First, start with watching the video “2011 حماده هلال أنا مصرى ” below or on YouTube. It is about the 2011 Egyption uprising and is underlaid with a song repeating “Allah Akhbar” (Allah Almighty) over and over.

If you are from a non-Islamic culture, read on. What was your impression from watching this with an analytic mind from a non-Islamic culture (the latter is just to avoid prejudice)? To me, it was astonishingly self-evident that the authors’ faith in Allah is motivated by wishful thinking: they use a notion (idea) of God to promote unity, a hope for protection and victory, motivation etc. among people who have nothing to do with each other in the first case. (Note that this sharp judgement does not relate to the Egyptian revolution itself … I wish freedom to all people in all the world, in every sense of the word … .)

Using this “idea called God” serves as a surrogate for other non-existing bonds (cultural or family), and can be used to create a nation or nation state. And all that without there being any real background behind this particular idea: God as an idea works even if there is no God, simply by people believing there is, and having unity and bonds because of that. This is not the only thing for which “God as an idea” can be used: in other cases, like in Hinduism (read the Vedas!), God is a philosophic idea: thoughts that came out of human philosophical thinking and likewise can exist without being grounded in external reality.

So what. As somebody who immersed myself in natural science for a prolonged time, I am not willing to believe in a God that is an idea only. If there is no substance to my God (Yahweh), I would stop believing. And further, I have the hypothesis that the faith in the one true, existing God (if there is one) can clearly distinguish itself from believing in idea-only Gods, and can justify itself when being compared to them. Ok and that’s the reason I search for what God does today.

So what did God mean when he said: Let us make man, in our image?

Then they made one man (Adam), in their image. So is that all? God compares himself to a single person? Mmmh. Maybe there is more to it. God intended that people multiply, and it would be absurd to assume that society, as a whole, is greater / better / stronger than God is (and God has shown throughout history that this is not the case). So, and here is the new thought, might it be that family (the unit of multiplication) is meant, by God, as just another level of resemblance?

Answer: yes, that is highly probable. In the Bible, the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is often compared to the human father-son relationship, so family is probably meant to resemble God.
And, we can now reiterate that new thought level by level: a human society (like a state) is made of families, and is probably meant to be another level of resemblance. The same for the global society of all the people and other creatures, made up of smaler societies. The same for the universal society, made up of all the interstellar global societies that could potentially emerge from our earth. The same for the multiversal society that could emerge from our universe … .

Could emerge. Could. God probably wanted to see His world growing that way, form bottom up, every level of resemblance filled with love through and through. (We can even find levels of resemblance lower than the individual: how a body is made up of cells that help each other “in love”, and how a cell is made of molecules that help each other “in love”, and molecules made from atoms, each fulfilling its task in the Whole, and atoms from subatomar particles, each one fulfilling its place in the beautiful Whole.)

You can get a glimpse of the power and beauty that this whole system could grow into if you know about some complex system (say, the Linux kernel) managed by humanity. It came into existence because many humans fulfilled their task of contribution, and in essence, the result is something “transhuman”, as it can do things that individual humans cannot do. Or even, we can view it that way: all the current buzz about “transhumanism” is in vain, as it deals only with the potential that God gave us, which also means, that he wants us to utilize.

The fucking problem is that since the Fall, the Whole stopped working. The human mind, which was meant as the source of love (getting that from the relationship to God, probably), had no more love and stopped loving. As a result, all higher levels are no longer filled with (enough) love and stopped working. And the lower levels suffer, too, as people often even do not care for their own bodies, out of a lack of love. On all levels, we now have tyranny instead of love. For example on the state level, there are many dictators.

What is depressing beyond measure about this problem is that you (as an individual) cannot fix it. If you would be perfect, you would fulfill your role and place in humanity, but all your contributions might become useless and get destroyed by the acts of others, and by them NOT taking their place and fulfilling their role. As an example, take a contribution to an existing complex system like the Linux kernel: say you would contribute Ubuntu 10.10 packages for an RTAI patched kernel (which are currently missed desperately!!), but people behind other projects do not accept or forget your bugfixes etc., and finally nobody wants to take over that maintenance task from you. All contributions are virtually lost, then, even though you worked a lot.

Hopefully, the next world is better than this, again filled with love through and through. I start believing that we will be totally free from sin in that world. It will be like waking up from a bad bad dream; we have the memories of the old world, but they fade away quickly, like something totally unreal that never could have happened because it is “so bad”. It is indeed necessary that we lose all sinful qualities in the next world, as these qualities are (mainly) what we have learned in this world, and it is impossible except by supernatural means to unlearn all this (except maybe by 1000 years of training, which is a pain unworthy of the next world as it would rather be found in purgatorial fire).

The best partial solution that we can arrive at while in this world is probably only: being oneself “love filled” at 85%, and having a “85% love filled” family and “85% love filled” small society, like a church or power community. In larger scale, we will never be able to reach (or if we reach, to maintain) a “love level” of 20% or more. Also, do not be hasty: if you cannot manage yourself in love, why would you try to found a family, as that would never ne able to be love-filled either.

But what I wanted to express in the first instance: imagine that a love-filled multiverse of billions of interrelated love-filled societies on love-filled (and highly technicized) planets is just an image of God. God is even more than that all, and more beautiful than it.

