It Removes the Veil–It Plants the Flag of Truth within the Fortes of a Rebel Soul!

It is now life and not art that requires the willing suspension of disbelief. We are creating a new society. Not a changed society. Now an extended, larger-than-life various of our present society. But a new society. The simple premise has not yet begun to tincture our consciousness. Yet unless we understand this, we shall destroy ourselves in trying to cope with tomorrow. A revolution shatters institutions and power relationships. This is precisely what is happening today in all the high-technology nations. Students in Berlin and New York, in Hong Kong and Tokyo, capture their deans and chancellors, bring great clanking education factories to a grinding halt, and even threaten to toppled governments. Great states and cities are paralyzed by strikes, power failures, demonstrations. Internal power alliances are shaken. Financial and political leaders secretly tremble—not out of fear that revolutionaries will oust them, but that the entire system is somehow flying out of control. These are indisputable signs of a sick social structure, as society that can no longer perform even its most basic function in the accustomed ways. It is a society caught in the agony of revolutionary change. What is occurring now is not a crisis of capitalism, but of the age of information itself, regardless of political form. #RandolphHarris 1 of 23

We are also experiencing a youth revolution, cultural revolution, an economic revolution, and the most rapid and deep-going technological revolution in history. We are in the midst of a super-information revolution. Old systems need to be updated to handle all the technology that is being produced. Infrastructure needs to be updated. There is so much technology that we are not even keeping up to date any more. Since at least the year 2009, there have been elevators that have touch screens like cell phones, but most buildings you enter today are still using buttons. People are opposing genetically modified organism fish as we are depleting fishing populations and seeing a 94 percent decline of mega fish. One needs imagination to confront a revolution. For revolution does not move in straights lines alone. It jerks, twists and backtracks. It arrives in the form of quantum jumps and dialectical reversals. Only by accepting the premise that we are racing toward a wholly new stage of eco-technological development—the super-information stage—can we make sense of our era. Only by accepting the revolutionary premise can we free our imaginations to grapple with the future. We have the technology to save the planet, save rain forest, save animals on the verge of extinction, but have to be willing to use technology for that purpose, instead of just sitting by and expressing sorrow and fear. #RandolphHarris 2 of 23

Revolution implies novelty. It sends a flood of newness into the lives of countless individuals, confronting them with unfamiliar institutions and first-time situation. Reaching deep into our personal lives, the enormous changes ahead will transform traditional family structures and social attitudes. They will alter conventional relationships between the generations. They will creature new values with respect to money and success. They will facilitate changes in word, play, and education beyond our wildest imagination. And they will do all this in a context of spectacular, elegant, yet curious scientific advance. If transience is the first key to understanding the new society, therefore, novelty is the second. The future will unfold as an unending success of bizarre incidents, sensational discoveries, implausible conflicts, and wildly novel dilemmas. This means that many members of the super-information society will have to adapt to feel at home in it. The super-information revolution can erase hunger, disease, ignorance, and brutality. This coming future will radiate new opportunities for personal growth, adventure, and delight. It will be vividly colourful and amazingly open to individuality. The problem is not whether humans can survive regimentation and standardization. The problem, as we shall see, is whether one can survive freedom. Yet for all this, humans have never truly inhabited a novelty-filled environment before. When life situations are more or less familiar, having to live at an accelerating pace is one thing. When faced by unfamiliar, strange or unprecedented situations, having to do so is distinctly another. #RandolphHarris 3 of 23

By unleashing the forces of novelty, we slam humans up against the non-routine, the unpredicted. And, by doing so, we escalate the problems of adaptation to a new and dangerous level. For transience and novelty are an explosive mix. If all of this seems doubtful, let us contemplate some of the novelties that lies in store for us. Combining rational intelligence with all the imagination we can command, let us project ourselves forcefully into the future. In doing so, let us not fear occasional error—the imagination is only free when fear of error is temporarily laid aside. Moreover, in thinking about the future, it is better to err on the side of daring, than the side of caution. One sees why the moment one begins listening to the humans who are even now creating that future. Listen, as they describe some of the developments waiting to burst from their laboratories and factories. Humans are moving onto and into the sea—occupying it and exploiting it as an integral part of their use of this planet for recreation, minerals, food, waste disposal, military and transportation operations, and, as populations grow, for actual living space. More than sixty six percent of the planet’s surface is covered with ocean—and of this submerged terrain a bare five percent is well mapped. However, this underwater land is known to be rich with oil, gas, coal, gold, diamonds, sulphur, cobalt, uranium, tin, phosphates, and other minerals. It teems with fish and plant life. #RandolphHarris 4 of 23

