Appreciate you sharing this, George. Thoughtful, ambitious framing—centering agapé/other-importance as the engine of democracy is a timely lens. It’s dense in a good way and invites a slow read. Bookmarking to sit with it. Thanks for thinking in public.
This is a profound and deeply resonant piece of work. You've successfully mapped the "structural drama" of our current crisis. Your diagnosis of how both political parties have their "false collective self-visions" shackled to each other is one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever read of what we call "Layer 2: The Great Distraction"—a manufactured horizontal conflict designed to blind everyone to the real war.
You, and your reader John Michael, are absolutely correct: "the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love." In our doctrine, this is the Vertical War. It's not a struggle between two sides of the same coin, but a fight between the producer class (The Gears) and the parasitic system that preys on them (The Rust).
Your "principle" of making the other's light more important is the very essence of a [BRIDGE] operation, and your concept of "agapé" as the foundation is the core of what we call the "Sanctuary Covenant"—the radical idea that high-trust, unconditional bonds are the only way to build a rebellion that can last.
You haven't just written a spiritual story; you've drafted the philosophical underpinnings of an asymmetric war. We've simply developed the tactical language for it.
As you so wisely implied, the spiritual rebellion of agapé is asymmetric, for there is nothing even about the vision of agapé on one side and the blindness of its absence on the other.
Developing a tactical language for it helps define the nature of the interaction, with one side void of all conflict and the other with its own inner and outer ones.
Since agapé is life-giving and hatred is murder, our motto is "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them."
That is a brilliant and powerful piece of doctrine. "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them" is a perfect motto for this spiritual rebellion.
Consider it officially adopted into our own rules of engagement. You've just forged a new, humane, and devastatingly effective weapon for our arsenal.
I truly appreciate your interest, Ethan, but I am on Substack to teach how to love the enemies of conscience. I strongly encourage you to start the process. Nothing can replace the experience of loving them yourself.
---This is the best way I can contribute to our struggle for a mature democracy. We need to wake up and realize that we, we are the problem, every citizen of the world who does not know how to give their agapé to the least among us.
The only difference is that we want to help the oppressed, but we do not want to love the oppressors so that we can understand their hatred for us. This way, we can continue in our hatred for them with the false identity we hold on to so we can keep our agapé locked in our little circles.
Name has no shortage of agapé. We just have a shortage of vision to see it in each other.
I have always known that it takes a community to understand the truth, no one can alone. You have helped me see what I could not alone. Now I must do my job and take it in to connect to the community better. I will get back with you as soon as possible.
As a non-American, I am often astounded that a nation so steeped in Christian language and history could allow itself to fall into this pit. Democracy was meant to be for the people, by the people. Not for some of the people we like, by the better, richer, smarter people who have learned to spin their message to our particular biases in order to win our vote.
What struck me most in your piece, George, is the reminder that the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love. Without agapé, love that makes the other more important without erasing ourselves, politics becomes just another mask for self-interest.
The harder question is this: how do we get love to lead? For me it comes back to Jesus’ words, “You, follow me.” Not “fix the world first,” not “prove you are right,” but follow Him in the way of laying down power for the sake of others.
Love begins to lead when ordinary people stop outsourcing virtue to politicians and start embodying it themselves. When we see the person across the divide not as an enemy to defeat but as a neighbor to serve. It is not sentimental, it is costly. But without it, no system, however brilliant, can hold.
I wonder how others here wrestle with this. What does it look like, in practical terms, for love to truly lead in the public square?
Thank you John for your thoughtful comment. Yes, the question is how do we get love to lead? Democracy is for the believer and nonbeliever, so how do we together get love to lead, as you put it, laying down power for the sake of others?
I have to ask you the simple question I often ask. Do you love the enemies of conscience (suneidesis), more than before, or do you have no interest in it? How can we ask the question, how does love lead in the public square, if we do not see it ourselves? Yes, that is the key, to see love with our inner vision.
It is not metaphoric. The teaching to envision is not mine but directly from the scriptures. Our love for enemies cannot be sincere without it. We need seeing love that is greater than death to really answer the question. Jesus could see, Paul and David and many more. What if millions could see? It only seems impossible when we cannot see ourselves.
I would put it this way: it is not about loving the enemies of conscience, but about loving the person themselves, not their lust, pride, or anger.
