STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 3 : angels

Hum…

No.

Not yet.

It is time for an apology.

Thinking of the previous chapters, the only word, which comes to my mind, is “farfetched”. It all feels so "farfetched", and for a good reason. To clarify, in “Delta Theory”, we merely suggested a model. Indeed, in its closing chapter, I suggested, that due to the minimal axiomatic basis of the Physical Logic, many of the conclusions, which "Delta Theory" suggested, should be valid to inconsistent metaphysical theories as well. Nevertheless, I explicitly confessed, that I did not believe “Delta Theory” was necessarily correct. Nevertheless, arguably, the rational and structural manner, by which “Delta Theory” introduced its arguments, provided it with some sort of rational “comfort”. Furthermore, admittingly, while writing “Delta Theory” I knew where I was going, right from its very beginning.
In contrast, this text is somewhat "messy", as it does not discuss theories and possibilities. For example, in the first chapter, we suggested, that the metaphysical claim “inconsistency must exist”, is true, regardless of our beliefs. The same applies for inconsistent elements. This text claims to discuss real elements, which we "decided" to call "gods", while arguably, the arguments we proposed to validate our claims, appear quite literally “insane”. To clarify, because metaphysical inconsistency is somewhat “impossible”, our discussion, with respect to inconsistent elements, can only be subjective, as nothing forces us to associate inconsistent elements with gods. I keep repeating the term “the real gods”, as if repeating it would somehow "affirm" the similarities between inconsistent elements, and our common concepts of gods, while obviously, such repetitions have little to do with logical validity. Moreover, we should remember, our discussion, with respect to inconsistent elements, and the real gods, utilized arguments, which “Delta Theory” suggested, while admittingly, we did not prove these arguments are real, meaning, that they must be true to all metaphysical theories. Moreover, obviously, my personal persuasion, thinking "Delta Theory" is more valid and robust than any other metaphysical theory of which I heard, is biased. I mean, I was the one who wrote the damned thing!
The problem is, “Delta Theory” attempted to provide explanations, to things, which surely exist (such as our consciousness for example), while the existence of the elements this text discusses, is speculative at best. To clarify, we never “met” inconsistent elements. The very idea of encountering an element, which physically, both exists, and does not exist, is quite literally incomprehensible. In addition, we should understand, we learn our common concepts of gods, through folklore. While indeed, many ancient texts may attempt to reinforce our beliefs, mostly, these texts are “poetic”. Such texts are so soaked with discrepancies, confronting them with a consistent terminology is at the very least “strange”, if not completely out of line.
To summarize, inevitably, it comes down to our personal subjective choice. We need to personally decide, how we want to perceive inconsistent elements, as such elements can never have only one rational definition. If we want, we can think of them as forces of nature. We can think of them as elements, which somehow, "cause things to happen", without forming a concrete “opinion”, with respect to their metaphysical essence. Still, can we really do that, or are we lying to ourselves?
To clarify, inconsistent elements are real. They affect our reality. There are things, which we would never understand, we could never hope to control, and they have no limit (apart from the limits the inconsistent paradox principle imposes). These “things” must exist, regardless if they are different from the god (or gods) we follow, and they are different from the god (or gods) we follow, because nothing can “limit them” to any single idea. We cannot trust them, they do not watch over us, and surely do not protect us.
If we think we can master nature with our rationality and knowledge, we are simply wrong. Inconsistent elements are here, and eventually, they will disrupt all our attempts to sustain a perspective, where everything is safe, and under our control. Metaphorically, inconsistent elements are similar to wild cards, which never cease to rig the game.
Still, deciding inconsistent elements are gods, is optional. If we insist, we can consider them as merely forces of nature. Nevertheless, arguably, this might not be our ideal choice.
But why? Well, first, it is simply wrong, because as we just suggested, we can never define inconsistent elements properly. Secondly, considering inconsistent elements as merely forces of nature, implicitly revokes any possibility we might have to “negotiate” some sort of “consistent arrangement” with them. To clarify, indeed, we cannot “force” inconsistent elements to “do” anything. At the very best, inconsistent elements will work in our favor. Nevertheless, when we insist inconsistent elements are merely forces of nature, in actuality, we simply dismiss their significance. To explain, by considering inconsistent elements are merely forces of nature, we imply:

1. There are no gods, because any element, which metaphysically, is less potent than inconsistent elements, cannot possess “godlike” attributes, and metaphysically, no element can be more potent than inconsistent elements (because inconsistent elements are limitless).

2. The world is partly inaccessible, because inconsistent elements do not adhere to any consistent formula, regularity, or causality, and because by claiming there are no "gods", or "divine deities", with which we can "negotiate" their effects on our reality, we cannot access them through inconsistent means.

Therefore, it appears, by embracing this perspective, we gain nothing. To clarify, once we decide inconsistent elements are merely forces of nature, we cannot back down and say, “You know what? Ok, there is some kind of transcendent magic or gods after all”, as such a claim simply means, we changed our minds. Still, once we comprehend the various attributes of metaphysical inconsistency, arguably, we cannot take our common concepts of gods seriously anymore. If we do, it would imply, we do not care about the things in which we believe, and if we cannot find it in our hearts, to take the time, and think about the things in which we believe, then honestly, we simply do not think.
Nevertheless, this does not imply, we cannot think of inconsistent elements as deities. We can, and arguably, considering the possible benefits such a perspective might bring, we should consider the option. Still, we should not accept this option blindly. Just because inconsistent elements are somewhat "irrational", we should not completely forget our rationality, as inevitably, we are still consistent elements, and hence, our existence alongside inconsistent elements, must somehow remain "rational". Actually, for this reason, I chose the terminology "Delta Theory" suggested for our discussion, because considering “Delta Theory” is (to the best of my knowledge) the only complete consistent metaphysical theory available, meaning, it is the only metaphysical theory, which consistently explains the existence of both the external world, and our internal mental world, it is our best option. Nevertheless, we should note, any inherent flaw, from which “Delta Theory” suffers, will affect and defect this text as well.
Still, there is a good reason why instinctively, we feel so reluctant to think of inconsistent elements as gods. Because metaphysical inconsistency is so incomprehensible, intuitively, we think we can never comprehend it. We think it must forever remain chaotic, sporadic, and nonsensical. Still, arguably, such an interpretation of metaphysical inconsistency, may merely reflect our own arrogance, thinking that if there is something we cannot understand, it must be nonsensical. To clarify, obviously, the metaphysical potency of something as limitless as metaphysical inconsistency, goes way beyond nonsense. Nothing can limit the real gods from causing changes, whose semantic implications on our reality, are neither immediate nor sporadic, and hence, some of their effects on our reality, must be prolonged, and might even exhibit rational reasoning. For example, some of their prolonged effects on our reality, might be physical, such as the formations, destructions, and interactions, between particles, planets, stars, galaxies, and the likes. Nevertheless, we have far better methods to study such topics, such as through empirical experimentation, for example.
The same applies to evolution. While as we suggested in the previous chapter, the real gods can control evolution, and arguably, may have actually planned human evolution, so that we would evolve to harbor consciousnesses, and hence, provide them with the possibility to change the external world, by inflicting changes originating from our irrelevant internal mental worlds, our knowledge in evolution grows each day, and hence, we cannot know whether what we cannot explain consistently today, we will not be able to consistently explain tomorrow. Moreover, the same applies for “miracles” of medicine, as what today is a magical “healer”, we might bottle as tomorrow’s wonder pills.
Still, there is one more type of prolonged inconsistent effects. The real gods may inflict prolonged effects on human consciousnesses, such as through ideas, which have existed for thousands of years in human culture, without any rational reason. To clarify, some ideas affected humanity for thousands of years, simply because they were sound. We can find such ideas in all sciences, political dogmas, and ideologies. Social structures such as communities and families also fall into this category. Still, this is hardly all. For thousands of years, people have followed arguably insane notions, regarding strange connections and worship of divine deities. These are certainly promising candidates for prolonged inconsistent effects.
Nevertheless, just as with the previous types of prolonged inconsistent effects we mentioned, there are many alternate manners, by which we can explain the emergence of these concepts consistently. Actually, lately, it became somewhat "fashionable", to explain what used to be fantastic stories, with our new scientific knowledge. We like to feel "smarter" than previous generations, and therefore, to achieve our sense of "cognitive superiority", many subjects we used to consider as matters of faith, we dissect to bits on the anthropological surgical table. Honestly, “Delta Theory” has done this as well, explaining our fascination with concepts such as heaven, hell, and gods, as a cognitive manifestation of the completeness deltas cognitive mechanism. Furthermore, lately, some attempt to explain religious concepts, with arguably stranger notions, such as ancient aliens visiting the earth, ever since biblical times. We will not discuss these notions, because frankly, it is hard to verify them.
No. This text will take a different approach. To clarify, while we could analyze countless archives and ancient texts (which as we already suggested in the previous chapter, could have been fabricated by the real gods), arguably, it is simply beside the "point". The truth is, religions tell us of some very strange shit. They speak of animals that can talk, gods controlling the elements, angels, demons, and the likes. It does not matter if there is a rational reason why it is like that, because inevitably, it is still very strange shit, and it is very strange shit, because the real gods “allowed” religions to report it as such. This does not happen all the time. For example, our historical archives hardly ever report the outcomes of historical battles, as the result of "divine interventions". Usually, we find detailed descriptions of the strategies used, and the courage of the soldiers, which led to victory. Moreover, even the bible does not claim all the events it documents, occurred due to "divine interventions".
In short, it appears this is what the real gods “want”. They "want" us to remember some events as strange shit, and this is the real issue. They “want” us to think some past events, occurred due to "divine interventions". Therefore, the question is not whether these historical events occurred due to real "divine interventions", or if they even transpired. The question is, what do the real gods “gain” from “allowing” us to associate these events with “divine forces”, which are clearly not the real gods. To clarify, as we understood in the previous chapter, the real gods may never enter our reality, and therefore, any historical report of strange shit appearing in our reality, cannot be the real gods. At best, the real gods may have caused them, but if so, these strange apparitions were nothing but consistent "messengers" of the real gods, or alternatively, angels. Furthermore, in many cases, the real gods “allow” these events to remain “divine” for thousands of years, regardless if these religious attitudes are somewhat incompatible with contemporary technological progress.
This is where things become interesting. To clarify, while we cannot force the real gods to “do” anything, we can assume that if the real gods “allow” us to consider some things “divine” for thousands of years, they will probably not “change their mind”, just because we “jumped on the wagon”. A religion will not disappear, just because we do, or do not, follow it. Our personal consciousness is but a small fish in the big sea of human consciousnesses, and we can use this to our advantage. We can use this to “access” the prolonged “tendencies” of the real gods.
To explain, there is a link between existing religions and the real gods. Existing religions rely on inconsistent, or at least unfounded principles. Indeed, many people will disagree with this claim (to put it mildly). Probably, a strict religious follower would find the association of god (or gods) with the real gods, as heresy. To clarify, usually, the gods we follow are benevolent, rational, and good, while the real gods are inconsistent untrustworthy tyrants. Still, this is not a big issue. If the real gods “wanted” to be benevolent, rational, and good, they surely could.
However, as we mentioned previously, lately, religions have taken a secular turn. Today, religions are more of a social anthropological phenomenon than a spiritual one. Today, most of us undermine the enigmatic “magical” heritage of our religions. We think of religions as mere reflections of the collective superego of our social circle. Today, we follow religions mainly as a moral code, and we are somewhat skeptic, whenever we address the more “fantastic” traits of our religions. Furthermore, if we analyze these moral codes, we can see they are reasonable and beneficial, rather than inconsistent or unsubstantiated. In addition, even if we take part in religious rites and gatherings, usually, we justify these activities socially, claiming such rituals unite us with our communities and heritage. Finally, even if we pray and believe in god, usually, we justify these practices, as reflections of our need to hold on to “something greater”, while in most cases, we do not possess a concrete idea what that “something greater” really is.
Considering this secular religious trend, it is hard to establish a link between existing religions, and the inconsistent “nature” of the real gods. Indeed, if there is nothing inconsistent, incomprehensible, or impossible, about religions, we really should not link the two. Still, why did these secular religious trends retain their “fantastic” motifs? If we put so much effort rationalizing religions, why did religions keep their "religious status" at all? Why keep references to irrational ancient texts and mythologies?
Well, the answer is simple. It can only be because the real gods "allow it", and indeed, even though the rationalization of religions undermined some of their inconsistent, or irrational attributes, the link between religions and inconsistent incomprehensible moral codes and principles remained. To clarify, while indeed, we can argue, religions kept their fantastic motifs, in order to "cope" with the incomprehensible aspects of our reality, the reason these incomprehensible aspects exist, is because metaphysical inconsistency exists, meaning, it is because gods are real, and our reality reflects it in many ways, such as in the undeniable existence of angels.
Still, obviously, such an outrageous claim demands clarification. To explain, again, within the context of this text, the semantic meaning of the term "angel" is different from its usual religious connotation. In the previous chapter, we suggested, the real gods use angels as their consistent messengers, with which they convey us with prophecies. However, generally, the messages, which angels convey, are not necessarily prophecies, as the real gods may use angels to promote a variety of other different irrational ideas, and hence, change our reality, beyond the rational limitations of consistent causality. In other words, angels serve as "tools" for the real gods, and hence, arguably, in themselves, they are insignificant, as only their effects on our reality are important.
Still, angels must possess a consciousness, meaning, they cannot be unintelligible matter, such as ancient texts for example. To clarify, for a message to be "angelic", it must affect an internal mental world, and hence, a consciousness must understand it, or it would be no different from the unintelligible matter, on which it is written. Therefore, whenever the source of an “angelically influential” text is not an angel, it implies, the real gods created it directly, and actually, we already suggested this option, while discussing the manner the real gods may have falsified the historical evidence we have in the present. In short, only conscious beings such as ourselves can be angels, and supposing other earthly animal species do not harbor a consciousness, they cannot be angels, regardless if such animals can inspire us with angelic messages. To clarify, we should remember, that according to "Delta Theory", all particles are equally "alive", and hence, metaphysically, nothing differentiates a life form from a chunk of rock. To summarize, being “angelic” implies we both understand, and convey, the angelic message. In addition, angels may differ in their proximity to metaphysical inconsistencies, meaning, the amount of angels, through which an angelic message passed, before a given angel understood it.
Intuitively, we could think, the closer is an angel to the occurrence of an actual metaphysical inconsistency, the more it is significant. However, surprisingly, the proximity of angels to actual metaphysical inconsistencies, is mostly irrelevant. To clarify, again, we should remember, from the perspective of the real gods, only the effects angels cause on our reality are significant, and therefore, even if an angel truly witnessed a fantastic apparition, which the real gods created, it might not be significant, as people might discredit such messages as pure insanity. In contrast, an effective angel may claim witnessing a divine message, while in actuality, this message could consist of mere impressions, attained through other angels of various proximities. For example, if in a dream, the angel Gabriel conveyed us with a divine message, we cannot help but wonder, if we would have taken this message seriously, had we not heard of the angel Gabriel prior to our “divine encounter”. To clarify, we cannot determine how much of the message merely reflects our personal preconceptions regarding the angel Gabriel. Moreover, even irrelevant preconceptions, with respect to life in general, may determine our "angelic convictions", suggesting we simply cannot determine, how much of the semantics of an “angelic message” originated from our “divine encounters”. To clarify, such messages may merely reflect our prior beliefs, suggesting they could just as easily be a consistent construct of ideas, which we learned from other angels previously.
Therefore, it appears we defined angels too ambiguously. Different angels are simply different. The angelic quality is not uniform. While arguably, there might be a hierarchy to the significance of angels, as we just understood, it is hard to determine objective criteria, by which we can measure it. Furthermore, the angelic quality is not that scarce. As we already understood in the previous chapter, the real gods “allow” everything we do, and therefore, if our actions cause others to behave in an inconsistent irrational manner, then arguably, we too may possess some sort of "residual angelic quality". To clarify, because we all harbor a consciousness, we are all equally “eligible” to transcend the creational "urges" of the real gods.
Still, this is not our main concern. To explain, while surely, we all like to feel important, and hence, would love to hear of our own personal angelic significance, again, the angelic quality is not uniform, and hence, we cannot establish uniform conclusions about our personal angelic qualities. Moreover, in comparison to the longevity of religions, our lives are relatively short, and hence, our personal angelic quality may not reflect a guiding general principal, which theoretically, could teach us of the prolonged inconsistent effects, which the real gods have inflicted on our reality. Still, even more to the point, we should remember the purpose, for which the real gods "summon" their angels. They do not "summon" their angels to glorify their lives, but rather to realize their inconsistent limitless metaphysical potency. Moreover, the messages the real gods "entrust" with their angels is not necessarily truthful, beneficent, or anything of the sort. From the perspective of the real gods, only the eventual effect of the angelic message is significant, while they are completely indifferent to how distasteful, immoral, or nonsensical we would find these messages. Therefore, the manner the real gods utilize their angels is not that different, from the manner our animal brain exploits our consciousness to satisfy its biological needs. In fact, it is even worse. To clarify, according to "Delta Theory, our animal body depends on our consciousness to survive, which in turn, imposes a limit to the level of exploitation, with which it can inflict us, and beyond which, we might revolt against it, through suicide, for example. However, the real gods know no such limit. The real gods may exploit their angels to any level they find sufficient, as again, from their perspective, the consciousness of an angel is no different from any other consciousness. Moreover, because nothing ever "gets out of the hands" of the real gods, their angels cannot surprise them, with an angelic uprising. To clarify, if angels were to revolt against the real gods, it can only be because the real gods "wish it". In short, being an angel is hardly a "blessing", and actually, we can find proof for this in ancient texts, such as in the repeated fleeing of biblical prophets from their angelic calling. In short, our own personal angelic quality has little to do with our decisions or merits. Allegorically, the angelic quality is as "ours" as much as a slave owns his shackles.
To summarize, both the message, and the messenger, are insignificant. Only collective effects are significant. Moreover, different "receivers" can interpret the same angelic message differently. To clarify, receiving an angelic message from one angel (let us say, Gabriel), may affect us differently than receiving it from a different angel (let us say, Lucifer). Alternatively, the esthetic manner, in which an angel appears before us, might also play a factor. For example, while some would prefer to follow the words of a rational human angel, others might prefer to receive it from a magnificent dream beast. In short, the effectiveness of an angel depends on subjective factors, and hence, we cannot interpret angelic messages as objective “information”.
Therefore, we need to broaden our perspective. We need to isolate patterns that repeatedly appear in angelic messages. We need to find repeated tendencies that emerge within large groups of people. We need to establish links, between angels, and masses of people, following inconsistent irrational behavioral patterns, or alternatively, moralities. Only this way may we “access” the prolonged effects of the real gods. Therefore, we should focus only on angels, who successfully formed influential social groups, movements, and religions, as ultimately, all other angels, are but insignificant “cogs”, in the great universal inconsistent “machine”, of the real gods.
Therefore, first, we should change the way we think about angels. To clarify, previously, we focused our discussion on interactions with angels. Still, unintentionally, we neglected the reasons why such interactions occur in the first place, meaning, to change our reality in manners, which contradict the consistent flow of causality in our reality. In short, we focused on "concrete" encounters with angels. However, as we just explained, it is hard to identify the significant factors, which determine the “effectiveness” of an angel, and our encounters with them. To clarify, while the dominate factor may be the encounter itself, it can just as well be our preconceptions, with respect to its circumstances, and therefore, nothing in the concrete description of an angelic encounter can predetermine its effects. Generally, we put too much attention on the details, and forgot about the "greater picture".
Therefore, we should change our terminology. Instead of analyzing the angelic quality of concrete angels (meaning, angels, which we encountered through the course of our lives, and from which we actually received messages), we should analyze the concrete effects angels have on events, which happen in the present physically. It is important to limit our discussion to the present. To explain, as we already suggested, the real gods could have fabricated the evidence we have of past events in the present, and because as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, only the present exists, while the past does not, if an angelic message influenced events in the past, but no longer has any effect on the present, it no longer exists. To summarize, if angels fail to cause inconsistent changes in the present, they simply do not function as angels anymore.
This shift in terminology helps us analyze the notion of angels better, as it shifts us away from our narrow-minded perspective, and into the perspective of the real gods, which ultimately, are the reason why angels come to exist in the first place. Moreover, it clears out our common confusions, with respect to god (or gods). To clarify, let us consider the following silly story, as an example.