May be an image of furniture and living room

These immense riches are about to be fought over and exploited on a staggering scale. Today in the United States of America alone more than 600 companies are readying themselves for a monumental competitive struggle under the seas. De Beers Group, the World’s largest diamond producers is conducting their own deep-sea mining for diamonds. They currently operate the largest underwater mining fleet of ships in the World, which travel across the West African seabed, pulverizing diamond-bearing deposits and pumping them to the surface. DeepGreen Metals is a Canadian start-up company who plans to extract cobalt and other battery metals from small rockers covering the seafloor, and have secured funding from Switzerland-based offshore pipeline company. Beijing Pioneer Hi-Tech Development Corporation (BPHDC) is a stated-owned enterprise, sponsored by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and they have already been granted by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) to mine polymetallic nodules in the Western Pacific Ocean. Those are just a few of the companies who play to explore and harvest material from the dynamic landscape of the ocean floor, which is home to countless different ecosystems. The race will intensify year by year—with far reaching impact on society. Who “owns” the bottom of the ocean and the marine life that covers it? #RandolphHarris 5 of 23

As ocean mining becomes feasible and economically advantageous, we can expect the resources balance among nations to shift. The Japanese already extract 10,000,000 tons of coal each year from underwater mines; tin is already being ocean-minded by Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand. Before long nations may go to war over patches of ocean bottom. We may also find sharp changes in the rate of industrialization of what are now resource-poor nations. Technologically, novel industries will rise to process the output of the oceans. Others will produce sophisticated and highly expensive tools for working the sea—deep—diving research craft, rescue submarines, electronic fish-herding equipment and the like. The rate of obsolescence in these fields will be swift. The competitive struggle will spur ever accelerating innovation. Culturally, we can expect new words to stream rapidly into the language. “Aqua-culture”—the term for scientific cultivation of the ocean’s food resources—will take its place alongside “Agriculture.” “Water,” itself a term freighted with symbolic and emotional associations, will take on wholly new connotations. Along with a new vocabulary will come new symbols in poetry, painting, film and the other arts. Representations of ocean life forms will find their way into graphic and industrial design. Fashions will reflect dependence on the ocean. #RandolphHarris 6 of 23

New textiles, new plastics, and other material will be discovered from aqua-culture. New medications will be found to cure illness or alter mental states. Most important, increased reliance on the oceans for food will alter the nutrition of millions—a change that, itself, carries significant unknowns in its wake. What happens to the energy level of people, to their desire for achievement, not to speak of their biochemistry, their life span, their characteristic diseases, even their psychological responses, when their society shifts from a reliance on argi- to aqua-culture? The opening of the sea may also bring with it a new frontier spirit—a way of life that offers adventure, danger, quick riches or fame to the initial explorers. Later, as humans begin to colonize the continental shelves, and perhaps even the deeper reaches, the pioneers may well be followed by settlers who build artificial cities beneath the waves—work cities, science cities, medical cities, and play cities, complete with hospitals, hotels, and homes. If all this sounds too far off, living underwater is actually possible, and you could be moving to an underwater city in the near future. Jacques Yves Cousteau was a French oceanographer, researcher, filmmaker, and undersea explorer, who was largely responsible for igniting the interest of the general public in the ocean, and eventual possibility of underwater cities. #RandolphHarris 7 of 23

