on many minds.  It seems ironic that no matter what view you take: that of the secular scientist or that of the Flaming Prophets of God's Word, the conclusion is that same--there isn't a problem on this planet that man has not caused, directly or indirectly. 

So where is all the water going?  The heat will evaporate it quite quickly, so why so little rain? The planet was full of greenhouse gases aeons ago, and a lot hotter than now.  There were literally no polar ice caps. "Desertification" is a problem now-but if nature is by definition good and faultless, why all the fuss?  Maybe the Bible is raising its ugly head again.

I mean "ugly" from the humanistic point of view--old fashioned humanism seems to have gone extinct, replaced by a jugger-nought so fanatically materialistic it will do anything to blame others--esp. "religions,"
just so long as the finger is not pointing back at them.

The other way for the water to go, if not up into the clouds, is to the "great fountains of the deep," inaccessible to any human driller, but obviously plenty of space and shady conditions down there. I am sitting on top of millions of cubic feet of natural gas, stored there by man for man's burning desires, because the limestone and other rock below me is so incredible porous. If we didn't pressurize these pockets with our gas, they would be, well, empty. But we are talking about a mile or more down.  (No danger of it exploding under our feet.)

I would be interested in whatever material might be out there, if possible untinged by prejudice and agendas and pure speculation like mine, that might indicate what direction the planet is likely to take.  Will the waters rise in spite of higher pressure on the ocean beds, but decreased rain in more and more areas? I am on shaky ground here--but I do agree with Baldwin and the Bible that the fires kindled by man, and the sun which is increasingly less hindered by our atmosphere; will be hotter than the weather we have now.  And it will take more than Bible cliches and mocking God and spending money we don't have, to make a dent in what seems to be inexorable.

Ad Campaign, anyone?

I Will Need Some Time to Compose Myself...

I keep coming back to Walker Percy's still inimitable article, "Questions No One Asked Me So I Asked Them Myself,"  a mock interview that makes many of his views crystal clear, in a self-deprecating and very clever way. Turns out that we have much in common besides being, technically speaking, primarily scientists. What is really pitiful is to hear the majority of commentators who have no idea what he means and do their best to quash the Spirit, as in all their other public output, for the masses who consider themselves a cut above the "wrong sort of" masses.

In a way this blog is a bit like that.  It is quite certain, at least, that no one in my family or among my acquaintances and  a few friends would dare to or even think to ask me about the material I choose to cover,.  That's why this will never go viral in any way shape or form.  It doesn't qualify as publishable; varies too much from post to post (when folks say, "Surprise me," guess a percentage on how much they mean that...then imagine them really surprised,...) and often tries to achieve a balance of views that isn't even possible on this heated-up planet, and our white-hot culture.

I have come to see this blog, and more especially my journals, as Manna."  That is to say, bread from heaven.  To clarify:

Many if not most blogs are written for the writers own entertainment or as a habitual way of thinking things through. In fact, it would be hard to understand most blogs being read if it not for the social ties that they already have.  It's like all those business cards they give you when you start a new job: "Here, Mom, take one for Dad too."  I even made up business cards for my last blog!  Guess how many people started reading as a result of those cards, eh? I use them as bookmarks and small to-do lists.

But what manna does is one thing, and when it was around, it did this one thing perfectly: it nourished a person for one day only.  And conditioned dependence on God i.e. the only possible Source of Being, Matter, Energizo, and all the rest.  If you tried to save it overnight, it got permeated with maggots (reminiscent of some plagues we have also heard about.)

Thus is it that when I look back at yesterday's journal entries, what seemed to me brilliant then becomes to seen embarrassing very quickly--on the other hand, I can look back on some blog articles and be glad I wrote or shared them. But if I go a day without Scripture reading and them verbally reflecting on it--the only way I can sustain my attention--then I feel off kilter for the rest of the day.  I don't feel that way about blogging, partly because I am a lot more careful with any given blog and often go over it several times and have my wife check it too. And there are many things that are just too personal to share; God understands me perfectly well, and the Check of the Spirit is Holy Adequate to keep it where it belongs. My harshest critics are people, not Christ, who is way more patient and forgiving than even my wife.  Maybe because He's heard it all before.  "Surprise me," is only applicable to the majority.

