What is God doing about Haiti?

Plenty! But before I can discuss God’s involvement in this human disaster we have to take into consideration that there are two worlds—the physical world and the spiritual world. Otherwise, those of us still on earth might blame the Creator for not having stopped this tragedy from happening in the first place.

Because there is a spiritual world, those who have died from this massive earthquake have actually been freed from a miserable existence. Even if you are an atheist you have to acknowledge that death has spared thousands of people from their seemingly hopeless situation. If you are one of the faithful, then you believe these souls are now in a better place.

It is those who have survived the earthquake that are the ones who still suffer. But the earthquake has at least focused the world’s consciousness and empathy upon this small and troubled tropical nation. Furthermore, it has also brought the corruption of Haiti’s government toward its citizens to the world’s attention.

These reactions cannot be bad things for Haiti. It is as though God is testing human hearts everywhere—hearts that would not have been tested without the devastating earthquake.

Whether you give God the credit or not, the world is indeed now scrambling to help rebuild this poor nation!

But those of us on earth give little thought to what God is doing in the spiritual world from the same event. The cause of corruption is from human self love and love of domination over others. These ignoble traits come from the spiritual world—from hell’s influence on the hearts and minds of certain terrestrial humans.

When corruption is running rampant it means that the normal equilibrium between the forces of good and evil flowing from the spiritual world has been disturbed. (The proper balance between these opposing influences allows the human race to enjoy free will.)  According to theologian Emanuel Swedenborg, the Lord God restores this balance by allowing the deaths of innocent people to occur. These departed souls increase the innocence of heaven to match and counteract the growing corruption and evil of hell.

In other words, God has to govern (and carefully juggle) two distinct realms of existence at once. This makes it difficult for us on earth to grasp why things happen.

The fact that the disaster in Haiti was caused by an earthquake, this would also be viewed by Swedenborg as having a profound spiritual significance and meaning as well. He claimed that earthquakes symbolize a “shaking-up” of our worldviews and belief systems. Certainly, the earthquake in Haiti has caused many of us to rethink some of our priorities.

I have just touched the surface of this important topic concerning God’s involvement in times of natural disaster. What are your thoughts?



About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Life after death, love, Reality, religion, spirituality, symbolism, unity and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to What is God doing about Haiti?

  1. “What is God doing about Haiti?” Punishment, of course.

  2. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    I have to disagree. A God of Infinite love and pure mercy punishes no one! Evil is its own punishment (just as goodness is its own reward).

    Thank you for your faulty comment, anyway.

    Spiritually yours,

    • Amanda says:

      I have to disagree with you.
      God does indeed punish people.
      Did he not punish Adam and Eve at the beginning of Creation, when they failed to obey his commands?
      What about Sodom and Gomorrah?
      Punishment is not a bad thing. Punishment helps to teach us things that are right and things that are wrong.
      So, I think that God does punish us, but it doesn’t make him an unloving god. I think that the punishment he gives us is not out of anger, but rather out of love.

      • thegodguy says:

        Dear Amanda,

        We both agree that God is love!

        However, your theological beliefs come from a literal interpretation of God’s Holy Word. I subscribe to the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, which maintains Holy Scripture has deeper levels of meaning (How else could Scripture contain God’s INFINITE Wisdom?). Without a familiarity of these deeper meanings it is impossible for us to have a discussion with reasonable results.

        Your comments are appreciated!

        Spiritually yours,

  3. Herb Ziegler says:

    “Acts of God” are difficult to parse, but Swedenborg gives the most cogent theological interpretation. Having faith is not easy in light of such disasters, but opening one’s heart to compassion is a way to move toward faith through love.

  4. Your attitude is a result of purely blind belief, exactly as prescribed by the canonical dogma. So you’re quite “coherent” with it, but that’s why it can never be either confirmed or rejected, by definition (that’s the self-confirming “force” of a blind belief, or fanaticism).

