Can a lie, be un - lied?
#12 ~ I'll take "redemption and ledger entries" for 500 Alex . . .
Just few a weeks back I was in my old stomping grounds of South Edmonton, specifically, Southgate Mall. I was shopping for a gift for Cynthia for our wedding anniversary at the department store that used to be called, “The Hudson’s Bay Company”. Southgate Mall looms large in my past, beginning with, coincidentally, it’s beginning, a very memorable event. It was the summer of 1970 and I had just turned 4 years old. Looking back on this memory now, it seems impossible to be true, but I digress. The loom that is large, is what I mentioned in my Pinnochio post, regarding lying. In this case, it is the consequence of me telling a lie. I had a friend that was two years older than myself and he lived in the apartments directly behind our house. His name was Detlev, his parents had escaped East Germany by leaving their first born with relatives. Detlev and I had many misadventures together, this one, being one of the first. So being all of four years old, upon the very much hyped and Big Deal, that was the opening of Western Canada’s largest Mall, Detlev and I thought we should go and have a look. Well, I think it was Detlev’s idea, as that was across 51st Avenue, a boundary that I was not allowed to cross, as 51st was the busiest street in our neighbourhood and even in 1970, four year olds were not allowed to traverse unaccompanied. But, since my friend was so old and experienced about such things; going further afield and disobeying parents that is, I thought, sure, let’s go and see what the big deal is at the new mall.
There were fountains, several different waterworks displays with flashing coloured lights the likes of which I had never seen, and there were people everywhere. I had never been in such a crowd in all my years! As we had no money to buy anything, we took a look around and came home. At supper that night, my Mom asked me what I thought of the new mall? I felt like a mouse in a trap, left with nothing to do but squirm. She then asked if I had gone to the mall, crossing 51st, disobeying her. Of course, I figured that there was no way that my Mother could have known where I had been, so I lied and said “no”. She then asked specifically if I had gone to the the new mall by myself, without a sibling or grown up? Again I lied, well sort of, I did go with Detlev, again, I answered “no”. I realize in retelling this story now, that I was in a courtroom sitting in the box. The court of Mom’s Bench, where she was the clerk, the judge, and the prosecutor and it was held at the family table. It turned out to be my sister that was the one to give eyewitness testimony! And so the prosecutor called her witness, and my sister, who was almost eight years old and allowed to go to such places and cross busy streets, bore witness to the fact of seeing me with Detlev at the mall where she had been with her friend Jody. Two eyewitnesses! I could not overcome that. And so the guilty verdict was given and the punishment proclaimed. Pinnochio’s nose grew when he lied, when I lied and got caught, my mouth was unceremoniously washed out with soap. Now dear reader, for those of you who have not had the loving experience of having the inside of your mouth cleansed in such a way . . . , there aren’t words. There is only weeping and wailing and tears and coughing and spitting and rinsing and rinsing and then more crying, I think you get the idea.
I learned that day, that the crime of disobeying my parents directive, in this case travelling unchaperoned beyond the specified boundary, was not what this punishment was provided for. It was for the much more serious crime of dishonesty and acting in the performance of that dishonesty, the “telling” of the lie.
~ On “words” in general:
We tend to think, that speaking is expressing One’s thoughts. At least that is what One is usually attempting to do. Communication is the act of bringing together minds and hearts so that there is shared understanding. In our social groups, we spend a tremendous amount of time and energy to achieve this goal of common understanding, a meeting of the minds. Our abilities to use complicated language to relate complicated thoughts and experiences is our, mans, most magnificent achievement. It is to that end that I dwell on, and wish to expand on, our understanding of what One is standing under, the language, words, that we use to express those complicated concepts. It is how each word and how it is being used, creating a specific meaning that makes a difference. When One fully comprehends what One is saying, and when One is able to achieve the complex clarity of communicating a specific and accurate representation of what is in their head or heart, we have an opportunity for each such an One to connect with another.
