What the man in the street wants is not a big debate on fundamental issues; he wants a little medical care, a rug on the floor, a picture on the wall, a little music in the house, and a place to take Molly and the grandchildren when he retires. It is apparent that is members of a team must cooperate to maintain a given definition of the situation before their audience, they will hardly be in a position to maintain that particular impression before one another. Accomplices in the maintenance of a particular appearance of things, they are forced to define ne another as persons “in the know,” as persons before whom a particular front cannot be maintained. Teammates, then, in proportion to the frequency with which they act as a team and the number of matters that fall within impressional protectiveness, tend to be bound by rights of what might be called “familiarity.” Among teammates, the privilege of familiarity—which may constitute a kind of intimacy without warmth—need not be something of an organic kind, slowly developing with the passage of time spent together, but rather a formal relationship that is automatically extended and received as soon as the individual takes a place on the team. Although we are left to find and follow that path which will lead us back to our Father in Heaven, He did not send us here without guidance. #RandolphHarris 1 of 18

Rather, God has given us the tools we need, and He will assist us as we seek His help. Like mountaineers exploring a new terrain, Heavenly Father has created a plan for His children to successfully summit even the hardest terrain and return to Him. His plan includes teamwork and allows all who are willing to work together and follow Him the opportunity for eternal life. A teammate is someone whose dramaturgical co-operation one is dependent upon in fostering a given definition of the situation; is such a person comes to be beyond the pale of informal sanctions and insists on giving the show away or forcing it to take a particular turn, one is none the less part of the team. In fact, it is just because one is part of the team that one can cause this kind of trouble. Thus the isolate in the factory who becomes a rate-buster is none the less part of the team, even if one’s productive activity embarrasses the impression the other workers are attempting to foster as to what constitutes a hard day’s work. As an object of friendship one may be studiously ignored, but as a threat to the team’s definition of the situation, one cannot be overlooked. Thus while teammates are often persons who agree informally to guide their efforts in a certain way as means of self-protection and by doing so constitute an informal group, this informal agreement is not a criterion for defining the concept of team. #RandolphHarris 2 of 18

Following spiritual guides, personal preparation, and hard work are crucial to Heavenly Father’s plan. Most important is the Saviour, who willingly atoned for every person without seeking the glory for Himself. There is no greater expression of love than the heroic Atonement preformed by the Son of God. Only God who is really God can create the New Bring, not a half-god. It is the term homoousios, “of equal essence,” which expresses this idea. The Word was made flesh and is interpreted as meaning that the Second Person of the Trinity, True God though he be, assumed the human nature and became man. In the Christ two natures, divine and human, were untied in one divine Person. I became increasingly suspicion that many people employed the concept of Incarnation in a mythological and superstitious manner: it implies for them the transmutation or metamorphosis of a divine being into a human being, a polytheistic myth which we find in all paganism; and incompatible with the fundamental truth of the prophetic revelation. This, if it is found anywhere (which I am inclined to doubt), is a popular misconception of the Christian dogma. The Church has never said that “a” divine being became “a” human being. #RandolphHarris 3 of 18

It says that “the Word was made flesh” (St. John) or that God the Son “was made man” (the Creed of Nicaea). In Jesus, God is God and man is only man. Thus Monophysitism in all its forms is eschewed, and, because the two natures are united in one divine Person, so is Nestorianism: God and man in Christ are not two, but one. Jesus the Christ, in St. Paul, is certainly not God himself, but a divine being. A divine being, either the Heavenly man, or the preexistent Christ, or the divine Logos, appears in the shape of a physical man or of a man in the flesh. A divine being with human characteristics, the spiritual of Heavenly man, or a moral being who chooses self-humiliation, or the creative reason and word, appears in time and space. A divine being who represents God and is able to reveal him in his fullness, manifests oneself in a form of existence which is in radical contradiction to one’s divine, spiritual and Heavenly form. The obvious question that comes to mind here is: What is a “divine being.” If it is not God? How can we maintain that the Incarnation is just that: the appearance of a “divine being” who, we are told, is not God? Many fall back on the myths: when it is said that Christ is a divine being, and believe it is meant symbolically. There is a mythological element here as in the Bible. #RandolphHarris 4 of 18

