Francis Berger's Blog, page 77
February 10, 2022
Bleeding Armpits and Other Peck Health Issues
Tracking, monitoring, analyzing, speculating, and reporting on the many apparent side effects of the peck has developed into its own little industry in certain corners of the internet. Some bloggers and writers do nothing but follow peck developments.
Though I have written many blog posts commenting on the utilization of the peck as a weapon of totalitarian evil, I have more or less avoided thorough examinations of the peck's real and potential side effects for the simple reason that there are enough people out there doing that already.
My aversion to writing detailed posts about peck consequences also stems from my ever increasing mistrust of information sources -- and yes, this mistrust extends to most alternative and dissident sources as well.
I am not implying that these sources are necessarily dishonest or unprincipled, but I suspect the information they provide is often just as skewed and distorted as the nonsense the System media pumps into the world around the clock.
Overall, I have kept my assessment of peck consequences limited to personal experience -- more specifically, to what I have observed in the little part of the world that surrounds me and with which I interact daily.
And when I say observe, I mean observe. I haven't actively pursued the matter. I haven't asked any questions. I have simply kept my eyes open and have listened to the stories people have freely shared with me.
Based on that, I can report the following in connection with the peck (this covers a period of about a year and a "sample" of roughly seven hundred people from varying age groups):
one case of sudden "inexplicable" deathabout fifty percent of the pecked experienced mild side effects, which include dizziness, heart palpitations, stiffness, etc. nearly all of the people who suffered mild side effects connect the side effects to the peck about ten percent of the pecked I know have experienced serious side effects, most of which have been heart or blood relatedbarely anyone in the serious side effects group connects the ailments to the peckmost of the pecked who suffered minor or major side effects appear to have recovered about thirty of the seven hundred people, roughly five percent, continue to experience strange problems like bleeding arm pits(!), blood clots, menstrual issues, heart complaints, high blood pressure, shingles, etc. about ninety percent of the seven hundred have contracted the birdemic bug despite being double or triple pecked
I don't wish to draw any definitive conclusions concerning the health consequences of the peck, but from what I have been able to passively gather in my own little corner of the world, the peck is proving to be:
a) completely useless
b) very far from entirely safe
I can't say I'm surprised.
Though I have written many blog posts commenting on the utilization of the peck as a weapon of totalitarian evil, I have more or less avoided thorough examinations of the peck's real and potential side effects for the simple reason that there are enough people out there doing that already.
My aversion to writing detailed posts about peck consequences also stems from my ever increasing mistrust of information sources -- and yes, this mistrust extends to most alternative and dissident sources as well.
I am not implying that these sources are necessarily dishonest or unprincipled, but I suspect the information they provide is often just as skewed and distorted as the nonsense the System media pumps into the world around the clock.
Overall, I have kept my assessment of peck consequences limited to personal experience -- more specifically, to what I have observed in the little part of the world that surrounds me and with which I interact daily.
And when I say observe, I mean observe. I haven't actively pursued the matter. I haven't asked any questions. I have simply kept my eyes open and have listened to the stories people have freely shared with me.
Based on that, I can report the following in connection with the peck (this covers a period of about a year and a "sample" of roughly seven hundred people from varying age groups):
one case of sudden "inexplicable" deathabout fifty percent of the pecked experienced mild side effects, which include dizziness, heart palpitations, stiffness, etc. nearly all of the people who suffered mild side effects connect the side effects to the peck about ten percent of the pecked I know have experienced serious side effects, most of which have been heart or blood relatedbarely anyone in the serious side effects group connects the ailments to the peckmost of the pecked who suffered minor or major side effects appear to have recovered about thirty of the seven hundred people, roughly five percent, continue to experience strange problems like bleeding arm pits(!), blood clots, menstrual issues, heart complaints, high blood pressure, shingles, etc. about ninety percent of the seven hundred have contracted the birdemic bug despite being double or triple pecked
I don't wish to draw any definitive conclusions concerning the health consequences of the peck, but from what I have been able to passively gather in my own little corner of the world, the peck is proving to be:
a) completely useless
b) very far from entirely safe
I can't say I'm surprised.
Lady Macbeth and Mr. Jaggers Have Nothing on Me
One responsibility in my current employment situation involves proofreading and editing scholarly articles written by non-native English speaking Hungarian researchers.
Luckily, most of the research topics I encounter are of the non-ideological, non-political variety, but every once in a while I am handed a manuscript on climate change -- one of the dreaded litmus tests of Serious Christianity.
I take the litmus tests seriously, which entails doing everything I can to ensure that every single factor -- attitude, event, fact, thought -- decisively confirms my commitment to God and Creation. Nevertheless, I sometimes have limited control over the external factors connected to litmus test issues. The climate change research papers that come across my desk occasionally are a good example of this.
Although I had no reservations about losing my part-time job over the peck at the end of last year, I consider it foolish and excessive to adopt the same do-or-die attitude over the handful of research articles pushing the giant scam of climate change that happen to land before me every year.
This doesn't entail that my "choosing" to work on the manuscripts is in any way justifiable or excusable -- merely, that I cannot afford to lose my full-time situation over a half-dozen research articles that focus on a litmus test.
If the articles were pecks, or if I had to edit twenty climate change articles a month . . . well, that would be a different story -- but as it stands, I deal with the indignity of having to edit these sorts of manuscripts and repent my actions before, during, and after the work is complete.
Needless to say, this repentance comes from full awareness, but I recently became conscious of something else I regularly do in connection with this litmus test associated work -- hand washing!
The first thing I do whenever I get up from my desk during my work on a climate change piece is head straight to the bathroom and thoroughly wash my hands!
Out damned spot!
I tell you, Lady Macbeth and Mr. Jaggers have nothing on me.
Luckily, most of the research topics I encounter are of the non-ideological, non-political variety, but every once in a while I am handed a manuscript on climate change -- one of the dreaded litmus tests of Serious Christianity.
I take the litmus tests seriously, which entails doing everything I can to ensure that every single factor -- attitude, event, fact, thought -- decisively confirms my commitment to God and Creation. Nevertheless, I sometimes have limited control over the external factors connected to litmus test issues. The climate change research papers that come across my desk occasionally are a good example of this.
Although I had no reservations about losing my part-time job over the peck at the end of last year, I consider it foolish and excessive to adopt the same do-or-die attitude over the handful of research articles pushing the giant scam of climate change that happen to land before me every year.
