QUESTIONNAIRE (FILL ME IN)
ABSTRACT
John the Baptist, though having deemed himself unworthy of baptizing Jesus, was permitted by Jesus to baptize him nonetheless—as that, according to Jesus—was a fitting way for them both to fulfill all righteousness and perform completely whatever was right. But that wasn’t before John asked to know if Jesus deemed him worthy of such honor. When Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him, John had tried to prevent Him, querying, “I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” It is Mark Twain who came up with the famous quote that “he who asks questions is a fool for five minutes…but he who does not ask questions remains a fool forever.” For God to have commissioned John to baptize His only begotten Son in Whom He was well pleased, God must have put John through all the necessary rigors that would arm him for that undertaking.
In order words, having known himself to be the voice of one crying in the wilderness…most certainly by revelation, he also must have come by the revelation of the fact that it would be his duty to baptize the Messiah. Why then was he surprised upon the showing up of the Messiah to be baptized by him? Probably because it is in the mouth of two or three witnesses that a matter is established. John’s supposed revelation that he would baptize the Messiah—came from the mouth of one witness. And Jesus’ confirmation upon going to him at the Jordan was the witness from a second mouth…thus establishing the matter. John, having thought it wise to question Jesus on the matter, remained at a loss regarding his fitness to baptize Jesus for what Mark Twain regards as “5-minutes of foolishness.” But the likes of Judas Iscariot who didn’t think twice before betraying Jesus with a kiss, having failed to question himself on what would likely be the consequence of such action, remained a fool forever.
Ever wondered why the groom is only required to kiss the bride after an exchange of vows in wedding ceremonies? A mischievous supposition would be that—it is a bid to prevent the Judas Iscariot kind of kiss that makes for betrayal…for, having pledged to take the woman to be his wife, to live together in holy matrimony, to love and to cherish her, to honor her and comfort her, to keep her in sickness and in health, and to forsake all others for as long as they both live, would a man still go ahead to seal that vow with a kiss of betrayal? Wouldn’t that be suicidal? Again, having courted for months, years, and even decades, why do priests still deem it needful to question couples on whether they take each other as lawfully wedded partners? Wasn’t that obvious from the pre-wedding acts and deeds and all the paparazzi that precede traditional and church weddings? There is always that final question to seal the marital deal and ensure that the priest isn’t blindly uniting two souls in unholy matrimony.
Hence, whatever made for foolishness on the priest's part before the point of asking that question, is clarified upon the couples’ affirmation with a “yes”…and in some cases, a “no.” Of course, couples betroth each other for months, years, even decades…only to get to the point of being asked that question and replying with a big “no.” Doesn’t make sense. But it happens. So priests endeavor to pose that question in wedding ceremonies to make sure that—if there’s any looming foolishness around the corner, it only endures for 5 minutes. But it is not only when it comes to wedding ceremonies that questions whose answers dispel foolishness are asked. More so, the putting forth of such questions isn’t limited to priests alone. Again, questions whose answers dispel foolishness can stem from any area and aspect of life in general. The one who asks questions and remains a fool for just 5 minutes is regarded by Mark Twain as a “he.” But in this literary composition, the one who doesn’t wish to remain a fool forever, thus asking questions to remain a fool for possibly less than 5 minutes, is deemed a “Questionnaire…” and he’s got truckloads of questions that beg for answers!
-----
INTRODUCTION
Matthew 7:7-8 says: “ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” Of asking and receiving, Solomon, in 2nd Chronicles 1:10 asked for wisdom and knowledge and was given. Of knocking and opening, Luke 11:5-8 accounts of one whose friend came knocking on his door to ask for bread at midnight. Though he had waved off that friend from within, the persistent knocking of that friend forced him to arise and oblige his request. But of seeking and finding, the questionnaire does not wish to reference biblical characters in his quest to ascertain that he who seeks, finds. Rather, he intends to beckon on those in the know—to route clear-cut answers to his questions to him in the most uncomplicated means ever…to fill in his blanks like their destinies depend on it, to afford him statistical information that would make for the filling of his questionnaire without feeling like some sort of teacher…or instructor, or even grandmaster!