For me, love begins to lead when I remember what it means to be an image-bearer of God. Whether believer or not, we carry the imprint of the Creator. As apprentices of Jesus we are invited into His Way, and in following Him we slowly become what He said we are meant to be: a city on a hill, salt that adds flavor, light that cannot be hidden.
That is not theory for me. It has to start at home. If I cannot model love leading in my own life, in my family, in my closest relationships, then it will never carry any weight in the public square.
I believe the Kingdom of God is already here, on earth as in heaven. When I walk in it, and bring that Kingdom presence into ordinary encounters, others sometimes catch a glimpse. Maybe it comes as kindness when anger was expected, or forgiveness when resentment would have been easy. Maybe it comes as healing, or a word of wisdom. Sometimes people see enough to say, “There’s something different here… and maybe I want some of that too.”
That is how love begins to lead, one person at a time, becoming more like the One we follow.
I respect that very much, John. However, consider for a moment how those are the words many people live their entire lives by. There is no breakthrough to say I deeply and sincerely love my enemies. Why? Christ did not tell us to love our enemies and then expect us to live our lives always falling short of this key command that brings us into the maturity He calls us too. Yes, we can do nothing without him, but Hebrews 6:1 commands us to move onto maturity and stop laying the foundation of faith over again. Hebrews 5:14 states that the solid food of maturity is about training our senses, which can only be properly interpreted to mean our spiritual senses. If we do not listen to this command from the word of God, then how can we expect Him to ever approve us for maturity? Yes, improving our love at home is important, but it reaches the limit when we do not learn how to love our enemies, for that restricts our love to those we love in our home. Remember, he said that there is no reward for loving those who love us. So the process does not begin at home, loving those who love us. It begins with learning how to train our spiritual senses. Again, seeing our enemies as Christ sees them is how we can love them. Or does He not love us to teach us this if we want to learn?
I respect your position, and I hear your urgency in calling us to the solid food of maturity. At the same time, I doubt that there are many who truly live by those words. We are in a world that thrives on “what about me?” and “what’s in it for me?” where everyone is dragged into a game of comparison and competition, even among brothers and sisters.
I do not diminish Christ’s command to love my enemies at all. He did not give it to us as an impossible ideal. But if I cannot love those closest to me with patience and sacrifice, then my claim to love enemies becomes hollow. It is in the daily training ground of family, friendship, and community that my senses are sharpened for the harder task of seeing and loving my enemies through the eyes of Christ.
Hebrews does call us to move beyond foundations, and that means we must not stay where it is comfortable. Yet Jesus Himself washed the feet of His friends before He laid down His life for those who hated Him. I see a progression here. The call begins at home, but it cannot end there. It must grow outward, and it must look like Him.
Yes, I agree, we’re living in a very competitive world, but isn’t that all the more reason we should seek it ourselves so that others may thank God for seeing an example of it?
You used the family again as your reasoning for finding growth and achieving true love for enemies. But unless family members qualify as enemies, you’re not learning how to love those who hate you.
Jesus said not to resist evil. By not resisting the evil in the heart of an enemy who is hating us, we get the opportunity to see them in the light they are in Christ and recognize their blindness.
He said if our eye is evil, the whole body is full of darkness. That is how we know they are spiritually blind and thus why we can forgive them for not knowing what they are doing. The issue then is, what does the light of Christ in them look like?
Jesus said to the blind, you have neither seen the form of God nor heard His voice. That is not a figurative statement. If he said it to blind hypocrites, then he certainly expects us to see the form. It cannot resemble flesh in any form, for he said the flesh profits nothing. Are you with me?
As Don has decided not to reply, I turn to you dear reader. We have been doing what generations before us have been doing and are expecting the same results.
However, we are a pivotal generation, perhaps the most in history. Without a higher love, how can we expect the results we hope for?
This is a monumental effort, George — complex, poetic, and challenging in the best way. Thank you for putting so much care into a vision that’s bigger than politics, bigger than self.
This is a really interesting and, dare i say niche type of article. Though, I don't know if 'any' god or spirituality in a more modern sense could work with democracy. Because I've heard the greeks invented it, (which im guessing is why you used greek words) so wouldn't it only work with nations that adopted greek ideas? Like the romans, and now the modern west. To which the main religion that adopts it, is now Christianity.