This doesn't entail that my "choosing" to work on the manuscripts is in any way justifiable or excusable -- merely, that I cannot afford to lose my full-time situation over a half-dozen research articles that focus on a litmus test.
If the articles were pecks, or if I had to edit twenty climate change articles a month . . . well, that would be a different story -- but as it stands, I deal with the indignity of having to edit these sorts of manuscripts and repent my actions before, during, and after the work is complete.
Needless to say, this repentance comes from full awareness, but I recently became conscious of something else I regularly do in connection with this litmus test associated work -- hand washing!
The first thing I do whenever I get up from my desk during my work on a climate change piece is head straight to the bathroom and thoroughly wash my hands!
Out damned spot!
I tell you, Lady Macbeth and Mr. Jaggers have nothing on me.
February 8, 2022
God Does Not Know the (Primary) Thoughts of Man
Nearly two years ago, I wrote a post in which I addressed God’s unresponsiveness to human communication, a topic I had encountered occasionally on blogs and comments back then.
In that post, I put forth the notion that God’s perceived unresponsiveness was likely a matter of miscommunication -- that we, as Christians, were the likely source of the miscommunication. I argued that God’s unresponsiveness boiled down to a lack of co-respondence:
By co-respondence, I am not referring to an exchange of letters, but rather to the notion that perhaps God's seeming unresponsiveness to us has a great deal to do with our unresponsiveness to Him.
I cannot believe God has ceased communicating with us. What I can believe is the notion that perhaps our communications with God - those tried and true, good, solid Christian methods of communication that served so well in earlier times - have become inadequate and insufficient in the here and now. By the same token, our adherence to these tried and true methods of communication might very well be making us deaf and blind to God's communication. Simply put, perhaps God does not appear to be responding to us because we are not properly responding to Him.
I believe God is our loving father, and that he desires what is best for his children. Like all loving fathers, God wants his children to grow up and mature. This entails different approaches to and different levels of communication. God has taken this step forward; we in turn, have not. Put another way, God is trying to talk to us like adults, but we continue to talk and listen to him like adolescents (and fairly apathetic adolescents at that).
Respondence is both a reply and a reaction to stimulus. I am increasingly convinced that God is responding to us, but we are simply not reacting to the stimulus of these responses.
Similarly, God rarely responds to the stimulus of our tried-and-true, conventional communications – not out of callousness or disregard – but because he yearns for us to go beyond these conventional forms of communication and respond in a different way.
I have heard many Christians argue that we do not and cannot know the thoughts of God.
At the same time, I have heard very few Christians suggest that God does not and cannot know the thoughts of man.
Yet that might just be where the root of the problem lies today, especially in terms of communication between man and God.
Dr. Charlton has written extensively about primary thinking -- his own term for what Owen Barfield called Final Participation and Rudolf Steiner called the Imaginative Soul – which he explains in the following way:
I regard the attainment of primary thinking to be the main task of modern Man - but clearly, since the state has been so widely noticed, and is experienced by so many people - merely experiencing primary thinking is ineffectual.
This is because primary thinking is firstly nearly-always brief and very intermittent, and secondly the experience of primary thinking nearly-always misunderstood by normal every day consciousness when that state resumes.
Primary thinking ought to be understood as an experience of the divine way of thinking, intrinsically Good and valid - and superior to other and lower types of normal existence. In primary thinking, we know - and we know directly - truth, beauty and virtue; and in this state we are intrinsically creative; because primary thinking is that which is divine in us, active within the realm of universal knowledge.
Although I have been reading Dr. Charlton’s posts on primary thinking with keen interest over the years, I have struggled to grasp the profundity of primary thinking. In fact, Dr. Charlton’s posts on primary thinking have been similar to my experiences with Berdyaev’s ideas about creativity and the creative act.
On the one hand, I am thoroughly convinced by the percipience of the idea. On the other hand, I find it difficult to comprehend how primary thinking can be accomplished consistently. Furthermore, I often waver when it comes to the “usefulness” and “applicability” of primary thinking in the “real world”.
One of Dr. Charlton’s recent posts on the subject was a bit of an epiphany for me in this regard. Concerning the “usefulness” of primary thinking, Dr. Charlton states:
Thinking is potentially our most complete and valid form of knowing. Therefore, the big question becomes: How this knowing is related to 'reality' - to divine creation?
If thinking turns-out to be in a direct relationship with reality - and not merely having some kind of indirect, 'translated', representational or linguistic 'communication' with reality - then this is of the greatest possible significance.
. . .
Most thinking is in words, it is language - therefore secondary; therefore either a means to an end, or perhaps illusion.
(This is the level of all public discourse and most private conversation: language responding to language - and nothing more. Our secondary thinking is no better than this.)
But some thinking may be primary, and not in words or any other symbolism; but thinking 'in' the primary creative essence of reality.
This kind of primary thinking is indeed itself reality.
Thus we can come to know reality.
I connected Dr. Charlton’s distinction between primary and secondary thinking to my post about miscommunication and the perceived unresponsiveness of God. The second I did, the “usefulness” of primary thinking became undeniably clear.
Christians continue to communicate with God almost exclusively at the level of secondary thinking --which is symbolic, ritualistic, representational and, most significantly, language-based. At the same time, God appears to be communicating with us almost exclusively at the level of primary thinking, but we cannot perceive the communication, let alone respond to it.
To return to my earlier point about God not knowing the thoughts of man, I am certain God understands and knows all the thoughts we have at the level of secondary thinking, but He does not know and cannot know our thoughts at the level of primary thinking for the simple reason that so few of us have engaged in it.
God does not know and cannot know the thoughts of man the primary thinker . . . yet!
God and Creation is reality and reality exists at the level of primary thinking. When people engage in primary thinking, they are relating to God and Creation in a direct way, without the need for symbols, language, and all the rest of it. More significantly, primary thinking provides God the opportunity to relate to the “reality” of the primary thinker.
In terms of communication, primary thinking offers the potential for reality to meet with, engage in, and relate to reality. God no longer wishes to communicate with us at the level of secondary thinking. He is waiting for us in reality, but our connection to that reality depends solely on our ability to become primary thinkers.
In this sense, primary thinking is akin to a revelation, but man cannot look to God to supply the revelation. It very much appears that God is patiently waiting for to us to supply the revelation ourselves.
In that post, I put forth the notion that God’s perceived unresponsiveness was likely a matter of miscommunication -- that we, as Christians, were the likely source of the miscommunication. I argued that God’s unresponsiveness boiled down to a lack of co-respondence:
By co-respondence, I am not referring to an exchange of letters, but rather to the notion that perhaps God's seeming unresponsiveness to us has a great deal to do with our unresponsiveness to Him.