And as far as surprising anyone here, it has appeared to me, via not only Percy's critics but more especially through his "friends"  that friends always have some kind of naturalistic or psychological explanation for what the person is saying.  We also categorize people within less than 30 seconds of first meeting them.   Oh,well--let God be your Big Surprise then--I'll be over here munching on manna flakes--please pass the milk of human kindness--"No sugar added."

Child Issues

I just received another installment of the New Yorker magazine and I continue to notice an escalation of a campaign to discourage people from having children.  I will be the first to admit that having children is a big responsibility.  And that not all people are cut out to be parents.  But it is a different matter when an entire culture (USA Today) regularly belittles parenthood.  It's apparently not enough anymore to campaign against marriage--gay marriage being the exception--but it has become evident to most of us by now that cohabitation does not cut down on the population, but makes parenting a very casual matter, secondary to materialism and entertainment rights, with predictable results. 

All this and more was noted in 1949 by Harvard sociologist in "Family and Civilization," a book well summed up in 2 of its 800 pages of highly erudite material, observing that such campaigns are the rule not the exception in the end stages of any given culture in history and they are often run more by indolence and neglect than by intentionality--although TNY has plenty of advocacy intentions. Is this due to population pressure as noted by VSP (Very Smart People)?  Or is this still an irrational self destructive tendency found in every dying, used-up current of civilization and ethnicity at the end of its tether?

Having broken all the rules not once but twice--four children now four grandchildren--somethimes I find myself rather discouraged by the lack of general support; however, if I am looking for support from McWorld I am very much in thrall to our entertainment-insane dying culture--when I could be focusing my attention on being on the cusp of a new generation that has the sense of purpose necessary to do parenting and to do it well; according to guidelines that are not of McWorld or its entitlement mentality. That is, I can focus on new life rather than lamenting what is 3/4 dead already.

 I do lament the many people killed in the theatre yesterday; but the irony of it will escape most people. In the midst of an entertainment culture that is often anti-human or sub-human as much as the Roman "games," it is surprising to me that this has not happened before; and I suspect, like school shootings,  this will become another trademark of our time; and  that there will be a growing blurring between our entertainment offerings and its escalation of violence against people in general, not just an "enemy" but one's neighbor if s/he gets in the way of our "lifestyle," or just rubs us the wrong way.  "Society Against Itself" is becoming more and more of a reality; there will be small islands of sanity and I hope to be stranded on at least one of them--but clearly our national culture is not worth much of an investment-- and that is at least subconsciously clear to many who cannot describe the process but withdraw from the "Centre" progressively and are too bummed out to create anything new.

This topic may be worthy of more exploration in the future; if one takes care to, "strengthen those things""--people more than things-"-that remain."

Speaking of BEING, HABIT NOT HOBBIT

REUBEN JAMES SCHULER BORN 7/14/12 8#14OZ.  WILL TRY TO POST PIC.

From Lower Hutt, New Zealand

and Hope Centre:

"The truth that has burst upon me is this: "The most important thing about you is what you believe about God. (however) God is not who you think He is. God is Who He says He is."

LI don't change God to my needs.  I don't change God to my preferences or value system. I can't change God so some people might like Him better. Nor can I change him to fit my life experience. I can't change God at all. My understanding of Him and His Ways should be ever increasing, but I don't conform Him to anything--not my thoughts, not my experiences, not my emotions, not with my anything."

"We need to be in a relationship with God in which we are discovering and understanding more and more about His Character, His Purposes, and His love.  Then His Character can become our character and His purposes, ours. Then His Love fills our hearts and overflows to those around us.T"

--Tom Richardson--who needs no introduction to my immediate family.

By George

Vacation draws to an end and once more I have delved (delven?) into far more books than I can finish anytime soon.  The good part of this is that I am able to compare and contrast disparate authors who, at first blush, seem to have little in common.