In a small Christian community, lived two young men, named Jim, and Tim. Both were in love with a beautiful girl, named Betty. Betty liked them both, and had a tough time deciding, whom she liked more (although rumors have it, she preferred Jim). One night, Jim met the angel Perpetiel (the angel of success) in a dream. In the dream, Perpetiel told Jim, that god sent him to inform him of the winning numbers in next week’s lottery. When Jim woke up, he Googled the name Perpetiel, and found he is the angel of success. The dream left a lasting impression on Jim, and therefore, later that day, Jim bought a lottery ticket, and filled it with the numbers he remembered from his dream. Jim waited the entire week, confident he is going to win the lottery, while during the same week, Tim and Betty dated for the first time. While Jim knew this, he figured, once he will win the lottery, Betty would want him more, so he did not try to court Betty harder.
But guess what? The numbers were wrong! Completely wrong! Not only that, but while Jim was checking what were the lottery winning numbers, Tim and Betty had their first kiss. This dream was the first in a series of angelic encounters Jim experienced, which always led him to failure, while Tim and Betty continued dating, until they married, and lived happily ever after. In contrast, Jim learned that gods are untrustworthy, and founded a new atheist movement, which eventually, led to the assassination of the pope, which later led to the collapse of the entire Catholic establishment. All evidence pointed back to Jim. Jim was arrested. A trial took place, and Jim was found guilty of conspiracy, and now carries out a life sentence in a correctional facility in Arizona. The end.


