Your cravings as a terrestrial being do not become a prayer just because it is God who you ask for them. Underrepresented groups experiment; majorities cling to the forms of the past. It is safe to say that large numbers of people will refuse to jettison the conventional idea of marriage or the familiar family forms. They will, no doubt, continue searching for happiness within the orthodox format. Yet, even they will be forced to innovate in the end, for the odds against success may prove overwhelming. The orthodox format presupposed that two young people will “find” one another and marry. It presupposed that the two will fulfill certain psychological needs in one another, and that the two personalities will develop over the years, more or less in tandem, so that they continue to fulfill each other’s needs. It further presupposes that this process will last “until death do us part.” These expectations are built deeply into our culture. It is no longer respectable, as it once was, to marry for anything but love. Love has changed from a peripheral concern of the family into its primary justification. Indeed, the pursuit of love through family life has become, for many, the very purpose of life itself. Love, however, is defined in terms of this notion of shared growth. It is seen as a beautiful mesh of complementary needs, flowing into and out of one another, fulfilling the loved ones, and producing feelings of warmth, tenderness and devotion. #RandolphHarris 1 of 19

Unhappy husbands often complain that they have “left their wives behind” in terms of social, educational or intellectual growth. Partners in successful marriages are said to “grow together.” This parallel development theory of love carries endorsement from marriage counsellors, psychologists, and sociologist. Thus, says sociologist Nelson Foote, a specialist on the family, the quality of the relationship between husband and wife is dependent upon “the degree of matching in their phases of distinction but comparable development.” If love is a product of shared growth, however, and we are to measure success in marriage by the degree to which matched development actually occurs, it becomes possible to make a strong and ominous prediction about the future. It is possible to demonstrate that, even in a relatively stagnant society, the mathematical odds are heavily stacked against any couple achieving this ideal of parallel growth. The odds for success positively plummet, however, when the rate of change in society accelerates, as it now is doing. In a fast-moving society, in which many things change, not once, but repeatedly, in which the husband moves up and down a variety of economic and social scales, in which the family is again and again torn loose from home and community, in which individuals move further from their parents, further from the religion of origin, and further from traditional values, it is almost miraculous if two people develop at anything like comparable rates. #RandolphHarris 2 of 19

If, at the same time, average life expectancy rises from, say eighty to one hundred years, thereby lengthening the term during which this acrobatic feat of matched development is supposed to be maintained, the odds against success become absolutely astronomical. Thus, Nelson Foote writes with wry understatement: “To expect a marriage to last indefinitely under modern conditions is to expect a lot.” To ask love to last indefinitely is to expect even more. Transience and novelty are both in league against it. It is this change in the statistical odds against love that accounts for the high divorce and separation rates in most of the techno-societies. The faster the rate of change and the longer the life span, the worse these odds grow. Something has to crack. In point of fact, of course, something has already cracked—and it is the old insistence on permanence. Millions of men and women now adopt what appears to them to be a sensible and conservative strategy. Rather than opting for some offbeat variety of the family, they marry conventionally, they attempt to make it “work,” and then, wen the paths of the partners diverge beyond an acceptable point, they divorce or depart. Most of them go on to search for a new partner whose developmental stage, at that moment, matches their own. As human relationships grow more transient and modular, the pursuit of love becomes, if anything more frenzied. However, the temporal expectations change. #RandolphHarris 3 of 19

As conventional marriage proves itself less and less capable of delivering on its promise of lifelong love, therefore, we can anticipate open public acceptance of temporary marriages. Instead of wedding “until death us do part,” couples will enter into matrimony knowing from the first that the relationship is likely to be short-lived. They will know, too, that when the paths of husband and wife diverge, when there is too great a discrepancy in developmental stages, they may call it quits—without shock or embarrassment, perhaps even without some of the pain that goes with divorce today. And when the opportunity presents itself, they will marry again…and again…and again. Serial marriage—a pattern of successive temporary marriages—is cut to order for the Age of Transience in which all human’s relationships, all one’s ties with the environment, shrinks in duration. It is the natural, the inevitable outgrowth of a social order in which automobiles are rented, dolls traded in, and dresses discarded after one-time use. It is the mainstream marriage pattern of tomorrow. In one sense, serial marriage is already the best kept family secret of the techno-societies. According to Professor Jessie Bernard, a World-prominent family sociologist, “Plural marriage is more extensive in our society today than it is in societies that permit polygamy—the chief difference being that we have institutionalized plural marriage serially or sequentially rather than contemporaneously.” #RandolphHarris 4 of 19