I cannot believe God has ceased communicating with us. What I can believe is the notion that perhaps our communications with God - those tried and true, good, solid Christian methods of communication that served so well in earlier times - have become inadequate and insufficient in the here and now. By the same token, our adherence to these tried and true methods of communication might very well be making us deaf and blind to God's communication. Simply put, perhaps God does not appear to be responding to us because we are not properly responding to Him.
I believe God is our loving father, and that he desires what is best for his children. Like all loving fathers, God wants his children to grow up and mature. This entails different approaches to and different levels of communication. God has taken this step forward; we in turn, have not. Put another way, God is trying to talk to us like adults, but we continue to talk and listen to him like adolescents (and fairly apathetic adolescents at that).
Respondence is both a reply and a reaction to stimulus. I am increasingly convinced that God is responding to us, but we are simply not reacting to the stimulus of these responses.
Similarly, God rarely responds to the stimulus of our tried-and-true, conventional communications – not out of callousness or disregard – but because he yearns for us to go beyond these conventional forms of communication and respond in a different way.
I have heard many Christians argue that we do not and cannot know the thoughts of God.
At the same time, I have heard very few Christians suggest that God does not and cannot know the thoughts of man.
Yet that might just be where the root of the problem lies today, especially in terms of communication between man and God.
Dr. Charlton has written extensively about primary thinking -- his own term for what Owen Barfield called Final Participation and Rudolf Steiner called the Imaginative Soul – which he explains in the following way:
I regard the attainment of primary thinking to be the main task of modern Man - but clearly, since the state has been so widely noticed, and is experienced by so many people - merely experiencing primary thinking is ineffectual.
This is because primary thinking is firstly nearly-always brief and very intermittent, and secondly the experience of primary thinking nearly-always misunderstood by normal every day consciousness when that state resumes.
Primary thinking ought to be understood as an experience of the divine way of thinking, intrinsically Good and valid - and superior to other and lower types of normal existence. In primary thinking, we know - and we know directly - truth, beauty and virtue; and in this state we are intrinsically creative; because primary thinking is that which is divine in us, active within the realm of universal knowledge.
Although I have been reading Dr. Charlton’s posts on primary thinking with keen interest over the years, I have struggled to grasp the profundity of primary thinking. In fact, Dr. Charlton’s posts on primary thinking have been similar to my experiences with Berdyaev’s ideas about creativity and the creative act.
On the one hand, I am thoroughly convinced by the percipience of the idea. On the other hand, I find it difficult to comprehend how primary thinking can be accomplished consistently. Furthermore, I often waver when it comes to the “usefulness” and “applicability” of primary thinking in the “real world”.
One of Dr. Charlton’s recent posts on the subject was a bit of an epiphany for me in this regard. Concerning the “usefulness” of primary thinking, Dr. Charlton states:
Thinking is potentially our most complete and valid form of knowing. Therefore, the big question becomes: How this knowing is related to 'reality' - to divine creation?
If thinking turns-out to be in a direct relationship with reality - and not merely having some kind of indirect, 'translated', representational or linguistic 'communication' with reality - then this is of the greatest possible significance.
. . .
Most thinking is in words, it is language - therefore secondary; therefore either a means to an end, or perhaps illusion.
(This is the level of all public discourse and most private conversation: language responding to language - and nothing more. Our secondary thinking is no better than this.)
But some thinking may be primary, and not in words or any other symbolism; but thinking 'in' the primary creative essence of reality.
This kind of primary thinking is indeed itself reality.
Thus we can come to know reality.
I connected Dr. Charlton’s distinction between primary and secondary thinking to my post about miscommunication and the perceived unresponsiveness of God. The second I did, the “usefulness” of primary thinking became undeniably clear.
Christians continue to communicate with God almost exclusively at the level of secondary thinking --which is symbolic, ritualistic, representational and, most significantly, language-based. At the same time, God appears to be communicating with us almost exclusively at the level of primary thinking, but we cannot perceive the communication, let alone respond to it.
To return to my earlier point about God not knowing the thoughts of man, I am certain God understands and knows all the thoughts we have at the level of secondary thinking, but He does not know and cannot know our thoughts at the level of primary thinking for the simple reason that so few of us have engaged in it.
God does not know and cannot know the thoughts of man the primary thinker . . . yet!
God and Creation is reality and reality exists at the level of primary thinking. When people engage in primary thinking, they are relating to God and Creation in a direct way, without the need for symbols, language, and all the rest of it. More significantly, primary thinking provides God the opportunity to relate to the “reality” of the primary thinker.
In terms of communication, primary thinking offers the potential for reality to meet with, engage in, and relate to reality. God no longer wishes to communicate with us at the level of secondary thinking. He is waiting for us in reality, but our connection to that reality depends solely on our ability to become primary thinkers.
In this sense, primary thinking is akin to a revelation, but man cannot look to God to supply the revelation. It very much appears that God is patiently waiting for to us to supply the revelation ourselves.
February 6, 2022
Truth Must Be Love and Love Must Be Truth
A religion of love. That is how most Christians define Christianity.
The definition is solid. Christianity is indeed a religion of love. This means that Christianity is a religion based on a great virtue.
Yet if the great virtue of love in Christianity is to have any real meaning, it must be anchored in another great virtue – truth.
This means that Christian love is intrinsic to truth. Love that is not rooted in truth is at best partial love – at worst, it is not love at all.
I believe this works the other way around as well.
If Christianity is indeed a religion of love, it must also be a religion of truth, which implies that any truth that is not rooted in love is at best a partial truth – at worst, not truth at all.
The definition is solid. Christianity is indeed a religion of love. This means that Christianity is a religion based on a great virtue.
Yet if the great virtue of love in Christianity is to have any real meaning, it must be anchored in another great virtue – truth.
This means that Christian love is intrinsic to truth. Love that is not rooted in truth is at best partial love – at worst, it is not love at all.
I believe this works the other way around as well.
If Christianity is indeed a religion of love, it must also be a religion of truth, which implies that any truth that is not rooted in love is at best a partial truth – at worst, not truth at all.
February 5, 2022
On the Concerns of Traditional, Conventional Christians
I appreciate the concerns of traditional/conventional Christians who encounter my posts and worry that I have embarked upon some sort of misguided heretical quest that could possibly lead me down some dark Gnostic rabbit hole from which my soul will never emerge. Even worse, some fear I may end up in a place where I may find myself questioning or abandoning my belief in the existence of God.