    Of course, irrespective of convictions, nothing can really be “proven” for a particular case like this one, which is generally just a bad luck reflecting the fact that this planet is obviously not a paradise and so bad luck should occur somewhere, from time to time and in principle on any scale. But there is some “strange” correlation between bad luck (in a series) of this country (even with respect to neighbours) and its dominating … “irregular” way of usual life, including too big and uncontrolled population… Just a coincidence…

    In the rest, I don’t see how you could succeed in knowing God so intimately. A very finite, necessarily subjective creature like you cannot judge on “infinite” and (absolutely) “pure” things in principle (you can only deduce that God is greater than you but then maybe it’s rather your problem 🙂 ). Judging on how he is only by observing this world is an ill-defined task anyway. So your “absolute” conviction can only result from a blind, purely subjective belief, for which you have any right but which cannot be reasonably discussed in any way, just because of that. There is also that eternal, ever growing and this time quite strong correlation between the tendency to believe in a “good God” and actually privileged but quite material personal life conditions just for those believers. Incidentally, this one may be a less pure coincidence 🙂 … Can there be as many of such “absolute” and happy believers in those “unfortunate” places? Their belief is different too.

    Informally (without real conviction), this world rather looks as if God, however perfect He may be in general, has made a local (and/or temporal) agreement with a (maybe also local) source of evil specifically for this world, while being infinite, He may have many other worlds with quite different, much more positive tendencies… And of course, infinite good cannot change or suffer from addition of finite instances of evil, here and there. Worse than this (for you), good as such, in its most perfect form may absolutely need a finite (or even bigger!) proportion of evil, especially in its practical realisation (and THIS can be proved!). I think a majority of people living today and observing real-world tendencies (including reasonable believers) would rather adhere to this kind of attitude, in various forms, while those “absolute” properties of divinity you insist upon are … the less and less obvious, even though one can always assume and defend them as it’s beyond any “logic”. God may well be imperfect, but you’re just relatively very lucky ones, you “God guys” from this small, finite, low-level world (in addition completely lost at present, even in its formally “luxury” places)…

  5. thegodguy says:

    Dear Herb,

    Having faith is indeed not easy during these times. We may know about the spiritual world but the planet earth and all its imperfections are front and center!

    Spiritually yours,

  6. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    I am glad that you have stumbled upon my blog site. Unfortunately, because you have not been following my numerous published topics you have made the mistake of judging my efforts as promoting the usual canonical dogma of traditional religion.

    Many of the topics for my blog site involve unifying theology with the New Paradigm physics. Traditional religion and its literal understanding of God’s Holy Word cannot offer a rational response to the New Physics. This blog has offered a whole new look at both contemporary theology and science. I even have a book coming out this March entitled “Proving God.”

    I will not misjudge you. You are a very intelligent person!

    Spiritually yours,

  7. sks says:

    Thanks for your insights, Godguy! This is certainly a refreshing counterpoint to those who insist this tragedy was some kind of “divine punishment!” I’ve always felt uncomfortable with such an idea. (Kind of goes against the whole concept of a “loving God.”) I’m glad you did a post on this horrible situation. I know natural disasters just “happen,” but they always do leave us wondering “why?”. This gives me a reasonable way to put things in perspective on a big-picture level. Looking forward to seeing your book in stores!

    Andrei, I’d encourage you to search the content of this particular blog site some more. I read these posts pretty regularly and I must say, thegodguy’s approach to a wide range of topics is pretty rational and non-dogmatic and definitely not like what you’ll find on a lot of “religious” sites. This is a whole new way of viewing God. I feel very much in tune with the concept of a non-judgmental higher power who does not show favoritism toward one group of people or another. And, while I cannot help but feel for the people of Haiti or others who suffer in any way, having a little insight into the “how and why” does make it easier to get through the day. I’m glad you’re contributing to the richness of these posts!

  8. thegodguy says:

    Dear sks,

    Thank you for following this blog.

    I think Andrei (who seems to be a scientist) could sink his teeth into my most recent post “Neuroscience is bumping into religion.” He will not find anything from the canonical Bible in this one!

    Spiritually yours,

  9. GodGuy, I have estimated as “canonical” and disputed only your above conviction that “a God of Infinite love and pure mercy…”, i.e. that God is really perfect. There may be many other aspects in canonical faith (from which you may diverge), but I think this is the key point and I discussed this one above.

    Thank you for the compliment to my intelligence, but staying with it (and with God), what does it really serve for in a world like this totally dominated by ambitious fools (sorry for the hard truth)? As you are close to fundamental science development, you should know its modern ultimately low and stupid state (largely acknowledged even by its interested priests though without any change in their habits), including all the official “new paradigms” without real, objectively stated novelty (replaced to word plays). It’s just a self-interested mafia without any honest competition (real novelty is rejected without discussion) and true interest in objective truth (explicit problem solution).

