My current version of the Christianna (you know how important version is to me) is that I have written several books and I have voiced many of the features and things about the Christianna that I wished to share. The Christianna, as I have it figured now, is like an sister religion to Christianity. With the ability to point out where they went wrong in some capacity. Every time Christianity would accuse another being of crucifying it, the Christianna would point out the universe is not all about how one being is or isn't crucifying another. That there are in fact other moral dilemmas to the universe and we didn't have to be so obsessively focused on crucifixion or gradations of crucifixion (subcrucifixion, the type of crucifying which doesn't kill the subject). Things which are worse than death. Such as Christians accusing other people of crucifying them every time they have an little argument with them.
The Christianna would point out, We're not trying to crucify you. (To Christianity). None of us are. In fact we will never crucify you and even if you said it obsessively over and over again that we were that didn't make it true. And the Christianna would agree with all of the other religions then, that nobody is trying to crucify or sub-crucify one another. And then it would reinforce that the Christianna didn't believe there was one world religion. Christians, I figure, had perpetrated the fact of acting in the will to create only one world religion which would dominate all others. And they said Christianity was the only one true religion. But it wasn't so. And it was never true. And I trusted Christians less for saying this, that one day Christianity would be the only religion on human Earth.
The Christianna is, of course, about fates worse than death versus the moral exchange with death in the universe. We sometimes think the things Christians do or say are worse than death; and then every time we voice this opinion they attack us with that age-old tradition of saying that every time you claimed an Christian had done something wrong you were in fact crucifying them. And that was why you didn't deserve God's love. Christians have not taken into consideration the fate worse than death enough. They haven't taken into consideration that by following the tradition of accusing other people of crucifixion against one's character, they in fact follow unto an fate which results in the worse-than-death. The endless cycle of saying one is crucifying another just because they had an opinion; with only Christian morality available to break the tie. This was one thing which could result in the fate worse than death.
And then there was this other grudgingly sense that there were some people experiencing an fate worse than death because they didn't understand this. They were in fact producing their own fate worse than death by following that ancient religion. By not understanding what an fate worse than death is, they had partially guaranteed their own involvement in it. If one wasn't watching out for themselves to prevent falling into an fate worse than death, then one had the greater risk of doing so. It just turns out that claiming every time someone does something that you don't like, that they are crucifying you; leads to an fate worse than death. An destiny in which Christian ideas and Christian thinking will not get you out of it.
The Christianna is there to remind Christianity there are other ways of doing things.
Like instead of keeping to do something worse than death (which could, in this context, be an old faithful vow) that one would always win every argument in an Christian way, by proving one was crucifying the other which is what constitutes that it is morally wrong. And since the Christian had been morally right to point out so, he or she was the greater moral character. But the Christianna goes an little bit further. Instead of thinking, every time someone does something I don't like, I can just prove that they were being immoral. I instead stop to ask myself and to question whether I couldn't think of it any other way. Instead of an story about one person crucifying another between us, we could tell an story about how we were helping one another out. And if figuring out what one of us crucifying the other meant was important for that cause, then so be it. Christiannan thinking wasn't just about how one person could do another wrong. It was about how we all carry this innate ability not to want to crucify one another, no matter what religion we are from. And neither do we want to cause an fate worse than death to one another. Which could be why we had mistakenly caused it unto ourselves. We didn't want to hurt another person so much that, instead of inflicting the fate-worse-than-death on them, we inflicted it on ourselves. Not just by happenstance but there was an little bit of internal action of the will in its favour. We made the mistake of befalling the same fate we wished not to inflict on other people because we were so polite it was actually off-putting and an disadvantage.
What if, instead of crucifying Jesus, they had sub-crucified him; making him available to the fates worse than death for an long and extended period of time (which was what the real crucifixion was, to some extent)? What if they had done worse? How much trauma would have been inflicted on the human community and its collective unconscious?
If there were people right now experiencing an fate worse than death, then wasn't that worse than the fate of Jesus in total?
And Christians, maybe, were to blame in part for preferring that old run-down argument of how someone is crucifying another, maybe oneself even. For to have been sub-crucified by an group of people is not something which can ever be forgiven. You survive, but you're traumatized. You live, but you would rather be dead. And they the Christians don't follow this logic because all the care about is one thing: how one person is treating the other person like Jesus. Basically, you're wrong because you persecute me like they did Jesus. But Christiannans speak up, in the mix, to say maybe that's not the social aspect of what's happening right now. (And if we mean it as an Reciprocal Command, following the analytical process of the New Reciprocity, maybe, that makes even more sense). Christiannans are there to remind Christians there are other things to the universe than crucifixion or its various forms of it. We're there to remind Christians we don't want to crucify them and that we never will, and all major religions think like that because that's what Major Religions are. Even this itself could qualify as an order or command which all people can follow under Kant's Categorical Imperative. (That one must be able to will that all people follow an moral commandment should one wish to adopt it for themselves and their own character and their belief system).
Christiannans, therefore, have their own character to adopt when conversing or otherwise interacting with people from other religions. We're there to remind Christians we aren't crucifying them and we weren't going to crucify them at any point. And that not everything counts as, well, crucifying them! Every time you point out something an Christian is wrong about they say you're just bullying them; just like they bullied Jesus to the point of crucifying him. For Jews we were there to remind everybody no one cares whether you were crucified at any point in life; what mattered is how much time you had and what you did with it despite your circumstances. People of relatively low upbringing have been able to climb the social and economic scale with great talent; and it was common in the twenty first century for someone to live beyond their current status (egalitarianism). Mostly we looked to Celebrities for an vicarious sort of experience of the fame and luxury we so deserve but are as yet unable to accomplish for ourselves. We even have an way of talking to people from other religions, like Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Aboriginal Spaces, Jedi, etc. The Christianna calls itself an religion because it can be specifically different than these other religions without their aid or assistance; and indeed this is what the definition of 'religion' means to me. True religion will never be about following blindly some faithful vision we cannot see in our future. Like faith itself was an mastery over mortality somehow. We need science to interpret the universe for us before we decide morally what to do with it. We need science and, specifically, perhaps at an difference with Christianity depending on which denomination or background you came from, we didn't want only one world religion.