Now the other thing that happens with words and language, is that instead of expressing outwardly our thoughts and feelings, they, the words, play a large part in our ability to form thoughts at all. The simplest example I can think of for this, is the concept that the peoples of the North, the Inuit in Canada, have many more words to describe snow than we do in the English language. If there is not a word to describe, as specifically as possible, to accurately convey One’s thought and meaning, then we have a problem. For the Inuit at least historically, snow played a very large role in their day to day and being able to communicate how that snow would affect their: travel, hunting, building and buildings, the very fabric of their lives; meant life and death. So words are not a big deal, they are THE deal if One wishes to share and commune and meaningfully connect. I have heard of silent retreats, or Monks spending time in silence, and I do believe that connection and community can be achieved without the use of verbal communication. From working with animals all of my life, I am also well aware of the silent communication that is somatic, body language. Body language comprises a surprisingly large component of underlying, baseline, communication. Words are where the truly complex concepts are shared, exchanged, and considered within one’s mind. I am a bit of an efficiency nut and one of the demons that I deal with every day is a time demon, so I choose to speak, with words, conveying my thoughts as accurately and succinctly as possible.
~ On person and performance:
Many years ago I listened to a podcast/video, before they were called podcasts, where the word “person” was considered. An exotic bird dealer from Ontario was explaining that his analysis of the word person, boiled down to: per - by and through, and son - a son, a child, in his examination, a child of God. Although I have come to disagree with his breakdown of this word, it does exemplify that the pieces can be examined and then reassembled to make a whole, gaining clarity in the process. My take on “person” is as follows
per - through, thoroughly, throughout, by means of, completely: as in per - chlorate (perchlorate vs. chlorate represents being more, or the most, of a thing, in this case four oxygen atoms attached to one chlorine; chlorate is three oxygen to one chlorine); son - shortening of: sona, sonage, sonum, etc. all relating to sound, or speech.
It is the spirit, the self, the consciousness; where the thought comes from that is expressed through words. Through the sonorous tones of One’s voice, made by the breath vibrating in frequencies, together with the complex manipulations of the mouth and tongue, such that the sound of words are created. Thus “per-son” - being wholly and completely - the creation by voice. This is why the Greek persona is regarded as the mask on the stage for the portrayal of a character. In the KJV Bible, where the Word clearly demarcates that to have respect of persons is to commit sin, the sin is giving consideration to what One is pretending or acting as, vs. what or who One is, a man or woman.
The entwining of One’s self with the “person”, is a very messy business. What I speak of now, as the “person”, is the NAME, all caps, registered CORP(se). If you are not clear on what I mean by person/NAME please go back to #2 The Art of Being and #3 Persona non Grata, and/or #10 Terms and Conditions. I guess when it comes right down to it, the self, the One that I refer to in “such an One”, is what I understand to be the soul. The “person” is always a manifestation, an other, an inconstant entity (actually entities) that One can identify as for a specified purpose. It is not who One is, but who One is acting as. Which is how One can act as a CEO, a Mayor, a hockey Coach, or a lead in a Musical and not “be” any of these. Each of these characters acts in the capacity of each role as a persona, hence person. So, One can act in many capacities having differing obligations, responsibilities, and liabilities that go along with each persona/mask/character. Accentuated in the Word in KJV James 2: 9: “But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”, and also found in Jude 1: 16: “… and their mouth speaketh great swelling [words,] having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”. So why is it such a big deal to make these distinctions of who One is and who One is acting as?
At this point in history, the Court which One will be heard and “re”-presented in is not the court of public opinion, or the court of One’s peers, it will be the Court run and ruled by the BAR Association, where the term, the word, “PERSON”, can and will be held against you!!
Performance is taken apart as follows:
per - (same as above) … thoroughly, completely, by means of; form - come into existence, to give form or shape to, fashion, construct; ance - instance of an action or process.
Thus, “performance” is a specific thing that One has done or does, action, in relationship to a specific thing, ie: One’s performance in a play, executing the duties of an Office or Title, acting regarding an agreement or contract, etc. Performance, as it pertains to this discussion has to do with “attaching” Oneself to seen and unseen contracts. When the Judge calls the NAME, that sounds an awful lot like yours, and you stand and answer, then you have performed; in the unseen, assumed, contract wherein you have agreed to act as or for NAME, a privately owned registered Corporation that you do not own (see #2 The Art of Being). This is not only in the case of a courtroom and Judge, but also in every commercial transaction from signed documents to using your debit card. One’s performance, in acting as or for the NAME, creates joinder to these contracts, even if One has no idea of what the contract is or what it entails! There are fallbacks, such as, “I was unaware of what was being offered by the offeree and was not made aware of the details of the proposed agreement to which I allegedly agreed to by my performance, and therefore claim that the agreement/contract was made in fraud and is vitiated ab initio”.