-----
QUESTIONNAIRE
The rapture is an end-time experience. Yet, two men had that experience at the very beginning of time. One was Enoch, the other was Prophet Elijah. Those two should be case studies for those who seek to not be left behind upon the second coming of Jesus. Why did Jezebel despise Prophet Elijah who proved to be a legit man of God and tried to kill him; but cherished Ahab because she could make a figurehead and a puppet out of him? In Psalm 35:13-14, the psalmist accounts of friends of his who, when they were sick, he humbled himself with fasting, prayed for them, paced about as though they were his friends/brothers; even bowing down heavily as one who mourns for his mother. Why did those friends turn around and plot his hurt? Why did they reward him evil for good to the sorrow of his soul? In David’s adversity, why did they rejoice and gather attackers together against him? Why did they tear at him unceasingly with ungodly mockers at feasts while gnashing at him with their teeth? Why do folks pose as friends and work as spies? What did Jesus do to Judas?
Jacob served Laban for seven years for Rachel whom he loved. Why did Laban shortchange him by imposing Leah who he didn’t love on him after his seven years of due service? Because a younger daughter must not marry before an older one? Wasn’t it out of trust for her family that Rebecca sent Jacob to go fetch a wife from among those of her household as it was with her and Isaac? If Isaac and Rebecca had even slightly thought that Laban was capable of such deceit, would they have sent their beloved Jacob to go and be tricked by him? They must have considered Laban to be as honorable as they were. How come Laban proved otherwise? Moses killed an Egyptian to bail out an Israelite. Yet an Israelite sold him out to the Egyptians for that “noble” act. Why? What gratification did Joseph’s brothers derive from selling him into slavery? Love your neighbor as yourself, the bible says. Why did David kill Uriah, a neighbor who trustingly took refuge under the shadow of his wings, so that he may take over Uriah’s wife? How come the wisest man to have walked the earth, from the loins of another man, was a product of the union between David and the wife of the man he murdered?
God commissioned Prophet Samuel to go to Jesse’s house and anoint one of his sons as king after Saul. Samuel got there and found all the available sons of Jesse to not be the one God had sent him to anoint. And it seemed like if he had turned to leave without asking if those were all of Jesse’s sons, Jesse would not have called to mind that he had a son named David. Did he forget? So, God comes knocking at an impoverished man’s door to anoint one of his seeds as king and turn his ugly situation around for good, and the man forgets that he has a son somewhere who’s most likely the one God sent a prophet to anoint? Since Samuel had examined all his sons and found none to be the one, shouldn’t it have instantly become obvious that David was the one God had sent Samuel to anoint?
If Jesse forgot his son, did his brothers also forget him? Or, was he that inconsequential in the scheme of things? Including divine visitation? So a man comes off as a fool to another supposedly wise man, and what the wise man does is to occasionally suffer the fool so that he may learn something of value from suffering the fool instead of schooling the fool? They say “if you don't spot the mark in your first half hour at the table, you're the mark.” What then can be said of an adult who, having crisscrossed tables from infantry to youth to adulthood has never once spotted the mark? Yet those tables constituted none other than his friendliest of friends and most reliable of confidants who always endeavored to flatter him, fourteen of whose flatteries were lies…out of every fifteen flatterer. In a cold house, find a warm body, the mafias say. And the bible even enlightens that “two [are] better than one; because they have a good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him [that is] alone when he falleth; for [he hath] not another to help him up.”