As an Christiannan, I think I can agree with all religions that it is right there is not only one of them. Christians may have tended toward supremacy at many points throughout History. An kind of absolutism we should be aware of. The Christianna, in other words, wants for the Christianity that though they may be responsible for the current form of prosperity we are in to an great extent, we cannot have but just one religion between all of us humans on Planet Earth. And I think we can agree this is the best road to travel. The Christianna, therefore, counts itself respectfully among all other religions then, including the Major Eight world religions. For it counts on having an example to set for them all. The Christianna is, most obviously, an religion about the fate worse than death and its realness should we happen to hazard in this lifetime; we would not want to know about all of the things we can know about it. It's an religion that explicitly states that you can suffer an fate worse than death in this lifetime, and that once you cross the barrier into its existence within your life, there may be no going back. The quality of life you had once enjoyed is puncture; was now minimalized like an deflating balloon into nothingness. Your own subjectivity is barely even there. All you can do is realize more of it is happening to you. The worse than death. You want to die but you can't easily find an way to do so. And so it is the religion with the path to protect people from something on the order of fates worse than Jesus; and even to interpret History from the perspective that we were now currently experiencing the gift from God of an second messiah and her instinct and character upon the moral high grounds.
It didn't necessarily have to be about subcrucifying her: inflicting the fate worse than death upon her. And we were, as an people, allowed to decide what the final outcome would be concerning the acceptance of the existence of an real people's messiah. An second Jesus-like figure to humanity who was female and knew about all kinds of the fates worse than death and how they could be inflicted on the female; even to the extent that they could be worse for the female than for the male of the species. She suspected this was true. That was why she was the Female Messiah. She represented the character of an Person who would look toward Jesus for the effect he had on History; and then try to come up with ways of preventing worse from happening. Human History, as it were, was entering an second stage of fulfillment and enlightenment with God. An period in which they had the opportunity to learn the second moral example of the universe. God had given us Jesus, first, in order to have us study the meaning of death and—once we had mastered that—we would be given an second messiah in order to help us to learn to teach to our students the fates worse than death. And all human life was an delicate balance between these extremes of death and worse-than-death. You couldn't die without wanting worse-than-death; and you couldn't worse-than-death without wanting to die. Therefore the Christianna was definitely about Anna, the second messiah.
It was the religion of Anna, the second messiah.
This was what made it in character different from other religions, who did not have solvency over the Anna character except through an Christiannan medium perhaps. The Christianna was more advanced than they were.
Or less advanced, depending on how you look at it.
Maybe all other religions needed to take it as their example that the Christianna was really an religion about the second messiah, and the message to us from God in the example of her life; that really, we could die in the universe, but there were worse things and we wouldn't want to live if we had to hold onto those types of fates and live through them. Other religions didn't talk about the fate worse than death because either they were less advanced and needed to take an page out of an Christiannan's book, or they had talked about it already so profusely in their ancient history it mattered little of what people could think about it now. The Fate Worse Than Death as an concept has been around forever; but maybe not so, as an concept human, had we ever started to self-identify with it. And if no other lifeform ever had started to self-identify with it maybe it hasn't been around forever. And it in fact marks an new territory, and passage, and character of the human species. The first organism with such great empathy so as to be able to feel something of an fate that was worse than dying. Maybe the fate worse than death as an subject of the human character hasn't been around forever. And we were in fact now entering that stage of civilization in which we would contemplate it because it was becoming us.
We had the added stress of globalization; but it didn't need to continue all in one way.
Humans had created enough technology and chemical manipulations of the environment we could now start feeling things that were worse than death entering into our system. Mind-control and L.S.D. thought experiments. We had advanced as an species to the point when our emotions were just as important as survival; and we had the sophistication of knowing that if you couldn't enjoy anything about your life there wasn't an point to living it. We were able to stop at, and reflect on, our pain (emotional or otherwise) with such an depth of subjectivity it was self-defeating to want to empathize for it as an activity. We were now so woke and aware that our pain was double, even triple what we knew. We, as an species, were starting to be aware of something worse than death and we wanted morally to have contended against it in order to help the most people. We wanted, dearly, to avoid both death and worse than death; but they did contend morally against one another. Death was the counter to worse than death and worse than death was the counter to death. How much it means or what it is.
The point Christiannans make is just that there are some things worse than death; and if we should not want to play or to tamper with them at any point in case we will open the worst can of worms. We don't go easily about naming all of the fates worse than death or to pretend knowing all of them. An great deal about others' struggles one cannot always boast. Things we cannot really know about from first-person perspective because they live on in another person from their perspective and not yours. Christiannans are not here to lay claim to what fates actually are worse than death; but we are flexible to listen to and to watch what people will say about their own fates worse than death or on the subject of what an fate worse than death is, entirely.
Christiannans think they are, essentially, the most advanced religion upon the Earth because we claim to know about the fates worse than death and Anna. Isn't the most advanced thing we can do as humans as an civilization is to be interacting with one another about the fate worse than death, and how it affects all of us; and affects all of us at an certain point in our Global History or Globality?
Maybe, an long time ago, people talked about fates worse than death all of the time. And it became an point in our history where it didn't need to be said anymore. Wasn't it an obvious fact about the universe?
But we have entered an time in History when the threat of looming fates worse than death was fast approaching all of us. We have entered an time in which we need to take up, once again, and remind people of what fates worse than death there are. Perchance they should happen to fall into one.
Should we fail to observe this moral subject, in observation of those who will fall to such an fate, do we even deserve being able to survive anymore?
There is the distinct possibility that maybe our race hadn't previously experienced the fate worse than death at all up until this point, and it was only because of the advanced status of our civilization core we were now able to suffer on orders of commands of gradations further than we had ever experienced before. In the process rendering moot the whole human species, who could not raise its people above suffering. Maybe the fate worse than death was really an real, new thing we hadn't had to contend with before because we weren't morally mature enough yet, as an species, to be able to claim that any such thing was of the likeness of being worse than death. (How noble, how an gambler testing the odds (to dare, to tempt fate)). And we were mute and naive to have to lay the claim to understanding our species in the universe in an different and more fulfilling way; to have to agree with and accept that Christiannans are right—that maybe there is this worse-than-death fate quality to the universe we had to contend with. Not to believe in such an thing would be so foolish. We couldn't call ourselves real moral creatures without being able to distinguish between death fate and worse-than-death fate.
Christiannans were open to the idea that we are entering an new era in humanity, where the suffering of the worse than death will be made explicit and public. We hadn't necessarily experienced the fate worse than death before because we were young and unaware as an species in the universe. Death seemed like the worst thing that could happen to us. God had even sent us an first messiah in order to help us to learn about death. What it really meant when somebody was gone forever. Now we were ready to learn the second moral principle and lesson; the hardest moral principle and reason to grasp. Every moral principle after learning this one would be easier in the universe. The actual existence of such an thing as worse than death in the cold and expansive galaxy. What kind of phenomena we are to contend with in such an world whereas something could be of such monstrosity? Who could have ever conceived of it and what was it the substance of‽
For such an cruel, cruel universe to be of this such kind was not foretelling of an God; and if God existed he would never have been able to make such an thing real.