Such concerns are worth noting and should not be callously rejected. Traditional/ conventional Christians have a valid point -- wandering off the orthodox path does make one vulnerable to Gnosticism and heresies of all kinds, some of which are chimerical enough to rival anything dreamed up by the most imaginative of fantasy writers.
Some of my explorations on this blog are indeed imbued with mystical ideas and language that appear to emanate from Gnosticism or other heretical doctrines, but this does not imply that I am card-carrying Gnostic or a dedicated heretic. Nor does it imply that I reject all orthodox doctrine as wrong while accepting all or some heretical teachings as right. On the contrary. I maintain a deep respect for orthodox doctrines and acknowledge their important role in Christianity.
Traditional/conventional Christians remain steadfastly loyal to orthodox doctrine because they are convinced that orthodoxy offers exactly what the name implies -- straight or correct opinion. Anything belief that strays from this correct opinion is rightfully branded as "unorthodox"; more severely, as heresy.
Heresy is an interesting term. Though it appears to carry purely negative connotations today, it actually springs from the ancient Greek hairesis, which means choice. Thus, from a purely literal understanding, heretics are people who have made a choice. Within the context of traditional/conventional Christianity, heretics are believers who have chosen to deviate from orthodox doctrine.
Traditional/conventional Christians understandably find such choices unsettling and confusing. After all, if orthodox doctrine is correct opinion, then there is no need dissent from it. Moreover, any departure from correct opinion and teaching is certain to lead to one place and one place only -- incorrect opinion and teaching.
Within a religious context, opinions are synonymous with assumptions. Hence, the orthodoxy of traditional/conventional Christianity is mostly concerned with inculcating, teaching, and promulgating correct assumptions about God, the universe, and everything, all within the framework of a church and its traditions, rites, doctrines, etc.
This is all fine and well in-and-of-itself, but one has to acknowledge that orthodoxy's emphasis on spiritual teaching has inevitable knockdown effects on spiritual learning. The main objective of orthodoxy is to ensure Christians learn the correct opinions espoused by orthodoxy itself. It is very much an external to internal process.
This does not entirely eliminate personal, experiential learning, but it does establish certain boundaries and limits, especially where matters of external spiritual authority -- denoted by clergy and churches -- are concerned.
Why is this important? Well, I believe we live in an era in which personal, experiential spiritual learning based on direct knowing is crucial. Traditional/conventional Christians should be aware of the fact that blindly or loyally submitting to external spiritual authority in the name of orthodoxy carries as much – if not more – risk today than choosing to adhere to a form of direct Christianity does, particularly in light of everything that has transpired over the past two years.
As stated in the title of this post, I appreciate the concerns of traditional/conventional Christians, many of whom are far more intelligent and learned than I am. I also feel the vast majority of the concerns traditional/conventional Christians have expressed are well motivated and sincere.
Conversely, I hope traditional/conventional Christians appreciate my concerns about them – and I hope they feel that these concerns of mine are also well motivated and sincere.
Such concerns are worth noting and should not be callously rejected. Traditional/ conventional Christians have a valid point -- wandering off the orthodox path does make one vulnerable to Gnosticism and heresies of all kinds, some of which are chimerical enough to rival anything dreamed up by the most imaginative of fantasy writers.
Some of my explorations on this blog are indeed imbued with mystical ideas and language that appear to emanate from Gnosticism or other heretical doctrines, but this does not imply that I am card-carrying Gnostic or a dedicated heretic. Nor does it imply that I reject all orthodox doctrine as wrong while accepting all or some heretical teachings as right. On the contrary. I maintain a deep respect for orthodox doctrines and acknowledge their important role in Christianity.
Traditional/conventional Christians remain steadfastly loyal to orthodox doctrine because they are convinced that orthodoxy offers exactly what the name implies -- straight or correct opinion. Anything belief that strays from this correct opinion is rightfully branded as "unorthodox"; more severely, as heresy.
Heresy is an interesting term. Though it appears to carry purely negative connotations today, it actually springs from the ancient Greek hairesis, which means choice. Thus, from a purely literal understanding, heretics are people who have made a choice. Within the context of traditional/conventional Christianity, heretics are believers who have chosen to deviate from orthodox doctrine.
Traditional/conventional Christians understandably find such choices unsettling and confusing. After all, if orthodox doctrine is correct opinion, then there is no need dissent from it. Moreover, any departure from correct opinion and teaching is certain to lead to one place and one place only -- incorrect opinion and teaching.
Within a religious context, opinions are synonymous with assumptions. Hence, the orthodoxy of traditional/conventional Christianity is mostly concerned with inculcating, teaching, and promulgating correct assumptions about God, the universe, and everything, all within the framework of a church and its traditions, rites, doctrines, etc.
This is all fine and well in-and-of-itself, but one has to acknowledge that orthodoxy's emphasis on spiritual teaching has inevitable knockdown effects on spiritual learning. The main objective of orthodoxy is to ensure Christians learn the correct opinions espoused by orthodoxy itself. It is very much an external to internal process.
This does not entirely eliminate personal, experiential learning, but it does establish certain boundaries and limits, especially where matters of external spiritual authority -- denoted by clergy and churches -- are concerned.
Why is this important? Well, I believe we live in an era in which personal, experiential spiritual learning based on direct knowing is crucial. Traditional/conventional Christians should be aware of the fact that blindly or loyally submitting to external spiritual authority in the name of orthodoxy carries as much – if not more – risk today than choosing to adhere to a form of direct Christianity does, particularly in light of everything that has transpired over the past two years.
As stated in the title of this post, I appreciate the concerns of traditional/conventional Christians, many of whom are far more intelligent and learned than I am. I also feel the vast majority of the concerns traditional/conventional Christians have expressed are well motivated and sincere.
Conversely, I hope traditional/conventional Christians appreciate my concerns about them – and I hope they feel that these concerns of mine are also well motivated and sincere.
Why Are They Plucking the Birdemic?
The powers-that-should-not-be are increasingly rolling back the totalitarian, Ahrimanic "none are safe until all are safe" measures and restrictions they imposed immediately after the success of the 2020 global Satanic coup.
Why?
Short answer: I don't really know. Your guess is as good as mine.
It could have something to do with the rising wave of non-compliance and resistance within the general public who have grown weary of having their "rights" and "freedoms" trampled on.