How come in certain settings, it is a very welcomed development for one to not find a warm body in a cold house? How come in certain other settings, two being better than one isn’t equally a welcomed development so that one may not have a good reward for labor? How come folks are barred from having fellows to lift them when they fall? Is it so that one may be alone and be subjected to the woes that befall one who falls when alone? Didn’t God say in Genesis 2:18 that “it is not good that man should be alone…hence making him a helper comparable to him?” What then is the issue with lots who stand in the way of God making helpers comparable to those whose aloneness He finds to be long overdue? And what’s the deal with lots who make a deliberate effort to play God by resolutely resolving to determine who marries who—when the God of heaven, creator and possessor of heaven and earth, make it a man’s exclusive responsibility to find himself a spouse and a woman’s exclusive responsibility to either consent or not? Can anyone explain why a city on a hill should be hidden?
Many a difference can be resolved between the sheets. But for certain persons, “between the sheets” endeavors are a no-no, and that’s far from being their doing. It is, should I say, the doing of lots with “powers” that afford them a monopoly over the “between the sheets” endeavors of those they deem ineligible to such endeavors? Or, does such deprivation of other people’s jollification serve a sort of profitable purpose for them? Why is it that the ones a person deems friends and equals—eventually consider themselves as superiors to the ones who deemed them friends and equals? Why do runaway nuns always speak ill of their convents? It is the very first law of power to never outshine the master, except of course the master is a “falling star.” Why then should masters, being obvious falling stars, try so hard to prevent rising stars from outshining them? Is that not witchcraft? Why do certain folks get other people to do their work for them while they sit back and take the credit for those works? Who’ll answer these questions? An aggrieved questionnaire I’m possibly deemed. Who’ll fill me in?
-----
FILL ME IN
Where there is no counsel, the people fall; but in the multitude of counselors, there is safety. That’s what Proverbs 11:14 says. That doesn’t rule out the fact that there are deceitful counselors whose counsel only makes for unhealthy profitability and bamboozlement of the trusting and unsuspecting. So another scripture comes in handy at this point: Proverbs 24:6: for by wise counsel you will wage your own war…” emphasis on “wise counsel.” Particular emphasis on “wise.” In effect, it is not just the absence of counsel that makes for a fall…it is the absence of wise counsel. After all, in 1st Kings Chapter 22 when Jezebel’s puppet, Ahab—King of Israel, beckoned on King Jehoshaphat of Judah to join forces with him and fight the king of Syria, Jehoshaphat had suggested that they inquire of the Lord through a Prophet to find out what the word of the Lord would be concerning that quest. The counsel of all the Prophets, according to 1st Kings 22:12, was that Ahab should go up to Ramoth Gilead and prosper, that God would deliver it into the king's hand. Ahab died on that battlefield.
Such is the outcome of heeding unwise counsel from deceivers and counselors that have not been vetted as genuine. It is also crucial to note that inquiry had also been made of a wise counselor in the person of Prophet Micaiah, who, in 1st Kings 22:17, told Ahab thus: “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the Lord said, ‘these have no master. Let each return to his house in peace.’” Then again, like the mafias say, “the wrong choice usually seems the more reasonable.” Heeding the counsel of Prophets whose mouths had been infiltrated with lying spirits to prophesy doom on him—was more reasonable to Ahab than heeding the wise counsel of a true prophet. The result was his demise and deprivation of Jezebel of her dearly beloved puppet. Except one wants to meet a fate like Ahab’s, it is of the essence to beware whose counsel is heeded to keep from falling. The questionnaire, a sort of a fallen hero because of having heeded counsels of prophets of doom, now has his ears to the ground in his bid to get filled in by those in the know…not just those with overload info, but whose counsels are legitimate…whose word is truth.