Thanks to the mythological element, the doctrine of the Incarnation is understood as the self-manifestation of God in existence through a divine half-being, half-principle which belongs to God, and nevertheless shows some essentially human characteristics. The innocent audience is given the impression of a higher chemistry infinitely more confusing than the dogma of Chalcedon (a religious doctrine concerning the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ) which, at least, is couched in intelligible terms. The myth of the Incarnation of a “half-being, half-principle,” may be considered absurd. What does the Incarnation mean? The Incarnation is the manifestation of original and essential Godmanhood, within and under the conditions of existence. When the mythological, liturgical and numinous form of Christological statements is translated into a rational and theological form we obtain a simple enough scheme. Christianity has a complete concept of a human’s essential nature, as well as of existence and of the radical contrast between them. This essential nature appears in the picture of the Christ. In sharing its revelatory power we perceive the New Bing created by the Incarnation: it is above essential being because it is actual and not merely potential; and at the same time, it is above essential being because it brings being or essential Godmanhood into existence. #RandolphHarris 5 of 18

The meaning of the Incarnation is, therefore, that in one biblical picture, the picture of the Christ, and at one historical moment, the Incarnation, the essence and the existence of humans were reconciled. Then human kind were given a New Being, the Being which belongs to it in its essential Godmanhood, and yet which cannot be experienced under the conditions of existence. The paradox is that in the Christ essential Godmanhood was existentially experienced. Essential Godmanhood has become historical Godmanhood in the man Jesus who is believed to be the Christ. The symbols of the Christ are symbols of an ontological victory, creating a New Being above the contradictions of essence and existence. Such is the meaning of the Incarnation. It offers a new approach to the interpretation of Jesus as the Christ. At a former period of development, the doctrine of the two nature can be meaningful now only if it was expressed in terms of history. Reinterpretation of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, both the Chalcedonian positing of the problem and its historical reinterpretation were replaced by an ontological reinterpretation. “I wait for the Lord, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope. My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning. Let Israel hope in the Lord: for with the Lord there is mercy, and with hi is plenteous redemption,” reports Psalm 130.5-7. #RandolphHarris 6 of 18

“For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a human seeth, why doth one yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it,” reports Romans 8.24-25. Both the Old and the New Testaments describe our existence in relation to God as one of waiting. In the psalmist there is an anxious waiting; in the apostle there is a patient waiting. Waiting means not having and having at the same time. For we have not what we wait for; or, as the apostle says, if we hope for what we do not see, we then wait for it. The condition of human’s relation to God is first of all one of not having, not seeing, not knowing, and not grasping. A religion in which that is forgotten, no matter how ecstatic or active or reasonable, replaces God by its own creation of an image of God. Our religious life is characterized more by that kind of creation than anything else. I think of the theologian who does not wait for God, because one possesses Him, enclosed within a doctrine. I think of the Biblical student who does not wait for God, because one possesses Him, enclosed in a book. I think of the church person who does not wait for God, because one possesses Him, enclosed in an institution. I think of the believer who does not wait for God, because one possesses Him, enclosed within one’s own experience. #RandolphHarris 7 of 18

It is not easy to endure this not having God, this waiting for God. It is not easy to preach Saturday after Saturday, or Sunday after Sunday without convincing ourselves and others that we have God and can dispose of Him. It is not easy to proclaim God to children and pagans, to sceptics and secularists, and at the same time to make clear to them that we ourselves do not possess God, that we too wait for Him. I am convinced that much of the rebellion against Christianity is due to the overt or veiled claim of the Christians to possess God, and therefore, also, to the loss of this element of waiting, so decisive for the prophets and the apostles. Let us not be deluded into thinking that, because they speak of waiting, they waited merely for the end, the judgment and fulfillment of all things, and not for God Who was to bring that end. They did not possess God; they wanted for Him. For how can God be possessed? Is God a thing that can be grasped and known among other things? Is God less than a human person? We always have to wait for a human being. Even in the most intimate communion among human beings, there is an element of not having and not knowing, and of waiting. Therefore, since God is infinitely hidden, free, and incalculable, we must wait for Him in the most absolute and radical way. #RandolphHarris 8 of 18