I began writing this post prior to #10 Terms and Conditions and #11 When the Dog Bites. In the consideration of “performance” and that it is so misunderstood and overlooked, I further defined and elaborated some specifics in those two posts. I now bring in an examination of the effect of One’s performance and surrounding elements. So if this is repetitive, I apologize to those who know, and for those who don’t, I’ll continue repeating as the unwashing of the brain sometimes takes some hard scrubbing.
PERFORMANCE
and
THE LIE
I covered previously, the principle in law of levels of effect regarding speaking, writing, and doing:
Voice and spoken word. Verbal agreements or understandings. What One says. The lowest lawful effect of these three.
Paper and what is written. What is specified and signed to within documentation. Witness statements or contracts etc. The next form of lawful bearing, in the middle.
Performance! What One does. The highest form of binding Oneself to: a contract, an agreement, a friendship, a family, a Title or Office, etc., or even to a sin or crime.
When it comes to the issue of lies, any or all of the three modes listed above can come into play. The most common is telling of lies, speaking. Back in August of 1970, with the Southgate incident, my verbal answer under questioning, created the dissonance, the lie. I had broken my parents rule and then I said that I did not, hence the more serious crime of a lie which required some mouth learnin’. During the covid years, Cynthia and I regularly received propaganda in the mail from the Alberta (Provincial) Government. Sweeping declarations of doing the “right” thing with injections or locking oneself in One’s home or protecting everybody by not singing, yelling, dancing, socializing in any way and to wear a sign of your submission and fear, the face diaper. These little mailouts were lies on paper, sometimes not even declaring where it had originated from. Then there are impossible contracts, more paper lies. Most every government and corporate related interaction with NAME, is an impossibility. Wherein, such an One is committing the crime of personation by signing, agreeing to, or, performing and enlivening the CORP(se) with One’s energy and collusion. Again, one does not own the Corporation that is NAME! When one stands for and claims to be, or act as or for that Corporation; it is fraud. An agreement or contract that makes the commission of a crime a necessary component, is unenforceable and fraud. I guess the question comes down to this: “When was I given the terms of my employ?” “When did I volunteer to take a position in the privately owned Corporation that is CANADA?” “When did I accept a TITLE bringing me under the jurisdiction of ALBERTA/CANADA/CROWN?” (for more understanding on this see #6 ALL your MONEY). The answer to each of the aforementioned questions is: you agreed to all of these by your PERFORMANCE!!!! Every time you file a tax return, open a bill that came in the mail, vote, make a DE-posit in the Bank, etc. you perform such that you are in agreement with the terms and conditions of operating a NAME/PERSON bringing One directly under the authority of THE CORPORATION by Attachment. Such an One becomes attached to and joined to NAME by One’s performance.
Back to the ICCPR:
Article 1: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 16: Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
In this section on the ICCPR, “peoples” are men and women; “Everyone” is not a “person”, but has the “right to recognition everywhere as a person . . . ” should One so choose.
in the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA, “every one” is defined differently within that document and its Jurisdiction, as “every one, person and owner, and similar expressions, include Her Majesty and an organization”. Apologies for the repetition here, a reminder that in legal documents the word “includes” means ONLY(!!!), so therefore, only Her (His) Majesty and organizations are - every one, person and owner, and it is to them that this “Code” is to be applied before the Law!
This spells out exactly what I have been laying down here. Peoples are not persons, One is not a person, but has the right to recognition “as” a person. Now VERY importantly: these codes, laws, United Nations Declarations, what have you, do not bring One under their jurisdictions unless One volunteers, most commonly, by performance. However, if One wishes to act as and for One’s self or One’s God and not act as or for NAME/CORP(se), the person/THE CORPORATION, then One can do so. This is more of the choreography for the dance out of Babylon. There are different levels to which One can achieve this removal, but it starts with consciousness and understanding, the re-bar in the concrete, of the truth of who One is and who One is not. The public officials MUST follow the guidelines of all of these different codes, statutes, etc. As such, they have a “duty to accommodate”. When such an One as yourself comes forward making declaration and standing in the position of man not person, outside of their jurisdiction, they won’t be happy, and likely will be a little confused, but they, the Public Servant must accommodate! THEY are bound by the statute code to which they have volunteered and submitted themselves to. If you volunteer to act as NAME, you are now under that same jurisdiction, so stay out, make it known, and hold Their feet to the fire to accommodate!