So, just because where there is no wise counsel, the people fall…and the questionnaire happens to find himself in a terrain void of wise counselors, he’s just supposed to play to the gallery of grouchy lovers and artful adorers because, in that terrain, the only currency with which counsel is purchased is “love?” Wasn’t that the case with Ahab in his savoring of Jezebel’s counsel? Israel, having turned to idolatry—with Ahab as the Chief Executive Officer of idol worshipers, became void of true prophets, and the closest he could get to “counsel” was Jezebel’s verbalizations…such that masterminded the accusation and murder of a righteous man so her baby-king could have the man’s vineyard which the man had refused to give to Ahab because it was the inheritance of his fathers. Meanwhile, this same questionnaire, over a decade of love-seeking, hadn’t come close to being afforded a chance to play to even the gallery of grouchy lovers and artful adorers for mere sports. Somehow stumbling into this terrain, the same love that seemed more priceless than the famed golden streets of heaven—is now cheaply imposed on him so he can have a license to relish what seems like counsel on “face value?”
And why does there seem to be a deficiency of wise counselors in the terrain? Why does the modus operandi of the terrain seem to be a deliberate keeping of the ignorant in the dark? So they’ll be none else but a “lover” to shed “light” on the dark? And that love is supposed to be commercialized? To be acquired by stranded souls? To subject stranded souls to puppetry under the guise of “counseling?” Counseling that will only afford stranded souls half-truths and one-sided truths? Counseling that will subject stranded souls to running the races of their lovers? And perhaps the races of their lovers’ family and friends? Counseling that is supposed to make a beast of burden out of a stranded soul? Not to mention that the stranded soul is meticulously kept from having the slightest knowledge of what’s being done to him until, say, after like ten years? For him to then realize that ugly truth like one rising from the dead…to find that he had been living a lie all along? On the premiss of love? Could that be the reason why love gets handed out to stranded souls for cheap? Could that be?
Because of the profitability that comes with it? Oh, so that’s why it was hard for the questionnaire to come by love when he wasn’t stranded? Love was on the sidelines…watching and waiting for him to get stranded first? Isn’t there a chance that even his now being stranded is traceable to love? And he is forbidden to say no to the love that had said no to him all his life? Forbidden to not let himself be roped into a love of commercialization? Forbidden to be unwilling to allow himself to be subjected to puppetry via counseling afforded by love? Forbidden to pay love back with her coin by equally turning his back on her when she “needs him most?” The similitude of this—took place in Israel—in the days when there was no king to oversee the affairs of the nation. A certain Levite staying in the remote mountains of Ephraim had taken for himself a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. But his concubine played the harlot against him and went away from him to her father's house at Bethlehem in Judah, and was there four whole months. She had fallen out of love with him.
But the Levite, seemingly still neck-deep in love with her, went after her to speak kindly to her and bring her back to him…not minding the many “fishes in the water” who were at his beck and call. He must have been a lover-boy Levite. Or, could there have been other motives behind his firm resolve to restore her to him besides “love?” Well, their story didn’t endure to the point of ascertaining whether or not there were other motives behind his firm resolve to restore her to him, as, having journeyed to Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin, and taken in by a good Samaritan to spend the night, certain men of the city, perverted men—surrounded the house and beat on the door, ordering the good Samaritan to bring out the Levite so that they may know him carnally! The Good Samaritan wouldn’t oblige to their request. Howbeit, to pacify them, he offered them his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine to have carnal knowledge of. For some reason, they didn’t find the Samaritan’s virgin daughter appealing enough for defilement. They took particular interest in the Levite’s concubine who they abused all night until morning…only letting her go when the day began to break.
Judges 19:26-28 makes known that the Levite’s concubine came as the day was dawning and fell at the door of the Good Samaritan’s house till it was light. When the Levite arose in the morning, opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way, he found his concubine fallen at the door of the house. And he said to her, ‘get up and let us be going.’ But there was no answer. She had died. So the Levite lifted her onto his donkey and went his way. All for what? For what? Love? If the Levite hadn’t been hell-bent on resurrecting a deadened love affair with a woman who had fallen out of love with him, that girl wouldn’t have met her untimely demise. And it’s not even the Levite who suffered that ill fate on account of his “loving.” It was the girl, who was the object of that “loving,” that suffered that ill fate. Why not the Levite? And here’s this questionnaire, having fallen out of love with “God-knows-who”—who wouldn’t reciprocate his affections in past times, required to now embrace that love like the Levite’s concubine and possibly suffer the kind of ill fate she suffered?