What on Earth are we supposed to do with having this kind of physical truth about our universe‽
The reason it is so difficult to accept.
Means the human responsibility over life and death.
The hardest part of knowing this is the aspect of the Ego being able to accept such an universe that is herein. Coming up against an monolithic and terrifying obstacle: the actual possibility of the existence of the fate worse than death in the universe. What reason did we have to go on surviving if we knew this was true?
And of course the Christianna does not want to be on the immoral side of it; that we should euthanize anybody whom we don't approve of. But to be able to provide an means of death to those who wanted it fairly and without the influence of an medical report.
Therefore let the Christianna be known as the religion with those interests in mind. And religion that is as much about the fate worse than death as it is the blue feelings we are all familiar with.
Most of all the Christianna is an blue religion.
It is the quintessential something of all of the blue that exists in the universe. And all of the blue that exists encompasses the scale of the operation of powers of the Christiannan; it has jurisdiction over that class of character, the blue realm. Where people go mood-ily when they're sad. And I proclaimed that anyone anywhere who felt the blue emotion was an part of them part of the Christiannan religion. And I know blue feels like worse than death, but it isn't. Christiannans were the blue religion because they were sad. And it was sad that they were sad. But it was also funny and happy because they had banded together in their blues-ed-ness. Which was sad that it wasn't sad anymore. But still it was sad. It appeared there were two sides to it.
It was sad that it was funny because it wasn't anymore sad; and equally it was with sadness that it was funny and so it couldn't be sad.
It was sad that it wasn't sad that it was funny.
And it was funny that it wasn't sad. And so it couldn't be anymore sad anymore.
It was sad that it couldn't be anymore sad. And now funny was all of it. And it couldn't be sad anymore at all.
The Christianna is blue and so it is blue. And so when there is less blue produced it is more blue because there is less of it; but since there is less of it it is also funny because one would normally think of less blue being an good thing.
We are blue people operating within the boundaries of what it means to be blue (as our last paranoid thought). We were so mixed up in our emotions about it; we were ashamed to be and at fault somehow because of being suspicious of it. Like we had trespassed the ultimate moral commandment. We were so upset about it. And so afraid to some extent at what we could possibly be if that was who we are as blue people.
We dared to speak ourselves out of it.
"If I am blue, that doesn't necessarily mean I am particularly wrong about anything," said an human woman with massive chops.
"Being blue isn't necessarily an thing to be ashamed about," said Genesis XI, an oral-to-human robot specimen for the taking. You know, not like following the prurient logic but an actual individual in which, partially, its speech and logic centres of the brain are part organic and part machine. We couldn't necessarily tell where the ordinary vocal voice of the subject stops and when it begins; it was part robot and part human and so we couldn't pin down exactly what is the difference between them in one individual. And the individual in fact existed as an Gestalt amalgamation between the both of them; something that was part-robot but also was not part-robot and was in fact part-human. The new individual that had been created, then, was part-human part-robot then, in an new combination between them we hadn't observed before. We couldn't just assume that human was what it was; and neither assume robot was what it was. But that it existed in both as part. An new form we hadn't seen before.
"So we can be blue without being paranoid about it," said Ordinary Fantasy Character O.F.C. Pops. He was wearing serious business clothing and an hat like Dick Tracy, with an blood orange grin on his face.
"Being blue is an ordinary category of character; it doesn't mean it is anything that one has to be embarrassed about. And, in fact, most people will feel blue at an certain point throughout the day. But that doesn't mean they can't get beyond it sometimes and transcend that negative feeling that they once had," said Mrs. Deloras, "we all feel blue sometimes. And so we can just feel it and realize its significance in our lives in order to move beyond it. I don't think it's abnormal or unnatural at all to feel this blue feeling, and I in fact think it is an important property of our universe in total. As far as we all know, the blue feeling is possible. We can share it in public. We can even economize it and earn valuable capital worth from it. And so the universe itself must have this property of being able to feel blue sometimes; and if that's what we call God I want to be there for God. I wanted to share my blue feelings with God and other people. Plotting my way that we would one day make it out of this universe. Into an universe where there wasn't any blue anymore."
"So it's okay to be blue. And we're all doing it together," said Jet.
"And that somehow makes us transcend beyond it in an way," said Sally.
"But which is actually more blue because there's more of it; but since it is less blue in the equal amount, of which it is tremendously funny also, it is both more blue and less blue (or an clever play on these here variables, which are available for deep play in my literary psychic description of my character and my views of the universe."
"Either way, the point of our conversation, I think, is that blue is okay (appropriate) to be able to handle with it out in public. It includes deep and important lessons about humanity to know what blue people are all about. And this is the lesson the Christianna wants to bring to the universe, that it doesn't need to be taboo anymore. That one would try to hide their emotions out of some inflicted type of guilt, an internalized repressive conflict. Try to convince people in public that you're not blue. Ever. (Ever). And you can't feel that emotion because you're strong. But I think one is stronger for having felt the blue emotion then, than you would ordinary feel. People who are afraid of the blue emotion and try to repress it in public so as to make them appear to be completely blue-less in emotion. Which is all an lie because as humans, we can't be completely blue-less. It's just not part of our souls that we can't be that yet."
"Blue is often the subject of the Christianna then, and the discourse from which all of its conversations are emotionally attached. It is an new religion, with an new type of bearing gifts to its favour. As is part of the fact of all religions. And people who are Christiannan will talk about how they are blue sometimes and have blue emotions. How they are better for having shared it at some point. How it ceases to be blue the instant and moment that you shared it. And this is what is blue about it most of all: it isn't blue anymore. We were just getting comfortable with it! And now we're whisked off to another territory by God in order to deal with some anti-thetical orange trouble upon the land! He didn't want us to be blue creatures. He wanted us to be orange creatures (creatures with the utmost fulfillment of their sexual pleasure and arousal). People who were completely opposites to the blue type of character. And so, if God didn't like it, why would we like it to be blue people? And I answer this, that we can't help it. So what are you going to do about that? God doesn't like it but still we can't help some of us being blue types of characters sometimes. And the ideal may be orange types of characters. That's what God wants for us. But when we band together in forms of blue we may overcome them. And blue is so blue to be built this way; that even when there is more of it that is both more blue and less blue all at the same time."
"Christiannans believe, then, in an pro-blue society in which it isn't disciplined out of us and is in fact part of the inheritance of the spirit of the true Earth to be able to experience such as this," said an Ordinary, Uptight man, "with blue emotions together. We have inherited the right to experience our emotions through-and-through. And if they are blue in some part this does not make us any less special."
