STUDIES IN THEOLOGY: 12/20/2006 (The Scent Of Blood In The Wild? Heads And Tails? Does Across The Street Change?)

STUDIES IN THEOLOGY;

Popular Christianity 12/20/2006

Study Notes And Journal Entries,

The Scent Of Blood In The Wild? Heads And Tails? Does Across The Street Change?

An Observation

By

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

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

12/20/2006

It is rather notable to have stated that enemies will scatter in seven directions - the common ritual regarding sacrifice at the time was in sprinkling blood upon the altar 7 times. Perhaps a relation within that as well even further than the idea suggested of blood. ~

Though it is a bit of speculation, considering the described idea that burnt offerings are a pleasing aroma to the Lord - this would then suggest a level of relation in an olfactory sense which could then easily be applied to the relation of blood sprinkled seven times, and the symbolic association of enemies then being spattered with it, in that sense. Such as chum for a shark so to speak. ~

Given that cooking flesh was acknowledged and further that blood is even said to have been reserved for the Lord in some instances - it seems that the symbolism within that is akin to smearing honey on someone near grizzlies. As well, the bread of suffering is consumed for 7 days during pass over. ~

This affiliation with enemies and 7, then seems to create another symbolic relation as well - in affiliating them with a proximity (though symbolically) with the altar and even the ark of the covenant - again, given that the blood is sprinkled seven times. ~

This line of thought then suggests a slightly different capacity (perhaps) of the altar and ark itself. Presumably through this line of reasoning, employing it in a curse like manner as in symbolically entrapping the enemy within those commandments and somewhat between the Lord and the proposed agreement with/for the Israelites. Symbolically exposing them (the enemy) to their own faults in regard to the presented Israelite belief structure. Knowing them to obviously not be in compliance. ~

If it were thought that the ark and altar held the focus of a larger influence in the contained manner previously explored - in or near which only safe existence could transpire through the established consistencies and conditioned atmosphere - then, within that belief structure, it is no far leap to realize that such exposure outside of those consistencies would be thought to have adverse effects on those not sufficiently within the confines of the established consistency/conditioned atmosphere. ~

Again, providing it were thought that such ritual and belief structure honed and contained at least a portion of a larger influence. Perhaps similar as could be a constructed wind break within a perpetual wind storm? As said contained influence may have been similar to in regard to comparison as per understanding. The wind break being representative in this example, of the existing consistencies relating to this explorative example. ~

28:13 of Deuteronomy puts forward another metaphor that is intriguing in regard to prospective reward for compliance with the commands having been issued by the Lord. Such compliance is said to always make you the head, not the tail and always the top, not the bottom. ~

Beyond this obviously being metaphor suggesting a series of one being preferable to the other - a person is drawn to consider what it may reference; Head and Tail of? Top and bottom of? ~

This then presents a duality in presence yet again and rather in a firm manner in this instance providing that the Lord perceives a Top and Bottom and a Head and Tail. ~

Given the statement of tail and further the consistency of anything (most anything) having a tail at this point has become a sacrifice in one form or another - it kind of takes away from the initial allure presented within such a statement. ~

Perhaps then further, given the previous issued decree that the Israelites were not good and a stubborn people, the Lord might actually not be expecting entire and total compliance to have been possible - which, in a broader consideration of applied social, then would relegate the Israelites to somewhere in the middle on average - given human tendency.

Neither head nor tail nor top nor bottom in that greater perspective. ~

This of course not being in comparison to other civilizations/cultures - but only in consideration of human tendency and the suggested possibilities within this belief structure itself. ~

This then further substantiated in considering the result in that sense, of the opposing presented extremes of curse in perceived disobedience and blessing in compliance.

Then yet further in considering the presented ability and means through which to atone for transgressions with the act and action(s) of celebration. Provided it was done in a somewhat conducive manner regarding desired result in effect of blessing and curse punishment. ~

Personally, in regard to top and bottom as suggested in the more grand sense within the time period issued - from my perspective in the modern day in considering even the result of such introduced structures and the subsequent mutations over time - it doesn't seem that their is a possible top in that sense - nor perhaps even a discernable and likewise constant bottom - though within the continued motion of such social designs - there are somewhat extreme examples of both. ~

This, as such social structure(s) continue in progress with, within and even of other similar social designs in motion. ~

(Other Notes Pertaining To The Motion Of Concept Into Realization Through The Process Of 'Progress')

In another angle of perspective regarding the possible context of such statements as top and bottom - wouldn't it be reasonable then that the top is a comparison even with the idea of God in that sense, being presumably the most high? ~

Then what of considerations in perspective(s) concerning possible motion between our plane of existence and that of the Lord within this ideology? ~

It would stand to reason given the examples of pronounced extremes, that such a motion exists - which in effect then would seem to result in an unrecognized shift in perspective.

For example, within the consideration of a possible difference in that motion; the top being on the side at times, and even at a position once having been regarded as bottom though not acknowledged as such within and through the insulated area of difference. ~

Meaning perhaps that the Lords perspective (similar to our likeness being similar as described) sees things only in and from said perspective as do we, from our own perception of our own surroundings without regard for what may transpire in regard to a position respect in such a relationship - between the different perspectives. ~

Our the top and the bottom always being seen from our perspective as our the top and the bottom - and likewise the Lords perspective; The top and The bottom always remaining consistent from that perspective - but the relation between the separate sets of the top and the bottom actually having a non-fixed relationship. At times even only juxtaposed instead of a direct opposite consideration.