deepundergroundpoetry.com
GOOD AND TIME
GOD AND TIME
We ask and think for long what God can be.
He can be goodness in its perfect form,
the perfect state of love, of help and care
and all what we can think of being good.
He is creation in its perfect form,
and wants to keep what He creates quite safe
to move in harmony in endless space,
safe from the trials of negation force.
The thought of time belongs to man on earth
as planets have their suns to turn around.
For God, there is no time to do a job.
There is an endless space where goodness rules.
What are you goodness but an endless state.
It lives in us, and we can feel it most
when we can give a son something he loves.
Then we can live in that elated state.
That goodness was personified in Christ.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
____________________________________
We ask and think for long what God can be.
He can be goodness in its perfect form,
the perfect state of love, of help and care
and all what we can think of being good.
He is creation in its perfect form,
and wants to keep what He creates quite safe
to move in harmony in endless space,
safe from the trials of negation force.
The thought of time belongs to man on earth
as planets have their suns to turn around.
For God, there is no time to do a job.
There is an endless space where goodness rules.
What are you goodness but an endless state.
It lives in us, and we can feel it most
when we can give a son something he loves.
Then we can live in that elated state.
That goodness was personified in Christ.
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH
____________________________________
Published 1st Aug 2019
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 6
reads 402
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
What to make of this?
It is ostensibly about God and his/her relationship to/with time. But the first stanza’s subject is what “we” think god CAN be, not what he/she is. And it leaves open the question of whether what he/she, according to our thoughts, can be is in any way ACTUALLY what he/she is.
The second stanza is heretical – at least from the point of view of the canonical Christian and Muslim creeds – since it identifies God [i]with[/i] creation and denies that God is ABOVE creation. It also contains an incomprehensible expression (what on earth is “negation force”?) and a line ending that uses the word that ends a line in the first stanza.
The third stanza declares that God is not aware of time and does not recognize when a job should be undertaken (not to mention that the syntax of its second line makes you claim that suns are the possessions of planets and that a planet’s occupation is to move the sun). But this flies in the face of such Biblical texts as Gal. 4:4-5 (“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.”) and the first creation story in Genesis where it is said that God looked upon what he had created during each of the six days which he established and in which he accomplished his acts of creation, calling the results “good”. He is also said to be quite aware of when Sabbaths and the pilgrimage feasts occur and when the Jubilee year takes place.
Moreover, its fourth line has nothing to do with what is asserted in the rest of the stanza and claims, whether you know it or not, that goodness does nor rule on earth since earth is not an "endless space".
The subject of the fourth stanza (which contains an awkward repetition of the word “state”) centers in answering the question of what Goodness is, not God’s relation to time. It also contains the odd assertions (1) that the only way someone finds goodness is when he/she gives a son something that his/her son loves and (2) that an endless state can be personified in a particular historical figure.
So to my eyes, what we have here is a writing that (1) does not deal with what its title says it is going to be dealing with; (2) is poorly written; (3) contains very questionable theological assertions; and (4) fails to be cohesive.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would show me exactly how and why my perceptions are wrong.
It is ostensibly about God and his/her relationship to/with time. But the first stanza’s subject is what “we” think god CAN be, not what he/she is. And it leaves open the question of whether what he/she, according to our thoughts, can be is in any way ACTUALLY what he/she is.
The second stanza is heretical – at least from the point of view of the canonical Christian and Muslim creeds – since it identifies God [i]with[/i] creation and denies that God is ABOVE creation. It also contains an incomprehensible expression (what on earth is “negation force”?) and a line ending that uses the word that ends a line in the first stanza.
The third stanza declares that God is not aware of time and does not recognize when a job should be undertaken (not to mention that the syntax of its second line makes you claim that suns are the possessions of planets and that a planet’s occupation is to move the sun). But this flies in the face of such Biblical texts as Gal. 4:4-5 (“But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.”) and the first creation story in Genesis where it is said that God looked upon what he had created during each of the six days which he established and in which he accomplished his acts of creation, calling the results “good”. He is also said to be quite aware of when Sabbaths and the pilgrimage feasts occur and when the Jubilee year takes place.
Moreover, its fourth line has nothing to do with what is asserted in the rest of the stanza and claims, whether you know it or not, that goodness does nor rule on earth since earth is not an "endless space".
The subject of the fourth stanza (which contains an awkward repetition of the word “state”) centers in answering the question of what Goodness is, not God’s relation to time. It also contains the odd assertions (1) that the only way someone finds goodness is when he/she gives a son something that his/her son loves and (2) that an endless state can be personified in a particular historical figure.
So to my eyes, what we have here is a writing that (1) does not deal with what its title says it is going to be dealing with; (2) is poorly written; (3) contains very questionable theological assertions; and (4) fails to be cohesive.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would show me exactly how and why my perceptions are wrong.
Dear Dresden,
The most important part of your criticism is that of the second stanza. You see that it is heretical. I don't. That's because the word CREATION according to Collins Dictionary means the making of the universe, earth, and creatures by God, so it means creativity. That can cancel your point.
If you don't know the meaning of negation, please look it up in any dictionary you have. The other points express your point of view, which l don't agree with. Thank you for your lengthy comment.