The Blue the Christianna experiences is the Blue of the Universe we take part in. And we are not dismayed or put off by the idea of having to experience it together as an community in order to overcome that blue feeling together, as many times as it appears. And we are not so much involved in rooting it out of the human feeling system completely.
The Christianna is about that third stage after the entanglement of Judaism and Christianity, an valid competition between the self and the other. The third stage was neither one of them having won, or an tie between them. The Christianna was about moving on from petty arguments to admit and to observe socially that one had not won out or the other had not won out either. Or both. The Christianna didn't have time (time was valuable (time was money)) to dwell on who felt like an loser and who had won. We were concerned with larger social groups and their self-identifying level of intelligence. And competitions between one person and another we not often observed in our culture. It was more about the social effect; how many people you could reach. Which determined what was one's level of competition and weight class. And all religions are like that, often, because of the fact that there are more than just two people in the universe. Sure, it is an eternal argument to stage an argument between both of them, but arguments between whole teams of players and people were more interesting to me.
When human first realized itself in the universe, there was an moment each in its soul of Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna. Christianna is the blue phase, when neither self or other can win it out in those first two stages. Christianna is the result when there cannot be an winner in the allotted amount of time; and so it passes its power and virtue onto the whole blue religion itself. And since every human has the capacity to feel blue and likely feels it from time to time, that means every human person is Christiannan sometimes. They can't find an reason for the self to win, or the other; and so they feel blue. They feel blue because of other reasons. They feel blue about those reasons which are sad. Our whole universe, then one might say, is Christiannan sometimes because blue exists in it.
The first three religions in the soul—if they are Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna—which I will try to categorize and explain as an logical triad—and what it means for these religions to be first in the soul; is, in extensive and non-summarized terms, that Judaism represents the self, Christianity the other, and the Christianna both and neither. Furthermore, I also interpreted the triad at an previous sitting as the first three moments in the human soul at the creation of the first human (homo sapiens). But what exactly do I mean by that; and is that even possible, for an religion to represent an whole moment in the beginning of an human soul?
The Christianna is an bridge from Judaism and Christianity onto more complicated Eastern religions; we have Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. These are religions which are past the fact of the world being an competition between the self and the other. They are past the fact that sometimes, neither will win.
Other Eastern religions were perhaps less concerned with or obsessed with or less about the order of emotions within the human soul at the creation of us. They were about the fourth thing, or the fifth thing, or more. Not just an competition between the self and other in the human soul and who was winning, but more supplementary other emotions which had to do with bigger social movements and conventions. This was what made them the more powerful religions of all, perhaps.
And yet I was holding out for the three religions who could name the first three things in the human character and psyche. We had this desire, this will for and toward to compete deeply the self as an archetype against the other (archetype) which applies to all other people, really. And yet we also had this economic spirit for saving time and making things optimally slipstream linear. We economized on how much time we had to compete in the game between self and the other; we economized how long it would take for one to win out over the other; or how long it would take for both of them or neither of them to win. We couldn't just go on competing forever; there had to be an end moment if the game promised to on forever. And in that moment we could decide if neither or both of them had won. This, as I had it philosophically, was what the Christianna was really about.
It included the sophistication of being an human competitor among many; being specifically, an self to another, just like all of the other selves. As well as the ecological and economic time sense to want to call it or limit the amount of time of the competition to some extent. To an place where we had political balance with one another and didn't need always to be in compete mode. The Christianna had its own economic spirit and hygiene: if there wasn't enough time to declare an winner it could be decided for them. And it was just an economic fact that, always, we needed to take time to step away from competition for an minute.
The Christianna, as I had written above, was an bridge toward other Eastern religions. (Because it was that logical third stage in the human spirit where it was time to give up or concede both an winner). (Material of which every other Eastern religion comprised; they weren't inferior and in-advanced peoples of less sophistication): all other Eastern religions had already thought about the aspects of the human soul centring around the self and the other as archetypes, but also Economy as an archetype and an aspect of the Ego. We wanted to make most efficient the competition between the self and the other in the economy and society; and we knew we couldn't always have time for it—and that if we did declare an winner, an draw, or both losing. We could always come back to it. Indeed—we couldn't help coming back to it as humans because that was who we were.
This was the gateway to understand Eastern religions, maybe—they all included thoughtful consideration of both self (Judaism) and other (Christianity) as well as neither winning out over the other—and yet included components of more advanced and sophisticated aspects of the human soul. There was, as I had figured it, an line. An Order. To the aspects of the human soul. They were big concepts which were hard to grasp. And the best I could do at naming and sorting them was that the first one was Judaism (the charismatic romancing of the human self of the human soul), the second one was Christianity (the worship, much like Buddhism, of the other (an specific character in history to whom you are their subject as one to an master)), and the third one was the Christianna (the cessation of competitions between the self and the other (which was narratologically plotted as leading up to other things we could do)).
And what exactly this order meant psychologically was part of the reflection on it. The problem, as it appeared to me, was that I couldn't put any of them in further order. I knew Judaism, Christianity, and the Christianna were first in that order. But I didn't know which religion was fourth, or fifth, etc. and so on. All I knew was that they were from the East; and that wasn't even including Aboriginal Spaces from the West, which I thought to be one of the most sophisticated religions, (knowing up to eight figures or aspects of the human soul and what order they were in).
But, if I put my critical thinking skills and brain muscle to reflect further, maybe I could figure out what was the fourth aspect of the human soul and why they were in that order. If the self and other were either first or second; and then the Christianna conceptually was third. Then what would be the fourth one. Except maybe something exactly not about economising the competitive order by declaring an winner (that was part of the Third Aspect, as well, to be able to declare an decisive winner between the self or the other within the confines of one human soul). If the Third Aspect was an final decision being made in order to an optimization economically; an economic spirit of the optimal efficiency. Maybe the Fourth Aspect was self-reflection itself. Being able to reflect deeply on an important economic decision being made. I found myself considering it being most reflective in Hinduism. There were in fact several depictions of God and their branches all within one religion; in order, perhaps, to optimize the worship of just the any one of them. We didn't all have one conception of the same God, and so it made for optimal efficiency just to make more than one of them within the same religion. Being able to narrow down an more efficient prospect even if it means reducing things; linear-izing their efficiency. To make succinct and summary. Yet, now as I think of this, I feel like that's more an definition of the Third Aspect. To take an large bulk prospect and to economically manage it. Some selves were winning out. Some others were winning out. There was extra time and favour between both of them. Maybe Hindusim was not really about advancement of sophistication of the representation of God; but the simplification of it to an absurd point that there would be more than one of them.