For instance, I am currently reading George McDonald's "Phantastes," the work which so enchanted CSL; not to mention favorable retrospecive reviews by WH Auden and GK Chesterton. 

But also I am perusing the texts of one of the "prophetic" novels of HG Well, "When the Sleeper Awakes."

Try to imagine Wells writing--or even reading--these lines by McDonald:

"The sun, like a golden knot on high/gathers the glories of the sky,
and binds them into a shining tent,/ roofing the world with the firmament."

In fact, I don't find any poetry anywhere in Wells--was he incapable of it, or just intolerant of it? I suspect the latter. McDonald by contrast, ranged much further, and was not only famous for his fantasies but also for his didactic readings and lectures.  He was as famous as (the) Dickens in his time, and much more successful on his American tours, which Dickens botched by his intolerance of American half-developed literary and social sensibilities.

CSL was also famous for both fantasy--like McDonald--and his science fiction, which one great sci-fi writer opined was one of the few writers in the genre that had any literary genius embedded in his works.

But Wells was both hopelessly prosaic, and helplessly dismal, as portrayed more clearly by his latter work, "The World at the end of Its Tether."  As a committed materialist he had, as says the Book he so despised, "No hope in this world."  He was very consistently anti-sanguine about humanity, even though he was occasionally capable of the outlines of a love story--but one always doomed to be impaled on his theories of history. Tolstoy was far superior in mixing these two aspects of storytelling. 

Wells was best as a techno-prophet.  Many of the devices he saw coming are now commonplace--although he foresaw television as a kind of kinetoscope, he believed that color TV would not be possible even beyond 2100.  And he did accurately predict, unlike Orwell who was mainly talking about the USSR--that the future would be in control of mega-corporations and compulsory urbanization. Hard to argue with that...  

Enough for now--as I said, vacation is almost done, and my grandson is still stuck in the womb.  Bulletins as circumstances warrant...

"WAITING FOR GODOT" (well, sort of)

My Dad has brought a version of this Samuel Beckett (SB) play up from Jacksonville; it features Burgess Meredith (aka the Penguin) as Vladmir and Zero Mostel as Estragon. Growing up, this play was kind of like a Bible to us, and we memorized certain phrases and exchanges more by osmosis than by deliberation--but children will memorize stuff they hear or like much more readily than we do as adults.  (I just ordered the screenplay of MP and the Holy Grail--my children don't need it.)

Anyway, this is the first time I had ever seen a performance of the play.  We grew up with the audio version featuring Bert Lahr (aka Cowardly Lion); and E.G. Marshall, a more serious player.  SB designated "Waiting for Godot" (WG) as a tragicomedy, as indeed it is, but it doesn't hurt to have at least one clown/buffoon on the stage.  This version includes a lot of vaudeville standard sight gags, like trying to help someone up and then falling on him yourself. Seeing it done by old pros, it is a lot more of a comedy or a farce than I recall.  I recall it being played utterly on the serious side. I rather like it better this way--and in fact playing it for laughs makes it err more on the side of utter absurdity, rather than as a play that takes itself  too seriously, which at times it does--the music in the Lahr/Marshall version gave it a very threatening tone which I don't find in this version, put out, by the way, by Grove Press.

I wanted to watch it with son Stephen, who has a wider and deeper view of literature than I do--and his first thought is a fascinating one--he compared it to the "neutrals" in Dante's first circle of hell. Not bold sinners like the traitors at the bottom; but angels and men who refused to commit themselves to God or Satan and spent their lives, and hence their eternity endlessly pursuing a blank banner.  Why do they do it?  Well in Dante's version, there is the additional element of merciless clouds of flies driving them, "On! On!" as Pozzo the failed dictator would have it. Represented by Pozzo's whip, perhaps? (This would be rather difficult to stage, obviously--and quite a bit simpler to stage a minimalist play where nothing happens--or does it?)

Actually in this version there's a lot of movement--all for naught of course, at least that's the philosophy we are supposed to get from it. But surprisingly, this time around, it made me feel anything but hopeless. There is the matter of the tree leafing out overnight. Is this an illusion, as Beckett would have it? Or is this a reverse variation of the parable of the fig tree, insisting that the world will go on?  Endlessly?