-----
LOVE FOR BOOKS (SCHOOLING)
Since the questionnaire happens to find himself in a terrain where the only currency with which counsel can be purchased is love, and he doesn’t wish to lose himself to another fellow in the name of love, he must necessarily find some other device to constitute the object of his love? So that what couldn’t be achieved on grounds of his love for another fellow—can be achieved on grounds of his love for some other device? Like books? Like schooling? Like learning? Endlessly? So the domination that couldn’t be attained through a supposed romance can then be attained through “studies?” The likes of Paul, having thought it wise and profitable onto righteousness to remain unmarried, had washed his hands off everything romance and centered his love on books and studies…a venture that rendered him a potent vessel in the hands of God to the spreading of the gospel and the salvation of souls. But before ministry, Paul had so read and studied such that, examining Paul as he made his defense before him, Governor Felix had remarked in Acts 26:24 that much learning had driven him mad!
Is that what’s supposed to become of the questionnaire upon the channeling of his love to books and studies since he wouldn’t welcome questionable love from another fellow? To be knocked out of sanity and made helplessly dependable on educators and instructors who’d make sure to not afford him the full body of knowledge that would make for his total mental mending so he can be infinitely dependent on them? So, as an alternative to losing himself for love’s sake so that he might be licensed to “counsel,” he is expected to read, read, and just keep reading? A dictionary definition of love is that love is to “derive or receive pleasure from; get enjoyment from; take pleasure in” a thing. Even if one gets enjoyment from reading—as bookworms can attest to—what about when it gets to the point when one seeks to derive pleasure from the object of his love? Is he then supposed to kiss and caress his books? To flirt with his books? Gain sexual gratification from his books? To become so neck-deep in love with his books as to put a ring on the finger of his books? And to marry his books?
-----
LOVE FOR FOOD (EASINESS)
They say “the way to a man's heart is through his stomach.” And of course, a dummy who eludes the love trap set for him through books because he can’t read—is very likely to get baited into it through a device that has proved potent to the nabbing of folks who derive great delight in diverse delicacies. The issue of mankind lies in the first couple’s derivation of unhealthy delight in the forbidden fruit. During the years of famine in Egypt, Egyptians got so famished for lack of food that, in Genesis 47:19, they went to Joseph and thus lamented: “why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants of Pharaoh; give us seed, that we may live and not die, that the land may not be desolate.” Genesis 47:20 says that “Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for every man of the Egyptians sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. So the land became Pharaoh’s.” It’s not as if the Egyptians couldn’t do like Joseph—by saving food during the years of plenty so they’d have food during the years of famine.
They towed the path of the prodigal son by seemingly wasting all the food they gathered during the years of plenty based on a gluttonous appetite for food and praise and pleasure. With everything eaten and nothing left to sustain them during the years of famine, they grew hungry and only looked to Joseph to bail them out. As he was purposed to do, he did bail them out…but at the expense of their lands and fields. The questionnaire is aware of this…and can’t help wondering if the nudging for him to make an object of love out of food is a deliberate attempt to bait him into a love trap on account of his gluttonous appetite for food? It’s said: “something must kill a man, and a man must die.” Could that thing be food for the questionnaire? He wouldn’t love a fellow person. He wouldn’t love books and studies. Will he also not love food? Could it be that the way to the questionnaire’s heart is his stomach? The thing is: as is the case with books, there may be no provision for the questionnaire to kiss and caress food, flirt with food, gain sexual gratification from food, and get so deeply in love with food as to court food and put a ring on the finger of food…or get married to food.
But he will unfailingly have to eat food daily; whether once, twice, or thrice. But, does that mean he’s made food the object of his love? That he’s lost himself to food? That he takes counsel from food? That his gluttonous appetite for food has rendered food his lover? If so, then food would necessarily have to afford him kisses and caresses, flirtations, sexual gratifications, an affair as is common between lovers, accepting his marriage proposal, and ultimately walking down the aisle with him.