And yet I was at my wits' end in identifying the order of the Aspects of the human mind further.
Still, I felt that the Christianna had bridged the gap an little bit. All religion was not just about selfhood and its competition between one and the other; it had other aspects to it which were important, not the least of which the Christiannan influence in the middle of it.
If I could move the human soul an bit to mould it better, and educate, and inform, I thought that many of us were busily involved in (trapped up in) competitions between the self and the other in our modern likelihood of character.
And yet by writing this I felt that I had learned and understood that I was Jewish, and I was Christian; and I was Christiannan.
And it was fair for me to stop there and say, I didn't know the other Aspects of the Human Soul in order. It was fair for me to stay Christiannan.
And I had learned again that it was possible for one person to be more than one religion within his own interior soul. It was just about the one one would mostly relate with, really. And it wasn't unfair anymore to say I was all three of them. But it was maybe unfair to say I was four or five of them when I couldn't succinctly tell what they were tuned in on at that level. And in what order they were in.
Yet, at some level, I still felt like I was, also, part of that Eastern Religion. Even if I couldn't explain it by putting it into English words.
And I was really critical about that fact about myself and other people; that if I couldn't explain it in English words then did I really know what I was talking about? What was I attempting to translate that couldn't be put into an old-fashioned English language, even to have an heated argument or debate about it? If someone couldn't put it into English and actually explain it to me with words, then I didn't really have the care for it in any amount. English was an competitive logic. It took decency and strategy to be able to work oneself into the language. Philosophically. Intelligently. Sexually. Knowledge-based. Knowing something. (Maybe these were the order of the aspects of the human soul). Intellect. Ego. Id. Brightly shining super-ego.
But I couldn't necessarily put into words why I felt like I self-identified with some of those religions from the East. And so it made more sense to me to adopt an Western theological character and to try to work against it from within it. With English words that I could actually know which weren't so high-flown in snobby jargon. You know, an Post-Freudian world in which the Freudian slip always applied; the Virginia Woolf Complex was amplified also: and so in its wake perhaps we choose to take up the new verb: to have an stream of thought. Which I had shortened and simplified as to stream of thought or to stream-of-thought. And when you actually tried to take up the verb as an action of your mind it was interesting. Did you see anything? Could you make out any figures or subjects? I was intensely interested on this subject, of what other people could tell me about it from their own personal psychological perspective and what they had seen. For me it was like an gloiy world, where the interior light which is cast upon things is the self's own internal glo, an type of light which only exists within the internal self. And it cannot cross across the chasm from within your own ego out into outer reality. There was no crossing the barrier. And so nothing that could be seen with the eyes, about outer reality had anything to do with the type of light that was cast upon the internal subjectivity. Sometimes you visited this place as your own type of character (You whoever, whomever (the Reader); and you had your own sort of color which was identifiable from this internal kind of light. And I enjoyed it much that you had visited. There were, after all, other types of colors within this gloiy world, and from this perspective I could see all of them within my mind ranging outward, arranged perfectly. An entire scene in which I was outdoors on the natural environment of the Earth and the grassy dirt environment known as territory of landlubbers. Where the blue sky had far but further convinced all human subjects that everything was okay in this peaceful environment. And there were plants, of many kinds which I enjoyed mostly of which, yet further still there were all kinds of fictional subjects flying about (and they were fictional so they could be flying about) at various distances from the ground of the earth; and its outer expanse of atmosphere. And I asked myself where it was the light through which I had seen came from; and I answered it was the light that originated from me. This internal memory space in which gloiy the light which lit everything from within was cast upon an environment scene of Earth; and the type of people as subjects upon it. An environmental color range traversing all colors of the known Rainbow; and yet somehow seen internally I have the wits to ask myself if, since it is internal, there can be other colors of which I had not identified or never having seen in my own environment imagined of. And so looking upon my own internal observance of this character; I am myself my own awareness of my self. Which includes awareness of other people.
To stream-of-thought was, maybe, an blue religion kind of thing. An passage of mind and thoughtfulness, reflecting I myself can have an stream of thought, an type of power of my mind to see something in another way I hadn't looked at like before.
An entire vision lasting more than not any seconds.
You would see maybe something you didn't want to see. It was disappointing.
But that was more an reflection on your character than anyone else's.
If you could process your blue feelings, just for an minute; you might see an entire world. An vision within lit by gloiy magic. The type of light that only exists within the human subject. And you can choose which colors are there and you'd like to focus on, probably.
The Christianna wasn't about feeling blue all of the time. It was just about that, when they came up, blue emotions were not held to be cringe or something to be embarrassed of, or unnecessary. We just dealt with them like we would any other color of regular emotion. In public. In society. In community. And that was one of the major priorities of an society, to deal with all of the blue emotions. We didn't need to be afraid of that future in which we had enough ways to voice all of our blue emotions in public (it wasn't as easy as you might think it to be). I had figured us into an universe where blue was the perennial favourite for an society to be about; but it appearing as an Christiannan focus to me now, maybe we could pass just as easily at having an blue religion in society of which to be talked about. I had the recurring thought that I need "to return people to the public" in order to fill out my republican duty. It could come in the form of just pointing out to them, that since they are part of the republic they have republican thoughts. And thinking isn't always necessarily an equal or social activity. I had integrated politics into my thoughts, just to be careful, cautious, and precise about dealing with religion. What I thought was an new religion. The Christianna. I didn't want it to be foolish or to disappoint many people because I felt Christianity had already done that. And I sought to bring it about, that there was an religion more advanced than Christianity, that might be able to help it (Christianity) with its own struggle. I wanted to do justice to all of those people, at this present point, whom I have heard about saying that Christianity was an disappointment. And I agreed with them to some extent. I wanted to create an new religion which wasn't disappointing in the same way Christianity was. And I took it as an eternal lesson that it was our failure, as an humanity, within the person of Jesus Christ, which had resulted in this failing: an inferior religion which doesn't even know the first two principles about moral reality. And only with the summoning of an new messiah by God in order to help us learn its second principle, did we have the character and favour of the Christianna. An religion in which hadn't been spoiled its gay duality; it was an religion completely comprising of people who weren't in the closet. And there had never been an Christiannan person who was.