Mr. Cousteau was so passionate about understanding and exploring the World’s oceans that he created the famous Conshelf series of underwater habitats. The structures allowed “oceanauts” to live underwater for days, or even weeks at a time. Each iteration of the shelters (Conshelf I, II, III) improved over time, eventually allowing six oceanauts to liver underwater at a full 328 feet (100 meters) below the surface. Underwater habitats were dotted across the seabeds, with names like Sealab, Hydrolab, Edalhab, Helgoland, Galathee, Tektite, Aquabulle, Hippocampe. Furthermore, living on the ocean floor could provide humans with ready access to seafood and sea plants. There are aquanauts who are currently living underwater, who are able to partially support themselves via spearfishing, combined with canned and preserved foods. Also, Dr. Walter L. Robb, a scientist at General Electric (GE), has already kept a hamster alive under water by enclosing it in a box that is, in effect, an artificial gill—a synthetic membrane that extracts air from the surrounding water while keeping the water out. Such membranes formed the top, bottom and two sides of a box in which the hamster was submerged in water. Without the gill, the animal would have suffocated. With it, it was able to breathe under water. #RandolphHarris 8 of 23

Such membranes, GE claims, may some day furnish air for the occupants of underwater experimental stations. They might eventually be built into the walls of undersea apartment houses, hotels and other structures, or even—who knows?—into the human body itself. Indeed, the antiquated science fictions speculations about characters like Aquaman, but with surgically implanted gills no longer quite so impossibly far-fetched as they once did. We may create (perhaps even breed) specialists for ocean work, men and women who are not only mentally, but physically equipped for work, play, love and other pleasures under the sea. Even if we do not resort to such dramatic measures in our haste to conquer the underwater frontier, it seems likely that the opening of the oceans will generate not merely new professional specialties, but new life styles, new ocean-oriented subcultures, and perhaps even new religious sect or mystical cults to celebrate the sea. One need not push speculation so far, however, to recognize that the novel environments to which humans will be exposed will, of necessity, bring with them altered perceptions, new sensations, new sensitivities to colour and form, new ways of thinking and feeling. Moreover, the invasion of the sea, the first wave of which we shall witness long before the arrival of A.D. 2040, is only one series of closely tied scientific-technological trends that are now racing forward—all of them crammed with novel social and psychological implications. #RandolphHarris 9 of 23

Whereas there are various principles of natural duty, all obligations arise from the principle of fairness. It will be recalled that this principle holds that a person is under an obligation to do one’s part as specified by the rules of an institution whenever one has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the scheme or has taken advantage of the opportunities it offers to advance one’s interests, provided that this institution is just or fair, that is, satisfies the two principles of justice. The intuitive idea here is that when a number of persons engage in a mutually advantageous cooperative venture according to certain rules and the voluntarily restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions have a right to a similar acquiescence on the part of those who have benefited from their submission. We are not to gain from the cooperative efforts of others without doing our fair share. It must bot be forgotten that the principle of fairness has two parts: one which states how we acquire obligations, namely, by doing various things voluntarily; and another which lays down the condition that the institution in question be just, if not perfectly just, at least as just as it is reasonable to expect under the circumstances. The purpose of this second clause is to insure that obligations arise only if certain background conditions are satisfied. Acquiescence in, or even consent to, clearly unjust institutions does not give rise to obligations. It is generally agreed that extorted promises are void ab initio. #RandolphHarris 10 of 23

However, similarly, unjust social arrangements are themselves a kind of extortion, even violence, and consent to them odes not bind. The reason for this condition is that the parties in the original position would insist upon it. It may be objected that since the principles of natural duty are on hand, there is no necessity for the principle of fairness. Obligation can be accounted for by the natural duty of justice, for when a person avails oneself of an institutional set up, its rules then apply to one and the duty of justice holds. Now this contention is, indeed, sound enough We can, if we like, explain obligation by invoking the duty of justice. It suffices to construe the requisite voluntary acts as acts by which our natural duties are freely extended. Although previously the scheme in question did not apply to us, as we had no duties in regard to it other than that of not seeking to undermine it, we have now by our deeds enlarged the bonds of natural duty. However, it seems appropriate to distinguish between those institutions or aspects thereof which must inevitably apply to us since we are born into them and they regulate the full scope of our activity, and those that apply to us because we have freely done certain things as a rational way of advancing our ends. Thus we have a natural duty to comply with the constitution, say, or with the basic laws regulating property (assuming them to be just), whereas we have an obligation to carry out the duties of an office that we have succeeded in winning, or follow the rules of associations or activities that we have joined. Sometimes it is reasonable to weigh obligations and duties differently when they conflict precisely because they do not arise in the same way. #RandolphHarris 12 of 23

