Summary of text [comment] pages 50 and 51

[Think^divine is a receptacle of God’s relational power. It is one location where God’s immanence is manifest.

“God Recognizing Himself” is transcendent, immanent, and mysterious.

Sin, in its deepest nature, is a “no” to “God Recognizing Himself”.

The historic witness of God’s jealousy and anger encourages us to think^divine.

Feelings (realm of possibility) and emotions (realm of actuality) are natural to us. They both cloud and clarify judgment (realm of normal context).]

Summary of text [comment] pages 50 and 51

[The mathematical notation of exponentials or powers, where the base – think – is raised to the power of divine, provides a metaphor.

God’s transcendence is essential and unvarying.

However, our expressions of think^divine cannot be as essential and unvarying, because they exist to make sense of our actions and thoughts. We try to put the situation into context by cobbling perspectives together.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 50 and 51

God is not one cause among others.

God’s activity coincides with the transcendent and the immanent causalities of creating.

In His salvic activity, individual persons are called into dialogue.

Sin, in its deepest nature, is a “no” to this dialogue. Here, sin affects God in his relations to humans. Sin effects the relation from Person to person.

Holy Scripture describes God’s jealousy, anger, and sorrow. These are necessary for our understanding of God’s supernatural activity in his covenant.

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[Another beauty to the notation think^divine and think^group is the base of the exponent: think.

Think.

What a beautiful word.

You cannot see or hear it.

You cannot touch it.

You cannot smell or taste it.

What is an object of thought?

The answer must be “an object that brings us into relation or organization”.

An object of thought attracts us.

Althusser called the attraction: “interpellation”.]

[Think^divine includes the capacity to say “I will not be one with the mob”.

Jung called it “individuation”.

Here, “the presence underlying the word ‘religion'” comes into play. Religion relates to sovereign power as infra (similar to think^group) and supra (similar to think^divine).

The transcendence and immanence of God comes to mind. God is transcendent above sovereign and disciplinary powers. God is immanent below sovereign and disciplinary powers.

God is “the object that brings us all into relation”.

God inspires the righteousness that underlies “the objects that bring us into organization”.]

[The power of think^group comes from the mob.

One key word of the mob is “forward”. Forward is the only way of the mob. Go “forward” into illusions of grandeur, immorality, stupidity, and gullibility.]

Summary of text [comment] pages 49 and 50

[Let me recall the mystery. God’s immanence suffers. God’s transcendence does not.

Think^group often leads to prosperity. It often leads to sorrow. The ocean of regrets and the fantasyland of pro-objects came from think^groups.

Think^divine contains a registry of that suffering, yet it remains unmoved on the rock of truth.

Hmmm.]

[To the degree that our thoughts align with think^divine, we encourage human flourishing .

The power of divine is infinite, creative and life-giving.

Does this not sound like grace?

“To the degree that our thought aligns with think^divine” is “the degree that each one of us realizes our mindfulness, sanity and integrity”.]

[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?]