It could have something to do with the obvious un-safety and ineffectiveness of the peck program, which is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away or hide.
It could be due to wrangling and infighting among the demons and their minions, many of whom are likely frustrated and disappointed by certain failures or partially achieved aims.
Or it could be a combination of all of the above together with dozens of other factors, obvious or hidden.
Then again, the loosening and easing some parts of the world are currently experiencing may also mark the end of a stage in a campaign, suggesting that certain targets and objectives may have already been achieved.
The plucking of the birdemic could also signal the step back in the often-employed two steps forward, one step back strategy.
Or it could be that the System has decided to pause in an effort to reaffirm people's faith in it -- to deceive people into believing that it is inherently good and capable of self-correction.
Divine providence may be playing a role in some of it -- arranging things in a such a way to allow for the advancement of genuine good on a large scale.
As I make clear at the beginning of the post, I really don't know.
What I do know for certain is that the System is evil and remains so despite its easing and reversal of some of its birdemic measures and restrictions. With this in mind, I believe it wise to remain vigilant and not be lulled into complacency.
It's also important to keep in mind that the birdemic is not being plucked with any consistency. Some places have lifted all restrictions. Other places have eased some restrictions, but continue to enforce others. To top it all off, a handful of places have opted to not only continue enforcing most birdemic measures, but have also committed themselves to even more restrictions such as peck mandates.
The inconsistencies appear even in places that have officially walked back curtailments. For example, certain regulations continue to be applied at the ground level in some cities or countries despite court rulings against the application of said regulations.
By the same token, toned down birdemic hysteria could quickly be dialed up again in the future -- if not through the birdemic, than through some other means.
Furthermore, the damage the birdemic has inflicted thus far has yet to be fully realized, let alone acknowledged. Moreover, that yet-to-be realized, largely unacknowledged damage could precipitate unexpected waves of destruction, particularly if the Sorathic forces at play get the upper hand.
Whatever the case, I believe it's crucial to keep everything that has transpired in the past two years in mind, particularly from a spiritual perspective maintained at the personal, experiential level.
If there is a lull, it may not be a bad idea to use the time to reflect and digest rather than plan and anticipate. A lot has happened in the past two years. The potential for intense spiritual learning has rarely, if ever, been better than it is now. Use the time wisely.
That's what I'm trying to do.
Why?
Short answer: I don't really know. Your guess is as good as mine.
It could have something to do with the rising wave of non-compliance and resistance within the general public who have grown weary of having their "rights" and "freedoms" trampled on.
It could have something to do with the obvious un-safety and ineffectiveness of the peck program, which is becoming increasingly difficult to explain away or hide.
It could be due to wrangling and infighting among the demons and their minions, many of whom are likely frustrated and disappointed by certain failures or partially achieved aims.
Or it could be a combination of all of the above together with dozens of other factors, obvious or hidden.
Then again, the loosening and easing some parts of the world are currently experiencing may also mark the end of a stage in a campaign, suggesting that certain targets and objectives may have already been achieved.
The plucking of the birdemic could also signal the step back in the often-employed two steps forward, one step back strategy.
Or it could be that the System has decided to pause in an effort to reaffirm people's faith in it -- to deceive people into believing that it is inherently good and capable of self-correction.
Divine providence may be playing a role in some of it -- arranging things in a such a way to allow for the advancement of genuine good on a large scale.
As I make clear at the beginning of the post, I really don't know.
What I do know for certain is that the System is evil and remains so despite its easing and reversal of some of its birdemic measures and restrictions. With this in mind, I believe it wise to remain vigilant and not be lulled into complacency.
It's also important to keep in mind that the birdemic is not being plucked with any consistency. Some places have lifted all restrictions. Other places have eased some restrictions, but continue to enforce others. To top it all off, a handful of places have opted to not only continue enforcing most birdemic measures, but have also committed themselves to even more restrictions such as peck mandates.
The inconsistencies appear even in places that have officially walked back curtailments. For example, certain regulations continue to be applied at the ground level in some cities or countries despite court rulings against the application of said regulations.
By the same token, toned down birdemic hysteria could quickly be dialed up again in the future -- if not through the birdemic, than through some other means.
Furthermore, the damage the birdemic has inflicted thus far has yet to be fully realized, let alone acknowledged. Moreover, that yet-to-be realized, largely unacknowledged damage could precipitate unexpected waves of destruction, particularly if the Sorathic forces at play get the upper hand.
Whatever the case, I believe it's crucial to keep everything that has transpired in the past two years in mind, particularly from a spiritual perspective maintained at the personal, experiential level.
If there is a lull, it may not be a bad idea to use the time to reflect and digest rather than plan and anticipate. A lot has happened in the past two years. The potential for intense spiritual learning has rarely, if ever, been better than it is now. Use the time wisely.
That's what I'm trying to do.
February 3, 2022
Not Outside But Within
The other day I shared one of my favorite, non-Biblical encapsulations of what it means to be Christian. Now, before I proceed with this post, I must share Dr. Charlton's view that favorite does not always imply best. Though I acknowledge the existence of superior non-Biblical summaries of what it means to be Christian, the acknowledgement has little impact on the ones I consider my favorites.
Among these favorites is a short excerpt from The Grand Inquisitor chapter of Dostoevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, in which the Grand Inquisitor speaks the following words to Christ:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
In my previous post, I acknowledged the incompleteness of this condensed vision of what a Christian should do and be -- it contained no reference to heaven, resurrection, or everlasting life. Dr. Charlton shared the following thoughts concerning this incompleteness:
It is a striking passage - if you know what to look for. But to the reader who did not already know - I think it would not communicate what it does to us.
The main thing missing from the definition is resurrection and heaven.
I personally think that this is the most shocking thing about Christianity in the modern world: the offer of life everlasting - it was for me, at any rate.
It is easier for a typical modern Man to believe in a Jesus who changed this world, even a moral miracle-worker Jesus who made the world a better place - than a Jesus whose major claim was to have made possible eternal life.
I agree wholeheartedly. With no awareness of the entirety of Christ's offer, the excerpted passage from The Grand Inquisitor can be easily misunderstood, which is why I have decided to climb to the very peak of Mount Presumption and "enhance" Dosteovsky's encapsulation by including the aforementioned missing elements:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely into heaven, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and with free heart actively choose resurrection and everlasting life, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
Well, what can I say? I'm not Dostoevsky. Nevertheless, I do believe that the addition of heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life completes Dostoevsky's already striking encapsulation of what it means to be a Christian. (In all fairness, Dostoevsky does address heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life within the Grand Inquisitor chapter as well as in the rest of The Brothers Karamazov, but the inclusion of those three elements in the lines above provides a more fulfilled version of what a Christian should do and be).