Undoubtedly, in this silly story, the effects of angelic encounters are profound. Still, obviously, these effects had little to do with the contents of the messages Jim received. Moreover, these effects had nothing to do with Jim, Tim, Betty, or the lousy losing lottery ticket. The purpose of the angelic influence Jim experienced was to end the Catholic establishment. Supposing the real gods really “issued” the appearance of the angel Perpetiel in Jim's initial dream, we can even claim that indeed, Perpetiel is the angel of success, as he “successfully” fulfilled his purpose. However, even more to the point, in this silly story, learning that Perpetiel is the angel of success, motivated Jim to trust his angelic message. Perhaps if it was a different angel (like Lucifer, for example) Jim would not have trusted the angel he met in his dream, and hence, would have reclined from purchasing the losing lottery ticket. Moreover, possibly, had Jim dismissed the angelic message, and attempted to court Betty harder, maybe he could have won Betty’s heart, and ended up marrying her. To clarify, obviously, Jim was a charismatic fellow, as it takes a charismatic Jim, to found a movement, potent enough to end such a robust religious organization as the Catholic establishment.
(As a side note, I would like to emphasize, I do not hold any special grudge for the Catholic establishment. I was merely making a silly example).
While indeed, this example is fabricated and silly, in a way, it is typical. To clarify, the reason Jim managed to fulfill the purpose of his divine encounters successfully, was not because the angelic messages he received were true, but rather because they left him so disheartened. To explain, while obviously, it is untypical to found a movement, which will destroy an existing popular religion, generally, we are much more prone to accept irrational ideas, whenever we experience emotionally stirring events, while when we are calm and content, we tend to behave more rationally. Actually, considering our previous suggestion, that our sensations of pain occur due to the insertion of inconsistent elements into our consciousness, this is not that surprising, as usually, emotionally stirring events are somewhat "painful", suggesting a possible metaphysical link, between dispositions, in which we resort to faith, and dispositions, in which we feel great pain. To clarify, it is possible, the insertion of pain sensations into our psyche, disrupts our cognitive rationality, by "injecting" it with the same irrational ideas, which later, we attempt to follow, with the purpose of ridding ourselves of our mental sores. Indeed, we may behave irrationally, whenever we feel sensations of great joy as well. Still, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", because essentially, our sensations of joy occur due to the eviction of sensations of pain from our psyche, it suggests, before we feel sensations of joy, we feel sensations of pain, and hence, we may still be suffering from the cognitive effects, which pain sensations inflict on our consciousness. Moreover, usually, even when we feel great joy, we may still behave rationally, while when in great distress, rational thought may not even be an option.
Still, regardless, generally, isolating angelic encounters from the events that preceded them, reduces their effectiveness. For example, supposing Jim never knew Betty, he would have simply accepted his dreams were but dreams, which in turn, would have made him pay less attention to the angelic encounters, which he experienced later. Moreover, this silly story shows us, that from the perspective of the real gods, the validity of angelic messages, is insignificant. To clarify, supposing the first angelic message Jim received was truthful, and he would have indeed won the lottery, what then? Would he have married Betty, instead of Tim? If so, would he not have had the luxury of analyzing his actions rationally, and hence, refrain from actions, which might have satisfied the real gods, but cost him his freedom? I mean, surely, had he married Betty, he would have had much more to lose, would he not?
To conclude, neither the concrete angelic encounters, nor the concrete identities of the angels involved, are important. The concrete details serve a greater purpose, meaning, an inconsistent effect, of greater magnitude. Therefore, instead of focusing our discussion on concrete angels, we should change our terminology, and use a different concept, which we will name "abstract angels".
While abstract angels are messengers, they do not necessarily exist. To clarify, abstract angels reflect well-known ideas, which cause inconsistent changes in our reality, meaning, they do not represent deities we meet in "angelic encounters", but rather the effects, which angelic messages yield on our reality. To explain, while discussing concrete angelic encounters, we focused on analyzing the details of the encounters, as we thought they were essential. However, as my silly story just showed us, the details are not that important. In my silly story, only the eventual effects, with which Jim’s angelic encounters resulted, were significant. Considering this effect (meaning, the fabricated collapse of the Catholic establishment), we can think of a more suitable identity to the angel, which messed with Jim his entire life, namely, Lucifer (or Satan, whatever name you prefer). Nevertheless, in my silly story, Lucifer never appeared before Jim. We derived the satanic influence, because of our preconceptions, as to what Lucifer represents, meaning, lies, betrayal, and antagonism with the Christian Church. Lucifer is the abstract angel of this story, even though he never appeared in it concretely. Arguably, we can claim it was Lucifer all along, portraying himself as other angels. Still, when Jim dreamed the losing lottery numbers, obviously, there was no way he could have known this. While obviously, being Christian, Jim knew Lucifer even before his first concrete angelic encounter, still, it was unnecessary for Jim to associate his angelic encounters with Lucifer, as had he associated them with Lucifer, he would have reclined from fulfilling his "angelic calling", and hence, deem the involvement of the real gods in his life pointless.
While the concept of abstract angels may provide us with fruitful insights, arguably, we may wonder, if there is any point to it at all. To clarify, we were discussing real gods. We explained how the real gods use concrete angels, to inflict inconsistent changes in our reality, while abstract angels might not even exist. How can we allow ourselves to shift our discussion so radically?
Well, indeed, abstract angels might not exist concretely. Nevertheless, the ideas, which abstract angels represent, certainly do exist in our reality and mythologies. Regardless if we believe, the ideas abstract angels represent are invalid, they change our reality, through the teachings, which religions endorse, and which their religious followers obey. In short, the only difference between concrete and abstract angels, is that the effects of abstract angels on our reality, do not depend on our first hand encounters with them.
To clarify, essentially, all the gods, of which we ever heard, are abstract angels. For example, if we think we met a god in our dreams, how do we know it is a god? Is it because the deity in our dreams said it is a god? Is it because in the dream world, this deity performed strange fantastic feats? Usually, no. Usually, it is because prior to such dreams, the idea these gods represent, already exists in our mind, as abstract angels. We read about these gods. When we are in need, we pray to them, and behold! Gods appear in our dreams. No introduction necessary.
Still, the term “abstract” is troubling. To clarify, when we say something is "abstract", we imply, it is merely a partial scheme of an element, which in many cases, cannot appear concretely. Moreover, the term "abstract" is virtually a synonym of the term "generalization", and as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, generalizations cannot exist in the external world. Indeed, as we suggested previously, concrete angels may appear in our dreams, and hence, nothing demands they must appear in the external world as well. Still, even if they appear only in our dreams, the reason we find concrete angels significant, is because of our beliefs, that their appearance in our consciousness, represents encounters, which we had with deities other than ourselves, and hence, we expect such concrete angels to be more than sensations in our minds, or alternatively, recurrences of the dimension of consciousness. Nevertheless, again, we should remember our initial motivations, with respect to our discussion regarding angels. We are attempting to find prolonged manners, by which the real gods affect our reality, and hence, arguably, the concrete existence or inexistence of abstract angels is none of our concern. To clarify, an idea in our minds, can change the way we behave, regardless if it is valid, just as in my silly story, Jim bought the lottery ticket, regardless of the incorrectness of the lottery numbers he dreamed.
So why are we so reluctant to accept the concept of abstract angels? Well, arguably, we can summarize the reason we tend to reject it, with the phrase, “Seeing is believing”. To clarify, because concrete angelic encounters actually occur in our lives, we tend to accept the validity of the angelic messages we receive in them. Still, as we suggested in the previous chapter, any message, which the real gods transcend to us through angels, is at the very least partial, if not completely false or misleading, as the real gods do not suggest any single “ultimate truth”. Any message, with which an angel may convey us, another angel is bound to contradict, somewhere along the course of history. In other words, the persuasiveness of concrete angelic encounters is tautological, meaning, we believe that the angelic message, which we receive through a "divine encounter" is valid, because we think concrete angels are truly "divine", and vice versa, while in actuality, neither is the angelic message valid, and nor are concrete angels "divine", as again, concrete angels are consistent elements, and in many cases, may actually be human. While arguably, the real gods can “surround” concrete angels with “magical special effects”, concrete angels cannot summon this "magic", as the concreteness of an angel, does not somehow elevate its metaphysical essence. A concrete angel will suffer from all the limitations and flaws of consistent beings. Moreover, concrete angels cannot “force” the world to comply with the contents of their messages, regardless if they received their messages from the real gods. In short, only the real gods can ensure the validity of angelic messages.
To conclude, apparently, the only significant difference between concrete and abstract angels is the method, by which they deliver and persuade us with their angelic messages. While concrete angels persuade us to follow their messages, by using the vividness and persuasiveness of our experiences, abstract angels persuade us to follow their messages, by using our society and culture, which relentlessly suggest us with their angelic messages. In other words, allegorically, if the “slogan” of concrete angels is “seeing is believing”, the “slogan” of abstract angels is “a billion followers cannot be wrong”. Still, neither concrete, nor abstract angels, are the real gods. While angels may persuade us they possess superior godlike attributes, in many ways, it is but a trick of oratory, which the real gods utilize, causing us to follow these messages, even if they contradict our common sense. To clarify, because we believe angels are metaphysically superior, we believe their messages must be valid, regardless if we can understand why, or understand them at all.
Nevertheless, considering this, analyzing abstract angels, may provide us with a greater “access” to the inconsistent tendencies of the real gods. But why? Well, abstract angels require masses of followers to deliver their effects. Abstract angels need “stability” so that many could join, and follow their messages, and hence, the real gods must "allow it". To clarify, even if the real gods can do anything they “want”, and even if they can “change their minds” whenever they “please”, if the real gods “want” to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality through abstract angels, they must restrain their inconsistent erratic nature. In short, abstract angels provide us with a temporary stability, within the chaos of inconsistency, which the real gods exhibit usually, a tendency on which we can rely, at least to some level.
Still, we cannot rely on it “as is”. To clarify, again, only the effects of angelic messages on our reality are significant, while the significance of the semantics of angelic messages is marginal. Therefore, we need not analyze the semantics of the sermons preached on behalf of abstract angels. We should focus only on the manner they inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, as essentially, these effects are the "real reason" why the real gods “issue” these angels in the first place. Furthermore, we need not bother with the concrete events, which eventually, led to the emergence of abstract angels. If it was due to the actions of concrete angels, we already know they were not the real gods, and hence, arguably, analyzing their lives, will yield nothing but gossip. To clarify, surely, considering the fact the real gods must have intervened in the lives of these concrete angels, their lives may have been strange. Still, again, such details are irrelevant. It does not matter if these individuals were humans, talking animals, ancient aliens, and the likes, as ultimately, we focus our effort, on "accessing" the real gods themselves, rather than their angelic consistent minions.
Indeed, as we just suggested, the semantics of religious teachings are insignificant, meaning, they cannot teach us much, with respect to the real gods, and hence, arguably, within the context of this text, there is no point discussing them. Still, without concrete exemplifications of the principles we discussed, I fear we might refrain from comprehending their realization in traditional religions. Mistakenly, we may believe, our religious persuasions are "off the hook", and hence, we will learn nothing, as we will fail to apply the principles this text discusses to our own lives. Therefore, next, we will discuss this topic. Still, I should note, that just as in “Delta Theory”, we proposed merely one metaphysical explanation to the universal laws of physics, and the manner our cognitive capabilities evolved, the review we shall conduct next, is but one possible interpretation to existing religions, and in no way am I implying, it is necessarily correct. Moreover, just as in "Delta Theory", we stressed, that regardless if the metaphysical explanations we suggested for the universal laws of physics, and the manner our cognitive capabilities evolved were correct or not, our possible mistakes should not suggest our metaphysical foundation, meaning, the Physical Logic, was invalid, the same applies to this text. Regardless if there are more exact interpretations to the teaching of existing religious persuasions, supposing we keep our discussion both consistent and rational, these alternate interpretations should not contradict our conclusions, with respect to metaphysical inconsistencies and the real gods, which we suggested in the previous two chapters.
To clarify, being understandable enough, to inherit us with well-defined moralities, the gods, of which religions speak in their teachings, cannot be the real gods. Concrete or abstract, traditional divinities do not possess the “divine” attributes, which our religions claim they possess, and hence, inevitably, all the "divine deities", of which religions speak, can only be angels. While indeed, the real gods could have empowered these angels, with temporal special metaphysical capabilities, advanced technology, or alternatively, these angels might be but ideas, angelically passed from generation to generation, ultimately, they are not the real gods.
Still, we may ask ourselves, why? Why should we? To clarify, in “Delta Theory”, we had no choice but to provide such explanations. Because we attempted to construct a consistent metaphysical explanation to our reality, we had no choice but to include the universal laws of physics, and the emergence of our consciousness, in this explanatory bulk. However, now, it appears, nothing is forcing us. Moreover, considering religious teachings may consist of nothing but a load of bullocks, we could ask ourselves, "Why bother? Why bother with this nonsense?" Well, while indeed, the next section will be neither imperative, nor necessarily correct, arguably, our possible dismissal of religions may be superficial, while in actuality, we may still believe in gods, not that different from the gods appearing in existing religions. Moreover, we should remember what we learned.

1. Inconsistency must exist.

2. The real gods are real.

3. There are no gods, other than the real gods.

4. Nothing happens in our reality, without the “approval” of the real gods.

With respect to the forth item, meaning, "Nothing happens in our reality, without the 'approval' of the real gods", well, the same applies to the laws of physics. To clarify, while indeed, the laws of physics are factual, so is the existence of known gods and religions in our minds. Therefore, it does not matter if the emergence of religions did not involve any concrete fantastic "divine interventions", or if existing religions consist of nothing but a load of bullocks, still, the existence of these religions, is a fact. Religions affect our reality, and therefore, they are not so different from the universal laws of physics. Moreover, while intuitively, we could argue, that the principles religions endorse are irrational, while the universal laws of physics are not, the truth is, that considering the discovery of physical randomness, and the lacking explanations, which quantum physics provided for it, physics and religions are not that different. Furthermore, while indeed, we could claim, religions have adapted themselves to be compatible with the unpredictability of metaphysical inconsistency, essentially, this is no different from claiming they adapted to the inclinations of the real gods. To clarify, just as the real gods “allowed” the existence of our religions, they could just as well caused them to disappear from our culture.
Nevertheless, I should stress, we will not analyze any god or religion in detail, as honestly, I am not acquainted with the details of their semantics. While arguably, you might believe, our analysis should be more educated, I disagree, as again, according to the principles we just discussed, the semantics of religious teachings, are insignificant. Again, only the mass effects religions inflict on our reality are important, and we do not require any special "education" to analyze them. At worst, it suggests, we should check what is happening on the news, but honestly, I have better ways to waste my time, such as fixing typos in this damned text.

