[Back to the message underlying the word “religion”.

Think^divine equals “think multiplied by all people, living and dead”.

Among all those people is God Himself.

Is that not weird?

Imagine every think^group and think^pro-object compiled. The compilation alone would be a revelation. It would be so huge. It would be filled with mindboggling immorality and stupidity. It would be unbelievable. It would be like a gigantic fantasyland on the other side of the sea.

In retrospect, could anything in this compilation be called “think” at all? Or would that be an injustice to the word “think”?

Now take an imaginary step back, and picture another compilation listing all the regrets associated with every think^group and think^pro-object. It would be less mind boggling, less insane, more believable. Also, it would be significantly larger than the first compilation. It would be like the ocean that one must sail to fantasyland.

If we keep going backwards, we step onto the solidity of think^divine.

Without think^divine, think is an ocean of regrets and a fantasyland of fixations.

Do you want proof?

Consider any historic emanation of the postreligionist (enlightenment) godhead.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[Let me briefly recall the mystery of God’s suffering. In immanence, God suffers. In transcendence, God does not suffer.

Compare this to Progressive American television (circa 7815 U0’).

In immanence, the “victims on TV suffer”. They stand in for the viewer. TV victims are disempowered. So are the viewers.

In transcendence, the Progressive elites (who produce television programs) do not suffer. They manipulate the knowledge and emotions of their disempowered viewers.

Hmmm. Is there a bizarre parallel here?]

[In 2015, Progressive televisionaries favor tyranny.

They broadcast postreligionist (enlightenment) religious points of view.

They claim they are “not religious”, but look again.

Think^groups multiply and seek sovereign power.

They divide the world into a diversity of think^pro-objects and think^anti-objects.

See and believe.]

[Plus, you cannot talk back to the television.

Do the televisionaries know what they are doing?

Do the televisionaries know that you cannot talk back to the TV?

Consider how they portray “victims”. “The victims on TV” stand in “for you, the viewers, the voiceless ones”.

The producers of elite propaganda claim that “they are on your side”. They and you (the voiceless viewer) are united against “some disturbing malignant class of agents that are responsible for your voicelessness”.

However, your voicelessness is a character of the medium itself.]

[Think^group expresses itself in talk.

The more talk is one-sided, the more the think^group sounds like a leviathan. In this regard, the potential of all forms of broadcast media cannot be underestimated.

America’s current nascent (2015) totalitarian state exploits the advantages of a new way of talking: television.

The totalitarian states of the 1930’s also benefitted from a new way of talking: radio.

With radio and television, a handful of individuals (or think^group) can produce the impression of a mass movement. One news announcer can be very compelling. Televisionaries broadcast their points of view directly into your living space. They talk as if they are reporting to you. They selectively present images to you.

The greater the percentage of the population that watches broadcast media, the more convincing the Progressive elites sound.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[Think^group = think x think x think x think … x think.

It can achieve a power that is categorically different than any individual conscience.

Think^group can rationalize mob action.

Think^group can identify scapegoats.

Think^group can achieve a societal closure that marks the totalitarian state.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[Solvable? Let me tell you about solvable problems.

Both think^group and think^divine occupy the normal context slot of the vertical axis of the intersection modeling “the message underlying the word ‘religion'”.

How did I come up with these terms? At first, I thought of using “group think” and “God think”. But the qualifier was not part of the word.

So I ran them together like groupthink and Godthink.

No, that was not adequate.

Then, I happened to hear a lecture on Aristotle, where the word “powers” was used a lot. I already knew that “powers in math” described “the number of times a number was multiplied by itself”. So I associated the two concepts. Think became exponential.

The mathematical notation of exponentials inspired the words think^group and think^divine.

How is that for a solution?]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

Does sin affect God? Yes, it hurts his immanent feelings. No, it cannot effect his transcendent being.

According to Schoonenberg: This is a mystery, not a solvable problem.

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[“The transcendent Holy Spirit₃” brings “the immanence of the Father and the Son₂” into relation with “the Possibility of One Truth-filled God₁“.

Where is “the Mystery of God” in this?

The normal context is the Holy Spirit, which is perceived as a person. After all, people are also mediators. So that makes sense. The Holy Spirit is relational. Every relation expresses three elements. God is triune.

Actuality is dyadic. It has two elements. One element “causes” the other, in the broadest sense of the term “cause”. Both Yahweh and Jesus are actual. They do not contradict. Therefore, God is truth-filled.

So there we have three people, but there is one element missing in the nested form.

Missing is “the mystery that God is possible”.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[The so-called European Enlightenment elevated Greek thought over so-called Judeo-Christian superstition. These thinkers claimed to be “not religious”. I call them “postreligionist”.

The self-labeled enlightened ones made two columns labeled “transcendence” and “immanence”. They then put Yahweh into the “transcendence” column, thereby unconsciously projecting onto Him all the attributes of Zeus. Zeus is a majestic, transcendent and capricious god. So also, by association, is Yahweh.

Postreligionist (enlightenment) thinkers then put Jesus into the “immanence” column, thereby unconsciously projecting onto Him all the attributes of someone like Socrates. Socrates undermined the Athenian social system with his persistent questions. By association, so did Jesus. Jesus was a political animal.

Postreligionist (enlightenment) thinkers never imagined that there was a third element. The list itself constituted a third.

They also never imagined what made their list possible. Paper, pen and ink turned their list into something that they could see.

Neither the paper nor the pen nor the ink have the character of a Zeus or Socrates.

They reflect a mystery that the postreligionists could not imagine.]