Yet the fact remains. The original Dostoevsky excerpt does not include any mention of heaven, resurrection, or everlasting life. How then could an encapsulation of Christianity containing such glaring gaps rank among my favorites?
The answer lies in Dr. Charlton's incisive observation about the passage communicating effectively to readers who would know what to look for.
I believe my modified version of the excerpt would be more comprehensible to readers unfamiliar with the gift Jesus offers, but the absence of elements like heaven and resurrection in the unmodified version forces "informed" Christian readers to focus on the essence of their faith in Jesus's offer of everlasting life.
The essence of this faith is simple. It should be:directly knownfreely chosenkeenly discernedinternalpersonalexperientialheart-centered
The totality of these aspects combine to form the unconquerable conviction that whole value of man is intrinsically connected to his freely chosen participation in God and Creation -- in his participation in divine life.
This unconquerable conviction, this faith knows that Christ's offer does not reside in the external, in something that is foreign, alien, or strange to man's nature. Nor does it depend on anything external. Instead, it flows forth from the internal, in that part of man that reveals God's likeness to man and man's likeness to God.
It is the understanding that the image of Christ is not outside us but within us.
Among these favorites is a short excerpt from The Grand Inquisitor chapter of Dostoevsky's The Brother's Karamazov, in which the Grand Inquisitor speaks the following words to Christ:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
In my previous post, I acknowledged the incompleteness of this condensed vision of what a Christian should do and be -- it contained no reference to heaven, resurrection, or everlasting life. Dr. Charlton shared the following thoughts concerning this incompleteness:
It is a striking passage - if you know what to look for. But to the reader who did not already know - I think it would not communicate what it does to us.
The main thing missing from the definition is resurrection and heaven.
I personally think that this is the most shocking thing about Christianity in the modern world: the offer of life everlasting - it was for me, at any rate.
It is easier for a typical modern Man to believe in a Jesus who changed this world, even a moral miracle-worker Jesus who made the world a better place - than a Jesus whose major claim was to have made possible eternal life.
I agree wholeheartedly. With no awareness of the entirety of Christ's offer, the excerpted passage from The Grand Inquisitor can be easily misunderstood, which is why I have decided to climb to the very peak of Mount Presumption and "enhance" Dosteovsky's encapsulation by including the aforementioned missing elements:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely into heaven, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and with free heart actively choose resurrection and everlasting life, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
Well, what can I say? I'm not Dostoevsky. Nevertheless, I do believe that the addition of heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life completes Dostoevsky's already striking encapsulation of what it means to be a Christian. (In all fairness, Dostoevsky does address heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life within the Grand Inquisitor chapter as well as in the rest of The Brothers Karamazov, but the inclusion of those three elements in the lines above provides a more fulfilled version of what a Christian should do and be).
Yet the fact remains. The original Dostoevsky excerpt does not include any mention of heaven, resurrection, or everlasting life. How then could an encapsulation of Christianity containing such glaring gaps rank among my favorites?
The answer lies in Dr. Charlton's incisive observation about the passage communicating effectively to readers who would know what to look for.
I believe my modified version of the excerpt would be more comprehensible to readers unfamiliar with the gift Jesus offers, but the absence of elements like heaven and resurrection in the unmodified version forces "informed" Christian readers to focus on the essence of their faith in Jesus's offer of everlasting life.
The essence of this faith is simple. It should be:directly knownfreely chosenkeenly discernedinternalpersonalexperientialheart-centered
The totality of these aspects combine to form the unconquerable conviction that whole value of man is intrinsically connected to his freely chosen participation in God and Creation -- in his participation in divine life.
This unconquerable conviction, this faith knows that Christ's offer does not reside in the external, in something that is foreign, alien, or strange to man's nature. Nor does it depend on anything external. Instead, it flows forth from the internal, in that part of man that reveals God's likeness to man and man's likeness to God.
It is the understanding that the image of Christ is not outside us but within us.
February 1, 2022
Still One of My Favorite Encapsulations of What It Means to Be a Christian
It goes without saying that the very best encapsulations of what a follower of Christ is meant to do come from Jesus Himself, but excellent compact summaries beyond the Gospels do exist.
One of my favorites can be found in Dostoevsky's The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov. I have published this excerpt on this blog many times over the years, but never as an encapsulation of what it means to be a Christian. Without further ado, here is the excerpt:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
Those lines -- spoken by the Grand Inquisitor, who is, ironically enough, an enemy of Christ -- provide an effective and succinct definition of what a Christian should be.
Not only does it cover the core features of what being a Christian means, but it also strikes at the very essence of what a Christian should do.
And it does all of this in a way that is easily comprehensible -- even to a child.
FreedomLoveFollowIn place of rigid, ancient lawFree heartDecide for himself what is good and what is evilUsing only Christ as his guide
As is the case with every encapsulation, this compact excerpt from Dostoevsky misses a few key features -- resurrection, everlasting life, heaven. At the same, it gets to the very root of what being a follower of Christ means -- the foundation upon which all else is constructed.
When I consider the simplicity, accessibility, and comprehensibility of excerpted lines above, I am immediately struck by all the unnecessarily complex, inaccessible, and incomprehensible aspects of Christianity that often bury the heart of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
So many doctrines, denominations, rites, interpretations, reinterpretations, credos, creeds, tenets, precepts, principles, systems, canons, and so forth -- all created to explain and glorify the substance of an offer that is -- fundamentally -- so simple and so clear that even a child can understand it.
Christians need to become children once again -- at least when it comes to knowing what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Note added: The close positioning of "follow Thee freely" and "enticed, and taken captive by Thee" in the Dostoevsky excerpt reveal much about the spiritual freedom Christ offers.
One of my favorites can be found in Dostoevsky's The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor chapter in The Brothers Karamazov. I have published this excerpt on this blog many times over the years, but never as an encapsulation of what it means to be a Christian. Without further ado, here is the excerpt:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
Those lines -- spoken by the Grand Inquisitor, who is, ironically enough, an enemy of Christ -- provide an effective and succinct definition of what a Christian should be.
Not only does it cover the core features of what being a Christian means, but it also strikes at the very essence of what a Christian should do.
And it does all of this in a way that is easily comprehensible -- even to a child.