Of course you've quoted the bible and talk about western politics. Which means to me, that democracy only works on shared certain goals. And one, only one religion at a time that holds democracy up truly.
Just sharing what I understood in short. And what I disagreed with. it's a small point I know. Just thought to try my best at understanding this post.
The ideas of democracy and gods (I do not use the word gods ever) that I am referring to started with the Hebrews. Greek philosophy and language were only used to communicate them. "Elohim" is Hebrew for God, but it has a dual meaning, God the divine and gods as in sons of God. The distinction clearly uses elohim as gods in the sense of image, "made in the image of Elohim". Our image is one of reflection not source, in other words, we are elohim without any power whatsoever of our own. The Greek word for gods, from theos, carries the philosophical notion that we have some power of our own beyond what Elohim gives and takes away when we misuse it. Atheists appreciate this by seeing the grand scheme of Life giving us life and taking it away, along with other qualities depending on how we use them. It does not need to be a religious belief only, and spirituality is simply the usage of this knowledge, not to be confused with scientific knowledge. See this link for the difference-- https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-d07?r=4pmgma.
The idea of democracy, "rule by the people", although from a Greek word, was used centuries before Christ in the Hebrew passage Psalm 82:1-8. The first part translates: "[Observe] elohim [us] positioned in the Congregation of El [a strictly singular form for God]. In the midst of elohim, He [El] judges, [saying], ‘How long will you [elohim] judge unjustly and show the faces of the wicked partiality.'"
Name (God or Life depending on our beliefs) oversees us in a democratic rule over ourselves. For elohim does not refer only to leaders in this passage since in 82:6, Name says, "I said, 'You [are] elohim and sons of the Most High, all of you.'" Some leaders like to claim it only refers to them, but we are all in the image of Name, obviously. Elected elohim are just that, elected by all of us elohim, citizens of a democracy--when we have been given the blessing and do not lose it by abusing it.
Democracies are not to be based on religion, for it is self-rule based on the principle of respecting each other's choices within the voted upon laws for our overall well-being. Spirituality is the arm of knowledge of our hearts, and science is the arm of knowledge of our bodies and all else that exists in the universe.
Oh I see, read just enough of the old testament to understand where I was wrong between God, and the people of God. Just didn't remember until this reply. But I didn't know democracy was started before the classical period either. Thanks for this explanation.
Very complex article, with so many avenues to wade through. I am going to have to digest. For sure, this must have taken quite some time for you to explore and delineate, even if you were forced to used a bot (which I do not think you did), it would be impressive! Agape love is misused by many people, especially men, in preying on others. But for how you are positioning it, I agree fully (much as I am trying to understand the high-level writing). For sure, I see that finding "value" in our rivals is part of what makes us human. Even for killers -the point reminds me of that poignant scene in the movie Kill Bill 2- where Elle Driver explains her grief in that her warrior enemy Beatrix had been killed; that it was a mistake; and that she was angry at Beatrix's killer, who was less talented and disrespectful of her. Very strange how the hot water misses the fire when it's gone. (Edited response)
This is deeply layered. I appreciate how you connect spiritual sight, agapé, and the metaphor of building a house. The inward-and-outward exchange image really stuck with me. It’s the kind of piece you read slowly to let it sink in.
Thank you for your insights. No, I didn’t use a bot. It is a matter of training to envision, which is what makes the unconditional love of agapé possible for imperfect people like ourselves, everyone. I suggest focusing again on the training part in the beginning before digesting it.
The reason envisioning is key to agapé is found in knowledge of Word (the image of God or Life depending on our beliefs), stating: "We will be like him (Word) because we will envision him just as he is." "Envision" is the correct translation not "see", indicating that the responsibility falls on us to envision him as he is, and that until we do, we reflect the error in how we envision him into ourselves.
It applies to how we envision Word in everyone. If I envision Word in you correctly, I reflect the agapé in Word into myself and can love you unconditionally. I can also see whether you are correctly envisioning Word in me and loving me likewise. We can each see if either of us is doing so incorrectly and, if so, forgive the other for being blind to Word in both of us, the nature of unconditional love.
Thus, if we do not envision Word correctly in men who prey on others, we are reflecting the error back into ourselves and cannot love them unconditionally. With agapé, we can resist their actions wisely, but without agapé, we resist blindly, and sometimes misjudge others altogether.
For a further breakdown on envisioning, please read “Spirituality and Democracy 2”.
