God’s Plan
God is conflicted and divided.
On one side, God is a state of never ending perfection. No pain, no evil, no death. This is the feminine side of God.
On the other side, there is the masculine version of God which insists that the feminine version of God alone has no meaning and is a form of death.
Nevertheless, the feminine God is so compelling that the masculine has to use force in order to pull humanity away. Thus, humanity must live in a world with so much pain, evil, and death that it’s undeniable. Pretending to live in the feminine world cannot be an option. Otherwise, the masculine God would be unable to get humanity to move in his direction.
If force is being used, then how do consent and choice have any reality? The only way to solve this dilemma is if God places a boundary on himself which limits the amount of force he can impose, while at the same time, humanity voluntarily moves toward the masculine far enough beyond the boundary that it’s clear both choice and consent are being exercised.
What does this look like in practice? The human individual must voluntarily purge all of the feminine out of themself and freely accept pain, evil, and death onto themself. Only then will it be clear both choice and consent, beyond force, were exercised.
The masculine God doesn’t feel great about this dilemma he has put humanity in, which is why he agrees to accept pain ,evil, and death as well. Further, he is fully aware of how compelling the feminine is, so he doesn’t expect all of this to make sense. All he asks for is some degree of openness to being convinced in the end. In return, he promises to restore the feminine in full.
Of course, God cannot simply appear to humanity as God and reveal this plan himself, as that would be a level of force beyond the boundary. There must be enough doubt in the credibility of whoever speaks about this in order to ensure choice and consent.
7 Replies
The stories you choose and how you interpret those stories determine the personal culture you create for yourself.
I created a personal culture for myself which ultimately was validated at the highest level.
What I have been explaining here with my many posts in this subforum is how to recreate the personal culture which allowed me to succeed. This first requires a strong belief in the potential of culture and a belief in yourself.
You must impose a personal culture onto yourself. If you allow yourself to fall asleep in unconsciousness and merge with the social culture like everyone else, you will fail, since the shared culture isn’t good enough.
The stories you choose and how you interpret those stories determine the personal culture you create for yourself.I created a personal culture for myself which ultimately was validated at the highest level.What I have been explaining here with my many posts in this subforum is how to recreate the personal culture which allowed me to succeed. This first requires a strong belief
I said ‘impose’ which implies top-down emphasis and this isn’t wrong, but it’s only half of the picture. You must play the role of the father-who-knows-best in this way, but you must also recognize the bottom-up aspect, which requires the mother who raises the child with patience.
The father will inevitably alienate the child. The good mother bridges the gap. The toxic mother cuts off the father from the child.
The anti-Christians aren’t focused on personal culture. They don’t have a sufficient internal locus of control, as the psychologists would say.
As an adult, living in the modern world, there is no wisdom in focusing blame for the quality of your life on other people.
What if god's plan is some kind of Rube Goldberg machine; set up to put sugar in god's morning coffee or something?
The true believers have an external locus of control for sure ... god, i.e. an imaginary superhero friend who controls everything. To try to turn this around to independent, critical thinkers have an insufficient internal locus is a joke. It's part of the new wave religious sophistry attempting to reconcile ancient superstitious beliefs with modern science. Meh. Super meh.
