Yesterday, someone asked: "Tell me what a "black pill" is...
Red Pill, Blue Pill, Black Pill, White Pill
(H/T to Dr. Zeus)
A black pill builds on the metaphor of the red pill and the blue pill in the film, The Matrix.
The red pill is the one that Neo must take in order to wake up from the Matrix. It carries a tracer program that finds him in the matrix hardware and disrupts his input/output connection. On the other hand, while never fully explained, the blue pill appears to have carried something that will allow Neo to forget what he knows, and to live life oblivious to the falseness of the Matrix.
Metaphorically, the Red Pill represents information that reveals some truth about the facade of lies that the Cabal and Deep State has built in order to keep us, the population, asleep and in trance. The Matrix itself is a metaphor for that Façade of Lies.
The Blue Pill metaphorically represents the fake propaganda information that the Deep State / Cabal disseminates via its propaganda machine, fake information that perpetuates the lies that people must believe in order to ‘not see’ the truth.
In this context, a "Black Pill" is thus a metaphor for information that triggers disbelief, doubt, despair, depressing feelings, discouragement, "dooming" etc. The information inspires the opposite of hope.
If you take a "black pill", it means you are accepting in to your mental framework information that causes loss of hope, loss of vision and loss of positive expectation.
But that "Black Pill" only has power when it is ingested. In other words, it is the attitude and heart with which you engage that information that activates its negative power. For others, the very same information may actually form a "white pill", one that inspires hope and encourages.
There are many "white pills" out there, as there are "black pills", "red pills" and "blue pills". Which pills you take, and which ones you digest and make use of, this is affected in a very big way by your intent and your character.
What Activates the Nature of the Pill (Information)?
What the metaphor of the "pill" shows us is that there is an element of intention that is necessary to activate the power of the information.
Information (pill) + Intent (attitude) = Effect
This is why some people can see X information and ignore it. It has no effect on them, because the intent to see the truth, the desire to find the truth is not there. If the person 'desires' comfort, staying asleep, then they will ignore the information, even if their unconscious mind realizes that they are lying to themselves. Some people will willingly choose a lie if it appears that it will make their lives comfortable.
With others, however, the intent, the desire to see the truth, even if it is painful, is present, and this activates the information and creates the "Red Pill" effect.
So while information is a thing in itself, it is only when it is coupled with the human element – intent or purpose - that it delivers it's effect. So how is the intent that triggers the power of the information activated? How is the effect of Truth triggered?
There is a part in every human being that desires truth, that resonates with truth. Let us call this the Original Human Element, the part of each person that comes from God and is rooted in God's own nature.
Historically, that part of us has been suppressed, oppressed and attacked by another part within us, a part that does not come from God but which derives its origins in the being or cause that Christian belief refers to as "Satan". This part of us is not original; it is foreign. It grows through sinful action, action that contradicts God's nature and which resonates and binds with Satan's nature. It engages with lies and half-truths and is activated by them.
Just as lies have a way of activating the false, foreign satanic element, the Truth has a way of activating this Original Human Element (the original human heart). Thus, the Deep State / Cabal tries to prevent the truth from being spoken about, talked about, shared, because it inherently has the effect of eliciting our original human impulse and inspires us to seek even greater truth.
The War Between Truth and Lies
The war between the Original Human Heart and the corrupted Satanic heart is a historical war, and Truth vs Lies is the nature of the battles.
God works in two ways: from within to trigger and elicit that desire for truth within us, and outside of “me”, to have more and more truth revealed externally. This forms a two-pronged attack: God working within our heart and mind, and Truth working outside our heart and mind, in the form of information and understanding.
By contrast, Evil seeks to set up shop and maintain its stronghold inside, us. Lies are what evil seeks to perpetuate inside, assisted by lies, half-truths, and other 'black pills' outside our heart and mind. So, when we say the information war is a spiritual war, this is what it means. That war is being waged within each and every human being. It is a war between Goodness & Truth on one hand, and Evil & Lies on the other.
The Two-Pronged dimension of the War for Truth
Evil has had the upper hand since the start of our history. That’s what all scriptures (not just the Biblical scripture) teach in some form or other. From this angle, the history of religion, for example, is one record of God's work to increasingly reveal the truth about the spiritual dimension and inner reality, albeit with evil seeking to undermine and corrupt that action. Philosophy and Science is another record, of the truth about the external world (material world) being increasingly revealed, and evil also attacks on this front, as seen to unprecedented levels during the Covid Scandemic.
But step by step, over time, God has increasingly revealed truth in all its forms, and today, the historical "upper hand" that Evil has had is about to collapse. Once people start to wake up to how evil has been running the world, this inherently helps create an environment that is conducive to a greater desire for, and corresponding revealing of, inner and outer truth.