Or is this actually a supernatural occurrence? One cannot rule it out--and SB makes no attempt to do so, surprisingly.  There's a lot of ignorance on display here, obviously, and SB is making no final judgements, to his credit. But it does put him in neutral, as noted above

Two things, no, three, that I noticed for the first time.  One is the absolute absence of anything of the feminine. One group, inappropriately I think, wanted to stage WG with an all-female cast; and the SB estate turned them down.  So in a way it is a "guy thing" and as such exists in a fantasy island type of setting. Second is the relative absence of children, at least in the sense that the nameless and seemingly innocent boy-child is driven away not once but twice; and represents the ultimate frustration point of the play, hence earning the threats of the two tramps.

So this is ultimately a very male-oriented trope. Which may account for why this appeals to my Dad; and why it was written right after WWII--indeed it may be another form of "All Quiet on the Western Front,"  "Catch 22, and my Dad's own existential novel about postwar Germany/Czechoslovakia, "Winner Take
All."  ( I actually still prefer the original title, "The Little Men," which I think is more descriptive, since there are no clear winners in the novel, as is true in WG also. But I may be missing the irony, which was also implied in the original title with reference to Louisa May Alcott, perhaps.)

The third revelation, if that's the right term, is that this play could easily be G-rated.  Even the swearing is about as mild as it can be.  I suppose one reason for that is that, for a minimalist writer, swearing has a tendency to draw attention to itself; and as such may retard the forward motion of the work. This may seem odd for a play about stasis--but it is still linear, leads to conclusions, and in that sense is not an "Eastern Philosophy" statement, either.  "Aeons" are implied but never addressed in the play and so it is very much in the Western tradition.




This absence of foul language seems peculiar--but the play is so brilliantly written overall that "punctilious pig" actually sounds appropriate, even for two male bums.  There's also no question that this is satire, and is founded on the literary works, not just of the 20th Century, but goes back even further than the Greeks.  Which fits well with it "Ecclesiastical" message of, "Nothing new under the sun."  "It's all a chasing after the wind." Much more could be said of course; but in a way this play is very Scripture-dependent, and is in that sense a reaction too, say.The Larger Work; which took only about 2000 years to put together. Even SB cannot do what Einstein said about Christ--"It is impossible to dismiss Him --the luminous figure of the Nazarene--with a bon mot." 

Thanks Dennis.

I note the mistake on the email address which should of course be zcbmschuler@gmail.com.  But I would prefer to have comments posted directly to the blog.  It gives the impression that people are actually reading it, few though there may be. So the net result is that I am happy Dennis can get in to the comments section. Did you have any trouble doing so, and is there some trick to it that I can pass on to others?

Son Steve ("DOCTOR Mr. Evil Porkchop to you.")   is posting a series on how to get your posts to be read more widely and of course I have not followed his rules of course--but then again, he is in many ways my opposite.  If I were an animal, I would probably be a turtle; or, anciently speaking, an ankylosaurus. Keep a low profile, keep your armor uppermost, and above all never let anybody get aholt of your tail...

No Reuben yet--but soon, Grace says.  She got enough sleep so there is sustenance for the journey. "Rejoice with those who rejoice."

REUBEN, REUBEN

Steve and Grace and the girls 3 are almost here.  It appears that Grace is in labor with "Reuben James."

I really hope by the time he grows older we will have forgotten that awful song.  I am using my vacation to learn something about this machine, and so I hope to post some pictures before long.  I had mentioned the  Dalit subject some time ago.

I do regret that the only comments being made are through email.  If you want to make a comment, use zcbmschuler.gmail.com. And let me know how to open the blog for comments.

Semper Dowland, Semper Dolens

With the advent of Grace and Stephen, the only people left with whom I can play recorders, I have been sifting through ancient musick, and came across a very old photocopy-- with that wonderful texture--of what turns out to be the first  printed book/folio of "concerted instrumental music that we have." Dated 1599, the full title is: " LACHRIMAE, OR SEAVEN TEARES FIGURED IN SEAVEN PASSIONATE PAVANS, With Divers Other Pavans, Galliards, and Almands for the Lute, Viols, or Violons, in Five Parts."