Therefore, let us begin our review, starting from western monotheist religions, which include Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all the sects, and cults, which affiliate with them. I chose to review the western monotheism religions first, as today, these are the most wide spread religions, and because it is the type of religion I know best, having been born to a Jewish family (even if personally, I do not believe in, or practice, the Jewish religious teachings).
We can easily confuse the western monotheist god, with a real god. Just like a real god, the western monotheist god is limitless and timeless, omniscient and omnipotent. Still, some of the attributes of the western monotheist god are somewhat "incompatible" with our conclusions, with respect to metaphysical inconsistencies, or alternatively, the real gods, with the most noticeable difference being its partiality. To clarify, all western monotheist religions demand we adhere to the moral codes, which their teachings suggest, and with which failure to comply, deems us sinners. While indeed, some western monotheist religious communities may ignore the existence of sinners within them (such as in most western Christian states), other, more strictly religious communities, may demand the execution of religious sinners (such as in some fundamental Islamic states). Still, regardless of their level of tolerance, all western monotheist religions agree, behaving in a manner opposite to their teachings, is not “the will of god”. Therefore, the western monotheist god, cannot be a real god, because as we already concluded, nothing ever occurs in our reality, without the "approval" of the real gods, and hence, if “sinners” exist in our reality, it implicitly suggests, the real gods “want it”. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, the limitlessness of metaphysical inconsistencies, spans beyond any morality, and hence, potentially, the real gods "want" the emergence of any morality, as brutal or distasteful as it may be. Still, we should remember, we are life forms, and therefore, the moral codes, which govern us as communities, must adhere to the limitations all ecosystems face, and hence, some moralities may deem the communities embracing them, evolutionarily inferior, or self-destructive, and which other, more socially robust communities, can easily destroy or assimilate. Therefore, there might be pragmatic limitations to the types of moralities, which could prosper in our reality. For example, if a moral code would demand, all its followers must commit suicide, then obviously, it could not prosper. Nevertheless, we should remember, the real gods are limitless, and therefore, if they “wish it", theoretically, they can obvert the social-evolutionary demise of any culture or social group. In short, we cannot associate the successfulness of the western monotheist religions, with cultural or conceptual superiority or backwardness.
Another issue, which exemplifies the differences between the western monotheist god and the real gods, is the lacking manner, by which western monotheist religions address their coexistence alongside other religions. Not only do other, non-monotheist religions exist (such as polytheism, Paganism, and Hinduism), but western monotheism is itself divided into different religions (meaning, Christianity, Islam, Judaism), as well as subdivisions, sects and cults. Indeed, we can claim, that arguably, the differences between these subdivisions, are insignificant, as essentially, they merely reflect different “skins” of the same "divine deity", or alternatively, different angels, which the same real god "issued". However, such a suggestion, fails to explain how and why this unifying "divine deity" would “allow” the unfolding of historical events, such as the crusades (which involved a bloody war between two sibling religions, meaning, Christianity and Islam), or the calls we hear today for Jihad, against Judaism and Christianity, by radical Islamic religious sects. Indeed, we can argue, that these merely reflect hostile misinterpretations of the teachings of western monotheist religions, which usually, are both peaceful and tolerant. Nevertheless, the real gods “allow” these “misinterpretations” to both exist, and change our reality. If the western monotheist god was a real god, and did not “want” these religious wars, obviously, these hostile “misinterpretations” would never flourish. Furthermore, we should note, the real gods even “allow” the coexistence of western monotheism, alongside religions, which explicitly antagonize western monotheism, such as Satanism, and Paganism. Nevertheless, the low presence and influence of this “opposition” clearly shows, the real gods “prefer Jesus over Satan”. To clarify, even if hysterically, we believe there is a global conspiracy, in which quasi-Satanic secret societies (such as the Free Masons for example) are controlling our reality, still, most people follow the western monotheist religions, rather than their theological “adversaries", and therefore, angelically, western monotheism is much more influential on our reality.
Furthermore, apparently, today, the real gods “allow” the popularity of secularism to rise. I mean, take this text for example. Obviously, the real gods must have “allowed” me to write it, without suffering from religious prosecution. To clarify, today, western monotheist religions treat “infidels” in an elitist manner, claiming faith is a quality we must “earn”. Still, considering our previous conclusions, such claims are simply invalid, as the real gods determine practically every little thing we do, think, or believe. In short, we marginalize religions because the real gods “want it”, and therefore, regardless if western monotheism may claim we are “infidels” or “sinners”, ultimately, for the real gods, these terms are meaningless, as we can never do anything against their “will”.
To conclude, the western monotheist god is not a real god, or alternatively, we can claim, the western monotheist god is a real god, which refrains from telling us “the whole story”. Still, the principles, which western monotheist religions dictate, do not support such claims, as they persistently demand, we adhere to the well-defined moral codes they suggest, while again, the real gods are incomprehensible.
Nevertheless, arguably, there might be a reason, why the western monotheist god, is somewhat similar to a real god. Still, to understand this reason, we need to stop searching for a “link” between them, and instead, deduce the purpose, which the western monotheist religions “serve” for the real gods, considering what we know of our reality. To clarify, usually, most western monotheist religious followers do not base their faith on their personal paranormal experiences. While possibly, in biblical times, concrete angels indeed performed fantastic feats, which eventually, led to the formation of the western monotheist religions, apparently, today, it no longer occurs. To clarify, indeed, we have records of miracles of science, which arguably, may represent new such fantastic manifestations of the metaphysical potency of the real gods. Still, somehow, such "miracles" fail to initiate new significant religions, which potentially, could question the dominance of the western monotheist religions. Instead, the western monotheist religions suggest us with the idea that “the divine truth” has little to do with our concrete experiences.
In short, it appears, western monotheist religions provide a “framework” for the real gods, with which they can inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, by suggesting a perspective, from which potentially, the tiniest “angelic innuendo” could radically disrupt our lives. For example, if in a dream, god, Jesus, an angel, or a saint, would tell a strict Christian to perform an action, which does not fundamentally contradict the principles of Christianity, this person would surely comply, without questioning the rationale behind such "angelic request". In other words, western monotheism overrides our instinctive skepticism and common sense, and puts us in a “ready for irrational action” mind state. This is true to Judaism, but even more to Christianity and Islam, where almost all the rewards they promise us, for following the laws of god, we are to receive in the after-life.
Not all religions are like this. For example, polytheist religions, attempt to establish an immediate link, between the actions we perform, and the rewards we receive during our lives. However, in contrast, in western monotheism, the more we are persistent in following our religious persuasion, while failing to receive rewards for our religious dedication during our lives, the more “righteous” and “good” we become. Moreover, this irrational perspective, reaches disturbing levels, causing us to think, that dying for our religious dedication, renders us “martyrs” or “saints”. Indeed, we can claim, this is simply the manner, by which western monotheist religions, establish their “grip” over their followers. Still, regardless, undoubtedly, by endorsing such perspectives, western monotheist religions ensure their followers are more susceptible to the angelic influences, which the real gods "issue". Moreover, to enhance this effect, western monotheism “starves” our natural instinctive sensuality. To clarify, with the exception of Christianity and Jesus, the western monotheist god has no “face”. This lack of sensory stimulation, motivates western monotheist religious followers, to constantly search for “signs”, which potentially, could "guide us". In short, western monotheism ensures the real gods can merely “fart at our general direction”, and we would follow this “fart” to whatever end the real gods “planned”.
As we just suggested, Christianity is somewhat different, as in Christianity, not only can we "see" god (which usually, is a slim longhaired bearded white fellow, nailed to a cross), but generally, Christianity has been pretty much littered with Christian artworks, throughout the ages. From great churches to paintings, sculptures, and music, the Christian church was always a great patron of the arts. While indeed, the “invisible western monotheist god” exists in Christianity as well, and truth be told, no one really knows how Jesus looked like, still, arguably, Christians do not suffer from the same sensory deprivation, from which followers of other western monotheist religions followers suffer. Instead, Christianity emphasizes the concept of sin.
Indeed, the concept of sin already existed in Judaism (which provided many additional founding principles, which Christianity endorses to this very day). Nevertheless, Christianity reinterpreted the original Jewish biblical story, so that it would revolve around the axis of sin. This "axis" began in the Garden of Eden, with the “original sin”, and continues with the absolution of the sins of humanity, through the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Eventually, this "axis" reaches present day, where each Christian repeatedly sins, asks god for forgiveness, and receives absolution.
Still, how can god forgive us for our sins so easily? To clarify, whenever we commit a crime against another person, we can easily find ourselves in jail. Moreover, if we commit murder, it is even worse, as possibly, we may be executed, such as in some states in America, in which Christianity has a very strong following. How can this be? To clarify, if one of the most dominant principles of Christianity is "Turn the other chick", how can it be that committing a crime against another person is so unforgivable, while the Christian god is so forgiving?
Well, while arguably, we could attempt to solve this question theologically, once we consider the perspective of the real gods, a completely different picture emerges. To clarify, again, nothing ever occurs in our reality, without the "approval" of the real gods, and hence, we simply cannot “sin” against them. Therefore, if we commit a “sin” against the "will" of any deity, this deity must be a consistent element. To explain, again, inconsistent elements are timeless, and hence, for an inconsistent element, the time at which we perform an action (be it a sin, or helping an old woman cross the street) is as meaningful or surprising as any other time. Only a consistent limited deity views the present as more significant than any other time, and only by viewing the present as significant, may our ability to choose our actions, become relevant. However, again, as we already concluded in the previous chapter, if metaphysically, a deity is consistent, it is simply not a real god. Therefore, at most, the Christian god is an angel. Still, if the Christian god is an angel, we cannot sin against it, as theoretically, we can only sin against the real gods. To clarify, if we do something against the will of a consistent deity, it is merely a “crime”. Moreover, even if we can disobey the moral demands of an abstract angel, essentially, because abstract angels are merely ideas in our minds, committing a "sin" against them, is nonsensical.
In short, “sins” are simply impossible to commit, and therefore, forgiving us for committing them, is nonsensical. To clarify, the real gods cannot forgive us for something we cannot do. Moreover, while theoretically, religious establishments may choose to forgive us for disobeying their moral demands, usually, they do not. For example, during the Spanish inquisition, even though allegedly, the western monotheist god forgave “infidels” for their sins, the Christian church later executed most of them. The western monotheist god did not forgive the “infidels” (as they could not “sin” against the western monotheist god in the first place), and neither did the church forgive them for their crimes against it. This is ironic, as again, one of the founding principles of Christianity is forgiveness. To summarize, the Christian morality is inconsistent and irrational (at least as far as the notion of “sin” is concerned).
So why do the real gods “allow” the notion of “sin” to be so prominent? What inconsistent effects do the real gods achieve by “allowing” it? Well, it is straightforward. While the intangible nature of the western monotheist god starves our senses in search for divine signs, the notion of “sin” persuades us we “owe it” to the western monotheist god to comply with every demand, which the real gods may “hint”. To clarify, because we “sin”, we must repent for our “sins”, and we will repent for our “sins” in whatever way the real gods choose, as irrational and inconsistent as it may be. While Jewish religious followers can still somewhat “negotiate” how to respond to angelic interventions, the Christian religious follower simply must obey the “angelic calling”.
The deeper we analyze the concept of “sin”, the more the “divine plan” behind it, becomes apparent. For example, considering homosexuality, we can find an entire conceptual apparatus designed to make humans behave irrationally. To clarify, while western monotheism does not “welcome” homosexuals, undoubtedly, homosexuals do not choose their sexual tendencies. Homosexuality is “predetermined”. Furthermore, with respect to our previous conclusions, the real gods “predetermine it". In short, homosexuals are “born to sin”. From the western monotheist perspective, homosexuals are born with a “debt to god”, a “debt” to something, which does not exist. To clarify, homosexuals have a “debt” to the western monotheist angels, not to the real gods. While as a result, homosexuals may choose to “leave” the religion into which they were born, and lead a “sinful and decadent life style”, the antagonism between them, and the western monotheist religions, will both remain, and affect their lives. Therefore, essentially, western monotheism “predetermines” irrational inconsistent notions will govern the lives of homosexuals, exactly as the real gods “want”.
Arguably, the levels of inconsistency and irrationality, which Christianity exhibits, are staggering. To clarify, first, again, because Christianity bases its morality, on the “debt” the Christian religious follower “owes” to god, which at best, can be merely an angel, essentially, the Christian morality, including its concepts of "sin" and "forgiveness", lacks any realistic justification. Secondly, as we already mentioned, Christianity preaches we must forgive others for almost any transgression, regardless if such forgiveness is asked for, or if it contradicts our survival instincts, to defend ourselves from those who do us harm. Still, regardless, Christianity (and western monotheist religions in general) is the most popular religion, in almost all of the most powerful, rich, and developed nations in the world (such as the United States, and western European countries). Even though the Christian god is not really a "god", and even if Christianity negates our survival instincts, and hence, from a social-evolutionary perspective, the Christian moral principles are inferior, Christianity does not suffer from social-evolutionary deficits. How can it be?
Well, if we still ask ourselves this question, it simply means, we have not fully grasped, that the real gods are real, and that they really “want” us to exhibit inconsistent behavioral patterns. To clarify, Christianity flourishes because it proves beneficial to the “interests” of the real gods. Moreover, lately, the Islamic religions have been flourishing as well, and probably for similar reasons. Therefore, regardless how nonsensical are the western monotheist religions, before we ditch our churches and mosques, we should take note of this tendency of the real gods. Even if there are other religious persuasions, which arguably, are more “logical” or “rational” than Christianity and Islam (such as atheism, for example), apparently, the real gods "prefer" the western monotheist religions, regardless how backward they appear, and hence, the real gods ensure the western monotheist religions remain the most successful religions on earth. Furthermore, even if we may believe, rational thought is superior to religious perspectives, our cognitive capabilities are simply not the issue, as the real gods are the ones “calling the shots”, and we cannot resist their convictions. To clarify, indeed, while exploring their limitless metaphysical potential, the real gods may “allow” the existence of limited “religious rebellions” against western monotheism. Nevertheless, generally, the real gods “want” us submissive and irrational, and they always get what they “want”.