Two Aspects of the Great Awakening
In this sense, the Great Awakening has two complementary aspects. One is the waking up to the mechanisms and systems that evil has been using to rule the world and maintain its control over humanity. The other is an internal waking up, to the inner mechanisms and thought systems within our own hearts that limit us, keep us in a comfort zone, and which limit our capacity to love and be loved.
In other words, from this angle, we could say that there is the external Great Awakening and the internal Great Awakening. One is a waking up to the reality of the world around "me", outside of "me", and the other is a waking up to the reality within "me".
These two aspects are complimentary. They can and should reinforce each other. They naturally do. As any anon knows, it takes internal fortitude and courage to digest certain 'red pills' along the path. Meanwhile, facing ourselves and deeply buried traits, faults, limitations of heart is at least equally as difficult, and often more so. It's often easier to see the evil outside us than it is to see the evil hiding away inside us, in the form of certain lies, untruths about ourselves or others that we hold on to, including the limitations of our hearts and the capacity to love and be loved.
And just a note on that point for fellow believers: Those who have faith are at a distinct advantage in the Great Awakening, but I would encourage all believers to contemplate the idea that Jesus is the START of waking up, not the END. Doctrine, personal or religious, is not the same as the Truth. One might even say that the Bible itself is not The Truth. The Truth is Jesus himself. Jesus is Truth Incarnate.
The Bible is true in the sense that it points us towards, and testifies to, Jesus. Truth then, is not mere knowledge. Ultimately, it is ONLY when we build and develop our capacity for relationship that Truth takes hold. And, ultimately, the basis for all enduring relationship centers on love. Aka our capacity to love unselfishly (including respecting others, having compassion, being just, etc) and receive love, too. That is where Truth truly takes hold within us.
Where Are We Headed?
Seen from this perspective, the overall objective of the Great Awakening is not merely or simply the realization of the Truth. It is a rebuilding and pioneering of the capacity for relationship (love) in the spirit of true freedom.
External freedom will liberate the capacity for us to engage with each other in a world and society not controlled or dominated by the lies of the Cabal. That external engagement may take many different forms: political, economic, social, cultural, academic, etc., and it will be governed by freedom: aka self-governance.
Internal freedom will liberate our capacity to love each other, unselfishly and with pure hearts, as individuals, families, communities, societies and nations.
If you think about the Great Awakening from this angle, I'd say that this constitutes a pretty big WHITE PILL.
:)
Disclaimer: the ideas shared in this post are not intended to be doctrinal. They are simply one perspective, my own perspective, on the topics being discussed. I encourage frens to take the post in that spirit. If you find disagreement, then let that be, and share your own view. In my view, we find the Truth together, not in isolation.
Well yes.
I find it reasonable to presume that God knew Adam and Eve MIGHT disobey him, but not that he knew they WOULD disobey him. Because that presumes that their disobedience was a foregone conclusion, predetermined (by God no less), and that would mean that neither Adam nor Eve can be responsible for that action.
God would be responsible, and that also means that God is responsible for all the suffering humanity has experienced since. That's completely inconsistent with the concept of a God of love.
In my view, God knew it was a possibility, but he did not expect it. In fact, he expected them NOT to eat the fruit.
Historically, theologians have grappled with the question of the fall and the fruit, and come up with various explanations, but it is still something that has not been widely resolved. For example, some people think that the commandment not to eat the fruit was a test.
However, it also make no sense that the fruit issue and the commandment were a test. It makes no sense that a loving Father would create his children to destroy themselves, or to put them in a situation where the outcome of a mere test was death (spiritual or otherwise). If you or I laced a chocolate bar with cyanide and put it in the middle of our living rooms, then went out and told our children "Don't eat that! If you do you will die!" just to test if they would be obedient or not, if you or I did that we would be thrown in prison or executed for murder.
This points to the fact that the commandment was not a test. It was there to preserve Adam and Eve, to protect them. This raises the question of what the fruit itself actually was. What was there that necessitated that they be protected from 'eating the fruit'?
That's what needs to be unpacked.
First off, I must sincerely thank you for taking the time for long form conversation and debate. It's becoming harder and harder to find folks who will and can engage in good faith.
I think you're making my initial point for me, probably better than I initially laid it out - but my point entirely hinges on God being omniscient, which it would seem you do no subscribe to?
If God is omniscient, then yes, he knew they would disobey him, and chose to move forward with Creation anyway, and is culpable in all suffering since.