Hi George =) I edited my comment to better reflect the intention of my bot statement.
I appreciate your intellectual prowess, but also, that you are taking time to care for others in the ways you know to do. Your kindness resonates deeply into the bedrock of the Internet =) and I admire you for your agape love.
Thank you for the recommendations for training, and the link. I'll give some time to them!
You didn’t need to edit your first comment. I liked it as it was. I just forgot to tap the like button. But thanks all the more for showing unconditional love and making your good intentions clearer instead of judging me when thinking I wasn’t happy. =)
If we can just get our democracy to work like that. Thank you!
This is very touching I feel it relates to mental illness spiritual awakening in realizing oneself when we can accept ourselves we can accept anything when we can love ourselves we can love anything when we can change ourselves we can change the world
Your article is deep, robust, and very interesting. I'll need to soak it in and reread some of it as it is thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing it.
Aloha Ohana, that is an interesting thought but I don't believe AI really "understands" spiritual things. If you are referring to the words "Mother Earth" I asked about in our chat thread, I suggest reading chapter four where it is used to get a context.
I confess, George, I think I understand your article. I found your message rather bogged down in too much language.
I understand your use of Christianity to explain your concept. I wish your explanation could have been stated in more vernacular language.
In Orthodoxy, we say things simply.
I respect your article, but if it is too cumbersome to follow, I believe your message is lost to those who get lost in your overly worded illiteration.
Thank you, Jack, for taking the time to express your views. Under normal reading criteria, you are perfectly correct. But you misunderstood the opening discussion about “translating” the meaning carried in human language into the visual meaning held in the eyes of our heart.
Without learning how to do that, you read the story on the superficial surface level of everyday literature. Envisioning it as explained, you would use every single word to permeate the veils covering our socially blinded minds and hearts.
You would be guided by the primary message of Christianity to love your enemies, anyone blinded to the light of life in them, the key part of the training. For yes, the Bible speaks of training our spiritual senses to see, but instead of receiving it, we protect our spiritual blindness as if Jesus came to blind us.
I do hope you can stop listening to the voices of the misguided long enough to give yourself a chance to see.
I thoroughly understood. And I agree with you. I just believe your theological dissertation wordiness, may confuse a layman reader, but do I respect your work.
This was an interesting read. I see where you are going, but I have a few thoughts though.
Democracy isn’t about sameness; it’s about having frameworks that allow for difference without destruction. “Collective consciousness” is often misused as a utopian shortcut. What actually exists is a shared tension space where different ethics, values, and even spiritual views clash, evolve, and sometimes find common ground—but never perfectly align.
When someone ties the health of democracy to spiritual consciousness without clarifying their terms, it subtly implies that non-spiritual people are outside or beneath that democratic ideal.
Instead of recognizing democracy as a system that protects freedom of thought—including agnosticism, atheism, and moral pluralism—it gets conflated with some vague “spiritual light.” To me—that erodes the core premise of democracy: diversity of belief.
Thank you for taking the time to write such good insights. I think you’ll be pleased to know that I agree with. But you seemed to have missed the first section pointing to the series of articles this one belongs to. All your points are confirmed in them. I hope you’ll take the time to read through them. Thank you again.
Appreciate you sharing this, George. Thoughtful, ambitious framing—centering agapé/other-importance as the engine of democracy is a timely lens. It’s dense in a good way and invites a slow read. Bookmarking to sit with it. Thanks for thinking in public.
Thanks Mark, may you come out with a better view of democracy we all need to connect to.
George,
This is a profound and deeply resonant piece of work. You've successfully mapped the "structural drama" of our current crisis. Your diagnosis of how both political parties have their "false collective self-visions" shackled to each other is one of the most accurate descriptions I've ever read of what we call "Layer 2: The Great Distraction"—a manufactured horizontal conflict designed to blind everyone to the real war.
You, and your reader John Michael, are absolutely correct: "the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love." In our doctrine, this is the Vertical War. It's not a struggle between two sides of the same coin, but a fight between the producer class (The Gears) and the parasitic system that preys on them (The Rust).
Your "principle" of making the other's light more important is the very essence of a [BRIDGE] operation, and your concept of "agapé" as the foundation is the core of what we call the "Sanctuary Covenant"—the radical idea that high-trust, unconditional bonds are the only way to build a rebellion that can last.