FreedomLoveFollowIn place of rigid, ancient lawFree heartDecide for himself what is good and what is evilUsing only Christ as his guide
As is the case with every encapsulation, this compact excerpt from Dostoevsky misses a few key features -- resurrection, everlasting life, heaven. At the same, it gets to the very root of what being a follower of Christ means -- the foundation upon which all else is constructed.
When I consider the simplicity, accessibility, and comprehensibility of excerpted lines above, I am immediately struck by all the unnecessarily complex, inaccessible, and incomprehensible aspects of Christianity that often bury the heart of what it means to be a follower of Christ.
So many doctrines, denominations, rites, interpretations, reinterpretations, credos, creeds, tenets, precepts, principles, systems, canons, and so forth -- all created to explain and glorify the substance of an offer that is -- fundamentally -- so simple and so clear that even a child can understand it.
Christians need to become children once again -- at least when it comes to knowing what it means to be a follower of Christ.
Note added: The close positioning of "follow Thee freely" and "enticed, and taken captive by Thee" in the Dostoevsky excerpt reveal much about the spiritual freedom Christ offers.
January 31, 2022
Co-Creation Is Not *Obviously* Subcreation
Man lives within God’s Creation. Man is also a creator within God’s creation and can freely create within Creation. This is often referred to as subcreation.
Within subcreation, man is free to rearrange, modify, and complexify Creation. Put another way, man can add to and expand Creation using the elements God has provided.
Those who believe man to be a creature of God rather than a pre-existing being that God has “created” into His Creation of pre-existing beings posit that because man is within Creation and using the “stuff” of Creation, his subcreation is also *obviously* co-creation – that is, when man creates, he is by default, creating with God.
Man is certainly within God’s Creation, and man certainly participates in subcreation, but that does not entail that all subcreation is *obviously* co-creation.
Subcreation that aligns with God and Creation – is in harmony with truth, beauty, virtue, goodness – is a form of co-creation. Man can pour his energy into creative activities that increase, add to, expand, or refine truth, beauty, virtue, goodness in Creation.
In these cases, God likely co-operates in man’s creative activity to some degree – through motivation, inspiration, providence, guidance, communication, grace, and so forth. In other words, God takes an interest in the endeavor because He sees the potential of man’s creative act adding to and expanding Creation.
Yet man is also capable of creative activities in subcreation that are not aligned with God. In subcreation, man can and does use the elements of God’s Creation in to bring forth creative acts that are hostile to and opposed to God and Creation.
This kind of subcreation is *obviously not* co-creation. It may use the elements of God’s Creation, but it is difficult if not impossible to imagine God freely choosing to co-operate in such an endeavor. On the contrary, I believe God would refuse to act as a co-creator in such a "creative" undertaking.
After all, why would God actively aid man in the co-creation of anything that intentionally undermines, corrupts, inverts, or reduces Creation?
To do so would imply that God freely co-operates with forms of subcreation that could be termed demonic or diabolical creation – forms of “creation” whose purpose resides solely in the weakening or destroying of Creation.
I do not believe God would freely engage in such co-creative efforts with man.
In sum, subcreation may place man on the side of God and Creation. Co-creation, on the other hand, definitely places man on the side of God and Creation.
This dispels all notions that subcreation is *obviously* just co-creation.
Within subcreation, man is free to rearrange, modify, and complexify Creation. Put another way, man can add to and expand Creation using the elements God has provided.
Those who believe man to be a creature of God rather than a pre-existing being that God has “created” into His Creation of pre-existing beings posit that because man is within Creation and using the “stuff” of Creation, his subcreation is also *obviously* co-creation – that is, when man creates, he is by default, creating with God.
Man is certainly within God’s Creation, and man certainly participates in subcreation, but that does not entail that all subcreation is *obviously* co-creation.
Subcreation that aligns with God and Creation – is in harmony with truth, beauty, virtue, goodness – is a form of co-creation. Man can pour his energy into creative activities that increase, add to, expand, or refine truth, beauty, virtue, goodness in Creation.
In these cases, God likely co-operates in man’s creative activity to some degree – through motivation, inspiration, providence, guidance, communication, grace, and so forth. In other words, God takes an interest in the endeavor because He sees the potential of man’s creative act adding to and expanding Creation.
Yet man is also capable of creative activities in subcreation that are not aligned with God. In subcreation, man can and does use the elements of God’s Creation in to bring forth creative acts that are hostile to and opposed to God and Creation.
This kind of subcreation is *obviously not* co-creation. It may use the elements of God’s Creation, but it is difficult if not impossible to imagine God freely choosing to co-operate in such an endeavor. On the contrary, I believe God would refuse to act as a co-creator in such a "creative" undertaking.
After all, why would God actively aid man in the co-creation of anything that intentionally undermines, corrupts, inverts, or reduces Creation?
To do so would imply that God freely co-operates with forms of subcreation that could be termed demonic or diabolical creation – forms of “creation” whose purpose resides solely in the weakening or destroying of Creation.
I do not believe God would freely engage in such co-creative efforts with man.
In sum, subcreation may place man on the side of God and Creation. Co-creation, on the other hand, definitely places man on the side of God and Creation.
This dispels all notions that subcreation is *obviously* just co-creation.
January 30, 2022
Co-Creation Does Not Diminish God
Co-creation presents a major sticking point for many Christians. The core of the difficulty can be summed up thus: If co-creation is possible, then God is not truly God with a capital “G”, but at best a lesser, small “g” god, or, worse, a mere Being among other beings. These possibilities immediately bring the whole nature of Divine Creation into question.
This sticking point arises primarily from what Christians believe God to be – and most Christians believe God to be OmniGod or Supergod -- an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator who created everything from nothing and is the originator of everything but Himself.
Within this conceptualization, man is a creature whose capacity for creation is limited to subcreation – more specifically, the rearrangement and modification of God’s Creation. Man and all of God’s creatures are limited to subcreation by the simple fact that everything in Creation is of God. Unlike God, man is incapable of creating something out of nothing, which entails that man – and all other creatures – can never really create anything original or add to Creation in any way beyond the limits of modification and rearrangement.
This understanding of Creation is heavily steeped in Classical rationalism and Medieval Scholasticism, and Christians who adhere to this understanding of Creation declare it as evidence of God’s unquestionable glory, power, and supreme reign over Creation – a supreme reign that does not require nor desire co-creation – not only because it is impossible, but because it would be superfluous.
Within this conceptualization of Creation, God neither yearns for nor desires any real creativity or origination from his creatures because such creativity or origination would pose a direct challenge to his own status as prime and sole creator.