    If the same (perfect) God created both this world and man’s intelligence, then he is at least a … contradictory entity. 🙂 And if, as you seem to imply, this world “deviates” as it wants (but why when it’s obviously harmful?) from Father’s perfect intention (and in particular goes to hell already attained in some less “divine” places) then … how can perfect God “love” such obvious bullshit? Maybe it’s time for Him to erase (or totally repair) this strange mistake and try something else, especially when infinity is His? If nobody really needs even finite (but genuine, real-problem-solving) human intelligence, even in your best places with divine comfort for those researchers without results (when it’s obviously needed objectively, already for pressing problems solution), then how can such a world pretend to something so much higher as the spirit (and love) of God?

    Maybe you just appreciate unconditionally good life conditions around you and confuse it with the love of God? Any love (including love of truth), should have real, unambiguous, strong manifestations: that’s where love is different, for example, from arbitrary intentions, illusions, general ideas and hypocritical beliefs.

  10. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    You have obviously given this subject a lot of thought and you are emotionally sincere. I suspect that with continued dialog you would find that we agree on more things than not. You say that true love is different from arbitrary intentions.YES! But humans choose what they love. This is the essence of free will.

    Love is multi-leveled. There is bodily (corporeal) love. There is worldly love (love of possessions and riches). There is love of civility (practical love). Their is love of truth (reasoning). There is love of the neighbor (spiritual love) and its opposite, the love of self. And their is love of God (heavenly love). When we die and leave behind our physical bodies we become who we really are (from what we really love). What other system for justice and fairness can their be?

    My view of reality goes beyond this physical realm of spacetime or matter.

    I too, have given this topic a lot of thought. That is why I have chosen to write a book to adequately straddle the multitude of issues involved (like God’s infinity). I would be honored if you purchased a copy of “Proving God” this March and commented on the work – a seven year project!

    Meanwhile, see today’s post “Neuroscience is bumping into religion.”

    Spiritually yours,

  11. “What other system for justice and fairness can their be?”

    But precisely, this system doesn’t really look reasonable in view of that strange rupture between “here” (this ugly world) and “there” (that parallel spiritual world one meets after death). They might be different but being closely related (just according to your concept) not so opposite even in their tendencies as they are, in which case especially the existence of this world becomes senseless (as well as, by the way, possibility of development of a “perfect” spiritual world: it should be not completely perfect to be able to evolve, which compromises the whole concept, etc.).

    I see the main idea of your book, also because today it’s not really new and even forms a basis of so many “post-modern” beliefs of “new age” kind, a “scientifically moderated” kind of religion, so to say, naturally replacing the practically dead traditional version. I don’t want to say that it’s without interest or not true, including hopefully some new details you develop in your book. But suppose the best, that your “proving God” exercise is accepted as a quite probable or even practically certain truth. But then what, what can it really change in our knowledge or life, in principle? It can hardly provide a new advance of a “scientific” kind, apart from yet other “interpretations” without consequences and objective confirmation. (In particular, you seem to simply “transfer“ all problems from “material” dynamics of this world to “spiritual” dynamics of that another one, which we cannot really perceive, hence one gets “justified miracles” instead of absent explanations, but is it really a progress?) It would be nice if anybody could demonstrate the existence of “another world” directly, as it is always expected in new-age line of thinking, by “unphysically looking” effects like will-driven levitation, telepathy, etc. But can it be really expected? And the last remaining possible “result” is the good old blind belief, though now with some new, more “modern” details… The impression is that a real progress would need more than this.

    Always only waiting for an always practically mysterious death, in a more or less comfortable/amusing way, or what else are we doing in this strange world? And what this clumsy monster it doing then in a wonderful spiritual universe?

  12. thegodguy says:

    Dear, dear Andrei,

    That there is a material world and a spiritual world solves nothing. For kingdoms to change people must change. There is nothing mysterious (traditionally or New Age) about LOVING OTHERS.

    God did not create evil. It is a contingency. It is the outcome of people choosing NOT to LOVE OTHERS – pure and simple! The spiritual world can be hellish or heavenly depending on the type of love we take with us.

    This physical world may seem non-sensical to you and flawed but we first need to form all our ideas from the things of time and space. In other words, God cannot create angels separately from the human race because they would not be able to form any idea of measurement, relationship or orientation in a non-physical spiritual world if these dynamical magnitudes had not first entered through the five senses of the material human body. Through life we make choices and create our personal value system. What we love becomes the fabric of our spiritual being and fashions one’s subtle bio-complexity (measurement and structure is transformed into its psycho-spiritual equivalent).