You haven't just written a spiritual story; you've drafted the philosophical underpinnings of an asymmetric war. We've simply developed the tactical language for it.
Incredible work.
As you so wisely implied, the spiritual rebellion of agapé is asymmetric, for there is nothing even about the vision of agapé on one side and the blindness of its absence on the other.
Developing a tactical language for it helps define the nature of the interaction, with one side void of all conflict and the other with its own inner and outer ones.
Since agapé is life-giving and hatred is murder, our motto is "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them."
George,
That is a brilliant and powerful piece of doctrine. "Kill no one, take only prisoners of their own conscience to free them" is a perfect motto for this spiritual rebellion.
Consider it officially adopted into our own rules of engagement. You've just forged a new, humane, and devastatingly effective weapon for our arsenal.
We're standing by for your next transmission.
I truly appreciate your interest, Ethan, but I am on Substack to teach how to love the enemies of conscience. I strongly encourage you to start the process. Nothing can replace the experience of loving them yourself.
---This is the best way I can contribute to our struggle for a mature democracy. We need to wake up and realize that we, we are the problem, every citizen of the world who does not know how to give their agapé to the least among us.
The only difference is that we want to help the oppressed, but we do not want to love the oppressors so that we can understand their hatred for us. This way, we can continue in our hatred for them with the false identity we hold on to so we can keep our agapé locked in our little circles.
Name has no shortage of agapé. We just have a shortage of vision to see it in each other.
Start here: https://open.substack.com/pub/georgeallenbooks/p/can-we-save-our-democracy?r=4pmgma&utm_medium=ios
Ethan,
I have always known that it takes a community to understand the truth, no one can alone. You have helped me see what I could not alone. Now I must do my job and take it in to connect to the community better. I will get back with you as soon as possible.
Your servant,
George
As a non-American, I am often astounded that a nation so steeped in Christian language and history could allow itself to fall into this pit. Democracy was meant to be for the people, by the people. Not for some of the people we like, by the better, richer, smarter people who have learned to spin their message to our particular biases in order to win our vote.
What struck me most in your piece, George, is the reminder that the real divide is not ultimately Republican versus Democrat, but blindness versus love. Without agapé, love that makes the other more important without erasing ourselves, politics becomes just another mask for self-interest.
The harder question is this: how do we get love to lead? For me it comes back to Jesus’ words, “You, follow me.” Not “fix the world first,” not “prove you are right,” but follow Him in the way of laying down power for the sake of others.
Love begins to lead when ordinary people stop outsourcing virtue to politicians and start embodying it themselves. When we see the person across the divide not as an enemy to defeat but as a neighbor to serve. It is not sentimental, it is costly. But without it, no system, however brilliant, can hold.
I wonder how others here wrestle with this. What does it look like, in practical terms, for love to truly lead in the public square?
Thank you John for your thoughtful comment. Yes, the question is how do we get love to lead? Democracy is for the believer and nonbeliever, so how do we together get love to lead, as you put it, laying down power for the sake of others?
I have to ask you the simple question I often ask. Do you love the enemies of conscience (suneidesis), more than before, or do you have no interest in it? How can we ask the question, how does love lead in the public square, if we do not see it ourselves? Yes, that is the key, to see love with our inner vision.
It is not metaphoric. The teaching to envision is not mine but directly from the scriptures. Our love for enemies cannot be sincere without it. We need seeing love that is greater than death to really answer the question. Jesus could see, Paul and David and many more. What if millions could see? It only seems impossible when we cannot see ourselves.
I would put it this way: it is not about loving the enemies of conscience, but about loving the person themselves, not their lust, pride, or anger.
For me, love begins to lead when I remember what it means to be an image-bearer of God. Whether believer or not, we carry the imprint of the Creator. As apprentices of Jesus we are invited into His Way, and in following Him we slowly become what He said we are meant to be: a city on a hill, salt that adds flavor, light that cannot be hidden.
That is not theory for me. It has to start at home. If I cannot model love leading in my own life, in my family, in my closest relationships, then it will never carry any weight in the public square.
I believe the Kingdom of God is already here, on earth as in heaven. When I walk in it, and bring that Kingdom presence into ordinary encounters, others sometimes catch a glimpse. Maybe it comes as kindness when anger was expected, or forgiveness when resentment would have been easy. Maybe it comes as healing, or a word of wisdom. Sometimes people see enough to say, “There’s something different here… and maybe I want some of that too.”