In some cases at least, the fact that obligations are freely assumed is bound to affect their assessment when they conflict with other moral requirements. It is also true that the better-paced members of society are more likely than others to have political obligations as distinct from political duties. For by and large it is these persons who are best able to gain political office and to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the constitutional system. They are, therefore, bound even more tightly to the scheme of just institutions. To mark this fact, and to emphasize the manner in which many ties are freely assumed, it is useful to have the principle of fairness. This principle should enable us to give a more discriminating account of duty and obligation. The term “obligation” will be reserved, then, for moral requirements that derive from the principle of fairness, while other requirements are called “natural duties.” A perception of this truth lies at the back of the universal feeling that bad humans ought to suffer. It is no use turning up our noses at this feeling, as if it were wholly base. On its mildest level it appeals to everyone’s sense of justice. However, some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal oneself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. #RandolphHarris 13 of 23

If I do not deserve it, what can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others? And if I do not deserve it, you are admitting the claims of “retribution.” And what can be more outrageous than to catch me and submit me to a disagreeable process of moral improvement without my consent, unless (once more) I deserve it? On yet a third level we get vindictive passion—the thirst for revenge. This, of course, is evil and expressly forbidden to Christians. However, it has perhaps appeared already from our discussion of Sadism and Masochism that the ugliest thing in human nature are perversions of good or innocent things. The good thing of which vindictive passion is the perversion comes out with startling clarity in the definition of Revengefulness, “desire by doing hurt to another to make one condemn some fact of one’s own.” Revenge loses sight of the end in the means but its end is not wholly bad—it wants the evil of the bad human to be with one what it is to everyone else. This is proved by the fact that the avenger wants the guilty part not merely to suffer, but to suffer at one’s hands, and to know it, and to know why. Hence the impulse to taunt the guilty person with one’s crime at the moment of taking vengeance: hence, too, such natural expressions as “If the same thing were done to him, I wonder how he would like it,” or “I will teach him.” For the same reasons when are going to abuse a human in words, we say we are going to “let him know what we think of him.” #RandolphHarris 14 of 23

When our ancestors referred to pains and sorrows as God’s “vengeance” upon sin they were not necessarily attributing evil passions to God; they may have been recognizing the good element in the idea of retribution. Until the evil human finds evil unmistakably present in one’s existence, in the form of pain, one is enclosed in illusion. Once pain has aroused one, one knows that on is in some way or other “up against” the real Universe: one either rebels (with the possibility of a clearer issues and deeper repentance at some later stage) or else makes some attempt at an adjustment, which, if pursued, will lead one to religion. It is true that neither effect is so certain now as in ages when that existence of God (or even of the gods) was more widely known, but even in our own days we see it operating. Even atheists rebel and express, like Hardy and Housman, their rage against God although (or because) He does not, in their view, exist: and other atheists, like Mr. Huxley, are driven by suffering to raise the whole problem of existence and to find some way of coming to terms with it which, if not Christian, is almost infinitely superior to fatuous contentment with a profane life. No doubt Pain as God’s megaphone is a terrible instrument; it may lead to final and unrepented rebellion. However, it gives the only opportunity the bad human can have for amendment. It removes the veil; it plants the flag of truth within the fortes of a rebel soul. #RandolphHarris 15 of 23

May be an image of 1 person and standing

If the first and lowest operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well, the second shatters the illusion that what we have, whether good or bad in itself, is our own and enough for us. When everything is going well with us, everyone has noticed how hard it is to turn our thought to God. When “all” does not include God, we “have all we want” is a terrible saying. We find God an interruption. God wants t give us something, but cannot, because our hands are full—there is nowhere for Him to put it. We regard God as an airman regards his parachute: it is there for emergencies but he hopes he will never have to use it. Now God, who has made us, knows what we are and that our happiness lies in Him. Yet we will not seek it in Him as long as He leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for. While what we call “our own life” remains agreeable we will not surrender it to Him. What then can God do in our interests but make “our own life” less agreeable to us, and take away the plausible source of false happiness? It is just here, where God’s providence seems at first to be most cruel, that the Divine humility, the stooping down of the Highest, most deserves praise. We are perplexed to see misfortune falling upon decent, inoffensive, worthy people—on capable, hard-working mothers and families, veterans, or diligent, thirty little tradespeople, on those who have worked so hard, and honestly for their modest stock of happiness and now seem to be entering on the enjoyment of it with the fullest right. #RandolphHarris 16 of 23