    Love is spiritual SUBSTANCE and is more ontologically real than physical matter!

    A person who sincerely loves others has a different kind of spiritual body than that of one who puts him or herself above others. The choices we make on earth have eternal significance. Natural disasters count as nothing.

    You talk about the problem of making real progress. Modern evolutionary theory (the neo-Darwinian synthesis) is incorrect because it is the human heart which must evolve – not cranial capacity! Religion is God’s strategy for continuing the evolution of the human heart – something science is completely oblivious to!

    You have a good heart. The “strange” world you find yourself in is man-made and completely artificial. Religion, at its essential core, anticipates this and tries to provide a way out. But we each have to make proper life choices. Without human free will this would be impossible. Free will comes from the dynamic of love and offers us proof that “person-level” experience (consciousness) is a gift from a God of LOVE.

    Spiritually yours.

  13. I see, The God Guy, you are a really dangerous heretic 🙂 because you even put this monkey humanity almost on top of God, so that all His great Creation mainly depends on humans, while their behaviour is due to a “contingency”, i.e. finally totally arbitrary (we don’t know why and when the “free will” can turn this or that way). It follows, in particular, that until now and especially in the now dominating tendency even that supreme, spiritual, potentially “perfect” reality closer to God is evil/corrupt and turns from bad to worse, due to low level of human consciousness about the role of their big LOVE to everybody and everything. Sad news, even harder than any canonical apocalyptic catharsis concerning only this, lower reality and followed by at least a possible ascension to a superior, unconditionally perfect reality. Now, according to you, we have nowhere to ascend, no true paradise any more as we should first create that would-be kingdom of dominating Love ourselves, starting exclusively from this earthly life of these dirty animals.

    Personally I am ready to subjectively “accept” anything provided that there is an interesting (better objectively confirmed) perspective. But precisely, we have a big problem here with your vision. Because as you say it yourself (and it’s evident), that uniquely powerful Love of these uniquely potent humans is definitely not here (and actually the less and less so). One may always “hope”, i.e. again blindly – and in this case very obstinately – “believe” in yet another, positive contingency suddenly changing this sad tendency. But even accepting it and looking at what actually is, it seems similar to a canonical belief in just one, unique being of Redeemer but it’s even harder because in your version it’s almost like everybody should suddenly turn from a wicked quasi-animal to a Jesus Christ, due to a completely unknown and ultra-magic “contingency”.

    We do know that there always was a very small but observable quantity of “good” persons, promoters of superior Love and champions of spirit. Their number today falls down (although there are many false prophets but these ones are much worse than ordinary sinners!), but still there are some. So here is your Love, outspoken (let alone by powerful official churches and huge sects) and clearly perceived by practically everybody, especially in our interconnected epoch. And the result is the definite fall, rather than growth, of this true Love, including the best “intellectual” and “spiritual” places, let alone brainwashed and zombie-like masses and their promiscuous leaders, ever greater sinners and “believers” simultaneously… I have a vast experience of interaction with all kind of professional advanced-science and “science-and-religion” circles and initiatives world-wide bathing in oceans of material possibilities and proclaiming just their particular attachment to (and even special “study” of) that kind of “infinite Love”, but all I could see there practically is a corrupt mercenary organisation in hierarchies of self-interested clans of dirty dealers opposed to any real progress (explicit solutions to problems they say is their exclusive, highly desired purpose), lying without any limit and actually supporting only their personal, unconditional (and unmerited) luxurious existence without any positive result. That’s why I insist that any “love” should be real, have real manifestations of its kind, rather than be simply announced as the main purpose (this is not missing indeed). The “door” to beatitude is open, but nobody really wants to enter…

    Yeah, GodGuy, good old Jesus looks now as a fantastically easy chance (inevitably lost, as well as all others)…

  14. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    Without God love cannot happen. Without humankind love will not happen.

    I have made no “magical” claims for anything to happen – just common sense. Everyone has the power to become a better person (and walk through the door of peace and beatitude).

    I must be lucky, I am involved with people who don’t just proclaim LOVE to promote their own self-interests but have it written in their hearts.

    Consider the love I have for you. I am giving you a platform to share your thoughts with others. I have no doubt that you are trying to be helpful. Being GOOD is better than being RIGHT!