That is how love begins to lead, one person at a time, becoming more like the One we follow.
I respect that very much, John. However, consider for a moment how those are the words many people live their entire lives by. There is no breakthrough to say I deeply and sincerely love my enemies. Why? Christ did not tell us to love our enemies and then expect us to live our lives always falling short of this key command that brings us into the maturity He calls us too. Yes, we can do nothing without him, but Hebrews 6:1 commands us to move onto maturity and stop laying the foundation of faith over again. Hebrews 5:14 states that the solid food of maturity is about training our senses, which can only be properly interpreted to mean our spiritual senses. If we do not listen to this command from the word of God, then how can we expect Him to ever approve us for maturity? Yes, improving our love at home is important, but it reaches the limit when we do not learn how to love our enemies, for that restricts our love to those we love in our home. Remember, he said that there is no reward for loving those who love us. So the process does not begin at home, loving those who love us. It begins with learning how to train our spiritual senses. Again, seeing our enemies as Christ sees them is how we can love them. Or does He not love us to teach us this if we want to learn?
I respect your position, and I hear your urgency in calling us to the solid food of maturity. At the same time, I doubt that there are many who truly live by those words. We are in a world that thrives on “what about me?” and “what’s in it for me?” where everyone is dragged into a game of comparison and competition, even among brothers and sisters.
I do not diminish Christ’s command to love my enemies at all. He did not give it to us as an impossible ideal. But if I cannot love those closest to me with patience and sacrifice, then my claim to love enemies becomes hollow. It is in the daily training ground of family, friendship, and community that my senses are sharpened for the harder task of seeing and loving my enemies through the eyes of Christ.
Hebrews does call us to move beyond foundations, and that means we must not stay where it is comfortable. Yet Jesus Himself washed the feet of His friends before He laid down His life for those who hated Him. I see a progression here. The call begins at home, but it cannot end there. It must grow outward, and it must look like Him.
Yes, I agree, we’re living in a very competitive world, but isn’t that all the more reason we should seek it ourselves so that others may thank God for seeing an example of it?
You used the family again as your reasoning for finding growth and achieving true love for enemies. But unless family members qualify as enemies, you’re not learning how to love those who hate you.
Jesus said not to resist evil. By not resisting the evil in the heart of an enemy who is hating us, we get the opportunity to see them in the light they are in Christ and recognize their blindness.
He said if our eye is evil, the whole body is full of darkness. That is how we know they are spiritually blind and thus why we can forgive them for not knowing what they are doing. The issue then is, what does the light of Christ in them look like?
Jesus said to the blind, you have neither seen the form of God nor heard His voice. That is not a figurative statement. If he said it to blind hypocrites, then he certainly expects us to see the form. It cannot resemble flesh in any form, for he said the flesh profits nothing. Are you with me?
As Don has decided not to reply, I turn to you dear reader. We have been doing what generations before us have been doing and are expecting the same results.
However, we are a pivotal generation, perhaps the most in history. Without a higher love, how can we expect the results we hope for?
This is a monumental effort, George — complex, poetic, and challenging in the best way. Thank you for putting so much care into a vision that’s bigger than politics, bigger than self.
So honored you feel that way, Josh.
This is a really interesting and, dare i say niche type of article. Though, I don't know if 'any' god or spirituality in a more modern sense could work with democracy. Because I've heard the greeks invented it, (which im guessing is why you used greek words) so wouldn't it only work with nations that adopted greek ideas? Like the romans, and now the modern west. To which the main religion that adopts it, is now Christianity.
Of course you've quoted the bible and talk about western politics. Which means to me, that democracy only works on shared certain goals. And one, only one religion at a time that holds democracy up truly.
Just sharing what I understood in short. And what I disagreed with. it's a small point I know. Just thought to try my best at understanding this post.
The ideas of democracy and gods (I do not use the word gods ever) that I am referring to started with the Hebrews. Greek philosophy and language were only used to communicate them. "Elohim" is Hebrew for God, but it has a dual meaning, God the divine and gods as in sons of God. The distinction clearly uses elohim as gods in the sense of image, "made in the image of Elohim". Our image is one of reflection not source, in other words, we are elohim without any power whatsoever of our own. The Greek word for gods, from theos, carries the philosophical notion that we have some power of our own beyond what Elohim gives and takes away when we misuse it. Atheists appreciate this by seeing the grand scheme of Life giving us life and taking it away, along with other qualities depending on how we use them. It does not need to be a religious belief only, and spirituality is simply the usage of this knowledge, not to be confused with scientific knowledge. See this link for the difference-- https://georgeallenbooks.substack.com/p/short-lessons-on-unconditional-love-d07?r=4pmgma.