Remarriage is already so prevalent a practice that nearly one out of every four bridegrooms in America has been to the altar before. It is so prevalent that one IBM personnel man reports a poignant incident involving a divorced woman, who, in filling out a job application, paused when she came to the question of marital status. She put her pencil in her mouth pondered for a moment, then wrote: “Unremarried.” Transience necessarily affects the durational expectancies with which persons approach new situations. While they may yearn for a permanent relationship, something inside whispers to them that it is an increasingly improbably luxury. Even young people who most passionately seek commitment, profound involvement with people and causes, recognize the power of the thrust toward transience. Listen, for example, to a young American, a civil-right worker, as she describes her attitude toward time and marriage: “In this World, marriage is always billed as ‘the end’—like in a Hollywood movie. I do not for that. I cannot imagine myself promising my whole lifetime away. I might want to get married now, but how about next year? That is not disrespect for the institution [of marriage], but the deepest respect. In The [civil rights] Movement, you need to have a feeling for the temporary—of making something as good as you can, while it lasts. In conventional relationships, time is a prison.” #RandolphHarris 5 of 19

Such attitudes will not be confined to the young, the few, or the politically active. They will whip across nations as novelty floods into the society and catch fire as the level of transience rises still higher. And along with them will come a sharp increase in the number of temporary—then serial—marriages. The idea is summed up vividly by a Swedish magazine, Svensk Damtidning, which interviewed a number of leading Swedish sociologist, legal experts, and others about the future of man-woman relationship. It presented its findings in five photographs. They showed the same beautiful bride being carried across the threshold five times—by five different bridegrooms. Though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgment consists in the very fact that humans prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His “word,” judges humans. We are therefore at liberty—since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing—to think of this bad human’s perdition not as a sentence imposed on one but as the mere fact of being what one is. The characteristic of lost souls is their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves. Our imaginary egoist has tried to turn everything one meets into a province or appendage of the self. The taste for the other, that is, the very capacity for enjoying good, is quenched in one except in so far as one’s body still draws one into some rudimentary contact with an outer World. #RandolphHarris 6 of 19

Death removes this last contact. One has one’s wish—to lie wholly in the self and to make the best of what one finds there. And what one finds there is Hell. Another objection turns on the apparent disproportion between eternal damnation and transitory sin. And if we think of eternity as a mere prolongation of time, it is disproportionate. However, many would reject this idea of eternity. If we think of time as a line—which is a good image, because the parts of time are successive and no two of them can co-exist; id est, there is no width in time, only length—we probably ought to think of eternity as a plane or even a solid. Thus the whole reality of a human being would be mainly the work of God, acting through grace and nature, but human free will would have contributed the base-line which we call Earthly life: and if you draw your base-line askew, the whole solid will be in the wrong place. The fact that life is short, or, in the symbol, that we contribute only one little line to the whole complex figure, might be regarded as a Divine mercy. For if even the drawing of that little line, left to our free will, is somethings so badly done as to spoil the whole, how much worse a mess might we have made of the figure if more had been entrusted to us? A simpler form of the same objection consists in saying that death ought not to be final, that there ought to be a second change. #RandolphHarris 7 of 19

The second chance must not be confused either with that of Purgatory (for souls already saved) of Limbo (for souls already lost). I believe that if a million chances were likely to do good, they would be given. However, a master often knows, when boys and parents do not, that it is really useless to send a boy in for a certain examination again. Finality must come some time, and it does not require a very robust faith to believe that omniscience knows when. Another objection turns on the frightful intensity of the pains of Hell as suggested by medieval art and, indeed, by certain passages in Scripture. Von Hugel here warns us not to confuse the doctrine itself with the imagery by which it may be conveyed. Our Lord speaks of Hell under three symbols: first, that of punishment (“everlasting punishment,” Matthew 25.46); second, that of destruction (“fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in Hell,” Matthew 10.28); and thirdly, that of privation, exclusion, or banishment into “the darkness outside,” as in the parables of the man without a wedding garment or the wise and foolish virgins. The prevalent image of fire is significant because it combines the ideas of torment and destruction. Now it is quite certain that all these expressions are intended to suggest something unspeakably horrible, and any interpretation which does not face that fact is, I am afraid, out of court from the beginning. #RandolphHarris 8 of 19