May be an image of indoor and laundromat

How can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said? It does not matter that I know I must become, in the eyes of every hostile reader, as it were, personally responsible for all the suffering I try to explain—just as, to this day, everyone talks as if St Augustine wanted unbaptized infants to go to Hell. However, if I alienate anyone from the truth, it matters enormously. Let me implore the reader to try to believe, if only for the moment, that God, who made these deserving people, may really be right when He think that their modest prosperity and happiness of their children are not enough to make them blessed: that all this must fall from them in the end, and that if they have not learned to know Him they will be wretched. And therefore God troubles them, warning them in advance of an insufficiency that one day they will have to discover. The life to themselves and their families stand between them and the recognition of their need; God makes that life less sweet to them. I call this a Divine humility because it is a poor thing to strike our colours to God when the ship is going down under us; a poor thing to come to Him as a last resort, to offer up “our own” when it is no longer worth keeping. If God were proud He would hardly have us on such terms: but He is not proud, God stoops to conquer, He will have us even though we have shown that we prefer everything else to Him, and come to Him because there is “nothing better” now to be had. The same humility is shown by all those Divine appeals to our fears which trouble high-minded readers of Scripture. #RandolphHarris 17 of 23

It is hardly complimentary to God that we should choose Him as an alternative to Hell: yet even this God accepts. The creature’s illusions of self-sufficiency must, for the creature’s sake, be shattered; and by trouble or fear of trouble on Earth, by crude fear of the eternal flames, God shatters its “unmindful of His glory’s diminution.” Those who like the God of the Scripture to be more purely ethical, do not know what they ask. If God were a Kantian, who would not have us till we came to Him from the purest and best motives, who could be saved? And this illusion of self-sufficiency may be at its strongest in some very honest, kindly, and temperate people, and on such people, therefore, misfortune must fall. The dangers of apparent self-sufficiency explain why Our Lord regards the vices of the feckless and dissipated so much more leniently than the vices that lead to Worldly success. Men and women of the evening are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in that danger. Certain persons totally denied the existence of providence, as Democritus and the Epicureans, maintaining that the World was made by chance. Others taught that incorruptible things only were subject to providence and corruptible things not in their individual selves, but only according to their species; for in this respect they are incorruptible. They are represented as saying (Job 22.14): “The could are His covert; and He doth not consider our things; He walketh about the poles of Heaven.” #RandolphHarris 18 of 23

May be an image of furniture and bedroom

Rabbi Moses, however, excluded humans from the generality of things corruptible, on account of the excellence of the intellect which they possess, but in reference to all else that suffers corruption he adhered to the opinion of others. We must say, however, that all things are subject to divine providence, not only in general, but even in their own individual selves. This is made evident thus. For since every great agent acts for an end, the ordering of effects towards that end extends as far as the causality of the first agent extends. Whence it happens that in the effects of an agent something takes place which has no reference towards the end, because the effect comes from a cause other than, and outside the intention of the agent. However, the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all beings, not only as a constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles; not only of things incorruptible, but also of things corruptible. Hence all things that exist in whatsoever manner are necessarily directed by God towards some end; as the Apostle says: “Those things that are of God are well ordered [*Vulg. ‘Those powers that are, are ordained of God’].” Since, therefore, as the providence of God is nothing less than they type of the order of things towards an end, as we have said; it necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence. #RandolphHarris 19 of 23