He is God for us just in so far as we do not possess Him. The psalmist says that his whole being waits for the Lord, indicating that waiting for God is not merely a part of our relation to God, but rather the condition of that relation as a whole. We have God through not having Him. However, although waiting is not having, it is also having. The fact that we wait for something shows that in some way we already possess it. Waiting anticipates that which is not yet real. If we wait in hope and patience, the power of that for which we wait in hope and patience, the power of that which we wait is already effective within us. One who waits in an ultimate sense is not far from that for which one waits. One who waits in absolute seriousness is already grasped by that for which one waits. One who waits in patience has already received the power of that for which one wait. One who waits passionately is already an active power oneself, the greatest power of transformation in personal and historical life. We are stronger when we wait than when we possess. When we possess God, we reduce Him to that small thing we knew and grasped of Him; ad we make it an idol. Only in idol worship can one believe in the possession of God. There is much of this idolatry among Christians. #RandolphHarris 9 of 18

However, if we know that we do not know God, and if we wait for Him to make Himself known to us, we then really know something of Him, we then are grasped and known and possessed by Him. It is then that we are believers in our unbelief, and that we are accepted by Him in spite of our separation from Him. Let us not forget, however, that waiting is a tremendous tension. It precludes all complacency about having nothing, indifferences or cynical contempt towards those who have something, and indulgence in doubt and despair. Let us not make our pride in possessing nothing a new possession. That is one of the great temptations of our time, for there are few things left which we can claim as possessions. And we surrender to the same temptation when we boast, in our attempt to possess God, that we do not possess Him. The divine answer to such an attempt is utter emptiness. Waiting is not despair. It is the acceptance of our not having, in the power of that which we already have. Our time is a time of waiting; waiting is its special destiny. And every time is a time of waiting, waiting for the breaking in of eternity. All time runs forward. All time, both in history and in personal life, is expectation. Time itself is waiting, waiting not for another time, but for that which is eternal. #RandolphHarris 10 of 18

There are certain educational and therapeutic advantages in differentiating the realm (or level) or being from the realm (or level) of deficiencies, and in recognizing language differences at these levels. I have found it most useful for myself to differentiate between the realm of being (B-realm) and the realm of deficiencies (D-realm), that is, between the eternal and the “practical.” Simply as a matter of the strategy and tactics of living well and fully and of choosing one’s life instead of having it determined for us, this is a help. I have found this vocabulary useful also in teaching people to be more aware of values of being, of a language of being, of the ultimate facts of being, of the life of being, of unitive consciousness, et cetera. The vocabulary is certainly clumsy and sometimes grates on the sensibilities, but it does serve the purpose. Intrinsic conscience and intrinsic guilt are ultimately biologically rooted. There is an intrinsic conscience beyond the supergo, as well as intrinsic guilt which is a deserved self-punishment for betrayal of the intrinsic self. I believe that the biological rooting of metamotivation theory can clarify and solidify these concepts further. One’s personal biology is beyond question a sine qua non component of the Real Self. #RandolphHarris 11 of 18

Being oneself, being natural or spontaneous, being authentic, expressing one’s identity, all these are also biological statements since they imply the acceptance of one’s constitutional, temperamental, anatomical, neurological, hormonal, and instinctioid-motivational nature. Such a statement is in both the Freudian line and in the Neo-Freudian line (not to mention Rogerian, Jungian, Sheldonian, Goldsteinian, and et alia). It is a cleansing and a correction of what Dr. Freud was groping toward and of necessity glimpsed only vaguely. I therefore consider it to be in the echt-Freudian or “epi-Freudian” tradition. I think Dr. Freud was trying to say something like this with his various instinct theories. I believe also that this statement is an acceptance of, plus an improvement upon, what Dr. Horney was trying to say with her concept of a Real Self. If my more biological interpretation of an intrinsic self is corroborated, then it would also support the differentiation of neurotic guilt from the intrinsic guilt which comes from defying one’s own nature and from trying to be what one is not. Many of the ultimate religious functions are fulfilled by their theoretical structure. From the point of view of the eternal and absolute that humankind always sought, it may be that the B-values could also, to some extent, serve this purpose. #RandolphHarris 12 of 18