However, it is not necessary to concentrate on the images of torture to the exclusion of those suggesting destruction and privation. What can that be whereof all three images are equally proper symbols? Destruction, we should naturally assume, means the unmaking, or cessation, of the destroyed. And people often talk as if the “annihilation” of a soul were intrinsically possible. In all our experience, however, the destruction of one thing means the emergence of something else. Burn a log, and you have gases, heat, and ash. To have been a log means now being those three things. If souls can be destroyed, mist there not be a state of having been a human soul? And is not that, perhaps, the state which is equally well described as torment, destruction, and privation? You will remember that in the parable, the saved go to a place prepared for them, while the damned go to a place never made for humans at all. “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepare for you since the creation of the World.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” reports Matthew 25.34, 41. To enter Heaven is to become more human than you ever succeeded in being on Earth; to enter hell, is to be banished from humanity. #RandolphHarris 9 of 19

What is cast (or casts itself) into hell is not a human: it is “remains.” To be a complete human means to have the passions obedient to the will and the will offered to God: to have been a human—to be an ex-human or damned ghost—would presumably mean to consist of a will utterly centered in its self and passions utterly uncontrolled by the will. It is, of course, impossible to imagine what the consciousness of such a creature—already a loose congeries of mutually antagonistic sins rather than a sinner—would be like. There may be a truth in the saying that “hell is hell, not from its own point of view, but from the Heavenly point of view.” I do not think this belies the severity of Our Lord’s words. It is only to be damned that their fate could ever seem less than unendurable. And it must be admitted that we think of eternity, the categories of pain and pleasure, which have engaged us so long, begin to recede, as vaster good and evil loom in sight. Neither pain nor pleasure as such had the last word. Even if it were possible that the experience (if it can be called experience) of the lost contained no pain and much pleasure, still that black pleasure would be such as to send any soul, not already damned, flying to its prayers in nightmare terror: even if there were pains in Heaven, a who understand would desire them. #RandolphHarris 10 of 19

Exception must be taken to the light of their Father, because it could not illuminate and fill even those things which were within it, namely the shadow and the void. It seems scandalous and reprehensible to suppose that within the pleroma of light there could be a dark and formless void. For the Christian neither God nor Christ could be a paradox; they have to have a single meaning. However, no one knew, and apparently (with a few commendable exceptions) no one knows even now, that the hybris of the speculative intellect had already emboldened the ancients to propound a philosophical definition of God that more or less obliged one to be the Summum Bonum (the highest good). A Protestant theologian has even had the temerity to assert that “God can only be good.” Yahweh could certainly have taught him a thing or two in this respect, if he himself is unable to see his intellectual trespass against God’s freedom and omnipotence. This forcible usurpation of the Summum Bonum naturally has its reasons, the origins of which lie far back in the past (though I cannot enter into this here). Nevertheless, it is the effective source of the concept of privatio boni, which nullifies the reality of evil and can be found as early as Basil the Great (330-79) and Dionysius the Areopagite (2^nd half of the 4^th century), and is fully developed in Augustine. The earliest authority of all for the later axiom “Omne bonum a Deo, omne malum ab homine” is Tatian (2^nd century), who says: “Nothing evil was created by God; we ourselves have produced all wickedness.” #RandolphHarris 11 of 19

You must not look upon God as the author of the existence of evil, not consider that evil has any subsistence in itself. For evil does not subsist as a living being does, nor can we set before our eyes any substantial essence thereof. For evil is the privation of good. And thus evil does not inhere in its own substance, but arises from the mutilation of the soul. The darkness of the World comes from the shadow cast by the body of Heaven. Neither is evil uncreated, as the wicked say who set up evil for the equal of good…nor is it created. For if all things are of God, how can evil arise from good? It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God, because the contrary cannot proceed from the contrary. Life does not engender death, darkness is not the origin of light, sickness is not the maker of health…Now if evil is neither uncreated nor created by God, whence comes its nature? That evil exists no one living in the World will deny. What shall we say, then? That evil is not a living and animated entity, but a condition of the soul opposed to virtue, proceeding from light-minded persons on account of their falling away from good. Each of us should acknowledge that one is the first author of the wickedness in one. The perfectly natural fact that when you say “high” you immediately postulate “low” is here twisted into a causal relationship and reduced to absurdity, since it is sufficiently obvious that darkness produces no light and light produces no darkness. #RandolphHarris 12 of 19

