continuing from here: andynowicki.substack.co…

It’s all self-cancelling though, when applied to specific events; what have we said in this exchange except, “It happened?” Why not leave God out of it?

Now, I have also said in the past, “If it happened, then God willed it,” admittedly; but that’s a whole different thing than claiming divine intervention, which is when God acts visibly, takes over the wheel, and changes the course of things in the world. (For which I am not sure there is any historical or even theological basis, frankly, Old Testament fables notwithstanding.)

For me, it’s a terrible idea to bring (the idea of) God into what are clearly socially-engineered events, as I think we are seeing happen now (by design, and not God’s). If there’s one thing we can speculate that “the Devil” wants, it’s to be able to pass off his tricks as miracles and get mistaken for God.

But to be clear, when I, at least, talk of God and Satan, I am rarely if ever talking of “beings,” because such hypothetical beings would be so totally beyond our comprehension as to render anything I said about them nonsense. This is especially true of God, if we think of God as infinite, because the more we say about the infinite, as a being, the more ridiculous we end up sounding. (Nothing that is infinite can have form, never mind qualities, because it includes everything.)

Otherwise stated, whenever we use these words, we should acknowledge that we have moved from talking of social realities and even psychological ones, into philosophical and theological ones. And while there may be a bridge between the two, it certainly isn’t one that many people know about, or where to find it, or how to get across it.

The only person I know of who seems to have made some headway in this area is Rene Girard, & I am currently stretching my noggin in every direction to get it around his Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, so my whole view of God, Christ, and theology is changing as we speak.

TL:DR: whenever we speak of God, we are always wrong; but some statements are more wrong than others.

My statement that “If God intervened (which as I said I think is a dubious proposal in itself, and I am not sure if any robust theological logic supports it), then it would not be on National TV.” This is partially based on a Girardian understanding of what God/Christ is, namely, the principle of love that does not resist or try to force itself onto anything, in a world built on and through sacrificial violence (which includes Judaism and post-Christ Christianity), and hence has almost no effects within that world, save through demonstrating how it is rejected and expelled by it (and generating the Gospel).

Any other idea, Girard would say, is an anti-Christian inversion of the divine principle, sourced in a desire to see God as having worldly power and influence, just as JC’s apostles made the same mistake with JC. Why? Because of a desire to be on the worldly winning side! (Like the new messiah, DJT)

TL:DR: God may be IN the world, but He is not OF the world, hence He cannot ever be identified with anything worldly; except, RG would say, in the form of the innocent victim.

Trump and this psyop are usurping this truth, as I see it, by posing as the victim-who-would-be-king, when all the world knows, in its heart, that Donald J. Trump is anything but innocent.

It is the wolf in lamb’s clothing and falling meekly for the devil’s ruse is no way to avoid being eaten.