The B-values are per se, in their own right, not dependent upon human vagaries for their existence. They are perceived, not invented. They are trans-human and trans-individual. They exist beyond the life of the individual. They can be conceived to be a kind of perfection. They could conceivably satisfy the human longing for certainty. And yet they are also human in a specifiable sense. They are not only his, but him as well. The command adoration, reverence, celebration, sacrifice. They are worth living for and dying for. Contemplating them or fusing with them gives the greatest joy that a human being is capable of. And so for other functions that the organized religions have tried to fulfill. Apparently all, or almost all, the characteristically religious experiences that have ever been described in any of the traditional religions, in their own local phrasings, whether theist or non-theist, Eastern or Western, can be assimilated to this theoretical structure and can be expressed in an empirically meaningful way, id est, phrased in a testable way. “And now, my son, I perceive there is somewhat more which doth worry your mind, which ye cannot understand—which is concerning the justice of God in the punishment of the sinner; for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery. #RandolphHarris 13 of 18

“Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also the tree of life, and eat and live forever the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—and this we see, that there was a time granted unto humans to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God. For behold, if Adam had put forth his and immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived, forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have bee void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated. However, behold, it was appointed unto humans to die—therefore, as they were cut off from the tree of life they should be cut off from the face of the Earth—and humans became lost forever, yea, they became fallen humans. #RandolphHarris 14 of 18

“And now, ye see by this that our first parents were cut off both temporally and spiritually from the presence of the Lord; and thus we see they became subjects to follow after their own will. Now behold, it was not expedient that a human should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness. Therefore, as the soul could never die, and the fall had brought upon al humankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that humankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death. Therefore, as they had become carnal, sensual, and devilish, by nature, this probationary state become a state for them to prepare; it became a preparatory state. And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord. And now, there was no means to reclaim humans from this fallen state, which humans had brought upon themselves because of their own disobedience; therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of humans in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were these conditions, mercy could not take effect expect it should destroy the work of justice. #RandolphHarris 15 of 18

“Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. And thus we see that all humankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence. And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about expect an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the World, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also. Now, repentance could not come unto humans expect there were a punishment, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul. Now, how could one repent except one should sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto humans. Now, if there was no law given—if a human murdered one should die—would one be afraid one would die if one should murder? And also, if there was no law given against sin humans would not be afraid of sin. And if there was no law given, if humans sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature? #RandolphHarris 16 of 18

“However, there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. However, God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back humans into the presence of God; and this they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God. And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the World. And this cometh about the salvation and the redemption of humans, and also their destruction and misery. #RandolphHarris 17 of 18

“Therefore, O my son, whosoever will come may come and partake of the waters of life freely; and whosoever will not come the same is not compelled to come; but in the last day it shall be restored unto one according to one’s deeds. If one has desired to do evil, and has not repented in one’s days, behold, evil shall be done unto one, according to the restoration of God. And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance. O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavour to excuse yourself in least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility. And now, O my son, ye are called of God to preach the word unto this people. And now, my son, go thy way, declare the word with truth and soberness, that thou mayest bring souls unto repentance, that great plan of mercy may have claim upon them. And may God grant unto you even according to my words. Amen,” reports Alma 42.1-31. Mighty Protector, God I praise you, friend of people, supporter of those who repent, grace to all humankind, we welcome you in our lives. #RandolphHarris 18 of 18

Winchester Mystery House

Built over 38-years by a grieving Sarah Winchester, the San Jose City Landmark is full of questions that may never be answered. Unlock the secrets of the Winchester Mystery House – online or in person!

Buy Tickets http://ow.ly/a0qA50BheKW

Video Tour http://ow.ly/Guxi50Bgdvu

360 Tour http://ow.ly/cxzv50Bgdvq

Shop Online Store http://ow.ly/RV9M50Bgdvv