We simply cannot ignore the successfulness of western monotheism, and hence, we cannot judge it as "backward". Western monotheism is inconsistent, it is here, it affects our reality, and therefore, at the very least, it satisfies our definition of abstract angels, meaning, the western monotheist "god" is an abstract angel of the real gods.
Still, probably, concrete angels took part in the formation of western monotheism. To explain, while from a religious perspective, the details of some biblical stories may appear enigmatic, arguably, once we interpret them from the perspective we suggested in this text, they make sense. For example, the Book of Genesis begins with a description of the creation of the world, similar to the way most mythologies begin. An angel could not have created the world. To clarify, the creation of the world, as described in the Bible, implicitly hints, the world emerged out of some sort of “nothingness”, and hence, arguably, the Bible defines "creation" as an inconsistent action (meaning, creating something out of nothing), and as such, only the real gods could have “done it". Still, soon after, the bible tells us, “god” created us in its “image”. Naturally, it is impossible this “god” is a real god, as there is no resemblance between consistent and inconsistent elements, and hence, this "god" must have been an angel. It does not matter if this "god" was human, or if it was an ancient alien, visiting the earth in biblical times, and inheriting us with our religions. Being an angel, metaphysically, the western monotheist "god" is as consistent and limited as we are, and hence, for all we know, could have been human.
Several chapters after, the western monotheist "god" continues to exhibit consistent characteristics. For example, if we consider the story of the forbidden fruit, and the banishment from the Garden of Eden, then obviously, we cannot attribute it with the real gods, because as we already suggested, the real gods "allow" all that ever happens in consistent worlds (such as our reality), and hence , the surprise and disappointment, which the western monotheist god exhibited, in response to the actions of Adam and Eve, imply it is not a real god. Moreover, the whole idea of creating a “forbidden fruit” contradicts the inconsistent "nature" of the real gods. To clarify, the real gods reside “out of time”, and therefore, from their perspective, even if they actually "created" such a "forbidden fruit", essentially, they "created it", so that Adam and Eve would eat it. Furthermore, generally, any moral prohibition, which the western monotheist god imposes us with, shows it is not a real god. To clarify, the real gods do not require prohibitions, as the real gods “know” what will, and will not, happen, and again, they have no problem changing our reality, in manners we will find distasteful, regardless if the reason we find them distasteful, is exactly because they contradict the "words of god". Therefore, the real gods cannot “test us", as they know how well we will “score”, even before we take the “test”. At best, the real gods may impose us with moral prohibitions, just so we would act irrationally.
Still, we could argue, the stories appearing in the Book of Genesis are allegorical, and that in actuality, they attempt to tell us "the truth", through the use of metaphors. For example, we can argue, that the "forbidden fruit" is merely a metaphor, which comes to explain the manner, in which evolution "connected" our cognitive capabilities, with the manner our animal body inflicts sensations of pain into our psyche, similarly to the manner "Delta Theory" suggested. Moreover, we can argue, that the "snake" appearing in the story of the Garden of Eden, are these sensations of pain, or alternatively, the administration of inconsistent elements into our consciousness, which both increases our cognitive capabilities, as well as condemns us to feel sensations of distress. Actually, we can even claim, that our creation in the "image of god", merely suggests, the real gods "created us" according to "one image" of the real gods, namely, the image of the angel, which conveyed the biblical text to our ancestors.
Nevertheless, even if that was true, again, the real gods do not adhere to any single morality, and hence, the western monotheist god, simply cannot be a real god. To clarify, again, metaphysically, the real gods simply do not adhere to any single morality, and hence, the morality, with which the western monotheist "god" inherited us, must have spawned from the mind of a consistent deity, meaning, an angel. Arguably, the similarities between the real gods and the western monotheist god, suggest the western monotheist "god" was “aware of what it takes” to be a real god. Still, being merely an angel, somehow, it failed to meet the “standards” of the real gods. Moreover, supposing the western monotheist "god" was indeed an angel, and supposing this angel understood the inconsistent nature of the real gods, then arguably, this can explain why many times, historical events transpired differently from the path it "wanted", resulting with the punishments, which according to the Bible, the western monotheist god inflicted on our world, such as the great flood, or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Moreover, arguably, this can explain why the western monotheist "god" waited for so many years, before founding its own religion, as by both knowing the limitless metaphysical potency of the real gods, while knowing it is not one of them, surely, the western monotheist "god" was aware of the pointlessness of such a suggestion. Moreover, considering the years, over which the Biblical text unfolds, if indeed, the western monotheist "god" was a concrete angel, then arguably, it could not have lived for so many years, suggesting that in actuality, the western monotheist "god", could have consisted of an entire "school" of concrete angels, all perfectly aware of their limited consistent limitations.
In short, considering these hypotheses, it is not surprising, that even though western monotheism has been so successful in the last two thousand years, and even if the real gods found the angel (or angels) responsible for the formation of western monotheism beneficial, they had no problem leaving this angel (or angels) “out in the cold”, with events occurring differently from the manner its angelic messages suggested. Therefore, arguably, “the life story” of the western monotheist god (or better said, angel, or angels) was not that different from the somewhat "tragic" life stories, of all prophets and religious leaders appearing in the Bible, such as Moses, whom the western monotheist god restricted from entering the promised land, and probably, the same applies to all concrete angels. To clarify, if you remember, in the previous chapter, we were wondering, what concrete angels feel, when they think of their own origins. Now we know. Disappointment. To explain, regardless if the real gods “summon” their angels to deliver their messages, and regardless if delivering these angelic messages serves the purpose, for which the real gods "issue" them, essentially, this is where the “divine contract” ends. The real gods do not “care” for their angels, which from the perspective of the real gods, are but disposable tools.
Arguably, we could think the “cold shoulder”, which the real gods show their angels, could explain the biblical stories, with respect to Satan and the fallen angels. Still, because as we suggested, the western monotheist god, is an angel, Satan did not rebel against the real gods, but rather against merely another angel. Moreover, because angels are consistent elements, they do not have the “liberty” to act against the “wishes” of the real gods, as in many ways, we can claim, the inconsistent paradox principle prevents it. Still, we should note, that as an abstract angel (meaning, as an idea, which provokes us to change our reality inconsistently), “the devil” always took a marginal role, as apparently, it is simply less “instrumental” for the real gods. Actually, it is not that surprising, as essentially, the worship of Satan suggests we adhere to our primal animal urges, while arguably, the reason the real gods find us "instrumental", is exactly because we are different from all other earthly animal species. To clarify, the real gods “require” our cognitive capabilities to inflict intelligible inconsistent changes on the external world, while our primal animal urges, are common to all animals in the earthly animal kingdom, and therefore, from the perspective of the real gods, nothing marks us special in that sense.
To summarize, while angels cannot fight the real gods, they certainly can fight each other, and have done so in the past, such as for example, during the Christian crusades, when Christianity thought against Islam, for religious reasons. In short, metaphysically, there is no distinction between angels and fallen angels, including the “official” western monotheist "god", and because inevitably, the real gods give a "cold shoulder" to all of their worldly angels, we can argue, that all worldly angels are “fallen”. Arguably, the concrete angels appearing in our dreams, may not suffer from such fate. Still, it is hard to determine whether these "dream angels" possess a consciousness, and therefore, it is possible, the angels appearing in our dreams, are not angels at all, as they might be merely figments of our imagination.
Still, as we already mentioned, even if we ignore the mythological clash between Satan and the western monotheist god, again, throughout history, there were repeated clashes, between the different strands of western monotheism. Actually, this shows yet another contradictive trait of the western monotheist god. To clarify, if we consider the biblical story of the Tower of Babylon, apparently, the western monotheist god does not "like it", when humans consolidate with a single agenda, contrary to the founding principle of western monotheism, which determines, there is but one god, and hence, but one true religion, which all humanity should follow. While arguably, we could claim, the western monotheist god exhibits this inconsistency, exactly because it is a real god, this ambiguity does not reflect in the western monotheist religions, which exhibit confidence in the clarity and validity of their god.
Furthermore, the western monotheist antagonism towards polytheism, makes it even more inconsistent. To clarify, with each western monotheist religious strand, having its own set of rules, rituals, and flavor, western monotheism clearly exhibits similarities to polytheism, with the only difference being, that each western monotheist religion, claims only its interpretation to the "will of god" is valid. There is no affinity between the various strands of western monotheist religions. In fact, usually, western monotheist religions view all other western monotheist religions as inferior, if not infidels, not so different from idol worshippers. While arguably, there is more “respect” between sibling western monotheist religions, meaning, religions, which belong in the same western monotheist religious meta-group (namely, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), still, historically, it appears, this is not always the case (as the repeated conflicts, between the Sunni and Shia Islamic religious strands, clearly suggest). To summarize, in effect, while western monotheist religions refuse to accept it, western monotheism grew to encapsulate its own version of polytheism, showing western monotheism is even more inconsistent.
Well, considering the theme of our discussion, let us now shift to polytheism. Regardless of their numbers, surprisingly, polytheist gods do not resemble the real gods, as they are neither limitless, and nor do they claim it. Each polytheist god is responsible for a specific set of elements, be it the skies, the sun, the sea, the underworld, fire, wisdom, fortune, love, you name it. Therefore, intuitively, we could think, polytheist gods are abstract angels, as associating ideas with divine deities, is analogous to associating inconsistent messages, with messengers of the real gods.
However, polytheist gods do not deliver any explicit message or morality, and hence, it is hard to associate them with abstract angels, in the same manner as in western monotheism. To clarify, indeed, we can view polytheist mythologies as allegorical, and hence, deduce moral implications from them. Still, because the extraction of a morality from polytheist mythologies, requires we reinterpret them as suggesting a morality, it suggests, that in polytheism, the religious follower is the angel, rather than the "divine deities", which appear in the polytheist mythologies. To explain, we should remember the purpose, for which the real gods "issue" their angels. Angels must provoke inconsistent changes in our reality, while essentially, polytheist gods are fantastic imaginary figures, and hence, probably, they never existed, as it is more probable, polytheist gods were "invented" by polytheist shamans and "mediums", which interpreted the mythological stories in an angelic fashion, and hence, embody the "real" polytheist angels. While arguably, we could claim, the same is true to the western monotheist god as well, still, unlike the western monotheist god (and the western monotheist angels), it is hard to believe polytheist gods ever existed concretely. To clarify, while it is possible, some of the events, which polytheist mythologies describe, really did transpire, they could not have transpired in the manner polytheist mythologies describe it (at least not as far as the polytheist gods are concerned), as essentially, polytheist mythologies consist of metaphors and animation of concepts, or alternatively, generalizations, which as we already suggested, cannot exist in the external world. In short, even if polytheist mythologies are not complete fabrications, historically, they must at the very least be inaccurate.
Still, arguably, the “animation” of concepts, generalizations, and ideas, in itself represents an inconsistent message, as it makes us expect, that the generalizations, with which we think, should appear in the external world, and hence, change the manner we live our lives, accordingly. While polytheist mythologies do not tell this message explicitly, it was certainly dominant during “the golden ages” of polytheism. For example, considering the Greek polytheist gods, we have conclusive evidence of this. In fact, Plato (which arguably, was the most influential philosopher of that age) practically "spelled it out", in his Ideal Realism. To clarify, in his Cave Allegory, Plato explicitly claimed, only ideas exist, while the physical manifestations we sense do not. Therefore, while it is hard to correlate the mythological descriptions of polytheist gods with actual historical events, similarly as with western monotheism, the ideas, which polytheism represented, clearly affected polytheist culture, causing it to inflict inconsistent changes on the reality of those ancient times.
Indeed, it is possible, that similarly to many contemporary suggestions, polytheist mythologies are but misinterpretations of historical events, in which “ancient aliens” intervened in the development of human culture. Still, even if this hypothesis is indeed "the truth", it is simply beside the "point". To clarify, even if in actuality, Zeus, Demeter, Apollo, Athena, and all other polytheist gods were in fact ancient aliens with sophisticated technology, which landed from the heavens with their flying triangles, they could not have been physical manifestations of concepts. Had they been physical manifestations of concepts, it would mean, these “ancient aliens” were inconsistent elements, meaning, any physical interactions between them and our ancestors, would have nullified the external world. Therefore, even if our ancestors misinterpreted these “ancient aliens” as polytheist gods, they must have been consistent deities. Moreover, they were not necessarily angels. To clarify, even if such alleged "ancient aliens", inspired our ancestors to document real interactions with them, through polytheist mythologies, it does not imply, these alleged "ancient aliens" invented, or even cared, for the mythologies they inspired our ancestors to write, including any moral implications, which these mythologies suggested. Moreover, we should remember, the real gods always get what they “want”, and if the real gods “wanted” us to think, that in actuality, the polytheist gods appearing in mythologies were "ancient aliens", then obviously, this is what polytheist mythologies would describe.
In short, the effects, which western monotheist angels and polytheist angels, have on us, are not that different. They simply use different “strategies”. Western monotheist angels use inconsistent definitions of god, moral debt, and sensory deprivation, while polytheist angels use animation of concepts, making the polytheist religious followers irrationally believe, that the generalizations with which they think, not only exist, but are as powerful as gods.
Still, how does the belief in polytheist gods invoke inconsistent changes in our reality? Well, to explain this, it is best we give an example. If there is drought, and because there is no food around, a bird is hungry, naturally, it will flap its wings, and search for food. It will not pray for food to appear, as birds simply cannot understand such abstract concepts as gods. Birds do not believe, deities, which they never encountered physically, will come to their aid. In contrast, polytheist religious followers will most probably pray for the god of the skies (presumably, Zeus), asking for rain, and hence, refrain from using their “common sense” to deduce, that only intelligence and resourcefulness can help them survive, thinking asking the gods for help, is a better option.
