Studies In Theology - 12/05/2006 (continued) (Chicks With Their Own Stuff, Good And Evil?)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity 12/05/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

12/05/2006 (continued)

Chapter 26 (Numbers) begins as yet another census - though this time results in instruction to now divide the land they presently occupied (Moab) among the tribes of Israel accordingly except of course, for the Levites as described previously. ~

This would suggest that where they divided this land was the previously promised land, but that presumption then raises some question given that Moses is/was still among them - and even more in the statement of not one on the list of census had been on the previous list of census because the lord said they will die in the wilderness.

This even seems to promote the assumption that it was the promised land, while not stating it to be the promised land. ~

With the presence of Moses, it is most surely not within my opinion given the previous statement that neither Aaron nor Moses would be admitted to the promised land. ~

This then displays a divergence within the body of Israel.

Caleb and Joshua were sent into the previously described beautiful land while the other Israelites continued to wander (and complain in a rather pronounced fashion) - but nothing more has been stated pertaining to Joshua and Caleb except that they had survived as had been stated. ~

Chapter 27 begins with an incredibly progressive subject matter and decision in a social sense - especially for the time period. ~

It describes a petition brought by the daughters of a tribesmen that would have been due an allotment of land, wanting that allotment for themselves.

The claim for the allotment was deemed legitimate by the Lord, then further set standards for inheritance of worldly possessions - including the females in the event that no son was rightful heir. ~

From what little I know about common standards of the time, and even of the area (even today) - this is incredibly ground breaking. Even in respect to most western culture (and even eastern for that matter).

It was (and may still be in that area) un-heard of for a female to possess things of that nature. ~

It is further an incredible comparison in regard to social progress in many parts of the world - including, comparatively, the United States - having been in the fore front of Western cultures embracing the idea of females pertaining to just about everything - beyond bare foot and pregnant. ~

It further supports the idea of the Living Metaphor I have begun to explore - being the United States. ~

Curious thing that many countries, even in the general vicinity of modern Israel are still rather hard lined pertaining to such - even many European countries (pertaining to modernalities) were slow to the up-take of such revisions socially.

Rather an interesting surprise given the popularity of modern Christianity.

The contrast definitely reflects the relationship between the United States and Israel in that respect (politically speaking in a supposed manner), even though such things are not as pronounced elsewhere - including modern Israel I presume - given its location geographically. ~

In 27:12, there appears a contradiction to that which was previously described pertaining to Joshua - it would appear - given that Joshua is chosen here as a new leader for Israel - that he did not go into the previous bountiful land as described (as having been suggested). ~

It is again stated in 27:13, that Moses and Aaron were brothers - which then gives me more thought in regard to the depiction of Moses in his youth - and further in the direction of purposeful motives beyond a slave girl providing a better life for her child (Moses), perhaps? ~

It is at this point that Moses receives instructions to climb a mountain and die - but only after transferring the leadership to Joshua through ceremony - further accompanied with instructions to transfer some of Moses' authority to him so he will be obeyed by all of Israel.

This after stating that Joshua has the spirit in him. ~

In a political sense at this point - things diverge to some degree in instructing that when Joshua needs direction from the Lord,I he is to inquire of it from the priest, Eleazar - who will gain it through divination of casting lots.

Sacred lots at that, to determine the Lords will; This is how Joshua and the rest of the community (Israel) will determine everything they do. ~

There is a definite division of power(s) in this action and new standard - surprisingly being similar to previous means and other forms of worship in other structures. But further it signifies a political power division.

Israel is to obey Joshua, but the priest now interprets Gods will.

Deeper within this division is the leanings of the Levites toward the priesthood, while Joshua has no such affiliation being from another tribe. ~

A beginning point between church and state discrepancies and rivalry?

It also represents a distance of separation in a generational sense pertaining to Israel as well, with the transfer and the passing of the previous relationships between the two distinct positions - perhaps a point which fueled political interactions in ways not yet seen within the civilizations of the day - Deity was now a single point of focus within this structure - and presumably - (symbolically) King - and leadership (the body of populous) was an individual meant to be obeyed, who was to directly respond to the divination in such decisions. ~

The person who would have been seen as a King in such a role within other civilizations - was only a leader to be obeyed in similar manners as a king - without the title of such necessarily. ~

Further distance within this new configuration - is very much in that change where interpretation falls entirely to the priest - given that previously it was through Moses that much of the instructions came - the church (Tabernacle), at that point was a place of ceremony to the deity - where now it was to be a more contained and isolated - almost exclusively to certain people (political interests) source of information. ~