The idea of good and evil, however, is the premise for any moral judgment. They are a logically equivalent pair of opposites and, as such, the sine qua non of al acts of cognition. From the empirical standpoint we cannot say more than this. And from this standpoint we would have to assert that good and evil, being coexistent halves of moral judgment, do not derive from one another but are always together. Evil, like good, belongs to the category of human values, and we are the authors of the facts submitted to our moral judgment. These facts are called by one person good and by another evil. Only in capital cases is there anything like a consensus generalis. If we hold that humans are the authors of evil, we are saying in the same breath that they are also the author of good. However, humans are first and foremost the author merely of judgments; in relation to the facts judged, one’s responsibility is not so easy to determine. In order to do this, we would have to give a clear definition of the extent of one’s free will. The psychiatrist knows what a desperately difficult task this is. Perhaps evil has no substance of its own but arises from a mutilation of the soul, and if we are convinced that evil really exists, then the relative reality of evil is grounded on a real mutilation of the soul which must have an equally real cause. #RandolphHarris 13 of 19

If the soul was originally created good, then it has really been corrupted and by something that is real, even if tis is nothing more than carelessness, indifference, and frivolity. When something—I must stress this with all possible emphasis—is traced back to a psychic condition or fact, it is very definitely not reduced to nothing and thereby nullified, but is shifted on to the plane of psychic reality, which is very much easier to establish empirically than, say, the reality of the devil in dogma, who according to the authentic sources was not invented by humans at all but existed long before they did. If the devil fell away from God of one’s own free will, this proves firstly that evil was in the World before humans, and therefore that humans cannot be the sole author of it, and secondly that the devil already had a mutilated soul for which we must hold a real cause responsible. However, this argument produces some insoluble contradictions: it is laid down from the start that the independent existence of evil must be denied even in the face of the eternity of the devil as asserted by dogma. The historical reason for this was the threat presented by Manichaean dualism. This is especially clear in the treatise of Titus of Bostra (d.c. 3700, entitled Adversus Manichaeos, where he states in refutation of Manichaeans that, so far as substance is concerned, there is no such thing as evil. #RandolphHarris 14 of 19

Jesus Christ teaches us that we should love our enemies, return good for evil. However, is this realistic in a World in which evil so often triumphs? Can one forgive seventy times seven and still restrain wrongdoers? Turn the other cheek to terrorism? These dilemmas lead many to conclude that either Jesus was not speaking literally or if He was, one must live a monastic life to be a Christian. We reach such conclusion, however, because we misunderstand Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom. When Jesus announced the Kingdom, He did indeed set forth radical standards by which its citizens are to live. He knew such a lifestyle would be both costly and complex, but it would witness the values of God’s Kingdom even in the midst of the evil of this World. Christ was not suggesting, however, that the obedient Christian would be able to usher in the Kingdom of God on Earth. Only Christ Himself would do that when He returns. However, for this period between the two stages—the announcement of the Kingdom and its final consummation—God has provided structures to restrain evil of the World. The state is even ordained to wield the sword when necessary; and the Christian is commanded to obey the state and to respect its authority as God’s instruments. One will have to maintain one’s loyalty to the intuition against the cautions, the excessive prudence, of frightened intellect. The intuition is to collate all these different functions of the personality, and direct them towards its truest welfare. #RandolphHarris 15 of 19

The Christian, therefore, follows two commandments: to live by Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, modeling the values of God’s Kingdom—the one yet to come in its fullness—and at the same time to support government’s rile in preserving order as a witness to God’s authority over the present kingdoms of this World. A human is really free when one’s intuition directs one’s intellect and rules one’s energies. The verdict of intuition may be vindicated by time but one cannot always afford to wait for it. So while the Christian is not to return evil for evil (one must instead exercise forgiveness, breaking the cycle of evil), one may participate in the God-ordained structure that restrains the evil and chaos of the fallen World by the use of force. The family is the most basic unit of government. As the first community to which a person is attached and the first authority under which a person learns to live, the family establishes society’s most basic values. The family is an alternative to the states as a focus of loyalty and thus a humanizing force in society. Unlike the state, it upholds nonmaterial values—makes them paramount indeed. In most Eastern cultures the family remains the fundamental unit of society. In the West, however, relativism has encouraged the belief that family is a matter of convenience rather than convention. #RandolphHarris 16 of 19