In polytheism, there is a direct link between the "problem" we face, and the god to which we must pray. Still, considering our conclusions, that polytheist gods cannot exist in our reality, worshipping them should not affect our reality, and therefore, considering that the things we ask from gods, are unavailable to us, they should remain unavailable to us, regardless of our prayers and worship. Therefore, apparently, there should be no factual justification, for the manner polytheist mythologies distributed "divine powers" between the different polytheist gods. In short, it simply does not matter to which polytheist god we pray, or which polytheist god we worship, as inevitably, these gods do not exist, and therefore, they cannot provide us with anything. Therefore, arguably, we should expect, that occasionally, through trial and error, polytheist gods "switched roles", whenever worshipping or praying to the "wrong god" yielded "better results", than the worship and prayer to the polytheist gods, which polytheist religious followers entrusted, with that which they wished to attain. Actually, this can explain the interrelations between the polytheist gods, which polytheist mythologies describe, suggesting that polytheist mythologies do not reflect historical events at all, but rather reflect repeated attempts to validate the polytheist religions, through conceptual trial and error. In fact, if this hypothesis is indeed correct, arguably, it suggests a historical link, between polytheist mythologies, and the real gods, because as we suggested in the previous chapter, the real gods are perfectly capable of managing such coincidences, where our prayers and worship, result with that which we desire.
Still, even if theoretically, the real gods can ensure we attain the things we desire, satisfying us is not on their agenda, as essentially, they are as reluctant to adhere to polytheist religions, as they are to western monotheism. Again, the only reason the real gods "allowed" the emergence of polytheism, is because it provides them with means, by which they can inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. In short, it does not matter, how the polytheist religions came to be. Only the inescapable “advantages”, which polytheism provided for the real gods, are significant, provoking us to inflict inconsistent changes in our reality, such as the creation of truly remarkable architecture and artworks, which served practically no purpose. To clarify, without the influence of the polytheist irrational persuasion, arguably, our ancestors would never have bothered to create them.
Polytheist religious rituals, are yet another manner, by which polytheism, provokes polytheist religious followers, to act in irrational manners. For example, using mind-altering substances, shamans put themselves through completely unintelligible mind states, speaking such nonsense, which arguably, without the support of polytheist religious establishments, no one would take seriously. Still, because the real gods genuinely "want" us to behave irrationally, they "allowed" the existence of such backing polytheist establishments, for thousands of years. To clarify, as we already suggested in the previous chapter, the real gods do not "require" we use narcotics to affect us, and neither do they "require" the help of crazy shamans, speaking on their behalf. They merely "require" our acceptance to behave in manners, which contradict our common sense, and they achieve this goal, through the faith, which polytheist religious followers, entrust with the polytheist religious establishments.
Arguably, polytheism is "a thing of the past", as western monotheism has replaced polytheism in most parts of the world. However, polytheism still exists in far eastern religions, and arguably, it still exists in the western world, with a new, somewhat more "fashionable" name, meaning, paganism. In addition, arguably, even western monotheist religions reflect relics of our polytheist heritage, as almost all western monotheist religious followers are aware of their polytheist Hellenistic roots. Moreover, with respect to the "evolution" of western monotheism, the introduction of saints and angels, each with its own story and conceptual association, clearly reflects polytheist characteristics. For example, Christians associate specific saints and angels, with specific virtues, and somewhat "magical" capabilities (such as healing the sick, for example). While indeed, Christians believe the western monotheist god empowers the "divine powers" of these saints and angels, still, obviously, they do not believe the western monotheist god empowers the vast western monotheist ensemble of demons. Furthermore, as we already suggested, arguably, the division within western monotheism, into different religious strands, sects, and cults, reflects yet another manifestation of polytheism.
Still, today, undoubtedly, western monotheism is more dominant than polytheism. Actually, it is not that surprising. Indeed, we cannot “put words in the mouths” of the real gods, and therefore, we cannot determine the exact reason why it is so. Still, polytheism demands much more of the real gods. To clarify, in polytheism, we constantly “test” our gods. If the worship of a polytheist god fails to reward us, we can change the god we worship, while in western monotheism, it is god, which constantly tests its followers. Moreover, the very notion of doubting the western monotheist god is a "sin", while whenever a polytheist god fails us, another polytheist god is "more than happy" to take its place. Therefore, the "framework", which western monotheism provides for the real gods, and with which they can provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, is clearly more effective, than the polytheist "framework". While arguably, we could claim, western monotheism merely adapted itself to the inconsistent nature of the real gods, we could just as well claim the opposite, meaning, that the evolution of religions, reflects our evolving cognitive capabilities. To clarify, it is possible, western monotheism emerged, simply because before its emergence, our cognitive generalization capabilities did not yet evolve, to be able to grasp the abstract notions, which western monotheism suggests, such as its omnipotent omniscient god. In addition, we should note, that as we just suggested, the real gods did not completely erase polytheism from the western monotheist culture, as if suggesting that the real gods figured, "Why bother? If we can eat the cake and keep it whole, why should we not?”
Still, through western monotheist religions, the real gods can inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, of a far greater scale, than through polytheism. To clarify, while polytheist religions allow us to split into different cults, depending on the polytheist god, most beneficial for our selfish interests, essentially, in western monotheism, there is but one god, which we can either follow, or condemn ourselves to eternal damnation. Therefore, differently from polytheism, whatever inconsistent changes western religions provoke us to perform, we do them as a society, rather than as individuals, such as for example, the western monotheist holidays.
Moreover, the task of the polytheist angel, is far less demanding, than that of its western monotheist counterpart. To explain, because in polytheism, many conflicting "divine deities" may affect our reality, unlike the western monotheist angels, polytheist angels are not required to explain discrepancies, between their angelic messages, and actual events. In addition, contrary to the task of western monotheist angels, which usually, demands great sacrifice and torment, the task of polytheist angels, such as polytheist shamans and priests, demands nothing of the sort. Mostly, polytheist angels are little more than charismatic retards, whose metaphysical "connection" with the real gods, consists of little more than the existence of the religious establishments supporting them, and therefore, polytheist angels can easily exploit their "angelic status" for their selfish interests. Indeed, as we suggested previously, the real gods care little for the lives of their angels, and hence, do not care if their angels enjoy their "angelic status" or not. However, because usually, western monotheist angels do not enjoy their angelic calling, and because western monotheism proves so beneficial to the real gods, arguably, it is possible, that to appease the resentment of the western monotheist angels, toward their joyful polytheist counterparts, the real gods "allowed" the prosecution of polytheism, by monotheist religious followers, as it is possible, without such prosecution, the western monotheist angels simply refused to adhere to their “divine calling”.
Until now, we focused our analysis on western religions, both monotheist and polytheist. Still, naturally, there are other religions as well. Even though currently, Christianity and Islam are the two most widespread religions on earth, we cannot forget the Hindu religions, which come third.
While Hinduism is indeed big, still, it is more of a family of religions, exhibiting little similarities, when it comes to the moral principles they dictate. Moreover, because Hinduism includes many different types of religions, from monotheism and polytheism, to atheism, it is difficult to "link" the Hindu religious collective, with a well-defined angel, abstract, or concrete. Actually, the term "Hinduism", does not suggest as much as the terms "monotheism" and "polytheism", and therefore, there is not much substance to the association of Hinduism with an abstract angel. In many ways, Hinduism is as much a religion, as democracy is a state. It is more of a “religious template”, which Hindu religions follow.
Within this "template", we can find more instances of the same principles we discussed already, and hence, discussing them again, is pointless. If it is a monotheist religion, then it is inconsistent. If it is a symbolic concept-driven polytheist religion, it is inconsistent as well. Of course, we are over generalizing, as naturally, each specific Hindu religion, suggests an ensemble of mythologies, moral systems, and philosophies. Still, within the context of this text, arguably, such details are irrelevant. While some of our previous arguments are inapplicable to some of the Hindu versions of monotheism or polytheism, the general principles we discussed already, should be valid to them as well.
Nevertheless, still, all strands of Hinduism, share a collection of unifying principles, many of which reflect ideas, not so different from those we suggested in this text. For example, we can claim, that the concept of the eternal Atman, reflects the inconsistent paradox principle, namely, that the real gods cannot nullify dimensions, such as the contingent dimensions, which compile our internal mental world. Furthermore, we can argue, that the religious tolerance of Hindu religions, allowing the coexistence of different, perhaps contradictive beliefs, under the unified “Hindu umbrella”, reflects the Hindu acceptance to the concept, that the real gods may appear in any face they may choose, regardless if semantically, these various manifestations of "the divine" may contradict each other.
Arguably, these similarities with the concepts we suggested in this text, may give us the impression, that Hinduism embodies a consistent metaphysical theory, and actually, this may help explain why the Hindu religious collective, includes some of the oldest practiced religions, as the Hindu religious pluralism, provides it with philosophical “robustness”, which skeptics would find either hard, or pointless, to refute. Nevertheless, Hinduism suffers from significant metaphysical inconsistencies. To clarify, regardless of any possible similarities between Hindu concepts, and the concepts we suggested in this text, Hinduism is not a consistent metaphysical theory, as it fails to address the inconsistent nature of the real gods effectively. Hinduism did not "consciously deduce" the existence of the real gods, and instead, it focuses on angelic aspects. To explain, Hinduism attempts to formalize well-defined moralities, and had Hinduism been aware of the inconsistent nature of the real gods, it too should have refrained from such assertions.
The first major inconsistency, from which Hindu religions suffer, is the idea, we should strive to achieve merger, between the Atman and the Brahman. Why is this a problem? Well, let us try to map the Hindu terminology, to the terminology this text suggests. If the Brahman is the world-in-itself, then essentially, there is nothing to achieve. We are already “there”. We already exist in our internal mental world, which resides “somewhere” within the world-in-itself. However, if the Brahman is the real gods, such a merger is impossible. To clarify, if our “soul” (or alternatively, our "Atman") is our internal mental world, or alternatively, our consciousness, then it is a consistent element, and hence, the inconsistent paradox principle determines, any such coexistence, would nullify both ourselves, as well as the inconsistent elements, which created us, and hence, no metaphysical element may allow it, and hence, this founding Hindu principle, is simply invalid. Still, without a “goal”, to which Hindu religious followers aspire, arguably, nothing justifies the practice of many Hindu religions.
Secondly, if we consider the notion of “Karma”, it is somewhat similar to the western monotheist notions of “sin”. To clarify, the real gods are limitless, and hence, nothing "obliges" them to reward us for our “good Karma”. It does not matter what moral code we follow, or if we follow a moral code at all. If the real gods want to reward or punish us, they cannot, and will not, restrict themselves from doing so, just because it is “fair”. Moreover, with respect to the concept of reincarnations, essentially, it is similar to the western monotheist concepts of the after-life, regardless of the argumentative differences between them, as it suggests, an obscure form of "divine justice", which again, the real gods simply do not respect. In short, metaphysically, the "rewards", which Hindu religions promise their followers, are unfounded, suggesting following the Hindu teachings, is unjustified.
To clarify, obviously, it is easy to understand, why having “good Karma” rewards us during our lives. If we treat people nicely, they will probably treat us nicely in return. There is no need to “enforce” this obvious conclusion with a metaphysical principle, as by following rational and consistent argumentation, we can deduce the same moral conclusions, and actually, in "Delta Theory" we suggested them as well. Furthermore, when we feel we are good people, we "radiate" a completely natural and consistently explainable charisma, which makes others trust us, as they feel, we have "nothing to hide". Still, somehow, Hinduism binds these obvious rational deductions, into an "atmosphere of spirituality", which arguably, is simply irrelevant, as such "spirituality" is neither present, nor required.
Still, Hinduism exploits these irrelevant references to “spirituality”, especially in its atheist religious diversifications. To clarify, by mixing atheism with “spirituality”, Hinduism shifts the Hindu atheist, away from the rationality, which arguably, should have exposed its inherent metaphysical inconsistencies, effectively transforming Hindu atheism into “weak agnosticism”. To explain, in their Hindu formats, atheist persuasions do not challenge Hinduism, and in many ways, the manner, by which Hinduism accepts atheism, is somewhat similar to the acceptance of modern democracies, to harbor anti-democratic social circles within them. To clarify, just as Hinduism is willing to accept atheism, as long as it does not attempt to undermine the Hindu collective, democracy is willing to harbor any political group, as long as it does not attempt to overthrow the democratic system.
In short, it appears that metaphorically, Hinduism serves as a “safety net” for the real gods. To explain, through Hinduism, the real gods keep us susceptible to their angelic messages, while using special “argumentative tricks”, which are "close enough to the truth", to discourage us from challenging the Hindu collective. Furthermore, the Hindu tolerance to “religious abnormalities”, such as atheism for example, discourages us from confronting it with other metaphysical persuasions. To clarify, from the perspective of the real gods, all Hindu diversifications are equivalent, as the real gods do not “need” us to believe in polytheist concept-animating mythologies, monotheist gods, or that we listen, and follow, random electrical surges, emerging in our nervous system during our daily yoga sessions. If it makes us act in an inconsistent irrational manner, inflicting inconsistent changes on our reality, it is all the same. Innocently, atheist Hindus believe, that because they do not believe in god, no god may affect them. While performing a daily Yoga session, the atheist Hindu thinks, “My body speaks to me. This is biology. This is science.” Well, it does not. To clarify, as we suggested in "Delta Theory", our animal body possesses as much intelligence or consciousness as a steak on a boiling platter, and therefore, whenever we “listen to our body”, in actuality, we are associating concepts with unintelligible matter, not so differently from the manner we associate concepts with polytheist gods, and hence, such perspectives, are as irrational as any other polytheist religion. Still, because our animal body does not really "speak", the manners, by which Hindu atheists interpret the “quirks of our animal body”, are completely subjective, as they never go into writing, never go into debate, and hence, no one can challenge their argumentative validity. Therefore, while usually, atheists take pride in the fact, they do not believe in the “stupid childish stories” religions tell, or waste their time practicing “primitive” religious rituals, still, they fail to recognize the inconsistency inherent to their persuasion. To clarify, the daily yoga sessions, which Hindu atheist undergo, are equivalent to religious rituals, as essentially, listening to the “meaning” behind every “quirk”, which the real gods make our animal body fart at our general direction, is equivalent to following the angelic messages of the real gods, and therefore, while atheist Hindus may believe they are "free from god", in actuality, as a metaphysical persuasion, atheist Hinduism is perhaps the "least protected" from the inconsistent effects of the real gods, as no one can counter the angelic suggestions of their animal body, which theoretically, could have protected Hindu atheists from the “malicious plans”, which the real gods may have for them.