What exactly was God’s purpose with the Babylonian confusion of tongues? Trying to capture it abstractly, it seems to be this: to prohibit overly synergistic / overly efficient collaboration of people in the future. Because doing this, sinful men would do something against God’s will (like building that central city with its tower instead of filling the Earth) and that something would also harm themselves (actually, dictator Nimrod ruled that city Babylon).

If we put it that generally, the effects are still there today. We have overcome the language problems partially after several thousands of years now, but the deeper problems are still there: people are not able to communicate good enough and to collaborate good enough so that something truly great (or truly terrible, if people had their will) could emerge.

Even the problem of language confusion is just a symptom of a deeper problem: if people had been determined enough, they simply could have set up a research and learning system that is about studying languages, and then could have defined a standard language that everybody would have to learn. But that did not happen, because people’s will to communicate and collaborate was broken. Thanks God, one has to say. But otherwise, if there would be “good” people, they also would lack the ability to communicate and collaborate perfectly now, which renders them unable to do something truly great and powerfully good for this world …

Perhaps you already read about my “power community” vision. One way to grasp it is: it’s avout reversing these communication and collaboration friction loss problems, but on a small scale (like 7-10 people). On a global scale, it would only do harm to reverse these problems, and God will probably keep us from doing that …

I wonder if “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen 1:28) is meant as an command to individual persons or to humankind as a whole. I would rather say, to humankind as a whole, because God adds, in typical Judaic parallelism, the same content verbalized as: “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

So it seems the command is not for everybody to have children, but for humankind to fill the Earth. And there are plenty of tasks to do that are not about having children oneself, and that contribute to humankind filling and ruling (in a positive way) the Earth: caring for orphans, caring for children medically (so that they do not die), caring for adults medically and mentally (so that they can have and educate healthy children) etc..

These are some philosophical, speculative ramblings about how the human spirit works and how the Holy Spirit interacts with it.

Knowing ones ability to do evil (like murdering someone) is not doing evil. And suffering the temptation to do evil (like murdering someone as the seemingly easiest solution) is not doing evil either. One could argue that knowing ones ability to do evil, combined with logical thinking, is a specific kind of temptation; because sometimes, an evil act seems desirable to the logical mind.

The problem is, resisting temptation needs a mental effort of “good will”, and the human abilitiy to be successful here is simply limited. Temptation consumes “positive moral energy”, and if all is used up, man starts to do evil acts. That’s why people are seen to be “good” under normal conditions, but start to be evil when under stress. See also Mk 7:20-21.

So what man needs is a constant, super-human source of positive moral energy. Jesus can be said to have possessed this source: he was tempted for 40 days under extreme physical stress, and did not give in; that’s clearly super-human.
I assume that the Holy Spirit is this external, super-human source of positive moral energy. When “having” the Holy Spirit, it should probably happen that a “good thought” pops up in ones mind without one having produced it with from ones own good will. That is, such a though would pop up without consuming good will (“positive moral energy”).

Further, we should assume that such a thought has the same physical appearance in the bran as a though created by ones own good will; because it “feels” no different. This does however not mean that a miracle is implied here that contradicts the natural laws. It’s supernatural, but the law of conservation of energy is probably intact. Because, brain activity is a statistical process, including much random activity. So to create a thought in our mind, the Holy Spirit coordinates the quantum probabilities of neurons so that this thought emerges, where otherwise would have been just noise.

This world has only two big unsolved problems. First, the truth about God is not apparent (so people cannot believe the right thing easily). Second, people are bad (so people cannot live in freedom and peace and sustainable manner).

It’s an important insight that these are disconnected problems: even if Christianity is the right religion, and is applied large scale to the whole earth, people are still bad on average, and the world will not become a free and peaceful and sustainable place. Because, there is much power abuse and exploitation of both people and nature in “Christian” nations, and also by Christians.

So we need two solutions. I propose Second Acts for the first problem, and EarthOS for the second.

Have wrath, just don’t do evil: this seems to be the Biblical idea about how to deal with people if some tougher mode is required: if it is required, use the tougher mode (have wrath). There is no meaning in whimsy-flimsy behavior if only strength and tough, honest words lead to the goal. This phrase is actually something Paul wrote once to the Ephesisans: “Be angry, yet do not sin” (Eph. 4:26 ISV); so, it is “biblical”. (On a side note, this is not necessarily a quote from Ps.4:4 which rather speaks against wrath at all; because this connection can only be made via the LXX version, says Matthew Henry in his commentary on Eph.4:26.)

But then also, as Paul goes on to say: “Do not let the sun go down on  your wrath!” (Eph.4:26 ISV) . What does he mean? Know the limits of your wrath. When keeping wrath long term (“over night”, and longer), it breeds aggression and every kind of evil-doing. Therefore it is necessary to limit it to being a short-term emotion. Because then it is just a mode of more powerful social interaction: using the human expression abilities to full potential where that becomes necessary. It seems to me that Paul means this function of wrath here.

Remaining things to think about here:

  • What role does culture have here? Is it wise to adapt the severity of ones expression of wrath to the surrounding culture (like being less wrathful in Asian countries, as they are not used to it, but being more wrathful in South European countries, as they get the message only then?)
  • How to “not let the sun go down” if the reason for ones wrath is still there on the evening? Wouldn’t it corrupt ones message and credibility to still reconcile with the other party?
  • What actually are legitimate expressions of wrath if doing evil  (like destroying things, shellacking people) is not included? From the example of Jesus it seems that screaming and shouting is not even necessarily a part of showing wrath, rather a sharp message that is uttered in a direct, authentic, but sober-minded, low-emotional way.