Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Did traditional Judaic interpretations of God’s law lead to bondage?
Here is my guess.
Before the Laws of Moses, tribal and family traditions predominated.
The choice was between the obligations of tribe and family versus slavery to another tribe or family.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[Here is an easy example.
A parent says to a child:
“You are free as long as you do your homework.”
Then the child does not fulfill “his” responsibility.
As soon as “he” turns on the TV, sitting and watching2a becomes the something2a that enslaves “him”.]
[What is the actuality2a that fundamentally transforms freedom2a(1a) into bondage2a(1a)?
This ‘something2a’ emerges from and situates the possibilities inherent in me1a.
The mirror of the world3a or the thought experiment3a brings ‘something2a’ out of the possibilities inherent in me1a.
I may think that something2a enslaves me.
Actually, the relation3a enslaves me.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[The intersection portrays a single actuality composed of two conflicting actualities. One actuality reveals values. The other reveals desires.]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[A nugget of wisdom appears.
The integrity of the individual may be formulated as an if…then statement.
IF the person’s mirror of the world reflects YHWH,
THEN freedom describes the potentials inherent in the person.
The individual becomes responsible and free.
IF the person’s mirror of the world does not reflect YHWH,
THEN bondage describes the potentials inherent in the person.
The individual loses responsibility (words) and becomes a slave (bondage).]
Summary of text [comment] page 83
[What does this model of ‘my heart2’ reveal?
When ‘the normal context of responsibility’ mirrors ‘Yahweh’, then responsibility is co-opposed to freedom.
When ‘the normal context of words’ mirrors ‘Satan’, words are co-opposed to bondage.
The next blog puts it in a visual manner.]
[The single actuality consisting of ‘something2H and my choice2V’ is ‘my heart2’.
The intersection dramatically displays two co-oppositions:
The vertical co-opposition:
Thoughts3V(2V and deeds2V(1V))
The vertical nested form:
I, seat of choice3V( my choice2V and something2H( something1V))
The horizontal co-opposition:
Obligations3H(2H and exercises of the heart2H(1H))
The horizontal nested form:
Thought experiment3H( something2H and my choice2V( me1H))]
[In the graciousness of a Persian king, a remnant returned.
They built the second temple in Jerusalem.
Could this devotion be described as ‘bondage’?
No and yes.
No, the individual is ruled by YHWH.
Yes, the individual is ruled by an elite who claims to speak for God.]
[In Babylon, the exiles lost everything, except their values and their desires for YHWH.
In America, the exiles gained everything and lost their values and desires for YHWH.
What will happen now, once again, depends on Persia.]
