None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

Yea, I Told You So

There are two verses in particular that are forefront in my mind concerning intellectual assent.

Psa 50:21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes. (KJV)

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; (KJV)

The first concerns the carelessness with which Israel had treated their faith, as if God was one to be following and not followed. God, is not to change for the sake of the time or of the hour - instead, it must be realised that God is at work always with "just" constancy.

The second verse concerns that whilst we may consider God as one without glory - as if any individual - we can not remove Him from His office as creator and to consider Him thus leaves us with a dilemma. Is God's character that of one that merits all worship aside from all the perfections we ourselves would project into the concept of "God"?

The answer is not as you would expect. The theist would state that God's concept can not be removed from His office, and the atheist would state that the answer is simply a "no".

However, God has, since the very beginning, only worked through the didactic paradigm of the octal and never in the dialectic save during the flood, in which every human had died out by their evil nature, and their mismanagement of the Earth. Noah alone was saved, sealed in an ark by God Himself to transplant him as if a human "cutting" into the genepool we share with his discendants and with the then evolved human race today. God, rewrote the rule book when He re-authored creation.

That choice of God to always work in the didactic octal is unique amongst all beings, as by the second verse above.

God, is not such an one as are we. We, are but sinners caught so in the dialectic. Plundering the kingdom of God for its blessings by "stealing in" with mere intellectual assent (as if some other way) is strictly rebuked in Psalm 50, it is equal to being an author of the rule book, an office not handed to mere men caught in blasphemy, (or even to Christ, the same yesterday today and forever; there is, however, the prime and divine choice to be aways consistently positive).

God, in doing just that is a sevenfold Spirit and in the book "Seven Eyes Open (4th edition)" I derived the symmetries of the octal from the principle of omnipresence, but the sets of the metaphysical description of every disjunction under modal collapse with their embedded octal provide no "divine dipole" of perfection but instead God has made the prime choice to only ever operate in the embedded octal as of the didactic and never the dialectic and that remains true from the very beginning.

God, in the simplest sense that we can treat Him, is an individual with His own character, hang ups and foibles, sure: but He is without dialectic deceit and has clearly upheld those laws which are not His own invented standards, but He has judged those standards for us with which He is at agreement, they are not found at whim.

The positive, does not become negative if God chooses the other way: works are completed or not, that which is positively done is then simple. The rules are not rewritten - even by Christ who made great task of fulfilling them all.

God, then, in minimal character is as Jesus Christ - and still worthy of all worship; but if you consider Him not so, He still completed a full life without hypocrisy or dialectic deceit and without reinventing the rule book of God. I would not trust any single human being to take Christ's office had they ever framed deceit by the dialectic, the method of Satan. Omnipotence should never be granted to a man except for the Christ. That rule book would end in complete disaster - as bad as if Satan had had the chance to make all in His image instead. The only difference would be its subtlety, and the evil of its end may be found just the same.

All men practise the dialectic but for God Himself; we had better be careful whenever we are caught labelling God as a man if the definition of a man is "a practiser of the dialectic paradigm".

So, if you genuinely hate the idea of the hebrew God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - then you cannot love Jesus even through intellectual assent. If you love your sin and hate the law of God, you are in good company with your father, whoever he turns out to be. No one will rewrite that divine law, so yes, I told you so; God never authored your paradigm.

God can, does, and will turn people away from Himself in disgust; that metaphysically there is nowhere else left to turn to but to the methods of Satan is not God's fault - it is ours, and that many people consider themselves "caught" in sin rather than being caught "loving every minute of it" is evidence enough that it is not a natural, stable or consistent position for many. That claim of stability, however, rests solely in the didactic and is never to be found in the dialectic.

Of course, if some dialectic judgements remain for a long period, when was the last time they were judged employing the dialectic? If the sinner can even apply the didactic to suit themseves, where is God found putting a foot wrong to remain consistent by it?


Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'