I don't, from a logical or rhetorical standpoint, have a problem with free will and an omniscient God. Knowing the outcome of a choice does not negate the act of making choice, but I know some philosphy-bros will debate endlessly on that point ;)
You expound on the very wrinkle I have with the Creation of Man in Genesis that I find disturbing, but seem to side-step it in entirely by saying God was surprised by their actions, which I think you might agree, is not a wide-held belief in Christianity?
You are more than welcome. Sadly, a lot of people are very reactive around their belief systems, and find it hard to be open without feeling threatened or challenged. That's because a certain amount of their belief is grounded not in awareness or understanding, but in blocking out things they don't quite understand. (My view)
Well, I do subscribe to the concept that God is omniscient, but perhaps our understanding of what that is and what that means differs.
I think that God knows and sees infinite possibilities, but there are certain possibilities that he cannot know WILL become reality because those possibilities do not hinge on God, but on someone else, a relative being.
The unfolding of time and space, the created universe, hinges on infinite possibilities coalescing into realities. If there is agency in humanity, then we are part of that process, and if free will exists, it means we ourselves have a role in shaping what certain potentialities become realities, and which do not.
Not all potentialities, but only those potentialities that hinge on OUR choices.
God's engagement with the Cosmos he created involves him traversing the ocean between absolute and relative. God is absolute, and his purpose is absolute, and his knowledge is absolute, BUT God created the universe and his purpose to be accomplished by his children starting out as relative beings, and growing into a position of absoluteness. of what? of Heart. Absoluteness of heart, where the human heart becomes absolute just as God's heart is absolute. That is what Jesus accomplished.
There is a formula for the accomplishment of God's Will. This is it:
God's portion of responsibility PLUS the human portion of responsibility EQUALS the fulfillment of God's Will.
God always fulfills his portion or responsibility, but human beings, being in a relative state, do not always fulfill their responsibility.
So when an individual or group or nation fails their responsibility, the fulfillment of God's Will is postponed, and God seeks for another individual to step in to that role to fulfill (restore) what the first person could not.
God's Will was for Adam to reach perfection and achieve perfect oneness with Him, but Adam failed, as God had to lay a foundation over millennia to give birth to another sinless son, Jesus, who would overcome and succeed where Adam failed.
God's Will was for Adam to be the original ancestor, the conduit between God and all the descendants of Adam. But Adam failed, and so that role was postponed until Jesus.
So while God's ultimate purpose is absolute; it is predestined; whether a particular individual will accomplish the mission (work) required to fulfill that Will and purpose is NOT absolutely predestined. Because the Individual is not absolute themselves.
So in my framework, God knew that Adam might fail, but God could not predetermine whether Adam would actual fail or not because this was only something that Adam himself could decide. And THAT is why the commandment was there. To Guide Adam during that period. But the outcome depended on Adam: whether he chose to have faith or to abandon faith in the commandment.
For the above reasons, I do not accept or believe this is true. God does not make our choices for us. Saying God KNEW they would disobey him is the same as saying that the outcome was predetermined, and if it was predetermined, then Adam had NO free will. No free Choice.
Knowing the outcome of a choice is not the same as knowing WHAT choice will be made. The only way for God to know what choice Adam would make would be for it to be predetermined.
Predestination is not the same as predetermination. Between predestination and determination is: Choice, aka Responsibility.
So God predestines, but for that predestination to manifest, requires the human fulfillment of responsibility. Once that is done, then predestination becomes fulfilled and accomplished, not just a mere possibility.
The issue of the human portion of responsibility and its function and role in the Will of God is something that Christianity has not clearly understood, largely because Paul himself did not clearly understand it. But it is the one thing that unlocks and resolves so many contradictions in Christian theological structures.
Again, the wrinkle you have is determined by the premises that you have accepted. They are a logical conclusion, BUT hinge on the premises you have chosen to accept as true. I.e. that God KNEW what Adam would choose INSTEAD of God knowing the possibilities that Adam had to choose from, and waiting to see what Adam himself would choose.
I subscribe to the latter. God knew all possibilities, but like Schrodinger's cat, the reality would only come into existence at a certain juncture where all other possibilities are evaporated and one reality is manifested. Prior to the reality manifesting, all the possibilities exist.
So prior to the Fall, it was possible for Adam to NOT fail and fall into faithlessness, and it was also possible that he would. It was for Adam to open the box, not God. That is both the blessing and the challenge given to Adam.
Same again with Cain:
Two possibilities. Do what is right, and be accepted. Refuse to do what is right, and 'sin' will pounce on you.
For Adam, there were two possibilities. Eat the fruit, and you will die. Do not eat the fruit, and you will live.