The idea of democracy, "rule by the people", although from a Greek word, was used centuries before Christ in the Hebrew passage Psalm 82:1-8. The first part translates: "[Observe] elohim [us] positioned in the Congregation of El [a strictly singular form for God]. In the midst of elohim, He [El] judges, [saying], ‘How long will you [elohim] judge unjustly and show the faces of the wicked partiality.'"
Name (God or Life depending on our beliefs) oversees us in a democratic rule over ourselves. For elohim does not refer only to leaders in this passage since in 82:6, Name says, "I said, 'You [are] elohim and sons of the Most High, all of you.'" Some leaders like to claim it only refers to them, but we are all in the image of Name, obviously. Elected elohim are just that, elected by all of us elohim, citizens of a democracy--when we have been given the blessing and do not lose it by abusing it.
Democracies are not to be based on religion, for it is self-rule based on the principle of respecting each other's choices within the voted upon laws for our overall well-being. Spirituality is the arm of knowledge of our hearts, and science is the arm of knowledge of our bodies and all else that exists in the universe.
Oh I see, read just enough of the old testament to understand where I was wrong between God, and the people of God. Just didn't remember until this reply. But I didn't know democracy was started before the classical period either. Thanks for this explanation.
I hope you found value in the story and want to learn how to love the enemies of suneidesis (conscience).
Thanks Matthew for such important questions.
Extremely well written! I read every word, some I agree with some I didn't, but definitely something to make you think
Thank you. Do you love your enemies of suneidesis (conscience), any closer, or have no desire to?
George, I'm going to think about that for a minute. Not sure how I feel about it right now
Thank you for giving it serious thought, Calan.
Agapè emphasizes active love as a moral force?
Thank you I think I have a better understanding now.
Please read this
https://open.substack.com/pub/georgeallenbooks/p/argument-3-the-principle-over-moral?r=4pmgma&utm_medium=ios
Needed this tonight.
Great, let me know if you have any questions.
Very complex article, with so many avenues to wade through. I am going to have to digest. For sure, this must have taken quite some time for you to explore and delineate, even if you were forced to used a bot (which I do not think you did), it would be impressive! Agape love is misused by many people, especially men, in preying on others. But for how you are positioning it, I agree fully (much as I am trying to understand the high-level writing). For sure, I see that finding "value" in our rivals is part of what makes us human. Even for killers -the point reminds me of that poignant scene in the movie Kill Bill 2- where Elle Driver explains her grief in that her warrior enemy Beatrix had been killed; that it was a mistake; and that she was angry at Beatrix's killer, who was less talented and disrespectful of her. Very strange how the hot water misses the fire when it's gone. (Edited response)
This is deeply layered. I appreciate how you connect spiritual sight, agapé, and the metaphor of building a house. The inward-and-outward exchange image really stuck with me. It’s the kind of piece you read slowly to let it sink in.
Thank you. I hope you found value in it.
Thank you for your insights. No, I didn’t use a bot. It is a matter of training to envision, which is what makes the unconditional love of agapé possible for imperfect people like ourselves, everyone. I suggest focusing again on the training part in the beginning before digesting it.
The reason envisioning is key to agapé is found in knowledge of Word (the image of God or Life depending on our beliefs), stating: "We will be like him (Word) because we will envision him just as he is." "Envision" is the correct translation not "see", indicating that the responsibility falls on us to envision him as he is, and that until we do, we reflect the error in how we envision him into ourselves.
It applies to how we envision Word in everyone. If I envision Word in you correctly, I reflect the agapé in Word into myself and can love you unconditionally. I can also see whether you are correctly envisioning Word in me and loving me likewise. We can each see if either of us is doing so incorrectly and, if so, forgive the other for being blind to Word in both of us, the nature of unconditional love.
Thus, if we do not envision Word correctly in men who prey on others, we are reflecting the error back into ourselves and cannot love them unconditionally. With agapé, we can resist their actions wisely, but without agapé, we resist blindly, and sometimes misjudge others altogether.