May be an image of 2 people and people standing

It has also ben show that God knows all things, both universal and particular. And since His knowledge may be compared to the things themselves, as the knowledge of art to the objects of art all things must of necessity come under His ordering; as all things wrought by art are subject to the ordering of that art. There is a difference between universal and particular causes. A think can escape the order of a particular cause; but not the order of a universal cause. For nothing escapes the order of a particular cause, expect through the intervention and hindrance of some other particular cause; as, for instance, wood may be prevented from burning, by the action of water. Since then, all particular causes are included under the universal cause, it could not be that nay effect should take place outside the range of that universal cause. So far then as an effect escapes the order of a particular cause, it is said to be casual or fortuitous in respect to that cause; but if we regard the universal cause, outside whose range no effect happen, it is said to be foreseen. Thus, for instance, the meeting of two servants, although to them it appears a chance circumstance, has been fully foreseen by their master, who has purposely sent to meet at the one place, in such a way that the one knows about the other. The term nonduality reminds a sound in the air when heard, a visual image when read. Without the key of mentalism, it remains just that. #RandolphHarris 20 of 23

The thing is in mind, is a projection of mind as thought. The is nonduality, for mind is not apart from what comes and goes back into it. As with things, so wit bodies and Worlds. All appear along with the ultimately cosmic but immediately individual thought of them. The teaching of nonduality is that all things are within one and the same element—Consciousness. Hence there are no two or three or three million things and entities: there is in reality only the One Consciousness. Duality exists, but only within nonduality, which as the last word. If we could raise ourselves to the ultimate point of view, we would see all forms in one spirit, one essence in all atoms, and hence no difference between one World and another, one thing and another, one human and another. Just as a larger circle may contain a smaller one within it, yet the one need not contradict the other, so the ever-being of Mind may contain the ever-changing incredibly numerous forms of Nature without and contradiction. The universal reality is neither a unit nor a cipher. Were it a cipher we could never know it, could not even think of it, for then we would not be thinking. Were it a unit it could not stand alone but would mask a host of other units, thus making a plurality of realities. For it can be proved mathematically that the existence of one always implies the existence of a whole series of figures, from two upwards. What is it then? The answer, be it said to their credit, was discovered by old Indian sages. It is nonduality. #RandolphHarris 21 of 23

The notion of the One belongs to the realms of instruction for beginners; in reality it is as illusory as the Many, because it presupposes the truth of the latter; the reality of number one implies the reality of number two, and so forth. Hence Monism is not our doctrine, but rather Nonduality There is a vast difference between the two terms. Nonduality simply means that there is nothing other than the unseen Power, nothing else, no Universe, no creature. This is Absolute Being, where duality doe not exist and multiplicity cannot. In the end, when truth is seen and its relativities are transcended, there is only this: nonduality, nonorigination, and noncausality. Everything exists in opposing pairs, that is, in twos. Hence the Origin, the Ultimate, is called by Hindu sages “the Not-TWO.” All distinctions between this and that, here and there, before and after, are dissolved in the Absolute. In the highest Sanskrit text, the Universe is pointed to as “This” and the final reality as “That.” In the immaterial and spiritual World, the person is devoid of real existence, the ego is a fiction, and there is only the One Universal Mind (God). There is only the ne inexhaustible Source out of which all this vast complex of universal existence emerges. It alone always is; the rest is an ever-changing picture. Just as the dreamer’s mind appears to split itself up into the various figures and persons of one’s dream, so the One has never really split itself up into the many, but it has appeared to do so. I swear on oath today to God, bringer of Justice, and His Son Jesus Christ, that I will tell only that which is true. #RandolphHarris 22 of 23

Whether it by to my advantage or bring me harm, what I say will be what I know to be true. Lord of the pledged World and keeper of oaths: God, I pray to you for justice. May you grant me great discernment, God, as I weigh what I have learned. May you balance my mind, body, and soul. May what I will do be what is right, may what I will do equal the truth. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thy heart. Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thy house, when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thy house and upon they gates. “It shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the Lord your God, and to serve Him with all your heart, and with all your soul, that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine and thine oil. And I will give grasses in thy fields for thy cattle, and thou shalt eat and satisfied. Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. The LORD’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut the Heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land and the LORD is giving you,” reports Deuteronomy 11.13-18. #RandolphHarris 23 of 23