~ Lies and Un - lying
Of course, the answer is no, lies cannot be un - lied. A lie can be corrected, atoned for, forgiven, redressed, or redeemed. The performance of whatever act: verbally, written, or by action/performance, that created the lie cannot be removed from history or time. But the new Covenant of redemption is available to all those who wish to claim it.
redeem: defined by Merriam Webster Online; 1,a) to buy back : REPURCHASE and 2,d) to free from the consequences of sin
I never thought of it in exactly these terms until writing and investigating this post. It would seem, that when One sins, tells a lie, that a payment must be made, by someone, to redeem the sinner/liar. The question that immediately follows, in my mind, is, who is owed the debt(?!), the balance owed to repurchase, who is One being bought back from. In the Old Covenant/Testament, One could pay his debt by selling himself (in service for the specified time, acting as a slave) to the One owed. So with your debt/sin, who is the other party, if Christ is the Redeemer? The three parties involved in this redemption situation are: 1.) the sinner or debtor, 2.) the redeemer, Christ, the repurchaser or the one paying the debt, and 3.) the creditor, the one holding the debt, the lender, ???? (who is it).
let’s break this redemption thing down just a little bit more
to redeem is to buy back, repurchase, for the cause of freeing from sin
so before One sins, or at the moment One has just been redeemed from a former debt/sin, the slate is clean, the ledger is balanced, no debt owed
then inevitably, One sins and adds an entry into the “must be paid for column”
Christ has told us that it is by and through him that we can re - unite with The Father, as by him/Christ, One’s redemption is made possible, thus balancing the ledger
So in the Old Covenant, it was a sacrifice made as payment for the sin, and adherence to the Law that pleased God and put One in good stead. So with the “New Covenant”, the Lamb of God was slain as redeemer for all people, making all debts “pre-paid”. One of my former teachers, Winston, would pound on that pre - paid notion, and only now I think I might just be starting to get it. In my upbringing in the Lutheran Church, this notion of the Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world was presented. I’m not kidding, those are the actual words used, taking away “the sin of the world”. Now the problem I see with this, and that I see with many of the self proclaimed Christians around me, is the lack of responsibility and accountability that flows from this. When One is told that the sins of the world have been redeemed/pre - paid/washed away, it seems to turn into a bit of a free pass. There is a saying; “There but for the grace of God, go I”!!! So it is only God’s grace, through the gift of the sacrifice of his son to pre - pay anything and everything? At once this is correct, in my esteem, and yet, the “free pass” aspect of this creates a state of “pre” - forgiveness which is not how God asks us to live, ie: without any regard to the ledger and balance sheet of debts by sin.
We’ll revisit this “free - pass” and “pre - forgiven” aspect of the redemption issue in future. For now, let’s get back to the creditor and debtor element. To re - cap, One sins, One now has a debt written in the ledger — so — who is the creditor, the One to whom the debt is owed? Did God The Father, send his son, to redeem the people, that choose to accept his son as their personal saviour, so that by and through him (the son and sacrifice), One could be given the ability to return to Himself/God/The Father? As in, God is the creditor, the One to whom the debt is owed? And the torture and murder of his son paid the debts of all those who accept the offer, so that the balance sheet is zeroed and we can return to The Father, to God, the creditor?????? Again, I don’t think so.
Could it be, that this whole debt/redemption issue is the origin of the unseen contract with “Not God”?
In reading 1 John chapter 4 recently, I came upon this turn of phrase where he is describing what is the Spirit of God and what is the spirit of antichrist; “Not God”:
KJV 1 John, 4 : 3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4) Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. 5) They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. 6) We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. 7) Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
I had to go through this chapter a few times to straighten out all the nots ;-). Here is my brief overview:
all that is “Not God” = antichrist
if One is of God, One is greater than what is of this world
They are of the world, possessing the spirit of antichrist, and they are heard by the world
God = Love
we that choose to love one another are born of God, and thus know God, and he knows and hears us
lastly, ONLY FOR THE WORDY FREAKS, that eighth verse is a fun one: “He that loveth not - knoweth - not God” - OR - “He that loveth - not knoweth - not God” ;-) (that is a sign of brilliant writing, when you can interpret the words differently and you still end up at the same place - same words, two different sentences, same meaning, wow!)