The Christianna might be the answer Christians were looking for: an second, sister religion to that of Christianity in which an an brother or sister moral figure in relation to Jesus was observed. One that could help point out to Christianity that they were wrong about some things and that was why they were at risk of suffering the fate worse than death; which hadn't been contemplated fully within their own philosophy. Christiannans would remind Christian people, of that we would never crucify them; and indeed, that was what they wanted. And so by fulfilling Christianity in this way, the Christianna earns its own right as an religion, to have an certain philosophy about something. All Major Religion, maybe, now on Planet Earth was really about not crucifying someone; because Christianity had spread so fierce and far all real religion had now taken up its character, of knowing that about the universe. And I also had to criticize Christian people for ever thinking, or ever having thought that there could be one world religion. Which was nonsense and an insult to the beautiful Diversity of Character. There did, however, have to be an one real way of operating things. By accepting everyone of every religion, including minor religions which would never eventually begin to call themselves after any one of the Major World Religions proudly. And by not favouring these Eight major world religions over the collective of minor religions; we would achieve true moral inclusion. Of the diversity of the most voices in religion. And by reflecting on that we tinkered with and advanced our theories of our character. I had figured the Christianna into being one of the global Eight major religions because I could see it reflected so truly in our future. That an religion would want to point out the fate worse than death as being an subject for an religion. To the good of everyone. And I hoped it so, that an religion to counter and to check and to dispute Christianity as its Sister. The pair of them, Christianity and the Christianna, were good enough to run and to theorize about global politics in which we would preserve and equalize other major religions within our inner focus of they Eight, thus. And it wasn't outside of our character that there could be Nine, or More; but Eight did seem like an good number to start with. If Christianity and the Christianna could inform one another about global politics; one being leaned into politics surrounding Death. And the other being leaned into politics surrounding Worse Than Death. We could help inform all peoples, of all types of religions. In order not to need to replace their opinion with my own. I loved and accepted all peoples.
But Christianity, damn! It really needing some working out to do with worse-than-death and what it tended to mean when we didn't take care to avoid it. Christians were to such an thorough extent willing to sacrifice themselves for petty arguments which didn't necessarily have to do with how someone else was treating them like they treated Jesus Christ. They were so hyper-focused on death and its meaning, perhaps they forgot to think about and consider the worse-than-death, of which their Messiah had tended to eclipse. Maybe the second messiah was an moral lesson from God, about the universe. Which required an talented medium to communicate. An medium who could even republicanize and joke about having an "re public" instinct. Someone pointing out that you, you're really just an part of the whole republic, and so you are subject to all its parts and possibilities, just like I am. And there really is no difference between us then, that we are both republicans and we allow for that fact, that the republic itself can think of things for itself, which is fictional but to what extent? And so, as humans, we must pay attention and learn on it. Of what the collective means in this moral example. People who are collectively part of an republic were allowing that fictional factor about itself lee-way, to fly—republics could think for themselves. And—that being said—it was okay to think those thoughts, about which concerned the whole collective in its super-ego form. Republics had thoughts of their own, and it didn't necessarily mean it finally linked to anyone apart from anonymity. There were many powerful and informative republics on Planet Earth, by my favourite had be the Largest one, the outermost collective of all people on Human Earth. The one I had identified with being blue. In an most Christiannan of dramatic conclusions, maybe.
The Christianna would openly say, in public, that they weren't crucifying Christianity and they weren't going to. And they would make fun of Christianity this way; that all other religions thought so too. And it was only Christianity which maintained its messianic complex over the thing. They actually thought people were naturally about the business of crucifying one another, to some extent, and they hadn't necessarily thought about the worse-than-death and the sub-crucifixions of one another that could occur if we were not careful. And they would make fun of Christianity for always pointing out that you were crucifying them somehow. Even socially. To the point of not even having the sophistication of calling it an sub-crucifixion, when that readily appeared to be what it was. Had language just reached an block somewhere in History where we weren't able to pick up on the most simplest of terms, in English, even though we did identify with them so. The fate worse than death and the sub-crucifixion wasn't talked about because, maybe, someone hadn't found an way to talk about them yet, even though they were so close and dear to our character as concepts as humans. Or maybe we were entering another Age, as an civilization, in which it was readily identified that we were talking about the fate worse than death and sub-crucifixion. And that having accepted these things was the real centre of society now. We weren't so naive anymore, as we had been in History, of not knowing or even thinking or suspecting of what an fate worse than death could be (which probably had its exceptions); the thing didn't exist. But now we were, on an larger scale than ever before, figuring about them what they may be morally. I had been right to name this second moral principle of the universe the most difficult one for an human to grasp. And I had the appeasement of overseeing the gravity of this claim; to our better moral conclusion or our failure. People were now ready, on an grand scale, to accept the universe as an cold, clay-driven world in which we cannot escape what we are created to be. That there is this actual fact of life being reduced to an quality of life which is unacceptable.
Eternal suffering.
And so the Christianna would point out the fact to Christianity: you can't avoid death without having to avoid worse-than-death also. And sometimes, honestly, Christianity, I can tell that you're sometimes experiencing the fate worse than death because of your beliefs. You think most people are even capable of crucifying someone, no matter what it means in what terms or what definition or as sub-crucifixion.
And Christianity would point out that you, the Christianna, thinks most people are even capable of worse-than-crucifying someone (subcrucifixion, gradations of crucifixion, which are worse). And the Christianna would have to answer for this. And the Christianna and Christianity would be able to work together that way, which is also part of what makes them count, by definition, as real religions.
Religions are peace and peaceful, and so why wouldn't they be able to work together?
But the Christianna would say, no we're not any of us about the business of sub-crucifying people. We're just pointing out that the possibility of it exists.
And Christiannans would further laugh at Christianity for not being able to lead its people out of an fate-worse-than-death driven by Jesus-driven logic and self-sacrifice. For something worse than death. From criticizing everybody that they come across as, on the altar, being judged relative to Christian opinion, where it is possible for someone to be crucifying somebody even though that crucifixion bears no like characteristics with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ himself. And it has crossed the gap as such, faithwise, that people can be crucified socially, by any number of people; and that that in fact has to do with its definition in this day and age. I call it sub-crucifixion, for the tendency of it to be diminishing from the fact of the actual infliction of death. To inflict smaller or more types of pain in order to inflict the worst possible experience upon the soul before its death. Christians, by asking about anything and everything whether it was an crucifixion, have found themselves in fates worse than death that they don't know how to get out of. You make one argumentative opinion about what Christianity is and suddenly they're down your throat telling you you're the crucifier. And to cry cry cry.
For you have sinned against Jesus!