(Dowland was court lutenist "to the most Royall and Magnificent, Christian the Fourth, King of Denmarke, Norway, Vandales, Goths, (et. al)

The intro, written by Peter Warlock in 1926, noted that this was also dedicated to Christian's sister, Princesse Anna, who married into the English throne at the time.  Dowland remarkes: "In which time I have endevoured by my poore labour and study, to manifest my humblenesse and dutie to your highnesse, being my selfe one of your most affectionate Subjects, and also servant to your most Princely Brother, the onely Patron and Sun-shine of my else unhappie fortunes."

He goes on to address Anna as "worthy Goddesse."

I might add that these songs would fit right in with our current culture, being one of much excess and much unhappiness. They are quite secular and Renaissance in tone and matter.  Dowland's songs were quite famous for a long time, and are mentioned by Ben Jonson and other writers of the time. Thomas Morely, who published a few small pieces just before Dowland did his complete score, said in 1597 that the kind of musick to which his friend usually repaired were, "a kind of staide musicke, ordained for grave dancing..."  He also wrote what we today call madrigals, and to give you a flavor of it, I have "endeuored"  to write down the doleful poetry, all Dowland's, no covers, of the song, "CAN SHE EXCUSE MY WRONGS?" (by the way, the answer is, "No.")

"Can she excuse my wrongs with Virtue's cloak?/ Was I so base, so base, that I might not aspire
unto those high joys which she holds from me?"

"Shall I call her good when she proves unkind? / Are those clear fires which vanish into smoke? /
As they are high, so high is my desire."

"Must I praise the leaves where no fruit I find? /  No, no, where shadows do for bodies stand,/
Cold love is like to words written on sand, or to bubbles which on the water swim."

"If she will yield to that, that which Reason is,/ it is Reason's  will that Love be just, be just;/
If this she deny, what can granted be?"

"Thou mays't be abused if thy sight be dim, / Dear, make me happy still by granting this, by granting this, /
or cut off delays if that die I must."

"Wilt thou be abused still,/ that she will right thee never? / If thou canst not oerpower her will, thy Love will be fruitless ever."

"Than for to live thus tormented,/ Dear but remember/ it was I Who for thy sake did die contented."

Extracting the poem form five different voices is harder than I thought, so all I can say is that all the words are there, but I can't attest to the exact order.

"The more things change..."  fast forward to "The Dark Side of the Moon, " attributed to someone named Floyd Pink...I listened to this as a favor to a fan, for the first time--it's been out since '72--I wouldn't recommend it, esp. for melancholics.  I shall study Dowlands fortunes further; and as Mr. Frost would say, "I shan't be long./ You come too."

("Dolens" is a word for bothe sadnesse and paine.")

So many goats, so little time...

My natural course of reading through the Bible again  led me last week to consideration of Leviticus 16, which makes reference to The Day of Atonement, which we now refer to as Yom Kippur, which is in September usually along with New Year, i.e. Rosh Hoshanah.  However like so many things in the Jewish religion, the present celebrations rather pale in intensity and in seriousness compared to the original; which were rather more for a nomadic people in the wilderness, definitely an embarrassment to the point of being a stigma when one considers the urban/e nature of almost all modern Judaism. The Jews have not been a rural or nomadic people in spite of numerous diasporas, since Solomon built the first Temple-- and ever since the rallying cry has been, "Next year in Jerusalem!"  There is the "wandering Jew" concept; but Hebrews do not settle, Kibbutzes notwithstanding, in a non-urbanized  cultural setting, even when farming.  I speak here of the vast majority; who have become really more of another branch of secularism, with some interesting roots.

But in examining those roots, as I have done virtually every other day for the last 20-25 years, I always find surprises; and  most of these would be a scandal to most Jews alive today. 

Take the matter of animal sacrifices. These were in fact ended;by Christ spiritually then phyisically when the last Temple--of Herod, ironically; how low can you go and still have any temple at all?--was razed to the ground in 70 AD, give or take a year or two. 