The idea here is simple – original creative activity is limited to God and God alone. If it were not, God would not truly be God, but something less-than-God.
Any sharing or expansion of original creative activity – were it possible – would not only shake the very foundations of Creation, but would also immediately diminish the stature of God.
Thus, instead of a God who actively yearns to share original creativity, rational theology arrives at a conceptualization of a God who contains all original creativity within Himself and is, ergo, perfectly content to engage in what amounts to a game with Himself.
However, if the conceptualization of God as OmniGod who created everything from nothing is set aside, it becomes possible to conceive of Creation as constantly evolving, developing, and expanding rather than as something complete. Within this continuously evolving, developing, and expanding Creation, co-creation not only becomes possible, but desirable as the ultimate purpose of divine Creation, which becomes voluntaristic rather than intellectualistic in nature.
Rather than being an originator of everything from nothing, God becomes the primary creator of a Creation consisting of pre-existing beings that voluntarily agree to be a part of His Creation so that they can participate in the opportunity to align with God’s will by choosing good over evil, creation over destruction, and, ultimately, divinity over death.
A big part of choosing divinity over death entails the motivation to become divine, which implies that God does not view divinity as something static, as something only He is capable of possessing, but as something that He can share with and expand to others. The motivation to become divine lies in the essence of co-creativity, which is a higher spiritual achievement than subcreation. Co-creativity increases the divine within man without the expense of any diminished divinity in God.
On the contrary, any increase in the divinity of man adds to and ennobles the divinity of God because man can only approach divinity by freely aligning himself with God’s Will. Rather than elevate man at the expense of God, co-creativity – as a divine-human operation – elevates both man and God.
Co-creativity not only represents a higher spiritual pursuit than subcreation, but it is also a higher expression of freedom and love. God proves his love for man by freely offering and sharing the potential for original creativity within Creation, which is based in freedom and love.
Man proves his love for God by answering God's call and helping to add something original to Creation that God could not have added alone. This not only adds to evolution and expansion of Creation, but it also adds to evolution and expansion of divinity via the evolution and expansion of freedom and love.
Note: Freedom presents difficulties to the Classical rationalistic/Medieval Scholastic definitions of God as an omni-everything. If God created freedom and freedom is wholly within God, then the freedom we experience is not really freedom, but a sort of partial freedom or psuedo-freedom. One possible solution to this dilemma is to posit that freedom is uncreated. If freedom is uncreated, it is outside God, which raises the possibility that God does not and cannot control freedom. If this is the case, the Classical rationalist/Medieval Scholastic conceptualization of God as omni-everything becomes riddled with inconsistencies. Freedom as the primordial foundation of being is another idea I've come across. This idea appears mostly in sources written by Christian mystics.
This sticking point arises primarily from what Christians believe God to be – and most Christians believe God to be OmniGod or Supergod -- an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator who created everything from nothing and is the originator of everything but Himself.
Within this conceptualization, man is a creature whose capacity for creation is limited to subcreation – more specifically, the rearrangement and modification of God’s Creation. Man and all of God’s creatures are limited to subcreation by the simple fact that everything in Creation is of God. Unlike God, man is incapable of creating something out of nothing, which entails that man – and all other creatures – can never really create anything original or add to Creation in any way beyond the limits of modification and rearrangement.
This understanding of Creation is heavily steeped in Classical rationalism and Medieval Scholasticism, and Christians who adhere to this understanding of Creation declare it as evidence of God’s unquestionable glory, power, and supreme reign over Creation – a supreme reign that does not require nor desire co-creation – not only because it is impossible, but because it would be superfluous.
Within this conceptualization of Creation, God neither yearns for nor desires any real creativity or origination from his creatures because such creativity or origination would pose a direct challenge to his own status as prime and sole creator.
The idea here is simple – original creative activity is limited to God and God alone. If it were not, God would not truly be God, but something less-than-God.
Any sharing or expansion of original creative activity – were it possible – would not only shake the very foundations of Creation, but would also immediately diminish the stature of God.
Thus, instead of a God who actively yearns to share original creativity, rational theology arrives at a conceptualization of a God who contains all original creativity within Himself and is, ergo, perfectly content to engage in what amounts to a game with Himself.
However, if the conceptualization of God as OmniGod who created everything from nothing is set aside, it becomes possible to conceive of Creation as constantly evolving, developing, and expanding rather than as something complete. Within this continuously evolving, developing, and expanding Creation, co-creation not only becomes possible, but desirable as the ultimate purpose of divine Creation, which becomes voluntaristic rather than intellectualistic in nature.
Rather than being an originator of everything from nothing, God becomes the primary creator of a Creation consisting of pre-existing beings that voluntarily agree to be a part of His Creation so that they can participate in the opportunity to align with God’s will by choosing good over evil, creation over destruction, and, ultimately, divinity over death.
A big part of choosing divinity over death entails the motivation to become divine, which implies that God does not view divinity as something static, as something only He is capable of possessing, but as something that He can share with and expand to others. The motivation to become divine lies in the essence of co-creativity, which is a higher spiritual achievement than subcreation. Co-creativity increases the divine within man without the expense of any diminished divinity in God.
On the contrary, any increase in the divinity of man adds to and ennobles the divinity of God because man can only approach divinity by freely aligning himself with God’s Will. Rather than elevate man at the expense of God, co-creativity – as a divine-human operation – elevates both man and God.
Co-creativity not only represents a higher spiritual pursuit than subcreation, but it is also a higher expression of freedom and love. God proves his love for man by freely offering and sharing the potential for original creativity within Creation, which is based in freedom and love.
Man proves his love for God by answering God's call and helping to add something original to Creation that God could not have added alone. This not only adds to evolution and expansion of Creation, but it also adds to evolution and expansion of divinity via the evolution and expansion of freedom and love.
Note: Freedom presents difficulties to the Classical rationalistic/Medieval Scholastic definitions of God as an omni-everything. If God created freedom and freedom is wholly within God, then the freedom we experience is not really freedom, but a sort of partial freedom or psuedo-freedom. One possible solution to this dilemma is to posit that freedom is uncreated. If freedom is uncreated, it is outside God, which raises the possibility that God does not and cannot control freedom. If this is the case, the Classical rationalist/Medieval Scholastic conceptualization of God as omni-everything becomes riddled with inconsistencies. Freedom as the primordial foundation of being is another idea I've come across. This idea appears mostly in sources written by Christian mystics.