The most important part of your criticism is that of the second stanza. You see that it is heretical. I don't. That's because the word CREATION according to Collins Dictionary means the making of the universe, earth, and creatures by God, so it means creativity. That can cancel your point.
If you don't know the meaning of negation, please look it up in any dictionary you have. The other points express your point of view, which l don't agree with. Thank you for your lengthy comment.
Collins also notes that "Creation" means "the universe'
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/creation
Moreover, it nowhere states that "creation" means "creativity", let alone that it is the same thing as "artistic or intellectual inventiveness"
(see https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/creativity).
But more importantly, to identify God with what he/she has brought into being, which is what the expression "God is creation" means, is to assert pantheism. So my point is not canceled, and you've used inappropriate linguistic slight of hand to ground your unwarranted assertion that if it is.
And you shift the goal post and engage in the underhanded tactic of selective quotation in claiming, as you implicitly do, that I was asking about (as if I did/do not know) what the meaning of "negation" is. If you'll look above, you'll see that what I was asking was whether the meaning of the phrase "negation force", not "negation" is something that is readily comprehensible, let alone what the "trials of negation force" are.
And as to your note that you don't agree with the other points I raised, are you really saying that you don't think that the Biblical texts I pointed you to to show you that the Bible doesn't support your claim that God is not aware of time and does not recognize when a job should be undertaken do not contradict your claim?
What about how your syntax in L2 of Stanza 3 makes you claim that planets are responsible for, and produce, their suns' revolving motion? How is that not the meaning of that line, given the way it is worded?
So, to conclude, what you say above indicates that you think that you never write poorly. Is that really what you believe?
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/creation
Moreover, it nowhere states that "creation" means "creativity", let alone that it is the same thing as "artistic or intellectual inventiveness"
(see https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/creativity).
But more importantly, to identify God with what he/she has brought into being, which is what the expression "God is creation" means, is to assert pantheism. So my point is not canceled, and you've used inappropriate linguistic slight of hand to ground your unwarranted assertion that if it is.
And you shift the goal post and engage in the underhanded tactic of selective quotation in claiming, as you implicitly do, that I was asking about (as if I did/do not know) what the meaning of "negation" is. If you'll look above, you'll see that what I was asking was whether the meaning of the phrase "negation force", not "negation" is something that is readily comprehensible, let alone what the "trials of negation force" are.
And as to your note that you don't agree with the other points I raised, are you really saying that you don't think that the Biblical texts I pointed you to to show you that the Bible doesn't support your claim that God is not aware of time and does not recognize when a job should be undertaken do not contradict your claim?
What about how your syntax in L2 of Stanza 3 makes you claim that planets are responsible for, and produce, their suns' revolving motion? How is that not the meaning of that line, given the way it is worded?
So, to conclude, what you say above indicates that you think that you never write poorly. Is that really what you believe?
14th Aug 2019 8:49pm
I'd also be grateful if you did not characterize what I say to you as not worth speaking to because it is "only" a (supposedly) singularly held, "opinion" -- which is what you did when you wrote "The other points express your point of view, which l don't agree with ". The question is not to whom a given point of view belongs, let alone that it might be something that no one else but the one expressing it holds to, but whether it's baseless. That you do not "agree" with it is hardly reason for thinking so. Moreover, I gave reasons to back up what I said -- none of which you in any way demonstrated, as you should have done if you disagreed with them, were faulty. Why should anyone take your "disagreement" seriously?
14th Aug 2019 10:39pm
Dear Jeffrey,
Did you read in Collins Dictionary that creation means: the making of the universe, earth, and creatures by God or you didn't? This is the meaning l have chosen, and it is supported by a dictionary. Why should we write about the other meanings which l don't care about in my poem? I want to ask you one brief question,"Can't what you wanted to say be expressed more briefly?" However, thank you for your great interest.
Did you read in Collins Dictionary that creation means: the making of the universe, earth, and creatures by God or you didn't? This is the meaning l have chosen, and it is supported by a dictionary. Why should we write about the other meanings which l don't care about in my poem? I want to ask you one brief question,"Can't what you wanted to say be expressed more briefly?" However, thank you for your great interest.
Yes, I did read that. But I did NOT read in Collins that the noun "creation" means the same thing as, let alone is synonymous with "creativity". Nor do I see how anyone can say that the deity whom Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship and believe in is "the making of the universe, the earth, and creatures", which is what you are asserting given the meaning of "creation" you say you are using in your line "God is creation".
In any case, I'm still interested in hearing your answer to the question of whether you think that you are incapable of writing poorly.
I'm also very curious to know why you think that the way I pose my questions to you or the style in which I couch my observations about the conceptual problems I find in what you assert and the demonstrably syntactically challenged and linguistically questionable way you set out your assertions are good reasons not to answer/speak to them -- as if "length" makes such things illegitimate.
In any case, I'm still interested in hearing your answer to the question of whether you think that you are incapable of writing poorly.
I'm also very curious to know why you think that the way I pose my questions to you or the style in which I couch my observations about the conceptual problems I find in what you assert and the demonstrably syntactically challenged and linguistically questionable way you set out your assertions are good reasons not to answer/speak to them -- as if "length" makes such things illegitimate.