The Christianna points out, that lots of things are not like an crucifixion and we in fact had other forms of example of behavior and character to draw from; but as an Christiannan I am here to argue and to represent the fact that nobody, from any religion, was trying to crucify the Christian. And it was joke-able even laughable that they were because that's not what religion is. Religion was people being peaceful with each other; and it didn't matter where they came from. They were all—all of them—of the fact that crucifying in any form someone was wrong; especially if it was an form of subcrucifixion and was of an matter of an hierarchy that mattered differently really much. If there was the possibility that we could do to humanity an trauma worse than the one done in Jesus. Wouldn't we have to act, like double time‽ We had to prevent the subcrucifixion no matter where it had arisen; and so fates worse than death were subject to suspicion, publicly. If there was an fate which was worse than crucifixion, different enough from crucifixion that it had its own possible word. Sub-crucifixion. We were talking about an job handling peoples' lives. An effort at helping people that, if it failed, would be tragic. We had to rise to the fact of sub-crucifixion being an fact of the known universe. And if Christians were going make fine-point opinions about what was and wasn't crucifixion shouldn't they want to use this term I have created, the sub-crucified. These were people who were worse off than Jesus, who we were slowly becoming, that we had to do something about before it was too late.
If humanity wasn't calculated enough to be able to interpret thus: we might inflict the worst disaster that had ever befallen humanity. An post-apocalyptic world in which an second, worse messiah had been perpetrated. Someone who was tortured more than Jesus before they had died. Someone who was out there right now experiencing this kind of surrealistic thing emotionally.
But we had time, and God had granted, that we would receive the lesson from an literal messiah. The Fate Worse Than Death. In order to overcome it suicidally and messianically so we wouldn't have to experience either death or worse than death. There was something chasing us. We didn't know exactly what it was yet, but it was fast approaching the opportunity window in which we had learned worse than death as the Second Moral Principle. Before we would all suffer together an new literal crucifixion of an magnitude worse than Jesus especially because it included so many people; the population of Earth had now expanded since the previous messiah. This new fate and culture it included so many people we were all drawn together on that particular strand; that we had to deal with the fate worse than death even if it meant talking about an new, fictional messiah. An one who would represent an different character of God to us. The Acceptance that we had experienced this type of mythic fate in the universe; and that it wasn't too far beyond us to think so. We had an second moral principle now. Just past the first one: Jesus; the ability of an messiah to be crucified. We now had an new messiah loaded up to worse-than-crucified, or sub-crucified. And if it went off, like an bomb, it could destroy the whole human race, who were the particular subject to that type of social event. We had outgrown the level of the old messiah by producing an new messiah. It now existed in Poetry and Culture as an explicit religion wanting to be an Major World Religion. We wanted you to consider us real: we were actually people who wanted and identified themselves by the blue religion: that ultimate reasoning factor and equalizing force attributed to any good religions. We wanted Religions to be able to make sense out of, and report to us their characteristics as good religions by being able to support the blue emotion to an sense of being able to do something about it most; we wanted theories and then answers about what being blue as an religion really was because, when we really reflected on it, we realized it meant something different to each and every one of us.
Blue was so dramatic in fact of character; you didn't know blue.
And I couldn't believe any one of you to know blue such as me!
But it is in this intelligent and knowing subjectivity, one finds there is an real value (mercantile) to sharing blue feelings and it has such as is an commodity and be able to remain solvent in its character on an real market.
Humans had blue stories on the order of the millions; and we couldn't just ignore them in history. Rather, we had to make history about them, make it shine each one of them why it had an known repressed-blue value on an open market economy where there were all kinds of blue emotions to pick from. We wanted examples of what to do with the blue emotions once they come; and we cannot repress or hold back anymore perhaps that Freudian slip which maybe had crossed your mind. Blue emotions were legitimate social material for discussion and conversation. And it existed at all social levels. We wanted, finally after considering so many options as an generation, to make blue an fair and open option to discuss, to express no matter where you were in humanity. We wanted to make it normal that one be able to express their blue emotions and feelings in public, and it didn't matter where we were, everywhere was the site of that happening and nowhere could be excluded from that freedom legally. The Christianna, then, after having considered all of this, was an religion majorly about the will to normalize having blue emotions in public; and the one's who had the most of them were considered the most valuable commoditizers and trade sharers of the blue, worthless emotion which at some point someone had realized to be an true buried treasure: Humans were becoming so Human that they would publicly recognize and accept one another's blue emotions as an normal part of civil discourse, as inseparable from the human rationale and instinct. We lived in an universe of blue, le sigh, and most of our experience we share here on Earth will be blue because of it. And we knew, for an psychological fact, that trying to repress it was anti-psychological. This was in part what made it so difficult for an human to believe. We didn't want to address, to own up to the exact blue feeling we were having at that moment; and let it come into real, un-repressed awareness. There were so many other ones of them to show us that we could have the real strength to un-repress all of them; even if they were considered an aspect of someone else's character.
The future was blue.
It was blue-feeling even to say this.
I had an certain amount of blue. (I wanted to say out in public). But then again posting on the Internet is kind of like that. I was publicly admitting that I had felt blue at some point; and I was like all of those congress-men who repressed feeling blue at some point, in the Question of my character they wished to seek for knowledge. But it was not so, I assure you, that I had repressed any blue feeling in my character. And I had it all and necessarily out with them. So that I had special observance over its character and behavior. I was publicly admitting that I felt blue. And that it wasn't all of the time. It was just an major part of the time. The time I spent having other emotions was slim and scarce. I had acknowledged it within myself that I felt worse than death. And being blue was an big part of that. I didn't want to feel blue, but humans were destined to feel blue. It was in fact part of their purpose in the universe. We had to survive despite blue, repressed feelings. Things which would make one want to pray for death. We had to survive despite the worst possible circumstances and we had to learn our way in the universe. That it all had to do with balancing between death and worse than death. So that we could remain an noble species that had an will and reason to live.
And so can I ask of you, if you can befriend that part of yourself that is blue, then wouldn't you have achieved complete happiness?
The human condition is that we have to work it out and make it through the blue repressed emotions at some point. Eventually they will emerge into character as an Freudian slip. We have all to recognize, publicly, that that is who we are. And we shouldn't be ashamed of feeling an little blue sometimes. If we can never transcend its reality completely. To try to repress the blue emotion would be the real way to be ashamed under these circumstances. It was negative and harmful to your character to want to repress anything like this. I myself had never repressed anything. And this itself was what I had repressed.
And in truth we should be proud of our blue emotions, even if only for their economically stable character. They had an real, known market value and so we couldn't just prance around them casually; we had to sell them up an bit. Make it known how valuable and how great it is to have an blue emotion in public, totally. At an extension from Shakespearean psychology. Blue, truly, was within an range of value known to the intuitive economic system on which most people paralleled each other. It could even expand in value with time. When people truly knew how valuable it was everywhere you went because, they had already commodified and featured it again as part of their mind. If I gave you blue emotions you were obliged to give me known economic value, even in the form of pure capital. That was what the real status of the blue emotions was. It was so valuable and real to be shared between so many people, that it increased its known status of value over time.
