Post-Death Consciousness (Thorax—Hypochondriacs notwithstanding)
(. . . Dear Mark . . .)
[Dear Faithful readers –all six of you—I do not know what to write for this possibly last edition (for now) in this two-faced series, except to start with one or more apologies. You may have thought I was kidding when I averred to “handing in” my work a few minutes before midnight each Friday, when Dr. Agonson wishes he were in bed, and demanding he edit my work before publishing. I was not. I will never apologize to him, as he missed a typo once.
No, my apology is to you, Dear Reader, for last week’s post. When, between bouts of snoring, Dr. Agonson asked me what my writing had to do with the supposed theme under which I wrote, I was indeed mystified. How could anyone—doctor or not—be so obtuse? Then I—between bouts of snoring—took another glance at my work. What had I been thinking? Oh, my spadework was all there, I had run the shoelaces through their holes, but what of the cinching up—without which a topic—other than the stated topic—accidentally emerged. This made me rather cross with Dr. Agonson, I fear, for waiting ‘til so late on a Friday night to edit my work. But alas, he is old. I forgive him, of course, but not enough to let my grown children ride with him.
So I apologize profusely for forgetting to cinch the strings into proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that we have consciousness as we rest, awaiting our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies—or awaiting a resurrection to shame and contempt. (But if the dead are not conscious, where do ghost writers come from? Though admittedly, I have searched in vain for one tonight.) Secondly, I apologize because I told my readership early on, that I would avoid turning this series into an argument for my favorite theology, the redemption of not just some men, but Mankind (see 1st preamble, but especially 2nd preamble). I fault you not if you refuse this sincere pledge that the theme that seemed to emerge was accidental.
I actually thought I had a third apology to make, but can’t just now remember what it was. If I do, I will get back to it. For not, let us see if we can redeem anything from what Taletold.wordpress.com actually published in my name last Friday.]
Last week I thought to establish that
- God is not mocked;
- God is the epitome of a good parent; and
- God uses punishment as correction, without exception.
Think on that last one for a moment. Man, when he is reasoning well, is mimicking God’s logic. If he, in his societies, incarcerates egregious or chronic offenders, what are his goals in doing so? Surely he wants:
- To free a harmony loving society from the occasional harmony-shattering offender;
- Set an example for others who may be wondering what the risk/reward factor is like for transgressing; and
- Reform the transgressor so that, perhaps, he may be released into free society again.
So, if God, who is not mocked, includes the three subsets above as His children—the good, the wavering and the bad—He incarcerates (or punishes) for at least these three (related) motives. However, when it comes right down to it, he leaves the 99 (safely) to pursue the single lost soul.
Therefore, if we look again to Leviticus 26 with its incremental fractions of life, as follows:
- Abundant Life;
- Severe punishment, as redirection toward Abundant Life;
- Severe multiplied by 7;
- Severe x 49 (for the extremely slow leaner);
- Severe x 343 (inexplicable!); and
- Severe x 2,401 (You are so hungry now you are eating your own offspring!); or even
- (What could any further demarcation be but Hell or the lake of fire?),
surely we read and perceive within the text that punishment (corrective measure) is a prompt to repent. For God is a parent. He is the epitome of a good parent. A/the theme in Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33 is that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but wants all wicked men to repent. The 99 are His children, Nikolas Cruz is His apostate child, and God will court Cruz the rest of his life.
So here’s the thing: Whether we look at corrective measures in Leviticus 26; Isaiah 8: 6-8; Isaiah 28:24-25 (or the rest of the chapter); Psalm 69:22-23 (as interpreted by Romans 11:9-11); Jeremiah 31:16-20, as we did last week; or any other section of Scripture wherein God—or inspired man—expounds upon punishment, a certain element is required for the punishment to have any good affect (and effect) upon the transgressor. Yes, however appropriate and fitting the punishment assigned, the miscreant cannot become a penitent apart from . . . consciousness! (I do not claim to be an equestrian expert, but I suspect this may be why whipping a dead horse seldom if ever produces the desired result.)
So, pleasant society is served if the transgressor is taken out of its midst. Also, an example is provided to the not-yet-formed youth, who may have been considering rebellion. That, however, is the 99. The stray cannot be “served” by the severest discipline, if he is not conscious within it!
[I must regrettably bring this non-leg leg to a close, as Dr. Agonson is threatening to read his other works to my (grown) offspring if I do not have this manuscript emailed to him in the next 10 minutes. Choose your friends well.
Farewell, Dear Reader,
Perhaps we will meet again under happier circumstances,
But I think another tax break so soon upon the first is unlikely,
—Martin D. Carlson
 Decipede: A horizontally postured, worm like creature with two faces (or preambles), a thorax and 10 legs.
 For what is a preamble if not a pre-face?
 Or wrest, as the case may be.
 Go ahead, I didn’t think this one out too far. Tell me the exceptions you find.