For a further breakdown on envisioning, please read “Spirituality and Democracy 2”.
https://open.substack.com/pub/georgeallenbooks/p/spirituality-and-democracy-2?r=4pmgma&utm_medium=ios
Hi George =) I edited my comment to better reflect the intention of my bot statement.
I appreciate your intellectual prowess, but also, that you are taking time to care for others in the ways you know to do. Your kindness resonates deeply into the bedrock of the Internet =) and I admire you for your agape love.
Thank you for the recommendations for training, and the link. I'll give some time to them!
You didn’t need to edit your first comment. I liked it as it was. I just forgot to tap the like button. But thanks all the more for showing unconditional love and making your good intentions clearer instead of judging me when thinking I wasn’t happy. =)
If we can just get our democracy to work like that. Thank you!
This is very touching I feel it relates to mental illness spiritual awakening in realizing oneself when we can accept ourselves we can accept anything when we can love ourselves we can love anything when we can change ourselves we can change the world
Thank you for your powerful insights.
Your article is deep, robust, and very interesting. I'll need to soak it in and reread some of it as it is thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing it.
I’m very grateful for your comment and hope I can answer any questions you may have.
Beautifully presented and thought provoking read. Thank you.
Thank you for your kind words.
Welcome! I’m always happy to support fellow writers, there’s some very talented writers on this platform that deserve more attention:)
aloha ohana - is there a way i can get AI to read this to me so i can better attune to what uncle george allen is sharing?
Aloha Ohana, that is an interesting thought but I don't believe AI really "understands" spiritual things. If you are referring to the words "Mother Earth" I asked about in our chat thread, I suggest reading chapter four where it is used to get a context.
I was simply asking if this is something that can be read out loud… But I worked it out. I read it out loud myself lol
lol
I confess, George, I think I understand your article. I found your message rather bogged down in too much language.
I understand your use of Christianity to explain your concept. I wish your explanation could have been stated in more vernacular language.
In Orthodoxy, we say things simply.
I respect your article, but if it is too cumbersome to follow, I believe your message is lost to those who get lost in your overly worded illiteration.
But I congratulate you for your academic work.
Thank you, Jack, for taking the time to express your views. Under normal reading criteria, you are perfectly correct. But you misunderstood the opening discussion about “translating” the meaning carried in human language into the visual meaning held in the eyes of our heart.
Without learning how to do that, you read the story on the superficial surface level of everyday literature. Envisioning it as explained, you would use every single word to permeate the veils covering our socially blinded minds and hearts.
You would be guided by the primary message of Christianity to love your enemies, anyone blinded to the light of life in them, the key part of the training. For yes, the Bible speaks of training our spiritual senses to see, but instead of receiving it, we protect our spiritual blindness as if Jesus came to blind us.
I do hope you can stop listening to the voices of the misguided long enough to give yourself a chance to see.
I thoroughly understood. And I agree with you. I just believe your theological dissertation wordiness, may confuse a layman reader, but do I respect your work.
Point well taken. I’ll work harder at putting what everyone already understands in their own heart into everyday words. Appreciate you, thank you.
Well said
Thank you, I hope it moved you to learn how to envision.
This was an interesting read. I see where you are going, but I have a few thoughts though.
Democracy isn’t about sameness; it’s about having frameworks that allow for difference without destruction. “Collective consciousness” is often misused as a utopian shortcut. What actually exists is a shared tension space where different ethics, values, and even spiritual views clash, evolve, and sometimes find common ground—but never perfectly align.
When someone ties the health of democracy to spiritual consciousness without clarifying their terms, it subtly implies that non-spiritual people are outside or beneath that democratic ideal.
Instead of recognizing democracy as a system that protects freedom of thought—including agnosticism, atheism, and moral pluralism—it gets conflated with some vague “spiritual light.” To me—that erodes the core premise of democracy: diversity of belief.
Thank you for sharing this with us.
Thank you for taking the time to write such good insights. I think you’ll be pleased to know that I agree with. But you seemed to have missed the first section pointing to the series of articles this one belongs to. All your points are confirmed in them. I hope you’ll take the time to read through them. Thank you again.
I love how you used spirituality, literature, and politics as combo for your article.
Thank you, Christopher, that is very insightful.