Isn’t it a well-known fact that, like books, food can’t deal the questionnaire any of these delights? And that his gluttonous appetite for food doesn’t account for food as the object of his love? Why would he be required to make a lover out of food since he wouldn’t do so out of persons and books? Or, is food, being a basic life necessity, placed on a pedestal where it must necessarily be made an object of love out of—in an event where other proposed objects of love have failed to rock the questionnaire’s boat like Juliet did Romeo? What about other supposed objects of love, like cars, naps, God, or even nothing? Oh, is the fact discounted that nothing can constitute one’s object of love?
-----
LOVE FOR CARS (WANDERING)
It is more realistic for one to make cars the object of his love—as opposed to books, studies, food, and persons. A dummy who can’t read—can learn to drive; and drive. One who isn’t given to gluttony can likewise learn to drive; and drive. An illiterate can learn to drive; and drive. There’s no one on the face of the earth who driving is out of range to. And many have been known to make objects of love out of their automobiles. The famed, competent—now convicted internet fraudster, Hushpuppi, was known for his addictive fascination over assorted cars…few of which were purchased long before their due dates of the official release, spending mammoth amounts of money on those purchases.
In the 007 Hollywood series, James Bond has always been associated with cool cars, even when he was just a fictional character in a collection of novels before making the leap to film. Now with 25 movies in the series over the past 60 years, six different Bond actors (and their stunt doubles) have driven dozens of vehicles on-screen, from an underpowered Citroën 2CV to a Caterpillar excavator to a moon buggy. The latest film, “No Time to Die,” saw Bond choosing a Land Rover in retirement. But the automobiles most associated with the character are beautiful and powerful sports cars. Though Bond always endeavors to bare his fascination with hotties, likewise indulging them in sweet and passionate eroticism, his healthy obsession with his cars always comes next to nothing in comparison.
But the questionnaire doesn’t even know how to drive…yet. How is a car supposed to constitute the object of his love? And even if he happens to somehow cultivate a liking for cars, from whence will he get the money to buy one? A fellow who is at a total loss, expected to make an object of love out of something that is beyond his pay grade? Does the questionnaire even have a pay grade? If his bank accounts were to be spied into, wouldn’t all that’d be found therein—be truckloads upon truckloads of unanswered questions? Following Mark Twain’s quotation that “he who asks questions is a fool for five minutes,” the questionnaire thought it especially wise to pose serious questions whose answers would dispel detrimental ignorance and prevent him from being a fool forever, and the reply he gets is that he should love a car? How does that dispel his ignorance and bring him to light?
-----
LOVE FOR SLEEP (DREAMING)
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, right? And he slept; right? And the Lord God took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, right? And He brought her to the man, right? And Adam, seeing the woman, said: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of Man, right? So since it’s been mission impossible for the questionnaire to come by love thus far, he should perhaps take some naps, right? And perhaps have some dreams, right? And possibly by the time he awakes from one of those naps, an object of love from God-knows-where would be there staring at him and waiting for him to shower encomiums on her as Adam did to Eve, right? And perhaps that would pose answers to his questions, right? He should sleep, right?
Not just that he should love sleep…he should make sleep the object of his love, right? So that—having made sleep the object of his love, he will be afforded dreams in which he will find himself to have been paired with a supposed love match…an object of love at last whose love affair with him would only have its bearing in dreamland, right? How is Abimelech king of the Philistines supposed to look out of his window and see the questionnaire fondling his dreamland lover? So, even if the questionnaire happens to share the details of his dreamland escapades with persons and lies about his dreamland lover being his sister, there’s no way anyone would find out because, how is anyone supposed to know what goes on in his dreams? And how is that dreamland lover supposed to afford him tangible kisses and caresses such as ensues between real-time lovers? Or tangible flirtations?