The traditional family has all but disintegrated in many communities, where more than 50 percent of children are born out of wedlock. And in the nation as a whole more than half the children are raised in one-parent families where the parent works. Some school textbooks even describe the family as any voluntary grouping of people living together. This attitude is reflected in out laws, our court decisions, our public mores—and in our crime rates. Typically, crime is not the result of environment or poverty, but of wrong moral choices. Generally, such moral choices are determined by moral conscience, which is shaped early in life and most profoundly by the family. Without the lessons the family alone can teach, commitment to God and duty to fellow humans becomes alien concepts. Little wonder that many of today’s youth have been lost to the streets. Though it is not my purpose here to examine the issue of the modern family, the situation today merits a word of warning. The widespread loss of the God-ordained role of the family leads to the deterioration of society and [the] eventual collapse of the nation. The humanizing force of the family can never be replaced by political or bureaucratic means. Consciousness-in-itself, its own pure formless being, is incorruptible; but viewed from our side, our relation to it, universal and collective, we, individual entities, emerge from it and eventually fall back into it. #RandolphHarris 17 of 19

This applies to all who take on an existence, however tiny it be in dimension or however immense in time, however feeble in power or however majestic in rulership. Although the Absolute is the Unknowable to us, it must be able to know and understand its own being and its own nature. Consciousness untouched by any thought, picture, or name—this has yet to be studied by our Western psychologist. Ultimate reality does not lie in this World, nor in that which perceives it, but in that which perceives the perceiver. Consciousness can exist apart from the World, from the things and creatures in it, and even from the ego, but the World exists only as a projection of consciousness. In this sense the World has no lasting reality but, by contrast, the consciousness has. What is Spirit? It is that which is the essence of mind and therefore mind in its pure state divested of all thoughts, all personal emotions, and all personal egoism. Therefore, it transcends the human concept of individual being. To ascribe human qualities to it is to falsify it and yet, because it is the essence of the mind, it is the essence of every human being. The intellect can never understand this point until it understands that the conception of individuality and the conception of existence are separate and different from each other. Individuality may go but existence may remain. #RandolphHarris 18 of 19

Beyond all forms which consciousness can take is its very essence, consciousness in itself, alone and unique. It can never be transformed or changed and it can never disintegrate. Pure consciousness is not a mental state, but Mind-in-itself, the Mind when gathered entirely into itself. The mental states are brought about by some kind of mental activity, but not here. Consciousness-in-itself is something apart from its objects, which are thoughts, feelings, imaginations, things, bodies—in short experience. Consciousness stripped of thoughts and pictures become bare Being. Consciousness-in-itself does not vary, but its phases and states do. It is Mind which not only lights up its own existence but also all other existence. There are various kinds of consciousness but there is only a single pure Consciousness, one where nothing is put into it—no thoughts, emotions, or objects, even no ego. Dear Lord in Heaven, you move among the stars as a shepherd among His sheep, guiding them, keeping them from straying. Father Moon, please softly light my way, keeping me from real danger as well. We thankfully acknowledge Thee, O Lord our God, our fathers’ God to al eternity. Our Rock art Thou, our Shield that saves through every generation. We give Thee thanks and we declare Thy praise for all Thy tender care. Our lives we trust into Thy loving hand. Our souls are ever in Thy charge; Thy wonders and Thy miracles are daily with us, evening, morn and noon. O Thou who art all-good, whose mercies never fail us, Compassionate One, whose loving kindness never cease, we ever hope in Thee. #RandolphHarris 19 of 19

Cresleigh Homes

Whatever lifestyle you’re cooking up in your #Riverside Residence 2, we know it’s going to be good with that kitchen. 😉 Swipe to see a spacious working island and your kitchen dining area! ➡️

Residence Two a spacious single story home with over 2,500 square feet of home thoughtfully designed to maximize every available foot of space. Three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a three car garage all come included in this home. The layout if an entertainer’s dream with large kitchen and working island, dining room connected through the butler’s pantry, and a large great room overlooking the ample rear yard.

Cresleigh offers a community that has established great schools, superior natural beauty, and other wonderful amenities. Hiking trails, parks complement the dramatic landscape offering residents unmatched opportunities to relax and connect with nature. https://cresleigh.com/cresleigh-riverside-at-plumas-ranch/

#CresleighHomes