Do I side step it? Not sure of the nuances of your use of that expression here, but from my viewpoint, I am simply subscribing to the understanding of God and myself and the universe that makes the most sense to me and which is reinforced by experience, and logic, among other things.
To me it is contradictory to posit a God of love on one hand and say the failure of Adam and the subsequent suffering of humanity was predetermined on the other. And I have for too much direct evidence and experience of the God of Love for me to adopt any other view.
Yes, I agree. But here is the thing: Christianity is not perfect, and the belief systems are not perfect. Paul himself was VERY clear that he recognized that his present understanding was limited and that he foresaw a time when his limited understanding (on which the vast bulk of Christian theology of the last 2000 years is based) would be augmented and increased. Up to full speed, no less.
There is MUCH that Christian theology of the past 2000 years has not and does not understand. But too many conveniently ignore that fact and ignore the very scriptures that prove it.
But I don't have a quarrel with Christianity of the last 2000 years, BECAUSE I know, well, I believe and am confident in the belief, that there is MUCH that can and is being elucidated. Christianity has been the object of Jesus love and work for the past 200 years.
However, the question is, when Christ returns, will Christianity be able to accept and grow, or, like the Israelites of 2000 years ago, stubbornly hold on to their existing beliefs and refuse to be 'upgraded'?
Why would he even ask that?
Hmmmm.... So, perhaps Christianity does not know everything....
etc.
History repeats. Israel was prepared for 2000 years to receive Jesus and be upgraded through him, to a higher understanding of truth. Yet, they failed. In the form of the Jewish leadership, the Jewish people rejected Jesus and eventually murdered him.
Very clearly a metaphor for the Israelites "chosen people" and God and Jesus.
God predestined Israel to accept Jesus and become the center of the world, with Jesus as a king of Glory, but Israel rejected Jesus, stuck in their own understanding and narrowness of heart. So, what would happen?
Jesus paid the price to re-open the way by his sacrifice on the cross, and founded Christianity. Christianity is the 2nd Israel, with the purpose of laying the foundation and preparing for the second coming of Christ.
But what will Christianity do when Christ returns? What if he returns in a manner they do not expect? What if he begins saying things that seem to contradict their own limited theology? Will they reject him? Or will they reverse the failure of the Israelites and embrace him?
Do you see how the issue of predestination is key to the issues of the whole Bible, but also how it has not been clearly resolved or even understood?
The apparent contradictions are there because the vantage point is limited. From a higher level vantage point, seeming contradictions become parts that make sense in a different framework. The question is, what over arching framework can make sense of scripture and its many apparent contradictions?
I'll refer back to Paul:
The problem is that people forget that they are seeing dimly as in a mirror. Hey, its better than nothing, but it's not complete and it's..... well, it's dim.
Humility is the one thing that Lucifer could not do, and its the one thing that the Israelites refused to do as well, when it counted.
How will Christianity do, do you think?
I think modern Christianity suffers from a lack of humility in all manner, and has become Pharisaical, but that's a whole other thread.
I do want to dive into your definition of omniscience if I may. And I want to preface my questions with the following: I am simply trying to establish where you might lay within my own understanding of this topic. It is absolutely clear you have spent a lot of hard, good time reasoning about your faith, and I respect the hell out of it.
You said:
I think what you posit is more inline with William Hasker, and his work "God, Time, and Knowledge" - are you familiar with this work, and if so, is that a fair assumption?
To be incredibly reductive of Hasker and perhaps Richard Rice, it would summarize the position as:
I think folks would quibble with you on this view going against the classical definition of omniscience.
Omniscience has traditionally been understood as knowing everything that has been, is, and will be - not just everything that can be known at present. Limiting omniscience to only what is currently knowable seems ad hoc.
I have less issue with that though, than say, the implications of Devine unknowables would have on a Sovereign God. If God doesn't know the future exhaustively, how can he guarantee the fulfillment of His plans or promises? Doesn't this limit God's sovereign control over the direction of history and the ultimate outcome of his purposes?
Similarly, the Bible contains many detailed prophecies of future events. If God doesn't know the future choices of free agents, how can he inspire such specific predictions? Moreover, the intricate providential convergences of people and events to fulfill God's plans seem to require exhaustive foreknowledge.
I rarely try to use Psalms to establish theology, as I don't know if that should be their intent, but Psalm 139:16 is often cited by say, Calvinists, to this regard.
And I will reword myself when I said this 'side-steps' the issue - that sounded flippant, and I didn't mean it to be, only that I believe these ideas by others were founded to solve the problem of free-will and omniscience, in order to make smooth the implications of a well meaning God, and the creation story (among other issues, not just the Creation story).