How is he supposed to put a ring on the finger of his dreamland lover? And get married to her? And gain sexual gratification from her…such as should make for conception and delivery? How is he supposed to throw a mega-wedding party with his dreamland lover? Or, is he only supposed to give himself over to such fantasies… to escape the harsh realities of life, the principal of them being the answers to his plenteous questions? And since his dreamland encounters are nothing but fantasies, it only gets to count for nothing but films played for the questionnaire to watch when asleep…which come to constitute his beliefs, his longings, yearnings, and dreams whose manifestations he eagerly looks forward to—day in, day out, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, and even decades in, decades out without any such manifestations because they weren’t dreams after all? Just mere “films?” How so? And, in his bid to be the patient dog that gets to eat the fattest bone, he, holding on to his dreams and believing for their manifestation, ends up making an object of love out of sleep? Out of naps? Out of dreams? Out of fantasies? And that’s supposed to be okay? Really?
-----
LOVE FOR GOD (MINISTRY)
“Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” We know. “…God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.” We know. And the many other scriptures that point to love for God and the vantage that such love entitles the lover of God to, we also know. But there are four types of love, and this love for God is the first on the list: Agape. The questionnaire has no confusion or any questions whatsoever when it comes to this Agape love of God. If there is only one thing that constitutes his rationale, it is the love of God for him and his love for God, which is why his questions have nothing whatsoever to do with that nature of love. The other three kinds of love are Eros love, Philia love, and Storge love.
Philia Love: the love of friends and equals. The questionnaire has had it with friends and equals. Isn’t it those friends whom he considered equals—that turned out to consider themselves his superiors? As earlier noted, “if you don't spot the mark in your first half hour at the table, you're the mark.” And, having crisscrossed tables from infantry to youth to adulthood without ever spotting the mark, hadn’t the questionnaire made mention of those tables to have constituted his friendliest of friends and most reliable of confidants who always endeavored to flatter him? Hadn’t the psalmist’s friends who he humbled himself and prayed/fasted for when they were sick—turn around to plot his hurt? In David’s adversity, didn’t they rejoice and gather attackers together against him? Didn’t they tear at him unceasingly with ungodly mockers at feasts while gnashing at him with their teeth? Do not folks pose as friends and work as spies? Wasn’t it Judas who betrayed Jesus with a friendly kiss? The questionnaire has had it with friends! He couldn’t care a thing about Philia love! Hell no!
Storge Love: the love of parents for children. Well, to start with, Jesus, in Matthew 19:5 makes clear that “…for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” The questionnaire has gone past childhood and basking in parental love. Like his love for God and God’s love for him, he has no confusion or any questions whatsoever as regards the genuineness of his parents’ love for him and his love for his parents. Perhaps a few questions here and there for them that would bring him up to speed on certain issues that must constitute his knowledge now that he’s all grown up. This brings to mind the deceased DMX, a famous and successful American rapper, who, having made it, still took to one of his songs to say: “I’m a big boy now but I’m still not grown. And I’m still going through pain in the hood.” Goodness heavens! The questionnaire couldn’t possibly be craving Storge at his point in life. He’s no child.
Eros Love: erotic, passionate love. Out of the sixty-six books of the bible, Songs of Solomon was the questionnaire’s least favorite until recently when it has come to be the only book of the bible he’s endeared to…savoring different versions of the bible to make for broadened understanding and clear-cut perception of what this Eros love is all about. But it might take in-depth expositional teachings by certified stewards of God’s word—to make for the broadened understanding and clear-cut perception he aims to draw from that book of the bible. Hadn’t a certain man of God who the questionnaire listened to—enlightened that the book of Songs of Solomon is an account of a love affair between Christ and the church? Or Christ and the believer? To not have things mixed up, he took to the savoring of materials whose contents revolve around nothing but Eros: erotic, passionate love.