Still, Hinduism has many other flavors and types. One type, which is somewhat similar to atheist Hinduism, is the Zen type. In “Delta Theory”, we referred to this type of Hinduism, as an example of a “completely inconsistent metaphysical theory”. While Zen type Hinduism seems completely different from the Hindu religious diversifications, which we discussed already (meaning, monotheism, polytheism, and atheism), it shares one basic conceptual ingredient with them, namely, the aspiration to "become one" with the Brahman, and therefore, it suffers from the same argumentative flaws. Moreover, Zen type Hinduism utilizes tactics, somewhat similar to those Hindu atheism utilizes, confusing its followers to believe, that because it undermines rational thought, Zen type Hinduism is "too abstract" to facilitate a religious following. Still, practicing Zen type Hinduism does not protect us from following inconsistent angelic messages. While indeed, Zen type Hinduism is different from monotheist and polytheist religions, because it undermines rational thought, it simply cannot discuss concepts such as the real gods. To clarify, while indeed, the real gods are inconsistent elements, still, only through rational consistent analysis, can we comprehend their metaphysical essence, and therefore, by undermining rational thought, essentially, Zen type Hindu followers reject their cognitive ability to recognize the real gods, and the manner they affect their lives. Innocently, we could think, that because unlike monotheist and polytheist Hinduism, Zen type Hinduism does not attempt to formalize a morality, and therefore, angelic messages cannot affect it. However, in actuality, this lack of moral restriction, along with the rejection of rational thought, simply results with a conceptual disposition, in which the real gods do not even “need” to uphold any sort of “contract”, when affecting the lives of Zen type Hindu followers. To clarify, from the perspective of the real gods, Zen type Hinduism relieves them from the need to convey angelic messages, as it replaces these messages with introspections, which need not yield any understandable outcome.
From the perspective of the real gods, this is just “perfect”. To explain, the real gods can change the mental state of Zen type Hindu followers, and provoke them to perform inconsistent changes in our reality, without them ever asking, if their actions make any sense. Furthermore, because additionally, Zen type Hinduism undermines the very existence of the self, Zen type Hindu followers will do as the real gods “want”, without even adhering to their own selfish needs. Moreover, arguably, the rejection of the self, further distances Zen type Hindu followers from recognizing the real gods, because if you remember, "Delta Theory" based its entire argument on the existence of our self-awareness, and without the metaphysical foundation, which "Delta Theory" suggested, arguably, we could not have deduced the inconsistent metaphysical attributes of the real gods. Indeed, considering the pan-historical metaphysical pointlessness of our existence, Zen type Hinduism is somewhat “in line”, with the inconsistent manner, by which the real gods govern our reality. Still, this is as far as it goes, as Zen type Hinduism does nothing to protect its followers, from acting in manners, which serve nothing but the "will" of the real gods.
In short, arguably, Zen type Hindu followers are practically slaves of the real gods, as the practice of Zen type Hinduism “disables” all the evolutionary cognitive “protections” we inherited to resist them. To clarify, just as our immune system, evolved to protect us from malicious life-forms (such as germs and viruses), which the real gods created to disrupt our biological existence, our logical rational thought and culture, protect us from blindly following the irrational innuendos, which the real gods “issue”, to provoke us to perform actions, which potentially, could damage the fabric of our lives. Our rationality is our metaphysical "tool", by which we learn how to avoid the sensations of pain, which as we suggested in the previous chapters, may be the biological method, by which the real gods affect our internal mental world. Indeed, if the real gods "wish it", they can “bypass” our rational protections. Still, if we “let down our guard”, nothing will hold them back from disrupting our lives, “just for fun”.
The similarities between atheist Hindu persuasions, and Zen type Hindu persuasions, reflect in the angels promoting them as well, as in both, angels are not "divine deities", but for different reasons. To clarify, the teachings of Zen type Hinduism, suggest the existence of an “internal divinity”, which exists within all of us, and which the Zen type Hindu attempts to unveil. This “internal divinity” is too abstract to “fit the profile” of “traditional” divine deities, such as those appearing in monotheism and polytheism, and hence, the Zen type Hindu angels can only be self-proclaimed humans, who achieved “enlightenment”, or what we would usually call “gurus” (actually, the Zen terminology for such "enlightened" individuals, is “Buddha”). These “gurus” spread the “message”, suggesting Zen is a “good” practice, hence, fulfilling their “angelic duty”. Similarly, in Hindu atheism, while obviously, atheist angels cannot be "divine deities", still, atheist Hindus require “guidance" to attain the "knowledge”, which atheist Hinduism “collected”, and hence, again, atheist Hindus require the "help" of tutors, or alternatively, “gurus”. The atheist “guru” teaches the atheist Hindu, what is important in life, how to perform Yoga sessions successfully, and whatever else atheist Hindus “require”, to follow the real gods, in their own atheist way. In short, for all intended purposes, both the atheist and the Zen type “gurus” are angels, as both convey the messages of the real gods, provoking their followers to invoke inconsistent changes in our reality, not so different from monotheist and polytheist angels. Furthermore, similarly to all the angels we discussed, which as we suggested, repeatedly receive a "cold shoulder" from the real gods, “guru”-type human-angels will find themselves helpless, when confronted with the unavoidable inconsistencies, inherent to their teachings. To clarify, while Hindu "guru"-type human-angels, may speak of freedom from the “self”, the “self” is simply not the "issue", because as we already suggested, arguably, the real gods are the real reason for all our mental and bodily sores, and they are perfectly capable of obverting the benefits, which any teaching or practice may grant us.
Still, again, Hindu religions are only a third in size next to Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, considering Hinduism is not a unified religion, but rather a collection of separate religions, arguably, Hinduism is simply not that “big”, as arguably, each religion, within the Hindu collective, is quite small, and insignificant. Indeed, united as a collective, all these small, arguably politically insignificant religions, can persist to exist. Still, no single Hindu religion, within the Hindu collective, is either motivated or significant enough, to take over the Hindu collective. Furthermore, if we consider the poverty and backwardness, from which countries, in which Hinduism is dominant suffer (mostly in east southern Asia), then obviously, these countries do not have the political or financial strength, to overthrow the global dominance of Christianity and Islam (with the possible exception of China).
When attempting to understand the “purpose”, for which the real gods “allowed” Hinduism to exist for so long, we cannot escape the notion, that “this” is exactly “it”. To explain, in many ways, Hinduism resembles a large collection of religious “sandboxes”, in which the real gods can “play” with various types of irrationalities. Still, as our reality clearly shows, the real gods are much more “interested” in the non-Hindu western monotheist religions. From a religious perspective, this is a bit puzzling, as arguably, of all religions, the Hindu religious pluralist attitude marks Hinduism, the most compatible with the inconsistent nature of the real gods, and therefore, we would expect, it should have been much more successful. To explain, usually, religious followers believe, knowing “the truth” is the very essence of religions, and therefore, from a religious perspective, we would expect, the most "truthful" religion, would be the most successful religion as well. Still, as the marginal role of Hinduism suggests, our preconceptions mislead us. To clarify, the real gods do not “want” us to know their true nature, or “the truth” for that matter, as arguably, understanding their metaphysical essence, provokes nothing but resentment and antagonism to their inconsistent tyranny. This is the “ugly truth”, which all religions and angels "hide". As cold as it sounds, the real gods simply do not care about us, do not favor justice over injustice, and nor do they give a damn for our "Karma". The real gods have their "agenda", and inevitably, this "agenda" is all they "care" for. The real gods have no intention or ability to "make us one" with them, and the only reason they make us believe their angels have “good intentions”, is to persuade us, or alternatively, "trick us", to adhere to their "agenda".
Actually, some angels may have known this. For example, in the bible, prophets (which undoubtedly, were messengers of god, meaning, angels) repeatedly attempted to flee their angelic calling, suggesting angels know there is little “glory” in the angelic calling. Moreover, as our discussion, with respect to Hindu and Zen type atheism suggests, our belief in "divine deities" is insignificant. To clarify, as far as the real gods are concerned, they do not “need” us to believe in gods, as ultimately, all they “care” for, is provoking us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality. It does not matter which religion we follow, or if we follow a religion at all. Moreover, the ideas, ideals, concepts, generalizations, and mythologies, which religions endorse, are of no significance either. It changes nothing if a religion endorses patience or violence, tolerance or intolerance, asceticism or bestiality, as arguably, all these concepts merely attempt to "override" our instinctive natural behaviors. Christianity "overrides" our anger and selfishness. Islam, Zen, and Judaism, "override" our sensuality. Polytheism "overrides" the metaphysical imperative, which restricts the sensations appearing in our minds, from existing in the external world physically. Satanism "overrides" our instinctive empathy and love. Atheism "overrides" the real gods altogether.
To summarize, while we can continue this analysis forever, it is pointless, as apparently, religions differ only in their tactics, with which they persuade us to behave irrationally. Moreover, as we suggested in the previous chapter, arguably, today, we no longer adhere to the principles religions dictate, as we did in the past, and hence, the manners, by which religions affect our lives today, are different, from the manners they should have affected us theoretically.
Nevertheless, religions still govern us as societies. To clarify, usually, social groups cannot stray from their founding principles, as much as individuals can. To explain, whenever a religion, or a religious state, “decides” to “do” something “in the name of god”, most of its members must both agree with, and follow, this collective “decision”. Moreover, in countries, which harbor functioning democracies (as opposed to democratic facades, such as those governing some countries in the middle east, for example), the democratic normative moral code regulates radical statewide actions, regardless if religious persuasions motivate them. Actually, even when non-democratic religious countries “decide” to issue statewide religious actions, if they stray from their religious principles beyond a certain limit, they might risk the stability of their regime, as such actions would provoke an internal antagonism within them. While indeed, such non-democratic religious countries may attempt to “fool” their citizens to think, that in actuality, they do not stray from these principles, still, if “the truth” becomes tangible to too many of their citizens, the lies hiding behind such deceptive facades will unveil, resulting with civil uprisings. Indeed, sometimes, such countries may be able to neutralize these uprisings. Still, even this totalitarian tactic has its limits, beyond which, the means, by which the state attempts to eradicate such revolts (usually the army or police), will revolt against the regime as well, bringing the regime to its end.
Nevertheless, again, individuals are far less limited, as individuals can “do” whatever their bodies and minds “allow” them. Indeed, some actions are illegal, while others may be subject for taboo. Still, unlike social groups, individuals can easily hide “under the radar”. Moreover, this is not an abnormality, but rather the rule. To clarify, we hardly ever follow religions “to the letter”. While surely, we can practice religious rituals strictly, still, usually, we cannot remove our doubts, indifference, or rejection, toward some of the principles our religions dictate. The religious establishments accept this, and arguably, this might be the reason religions need their rituals, as these rituals help to regulate the differences, between the religious principles religions dictate, and the manner, by which we practice them in our lives. Furthermore, because essentially, religious establishments are centers of power, they cannot "afford" to reject potential followers, who fail to practice them correctly. Instead, usually, religious establishments form a hierarchical internal social structure, where those who follow the religion rigorously, receive a “higher place”, while the "place", which more secular or personal interpretations receive, is somewhat “lower”. For example, this approach is evident in the manner Christianity deals with inmates on death row. To clarify, while indeed, the Church does not condone such executions, still, it sends its priests to offer "redemption to the souls" of such prisoners, meaning, that although the Church finds it fitting to execute them, it can still find a place for them, somewhere in its internal hierarchical social structure. In short, apparently, religious establishments do not "mind" such abnormalities, surely, the real gods “do not mind” them (as they were the ones who “issued” these abnormalities in the first place), and naturally, people prefer to do as they please. Therefore, essentially, such abnormalities do not impose any difficulty, on any level.
Still, arguably, there is more to this than merely religious tolerance, as essentially, such tolerance "grants" the real gods the ability to inflict even more versatile inconsistent changes on our reality. To clarify, by “allowing us" to remain members of existing religions, while practicing our own individual religious interpretations, the real gods can manipulate us to perform irrational actions, which contradict both our natural instincts, as well as our religious practices. Again, Christianity provides us with yet another perfect anecdote example of this, with its cliché misfortunate stories regarding choirboy-raping priests. To clarify, while indeed, Christianity rejects both homosexuality and rape, still, such morally challenged priests consider themselves Christians. They think they are “bad” Christians, whom fell into the "wicked hand of the Devil”, asking god for forgiveness, while continuously raping their precious young choirboys. Arguably, the Christian Church establishment does not know about these cases, and had it known, it would have done its best to eradicate these distasteful mishaps. Nevertheless, surely, the real gods both "know" about, and “allow” them.
To conclude, the founding principles religions dictate are simply not that important, and neither are the angels (concrete, or abstract), which took part in their formations. Nevertheless, the tolerance to religious abnormalities, and the internal hierarchical social structures of religions, leads us to one last angelic realm, meaning, secularism.
The popularity of secularism has risen in the western civilization, ever since the renaissance. While arguably, secularism may have lost some of its momentum, with the recent rising popularity of Islam, still, currently, it is the most popular religious “trend” in the western Anglo Saxon civilization. Furthermore, undoubtedly, secularism played a significant factor, in the molding of its democratic and technological flavor. Democracy made us realize our individuality and self-significance, caring less for god, and more for ourselves, while science and technology enabled us to master mechanically, that which we considered “acts of god” previously.
Still, if indeed, secularism "challenges" the "authority" of the real gods, why do the real gods "allow" it to be so popular?
Well, to understand their motivations, first, we must understand, secularism is not atheism, and it is certainly not nihilism. Secularism is simply the "lowest level" in the religious internal hierarchical social structure. To clarify, we cannot simply be “secular”. We can be secular Christians, secular Muslims, secular Jews, or secular to whatever religion we feel most affiliated with. Still, why do the real gods “allow” us to be secular? Why do they allow us to undermine their angelic messages? Does it not negate their “interests”?
Well, not really. To clarify, by keeping reference to religions, secularism "grants" the real gods, with the ability to invoke inconsistent changes in our reality, of an even greater variety, as secularism retains the religious "framework", with which the real gods can operate, while enhancing the variety of interpretations, which we can associate with their angelic messages. For example, while secular Christians might not follow the ways of Christianity, they are still aware of the Christian morality. To explain, secular Christians know forgiving is "good", and that committing sins is "evil". Secular people do not actually “rebel” against religion. When asked to what religion a secular person belongs to, there will be no hesitation. A secular Christian will answer “Christian”, while a secular Jew will answer “Jewish”. Indeed, we may think we would answer differently. Still, what would we answer? Would we say we are atheists? Are we? Atheists do not believe gods exist, while a secular person simply does not care for religion. So which one are you? Do you really think the real gods do not exist, or are you simply not “fond” of them?