Wipe the slate,
Balance the ledger
For those of you who are familiar with “Zest”, a brand of hand and body soap made popular in the 70’s, in Canada at least, by the advert jingle “Zestfully clean”, it was bubbles of saliva and Zest that were streaming down my four year old chin on that fateful day. The memory for me concretized the significance of how wrong it was to tell a lie, that trust, was not something to be trifled with. What is lacking from my little cleaning vignette, is my repentance. To make this story, reality actually, a full circle and to redeem the trust of my Mother, I would have had to repent to her, and beg that her trust in me be repurchased by my performance in repentance and future adherence to her law. I did not know this, and perhaps it is possible that even my Mother did not know this at that time.
By and through Christ, we can reunite with The Father. But ONLY if the slate is wiped and the ledger is balanced. With sin, a debt to be paid is created, even if Christ’s sacrifice pre - paid any and all future debts of man. How is this you ask? Well, “there’s the Devil to pay”, “Give the Devil his due”. “Not God” is the creditor holding the note that is due, upon One’s sin. If Christ’s payment was in force and all debts were pre - settled, before they occurred, then it would matter not what One did in this life, or choices One made that caused harm to One another or even God. We would all be on “the good ship lollipop” sailing and singing our way to reuniting with the Father. Alas, I do not believe it to be so. We must do our part, to gain the use of, the slate eraser or the balancing entry to zero the account of our sins. It has been given as the greatest gift of all, by the life and final atonement for all sin and debt, by The Father. But, One must choose, to love, to submit to God and Christ. It is the only way! In so doing, One repents for their sin, begs for forgiveness, accepts God’s love through Christ and thus the entry to balance the account(s) is released from escrow. Now, I know this earning redemption thing gets murky fast. I can’t see it any other way. The deal has been struck, perform for God, or all else will be for “Not God”.
Redemption in escrow
escrow: an agreement between two people or organizations in which money or property is kept by a third person or organization until a particular condition is met; Cambridge Dictionary Online
In Mortgages and Banking in Canada, the term escrow is not used. When deals are being done, and debt notes are being moved around. The Bar Association of Canada is required to participate. A Lawyer, holds the debt notes (the money), in “Trust”, and moves it to the other parties through other Lawyers and back to the Banks. So if redemption is held in escrow, or in “Trust”, it exists and it is yours but One doesn’t have it. It is being held in limbo until One performs as per the contract/agreement.
There is love — and there are lies. There is truth — and there is fiction. For reunification with the Father we must choose to accept the offer on the table that is Jesus Christ as One’s saviour and perform in agreement with that offer through repentance and following his commands; chiefly to live in love. For the offer of being bound to this world as a “person”; submitting Oneself to the requirement to put on the yoke of slavery to the note holders, again One chooses to accept the terms of the offer by One’s performance. I have said before that One will choose a master, the One to whom One submits, one way or another. Money, fame, power, love, title, pride, family, faith etc. You will yoke yourself to a master and you will work for it ‘til you breathe your last breath. No matter what One says or autographs, it will be your performance which determines which agreement you will be bound to. Choose wisely.
The note being called by the creditor, “Not God”, holds One in a mort - gage, a death pledge. This means that without the debt paid, by the redeemer, one is held in debtor’s prison here on earth existing along with the rest of the walking dead, the “not alive”. For to be alive, one must choose God, accept the offer of redemption , and walk in His ordinances and thus re - unite with The Father.“He will come again to judge the quick and the Dead” (the living and the dead) from the Apostles Creed.I know that more commonly this reference (“quick and the dead”) is to those who had previously passed and those that are alive at the time of Jesus’ return. I ask you to consider this alternative view. That view being, that there are those who choose love and life/the quick, and those that choose not love, and are the dead.
Have it good,
Arlen
P.S. In preparing this article, I did a search online for images of the opening day of Southgate Mall, August 12, 1970. When this photo came up, my chin hit the floor. Although I can’t be absolutely certain of this, it appears that the picture with the boy by the fountains; the one to the right out by himself, is either me or my doppelganger. I sent the pic to my sister the eyewitness, and she concurs. It appears now that it was not just the two eyewitnesses but the whole City of Edmonton that were witnesses to my crime, as this photo appeared in the Edmonton Journal ;-)
