This entry is the postscript I deleted from yesterday’s entry. What happened is that, after writing it, I decided it made the entry too long, so I moved it here so that it could be its own post. One needn’t skim the first entry before skimming this second; in fact, they have nothing in common. So why am I bothering even to point this out?
I don’t care enough to transcribe the rest of my obsessions here, but since they’re pretty much the same stuff that I always fuss about, I’ll leave them below, unfinished and as-is:
Animals vs. animals… how the super-farm industry prohibits eyewitness (filming) of their liberties… What analogy can be drawn from these conglomerations’ actions to the working of the human senses: touch, taste – what bodily functions are they echoing: big oil, agriculture, pharmaceuticals, etc. Imagine transnational companies as analogous to organs of the “divine body” that is ever in the process of cohering (attempting to mirror its pre-shattered being from wherever it rests waiting for us in futurity) …how evil becomes good …these huge slaughterhouses – what (if anything) do they have in common with the digestive system of an organism? …How about the eyes / ovaries / motion picture film cameras? …Or the brain(s)? …Why not wear one’s stomach on the outside, like a purse? What does the process of biological assimilation wish to hide? Why all the secrecy? Julia Kieffer to Officer De Luca in Wrong Cops (2013): “Why can’t you just tell me what’s wrong? Why are you being so mysterious?” …Breaking rules vs. bending or revising rules… manmade rules vs. god-given rules vs. godman-fashioned commandments…
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (Matt. 5:40)
...man… woman… human… /// …god… wogod… hugod…
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (Matt. 5:42)
Atheistic peace vs. faith-based warfare… stealing for Wall Street or killing for profit vs. stealing to eat or killing to survive… humanist détente vs. partisan antipathies; old grudges… cold war, hot war… room-temperature TV-dinner war:
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16)
Aggression vs. isolation… Is the Gospels’ advice to “turn the other cheek” only to be followed by individuals, not countries or nations?
Ye have heard that it hath been said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” But I say unto you: Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matt. 5:43-45)
Fate alone (Luck alone / Chance alone / God alone) will reward or punish… even the Angriest Apostle Paul agrees:
Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink… (Romans 12:17-20)
So dear James 5:16, The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth what precisely? Can naked human yearning govern Doom?
Re: re-writing ‘As it is written…’
While particularizing assorted guidelines for the treatment of servants (man or maid), Yahweh God, Moses, or some other editor-redactor permits something to remain in the text which eventually got English’d into the King James Bible as Exodus 21:23-24.
…if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…
Why does Matthew allow his Jesus to rework this?
Ye have heard that it hath been said, “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil. (Matt. 5:38-39)
Is Matthew challenging Exodus? or is Jesus revising his Heavenly Father’s LAW? …Perhaps every heartfelt criticism or alteration of scripture is a self-improvement, for every thing that lives is holy.
I’ll end with a passage from the same source whence I copied the last seven words above (William Blake’s Marriage of Heaven and Hell).
The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.
Isaiah answer’d. I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover’d the infinite in every thing, and as I was then persuaded, & remain confirm’d, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.
Then I asked: does a firm persuasion that a thing is so, make it so?
He replied, All poets believe that it does, & in ages of imagination this firm persuasion removed mountains: but many are not capable of a firm persuasion of any thing.