But in the desert, animals were essential to survival.  So the sacrifice of a goat or a lamb was to trust God for not only provision but for survival itself.  Not quite the same as putting a dollar in the plate, eh?
;
But Yom Kippur in its inception would be almost unrecognizable to Gentiles and most Jews today.  Yet it has given rise to a very important word in our language, namely, "scapegoat."  So what does this really imply?

In many ways it means the opposite of what it means now. Charlie Brown is famous for lamenting, "Why do I always have to be the goat?"  While it may not be all that great to be a goat, the animal, in the wilderness-- when all they has was the Tabernacle and Tent City, the scapegoat was the blessed one!  While Charlie had hopelessness as his perpetual lot, dwelling amongst his persecutors who were the majority of the other characters; the real ancient scapegoat got to go free and to be utterly free of  future human persecution.


See, "scapegoat"  means "Escaped Goat,"  who indeed always escaped to become a wild goat.
There were two goats chosen by the priests, and by lots one was chosen to be let go--and the other stayed to be "fired up" after being stabbed and having its blood drained out on the dry ground. See Lev.16:1-23 for all the gory details. 

But it occurred to me that this, too, is a prefiguration of the two sides of the Resurrection. Christ was certainly sacrificed for the sins of the people, that we know. (Well, some of us do)

But He also escaped!  Death could not hold Him in His Essence; His Spirit made sure of that. And although the majority voted to send Jesus away permanently, they did not realize that this goat could not be killed but would only put forth the opportunity to manufacture by human means the appearance of death while the escaped part, though banned from human society like the lepers of old, came right back, rather in a blink of the Cosmic Eye; and true Christians are  likewise to die to themselves and to the world, but also to remain in the world, just not belong to its systems. So it is we are escaped, and captive--to Messiah the shepherd; and free as well.  None of this of course in strictly human terms, even though it will play out in those terms.

Our Atonement has come; and gone; and back again; He never left, actually. But "for the sake of righteousness" on a human level, all these things have been done; exactly as was told to Moses and the prophets. Justice and Truth and Grace however all do require another visit; no one would agree that justice, truth, and mercy are growing like wildfire, the world over, or right here in this house in Mendota Ill.

I rest my case. (for the moment.)

EU-TOPICA

/Before I forget, congrats to son Stephen, whose "Literary Workshop" post, "100 .Books to Read Before You Die," is getting up to 1500 hits per weekend.-  Not exactly viral, but for a post that would mainly appeal to academically-orinted bibliophiles, this seems more significant than a Justin Bieber tweet.

"And now for something completely not the same...."

"What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness,"--(albeit in a rather lackluster and lackadasical fashion i.e. a "lifestyle")--has not attained it. Why not?"

"Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works."

" 'See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that causes them to fall;
but he who trusts in Him will never be put to shame."

"For there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all..."

"But I ask, did they not hear?  Moses says: 'I will make you envious by those who are not a nation...' "

"And Isaiah boldly says, 'I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed Myself to those who did not ask for Me.' "

These would be exceedingly strange things to our ears; whether as Jews, even those steeped in the OT Scriptures; or as Gentiles; were it not that we bring so many false assumptions and old stereotypes to the fore, before we even give any real consideration to the "how odd of God" irreducible complexities of what Paul is saying here in Romans 9--writing to a very sophisticated center of society.

I know folks who see the word "God" or "Christ" and immediately stop reading.  Unless of course someone is using these words as a curse.  Then it is not only acceptable but highly desirable. Now if that's not odd, I don't know what is.  But it is another indicator of Their Power, not merely as concepts but as words which are more powerful than most to get attention.  Which brings attention to their high significance to those who would abjure Christ--supposedly. Methinks the Unbeliever Doth Depend Too Much on Protestations!"

Like unto the atheists, who are obsessed by God so much that they define their philosophy on God's terms--and very Scripturally so.

"O Deity it!"  Packs a punch, doesn't it?

More later I hope on the subject of those who, like me, did not pursue God but opposed Him to the teeth--yes, and according to tradition, mostly.