One such material is Jezuzboi’s 2015 award-winning blockbuster novel: “Ogechi and I.” It’s quite a good read…such that amassed only 2% negative review, seeming more like a documentation of his dreamy escapades…only that this was tangible stuff and had its source to be a known fellow, unlike the dreams. Having journeyed through 41 out of the 42 episodes of the novel to find what appealed to him as the very answers to the questions he had been harboring for a long while, he got to the 42nd episode to find that all the sweet lovey-dovey romantic spree that made for his much-craved erotic passionate love—was nothing but a dream. The protagonist’s dream…who happens to be the author.
But just before the questionnaire had his fill of disappointment, though applauding the creative work of art, he stumbled upon an announcement by the author that the first part was deliberately made to be a dream—intended to afford the protagonist distinct directives in his real-time love-search…and that the second part would hit the airwaves sooner or later, being nothing of dreams…but of reality.
-----
LOVE FOR NOTHING (PASSION)
From then on, the questionnaire has had nothing as the object of his love except his passion to come to the saving, otherwise, he possibly would have—died? God forbid! Then again, passion has several definitions…six of those definitions for passion with the small letter “p” and one definition with the capital letter “P”…all of which made for the questionnaire’s being, his drive, and his existence. From passion as a strong feeling or emotion to the trait of being intensely emotional, to an intense desire for one thing or the other, to an irrational but irresistible motive for a belief or action, to an object of warm affection or devotion, to a feeling of strong sexual desire, and even to the suffering of Jesus at the Crucifixion…all these constitute the ingredients of passion that made for the questionnaire’s personality as he journeyed jollily through life…keeping a level head and sticking to his originality.
But of all those ingredients of passion which made up his personality, only one proved to be more like the Proverbs 18:24 friend who “sticks closer than a brother.” That’s in the definition of passion that holds that passion is “an object of warm affection or devotion.” As if the God of heaven knew what fate would befall him on earth, he was lavishly laden with a variety of gifts and talents, all of which constitute the objects of his warm affection and devotion. A writer, actor, filmmaker, art creator, introvert, imaginative, creative, contemplative, artistic, author, and even President in the making.
But when it comes to an indulgence of the aspect of passion that has to with it as a feeling of strong sexual desire, it’s been far, far, farfetched for the questionnaire…even something of an extreme mystery…the exact concern upon which his passionate questionings are based, the very core of it. There’s the chance that if it was this aspect of passion that proved to be a friend who sticks closer than a brother, there’d be no questionnaire. Perhaps, sidelining passionate feelings of strong sexual desire was okay when he was too young for such indulgence. What about now that he’s become old enough?
-----
Through the course of the questionnaire’s life, he’s encountered a series of challenges…all of which he conquered…except his passionate feelings of strong sexual desire which tend to have him firmly by the balls. But this isn’t a challenge he wishes to let have any more grip on him. He’s set to conquer it now more than ever, as he strongly believes that the conquering of that challenge will make for the all-inclusive filling of the blanks in his questionnaire, leaving him in the dark over nothing anymore. But talk is cheap, and one thing about this questionnaire is that he is “worded.” It is always the action side of things that requires proactivity on his part which usually leaves him hanging.
That’s not exactly true. If not for the questionnaire’s proactivity towards life as a whole, he wouldn’t be the “everything to write home about” that he is today. It is only when it has to do with the seeming withholding from him the gratification of his passionate feelings of strong sexual desire that he’s found hanging and wanting, as all effort to see to the resolve of that challenge always proves futile. Will things be any different for him as he gears up to tackle that challenge tooth and nail this time?
Will no ravishing damsel still have his eyes to gush of—as nursing a fascination towards her? Will gossipy confidants still have occasions to without restraint bring the planet up to speed on his allure for the goddess-like daughters of men and his morbid desire to treat a fair portion of them to sweet good loving? Or will some preacher’s girl emerge from somewhere and tame his passionate feelings of strong sexual desire and make a Romeo out of him somewhat magically? Time will tell. Time will.
-----
©Jezuzboi, 2023.
Comments