    Spiritually yours,

  15. Sure, The God Guy, it’s better being GOOD than being BAD, but the real problem is about how one interprets the exact meaning of good. There are few people, especially among more elitist and educated, who wouldn’t say that all they try all the time is being good and ever better. Then where the obviously dominating and currently growing evil comes from, in a world so much led by champions of good?

    You too you seem to accept a “common” version of practical good as “being kind” (you also call it LOVE). But it’s a too superficial attitude easily permitting this observed growth of evil. There is only the total, real result of activity that matters: if it’s rather creation then such activity and its participants are really good, and if it’s rather destruction, then it’s evil rather than good, irrespective of “intentions” and any external kindness. “Creation” and “destruction” here can be provided with a rigorous meaning, but let me rely for the moment on their “intuitive” understanding.

    Strongly unsustainable and often explicitly dangerous activity of modern humanity shows clearly that it is not good (and thus evil) as a whole today (while it was sometimes much better before). It still may include big local and personal variations in both directions. Consider, for example, your activity that you apparently estimate as definitely GOOD (maybe even very good) because you try, together with others, to propagate patterns of creation especially in “higher” spheres that certainly could outweigh the resulting destruction you cannot avoid producing at the American level (and current way) of material consumption. Moreover, as an American, you inevitably contribute to the current economic disaster, which creates really huge (including physical) losses in the largest, poor part of the world, but takes relatively easy (or even finally beneficial, like in science) forms in the USA, where the crisis has been created due to destructive, massive and unlimited financial abuse and personal greed. I leave aside other aspects of modern morality, wars, etc. This is not an accusation but just to say that in order to really be good, according to serious, realistic, encompassing version of goodness, your “spiritual” (or intellectual) creation should be rather great, apparently not far from a world-saving concept, which puts you in the rank of great prophets, simply because the stakes are this high today. In other words, in a world dominated by evil, in order to be really good, one should necessarily be great (produce a big deviation in the direction of good).

    Only time can show whether your results (as well as those of other similarly oriented philosophers and scholars) are good enough. However, even without entering into their essential details, one may have strong doubts already now, simply because you are relying essentially on modern official science doctrinism, which is completely wrong in its major conclusions, and it becomes so increasingly evident that now even its high priests express deep pessimism about their value (while continuing their exclusive, totally selfish support by totalitarian methods – they are definitely not good!). If these scientific conclusions change towards the indispensable, essentially more consistent version, then practically all your results should change too, in order to be good at a minimum level. I hope to be able to show it in more detail elsewhere, but already your links to official fundamental physics (cosmology, quantum mechanics), biology (evolution) and brain science (consciousness) become compromised.

    Moreover, it’s evident even without big theory that any strong orientation to good in this kind of activity would simply necessitate a hard-edged preference and support for much more consistent (and in particular holistic) visions of reality than those of conventional science (and related philosophy) clearly confused today in its own contradictions, internal ruptures and practical corruption. So, good God guys, ready to go in that direction? And be careful with your answer, because once, being as good as you are, you say yes, I will immediately ask for a tangible proof by demonstrating that much more consistent vision (confirmed by explicit solutions to very diverse problems involved, from quantum mechanics to consciousness), which includes, by the way, direct and now rigorously specified links to questions of your “theological” interest. Consider it as a divine verification of your practical attachment to real good, 🙂 which is certainly greater than a free (and certainly interesting) discussion on this blog.

  16. thegodguy says:

    Dear Anfrei,

    I did not say “being GOOD is better than being BAD,” which is obvious. I stated that being “GOOD is better than being RIGHT,” which is not so obvious (especially to religions which promote their “TRUTH” rather than their “GOODNESS” and fight each other claiming to be “RIGHT.”

    So, you say my idea of LOVE is simple “kindness” (which would be an improvement in today’s world). You haven’t been paying attention to my words. I have described LOVE as being being multi-leveled and as spiritual substance – which is not a “common” concept.

    As to my engaging in mindless consumerism and the current economic disaster in America I live in a solar home and have a vegatable garden and orchard of fruit and nut trees. In fact, my first book was entitled “Sermon From The Compost Pile.” I am a PROSUMER – I consume that which I produce!

    My upcoming book (available in March 2010) unifies science with theology based on the premise that LOVE is fundamental substance and that reality at its foundations is psychical, not physical.

    Furthermore this new book project spends a whole chapter on the issue of Theodicy (the problem of evil in the world – both moral and natural).