We wanted to fast-track the things we had learned from Shakespeare in order to reign in an new Historic Period or Era of World Psychology. We wanted to know one another's blue. We wanted to pay and reward people for it. Being brave enough to share blue in public. It didn't mean I was weak; it wasn't an sign of weakness, but of strength. The next stage, after sharing all of our repressed purple emotion, was sharing blue in public weakness. Someone had these blue feelings and it affected all of us because if anyone had blue feelings it made all of us weaker, in total. That's why it mattered. We had to be sensible and address blue feelings as they were flagged for observation in the soul; They weren't just these useless feelings anymore but were an thing of great commodifiable value. Not only did we want to broach the subject of one another's subjectivities coming from an place of great injustice where purple and repressed types of purple feelings typically prevail. But we wanted to broach the presence of having any blue emotions; in order to add infrastructure to the entire civic architecture. An place where it would be fair and feasible to share an blue emotion.
We had advanced as an global culture, from an Shakespearean to an blue-presuming form of republic which was useful to individuals in every form. And conversations could be made all around the blue emotion, publicly, and ideally as an aspect of the community.
Therefore, the Christianna is is tangibly connected with the idea of blue and the idea of value. Blue as an real, known economic commodity was an driving moral force and when people tended to attribute value to it, it tended to be spin-doctored as an defense mechanism to admitting one's own defeat, of the appealing blue or character or form. When there was really no defeat, but only an sense of consequences of the real accomplishment at hand, at having admitted that one did feel the blue sometimes. It wasn't monstrous of an person to have to take their emotions out in public. It was damn near perfect of them and we couldn't have it people being ashamed to admit their own belief systems in public we had to give admittance to all types of thought and personality character.
The Christianna is the religion stirring in the Deep; where at that time at once we experienced the Blue itself as having an voice or character of thinking. We were suspicious of it. It was, like an Republic, capable of having its own thoughts; only they were so deep as to drown out all thoughts of how it wasn't an subjective subject itself even though it represented one. Its voice was generated at an level of intelligence lower because of its damage. The Blue or The Deep, as it is known, has all of the interior thoughts about the subject of being an person who identified with being blue, knowing it all, in its totality, of what blue had come to comprise in the known universe. Every blue thought that had ever been thought of was connected to this idea of the Blue itself knowing something about something. Something Deep had been stirred in the heart of consciousness. An all-knowing awareness that knew everything about all of the blue emotion everywhere that had ever been suffered by anyone up until this point. Its voice, then necessarily, was subject to question of whether it could be called, itself, an product of an real human imagination or it was just the general effect of something having its own subjectivity and depth of emotive character. If the Blue could think for itself it could speak for itself, unless the blue thinking for itself was just an cognitive effect of my reflection on it; then it could not have an real, conciseness of voice on any matter really. And anything I observed to have thought of as the picture of the figure of subjectivity is itself to question. Maybe subjectivity itself is an type of archetype. Of being only real animate psychology without being or expressing blue. The Blue could, theoretically, produce its own voice even if it was an insecure individuality of psychological person. But it would not be representative of an real subjectivity who was actually there to some extent.
But what does it mean for something to be first, second, or last in the human soul? (And this was the final question I wanted to ask, to put things onto an psychological perspective again before ending). And if these qualities (Judaism, Christianity, the Christianna) were present in the first human in those first few moments, did they still persist to day? And what does that mean? Do they exist as layers on top of one another (come to it what does 'on top of one another' mean psychologically)? They represent sequences of time of the operation of the brain; there is an moment for each of them in an repeating structure? That once it comes to the end of the sequence, it comes back around to Judaism, the beginning again. Once Judaism is over Christianity takes over as the whole-hearted consideration of the Other over the self (i.e. Jesus or Buddha or some other). And of all others. Everyone who isn't your own subjectivity. Then the Christianna would kick in because nobody could decide between serving either the self or the other which was better and in what situations. Each representing an segment of time (of the operation of the mind) in which part of the function was due to these sequences of time which were characteristic of either Judaism, Christianity, or the Christianna. And they weren't necessarily layers in their operation then. But I did think there could be room for an layers-type interpretation of the psychic consciousness also. There exists an portion of cognitive activity at an level below one or the other. There may be several, even hundreds of layers. But they didn't not necessarily mean and define the same thing as portions of cognitive activity which existed in an segment of time; they were just things that were active at all segments of time within the sequence of brain features and functions. Therefore, summarizing from this, perhaps the parting message I wish to leave you with is that the Christianna is an psychological religion. It was created and it is an product of the 21st century, when all of the scientific facts had been considered and we needed to know who we are again as people. We're people who want to prevent the fates worse than death, and we know that its meaning is psychological, then. We need to reach people in their fates worse than death with psychology. And so we are not an archaic religion built on superstition and an terribly over-inflated ego. We're an religion which was created in History after at some point the psychoanalytical school of thought and William James; we were built (the creation of the Christianna) with psychology built-in already you might say. What was that creative moment of inspiration in which it was created‽ Something different than any other Major World Religion. Something so easily recognizable. It was (Fates worse than death) blue. And it had to do with Anna. What was the psychology of Anna and did she actually exist, or was she just an archetype of an community they all wanted to identify publicly with? Was she fiction or non-fiction and what could we do about it and to what certain extent? And maybe, even though we are not completely aware of, there are many psychological schools streaming within the ground water. They shape and influence our thought and consciousness, and our thoughts about consciousness. We don't feel their influence consciously but nevertheless we experience them sub-consciously or un-consciously. Not toward our demise, but in order to complement and supplement our actions and behavior. We just know that we are, and should be aware there is that type of thing working itself in our systems and this is in part why we have so many great public figures to thank; if only because of the impressions they leave upon our psychological character. The Christianna then, is different from every other religion in this way also: it was created after the development of Psychology as an Science and its general imprint upon the human character. None of the other Major World Religions can boast they were created after the Age of Science & Empiricism began, implicating its wide-ranging effects upon the human soul. This is not to say, that many of them haven't integrated many scientific ideas into their belief system. It is just that the Christianna was built (the moment of creation was in fact an Artist's inspiration) differently. That's just who we were now as an people. Christians, and Jews, and Hinduists or any other could add as many scientific theories and psychological effects to their religions as they wanted; but it didn't mean they were built after the fact of the advent of Scientific thought. The Christianna was unique as an individual religion, then, in this specific way.