Or do you think religions got it wrong, and you got it right? Do you think I got it wrong as well? Do you feel as if you are special? Do you feel like somehow, you understand things “better”? Do you feel like you have your own divine message to deliver…?

Well, if so, do not worry. You are not a “freak”. You feel what you feel, and you know what you know. I mean, surely, being merely a text, I have no idea what you are thinking. Nevertheless, apparently, the feeling you feel is not unique. It is the sign of the times. To clarify, as secularism became ever more popular, a different type of religious abnormalities emerged. To explain, as people strayed from the religions to which they once belonged, some of them did not "convert" to “traditional” secularism. While indeed, they abandoned the practices, which existing religions dictate, they did not abandon their religious perspective. Instead, people began practicing their own “personal” religions. Arguably, religious establishments "prefer" such individuals over “traditional” secularism, as at least, such individuals exhibit some type of “respect” to religious concepts. Nevertheless, these new “personal” religions have little to do with existing religions. While arguably, some of these “personal” religions “borrow” concepts, which appear in existing religions, still, these individuals interpret these concepts subjectively, while exhibiting little respect to their original connotations.
In "Delta Theory", we discussed a similar behavioral pattern, which we named "completeness bestiality", suggesting it is a cognitive method, with which we can evict all of our mental sores from our psyche, by believing every little event transpiring in our lives, is of a great spiritual significance. Moreover, we suggested, this behavioral pattern is harmful, as it may result with great resentment, originating from our social environment. Still, we do not have to be so radical. To clarify, we can believe we have an angelic message to deliver, while refraining from devoting our entire lives to "delivering it". Moreover, we should emphasize, our discussion focuses on angelic messages, and the manner they cause us to inflict inconsistent changes in our reality, and not angelic motivations.
Therefore, essentially, we refer to a different concept, which I will call "auto-angels", meaning, the act of becoming our own “angels”, or alternatively, our own “divine messengers”. While this may sound strange, I believe that today, a lot, if not most, secular people, are in fact, auto-angels. To explain, auto-angelic tendencies, may appear in many flavors. While some auto-angels may preach “they “know the truth” publicly, others may hide their auto-angelic tendencies. “Lazy” auto-angels may not even bother to understand their own “angelic” message, and simply claim, their way of life is "the message", while in contrast, other auto-angels may develop vast “personal mythologies”. Moreover, generally, artists are prone to develop auto-angelic tendencies, as the very definition of their "craft", demands the intelligible realization of their “internal truth” (or alternatively, their angelic message). In fact, because artists are motivated to publicize their works, they are prone to be effective angels, and actually, it is possible, many people wish to become artists, just so they could realize their "auto-angelic calling" effectively.
Admittingly, you could claim yours truly is an auto-angel, as I too have created artistic works in the past, and felt the urge to publicize them. Furthermore, usually, my artistic works attempt to convey a "message", and therefore, I guess I fit the profile quite well. Still, as I will explain later, this text is not a “classic” auto-angelic work. To clarify, while indeed, it is easy to confuse this text, with my attempt to create my own “personal religion”, the truth is, I never really wanted to write it. I simply had to put in writing, the ideas that were running through my mind. While indeed, I published this text, and hence, naturally, you might think, I believe others need to know my ideas, still, the truth is, I do not believe many will listen to it, and I publish it, merely to justify the effort of its writing. Moreover, considering the things I have learned by writing this text, I seriously wish these thoughts never came into my mind. Nevertheless, arguably, this is but an anecdote remark, somewhat irrelevant to the general nature of our discussion.
Regardless if auto-angelic tendencies are different from completeness bestiality, both share many characteristics, one of them being a seemingly inexplicable arrogance. To explain, because auto-angels base their sense of self-significance on their own thoughts, auto-angel feel somewhat significant, without feeling they should affirm this with external “credentials”. If an auto-angel is “successful”, meaning, if it creates a following to its angelic teachings, this characteristic may give the auto-angel extraordinary inexplicable charisma. However, less “successful” auto-angels may simply provide annoying company. Furthermore, because auto-angels do not need to conform their messages, with well-known and accepted concepts, the impression they leave on others, is subjective. To clarify, an auto-angel may be charismatic to some, while extremely annoying to others. Still, there is a reason why auto-angels tend to be so annoying, and it is not a nice one. To clarify, auto-angels tend to be annoying, exactly because, so many other people are auto-angels themselves!
Generally, auto-angels do not like each other. To explain, being an auto-angel, implies the rejection of our role, within the fabric of the religion, from which we originated, including the “social benefits” such roles once promised us. Therefore, accepting and following the message of another auto-angel is definitely out of the question, as arguably, an auto-angel gains practically nothing by doing this, other than the affinity of this other auto-angel. On the contrary, if an auto-angel accepts and follows the messages of another auto-angel, implicitly, it downgrades the self-significance of this “angelically tolerant” auto-angel.
Simply put, auto-angels are ego-fucked, and therefore, generally, they have a "tough time" finding a comfortable place in society. Moreover, many auto-angels may divert into completeness bestiality, resulting with extreme resentment towards society, or alternatively, they may decide to be drifters, searching for new followers, while attempting to “spread” their auto-angelic “word”. Only by achieving "enough" in their lives, or alternatively, realizing "enough" of their auto-angelic messages, can auto-angels consider accepting other angels (be it auto, concrete, or abstract angels) without feeling their "angelic calling" is under threat. Still, because arguably, today, auto-angelic tendencies are so widespread, it is hard for auto-angels to realize their "auto-angelic calling", and hence, usually, their sense of resentment and antagonism to others is inevitable.
Still, regardless of the psychological problems from which auto-angels suffer, auto-angels serve the real gods quite well. To clarify, in search of a method to realize their auto-angelic “calling”, auto-angels will perform actions, which the real gods cannot even “dream” other animals would perform. For example, when was the last time you saw a monkey paint a picture, write a musical symphony, a book, or use whatever other means of artistic expression? Auto-angels are doing exactly what the real gods created us for, and therefore, it is not surprising, auto-angelic tendencies are so popular. Furthermore, arguably, the concrete angels, responsible for the creation of existing religions, were auto-angels as well. To clarify, obviously, each religion emerged from the messages of its founding angels, and where could such founding angels find their messages, other than in their own minds?
Considering the psychological problems from which artists usually suffer, we can clearly find a link, between satisfying the "interests" of the real gods, and the amount of suffering humans endure, which again, suggests the possible link, between our mental sores, or alternatively, the opening of our deltas, and our irrational inconsistent behavioral patterns. Still, regardless how or why, generally, it appears the more the real gods are “happy”, the more we suffer. Indeed, theoretically, if we have talent, realizing our auto-angelic tendencies can be beneficial, as by realizing our auto-angelic tendencies successfully, we may realize our potential. Nevertheless, it is a big “if”. To clarify, as we previously suggested, today, many people choose the auto-angelic path, not to deliver their inner truth, or to realize their talent, but rather because they feel insignificant. While surely, such auto-angels “satisfy” the real gods, as all the real gods ever “wanted”, was to provoke us to inflict inconsistent changes on our reality, and to achieve this, we require neither talent, nor a message. Still, such endeavors may ruin our lives, whenever our inability to find our "inner truth", or realize any talent, will amplify our general resentment toward our reality, which may result with us hurting others without reason, while slowly diving into depression.

If you ever find yourself in this position, you should simply “stop”. For your own sake, and for the sake of the people you care for, you really must “stop”. There are other “players” involved, and if you ever find yourself in such disposition, maybe you know this already.

Still, maybe you do not, and if not, I guess it is time we introduced them.