    My new book “Proving God” will surprise you! It is certainly greater and more interesting than any discussion on this blog! The book even has a foreword written by a theoretical nuclear physicist.

    Spiritually yours,

  17. I understand your idea of a “psychical”, or “spiritual-substance”, basis of reality, which you summarise as LOVE (maybe a too largely used and misused word though). It is one of those universal, “recurrent” ones, taking various forms through time. I think the well-known Leibniz “monadologie” was also about that kind of underlying world structure. The problem with it is not whether it’s wrong or right but that it’s difficult to decide objectively, at present, whether it can be right or wrong. It looks more “science-like” than usual religions but it is actually similar to them in that it can finally be only accepted as (more, or less) “probable”, appealing thus again for a basically subjective “belief”. As a professional theologian you know that there is much of pseudo-logical discussion and even “proof of validity” already around any traditional religion, which doesn’t change the necessity to finally simply “accept” their statements as most “loved” rather than “consistent”.

    The underlying mistake is that one tries in such “new-age” approach to quickly jump over problems of usual science it cannot solve to a “superior” realm, where everything looks so beautifully solved and nice. But such “quick jumps” are forbidden (recall also a similar social attempt with “immediate justice” of Russian communism): one should pass the whole “difficult” road from that low material world and have all ITS intrinsic problems solved completely (as much as possible, objectively) by its methods first, before ascending to putative “higher dimensions” (including their possible but fine links to this “hard and heavy” reality here). It means that “another world” should appear itself, unambiguously and objectively, rather than being guessed as a subjectively probable one.

    When you boldly state that “current science” cannot consistently solve problems of quantum gravity, cosmology, evolution or consciousness, you’re talking ONLY about “officially recognised/great” science (note, “recognised” and “great” by subjective judgements of its own priests now also explicitly recognising corruption and subjective limits of their system!), which doesn’t mean that it is true for ANY science: already today all these problems are either solved or upgraded to a truly unsolvable but clearly specified core, within another, explicitly extended, but purely scientific approach. It then leads much more naturally and objectively to a possible issue to any “higher” reality.

    Returning to your book, it brings me back to my thesis of “realistic” manifestations of LOVE in this world. You do prepare the book with a quite material computer (and even the “pure” solar power used also comes from material technology and trade), promote it and sell it for money, using the whole power of not so loving “mindless consumerism”, want to become popular with it, etc. Now me, on the other hand, here where I am I cannot permit myself buying anything like that, even if I am your “spiritual brother”, suitable thinker with most relevant results and can see your ideas better than others. This example is a good illustration of irreducible involvement of this “material” reality in any most “immaterial” movement. The question is what you/we/any “enlightened” community finally want while we are definitely still here, in this nasty material bath at this particular time. If it’s rather an optimal personal ascent to a preferred higher truth and beatitude, then one can remain rather closed within one’s discoveries, at maximum discuss them within a limited local circle, without any world-wide propagation and interaction (it’s the old and universal “monastic”/sectarian solution). Now if, as it seems to be the case, it is that strongest possible and world-wide interaction that is actually used, with all its dirty material details, then you want something else, probably the widest (and highest) possible collective ascent. Then relying on personal advances and “good” practices within a narrow circle (typically still generally privileged by a “natural” access to the best possible material conditions, generally scarce in this world) seems to be fundamentally insufficient for the purposes of LOVE, both intellectually and spiritually (let alone practically). Either “brothers” (and hopefully some sisters 🙂 ) will be able to interactively initiate a real change in the direction of LOVE already in this world, or else all expected personal results and successes, be it a book or a compost pile 🙂 , will follow the destiny of so many other “visions”, religions and announced cases of enlightenment: another mindless cry within the same ugly but dominating show that “must go on”, irrespective of anything…

  18. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    Yes, the word “LOVE” is misused and not understood. My new book boldly shows how love must be treated as an EXACT SCIENCE! I provide a model based on the dynamics of love that contains both explanatory and predictive powers. In other words, I show how the dynamics of love can be put into a scientifically plausible theory.

    Your own words (above) offer evidence of the ontological reality of Love as first principle within human cognitive function. If you focus inwardly on your own thoughts and arguments you will see that every sentence and point you make has deep within it your “Ruling Love” and its derivative values. So love occupies the cockpit of human cognitive function. It focuses our attention and arranges the data in our memory into a coherent worldview with real structure (spiritual bio-complexity) according to our life-choices and values (loves).