Further, within this specific area of transformation, is the aspect of no longer being nomadic, as before. Indicating further, and most definitely a social change in dynamic and motion. ~

In chapter 28, further evidence of change exists in the instructions for offerings now being depicted as to occur at appointed times instead of the previous standard as per offense/atonement and of course in observation of celebrations and ceremonies. ~

The offerings are to be presented daily at this point. ~

Chapter 29 begins with directions pertaining to the Festival of Trumpets - which was established in conjunction with the introduction of the trumpets as previously described. ~

It is very much a celebration, as depicted - in use of the trumpets to make music for the people of Israel. ~

This is another place where it is no less than interesting to consider the relationship between God and Lucifer - given that Lucifer is said to have been the Angel in charge of music. ~

Where is it then, that the split between God and the Devil (Lucifer) transpired? ~

Is such a festival then to be seen as Devils due? Is it before that split? ~

Perhaps as I have put forward in regard to other areas within existence - existence itself is an emulation of something larger?

The more present split within the concentrated social structure described previously as being in relation to that larger split said to have happened between God and Lucifer? That itself perhaps representing something else? ~

Which area then, within that social structure now depicted within this work, is to be seen as more affiliated with either idea within such understanding? God - Lucifer? -

Is it that it is more an amalgamation?

A process in motion? ~

In our physical realm it is arguable that there is not one without the other. ~

Can one be seen as only a given thing as well as the other? ~

Is it that both ideas are only to be recognized personally - which would be all that anyone could really do in our physical realm? ~

That which is catagorizable as evil in traditional and strict (even not so strict) senses within our realm, are very much part of our everyday lives. ~

Such thought then leads me again to the realization of our choice in existence as/is very much up to ourselve(s) as societies. Most especially in those societies where it is that the potentials to embrace that dichotomy are by design - to produce a heaven on earth or a living hell at our own hands - and even more so when considering the concept of Christ within the context of religion (as per Popular Christianity especially). ~

This line of consideration then, makes the importance of driving every evil from our midst as a society, not only somewhat impossible - but less efficient even if it is that the potentials of producing a more livable society are squandered - in some instances even - in the supposed interest of combating evils. ~

Not only to waste the path to efficiently removing evils with the extraneous efforts to do so - but actually promoting the (similar) results upon society in effect - as if evil reigned entirely within those ideas. ~

is such then producing good for the residence of evil? ~

productivity only to feed the void of desperation within concentrated forms of that which may be derived as one or the other? Good displacing evil in healthy progress and evil devouring the productivity of good? ~

A paradox of itself. ~

Doesn't such actually then put the good fight in utilizing - embracing that which is - in the better interest of contributing to that potential of heaven on Earth? Recognizing elements within existence which detract from that potential as perhaps not evil, but a precursor - though perhaps pro-active of potential evil. ~

Unless, I suppose our result of good is supposed to result in what would eventually be un-livable conditions. ~

Which then is the better path?

To promote those potentials while sustaining a livable society with directions toward conducive atmospheres?

Hard lined removal of everything deemed evil in opinion (most times tainted with political bent) to the degree of total destruction in the interest only to then attempt existence again - surrounded by that which will only be called good somehow? Amidst and from within the rubble wrought from efforts to destroy evil - now easily being seen as the product of such, itself? Not to mention the classification of/in the reasoning's and effort to do so? ~

I can recall a statement from a distant acquaintance I once had, that was something to the order of; Sometimes the okay stuff gets mixed in... - and I can only see where perhaps he was referring to such concerted efforts - regardless of what precisely he was referring to.

Such could then be seen as an evil within such efforts - not only then producing more evil, but even detracting from the proposed good as well with and of such designs in effort - regardless of political alignment and reasons/justifications to do so. ~

Odd that one topical society is based much on promoting the doing away with some perceived evil - even in extremes - with concerted efforts in all sorts of imaginable designs - but always, it seems, within the confines of that process which begets as much ill, as it is said to remove. Especially while being surrounded with many things once thought of as evil themselves - if not then utilizing such in everyday life - somehow no longer seen as such extreme. ~

Much of our society depends upon good and bad classifications - when in observable truth, no such separation actually exists within those extremes. ~

some even attempt to drive such ideas, through promoting the need for one or the other, but it doesn't seem as though there will be a shortage of either, anytime soon. ~

Interesting potentials for inversions with such a dynamic and paradox. ~

Supposed good having the potentials of evil in its motion and action - Supposed evil having the potentials of good in a similar respect (quality of life through technology, for instance - tools used to combat evil). ~

Enough thought in writing for this evening.