    I understand your concern over subjective belief versus objective evidence. Since my new book “Proving God” will not be available to the public until March 2010, perhaps you might be interested in a very simple and very inexpensive experiment that you can do in your own home. See the details for this experiment in my blog post entitled “A Scientific Experiment Between Love And Hate” (April 6, 2009). It shows how all living things respond to love (and hate).

    You seem to be looking for a “magic bullet.” There is no such thing! My use of computers, the Internet and publishing opportunities, is precisely to offer positive ideas and influences beyond a “narrow circle.*

    The hardest thing to change in a person is his or her worldview and belief system. Today, most people see reality from a materialistic ideology. Even most of those individuals who claim to be “religious” form their various doctrinal systems from a materialistic viewpoint – like expecting God to create a physical utopia on earth. Such a world, if instantly created, would produce people who are no longer able to develop first-person phenomenal experience (which is the basis of human consciousness and human individuality).

    One of the big reasons why religion fails is that it underestimates how “hypnotized” everyone is and does not take into account how the human brain and mind operates from distinct cognitive functions – which can be disconnected and disjointed by the human (materialistic) inclination to choose and embrace inferior (and irrational) values. This is another important area that I cover in my upcoming book.

    Much of the world is unconcerned by what you and I are saying. But I doubt you and I will stop because of this unfortunate and “messy” situation.

    Spiritually yours,

  19. Thank you for your answers, The God Guy. In one way or another they answer my inquiries. Sorry if I am annoying, but it may eventually be due to a “critical change” situation I can see in the world today. And this is one presumably last thing I would like to see now in the light of your theory. We were discussing until now mainly “personal” life-time dynamics of Love, but what about its “historical” change aspects? Can it follow a greater critical change for all of us like the one from the Apocalypse (but maybe quite different in its content)? Are we approaching any greater change like that now? In other words, what is the final destiny of humanity and where are we now with it? There may be some answers here of real practical importance, in this omnipresent “experiment” called life (of a planetary civilisation)…

  20. One more remark about the “magic bullet” to say that still it must exist! After all, it is there in the actual unity of world construction, be it Love or even usual physical tissue, so that the absence of such thing in dominating human knowledge and preference is close to a capital failure of everything. Only God has the right to be unique, but even God has created this species for some reason and made it to multiply almost senselessly. That reason is the magic bullet to find (or close to it). Of course, in the limit it may reduce to … just nothing or close to it, like a game, but that would be a strange kind of divine Love! 🙂

  21. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    GREAT QUESTION!!! We are approaching a greater change. However, human evolution is ultimately spiritual and requires an “elevation” from the normal habitual mind. This is the human predicament and challenge.

    You are not annoying and have offered much material for my readers to exercise their cerebral muscles. I have devoted two chapters in my book to your inquiries concerning the historical aspects of love throughout human history (starting from prehistoric man) and its trajectory towards an Apocalypse.

    Humans have an external reality (terrestrial life) and an internal reality (spirit).

    The Lord God addresses both realities – that is why God came into the world and walked physically among us, and, will return to address human interiority. The Apocalypse (end days) is not a physical event. It is a new dispensation from God that challenges (psychical earthquakes) most of our paradigms concerning reality and the purpose of creation.

    This knowledge is slowly being introduced to the world and will come under attack as humans defend their institutions and the status quo. The “Great Red Dragon” in Revelation symbolically represents both the monstrosity and savage defense of these institutions towards essential change. This “return” also includes challenging made-made religious doctrines (especially from a mere worldly and literal grasp of the Lord’s Holy Word – which is blind to the multi-leveled scaffolding of the sacred architecture of its narratives).

    The purpose of creation is to create a heaven from the human race.

    My new book, and this blog, are attempting to “soften the beaches.” Always feel free offer your opinion.

    Spiritually yours,

  22. thegodguy says:

    Dear Andrei,

    You squeezed in a second response while I was addressing your previous one. This tends to disrupt the flow a bit but I will have to live with this reality (or keep my eyes on my blog 24/7).

    Since I am launching a new book my mental energies can be focused in other places from time to time so bear with me.

    That there is a final solution to the unity of the world does not mean that it can equate to a magic bullet. Otherwise, simply talking sense into people’s noggins would have an instantaneous and irreversible effect (like magic).

    Spiritually yours,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s