How does one to speak in such times as these, when things are running so fast, and not towards the glory of man but to destruction?

Yet I must try to speak; for the answer to these destructive things is conversation.

Among the many symbols that are important, is the one that we saw yesterday at Bomas of Kenya. The government was out there talking about peace.

But is peace a political thing or a spiritual thing? Or is it both at the same time? I waited to see a religious leader speak, but there was none. I am sure they'll hold something similar sometime soon.

That the spiritual and the political are one in the essential ingredient for being for both the individual and the body politic means that the secularization of the body politic was and is an error. And consequently we should decry the disintegration of our identity.

If being requires peace, then all parties involved in being, in whatever the body politic, must allow others to have peace.

That is, one must allow others their spirituality and polity.

But ultimately, spirituality and polity are based on mythology. Therefore we must allow for all variants of mythology.

This means that we need a 'meta-mythology' that would contain all other mythologies. This means of course, that there's an urgent need for conversation along these lines amongst the people of the world, and more importantly the priests and the kings.

Kenya provides the most fertile ground for this conversation. This is because the Christian priesthood has already surrendered to the state (for it cannot regulate itself, i.e. it has no political power), and the state cannot keep itself at peace for it has no spiritual power.

And if indeed we must unite the political with the spiritual, then there must be at least, one person who is conscious of his political and spiritual unity, and this person must be affirmed.

Having affirmed this person/personality, then it follows that this person must have the right to mythologize. That is, the person is the meta-mythology. But what is meta-mythology if not God?

Hence we must affirm the Man God.

And if the Man God exists, then all humanity collapses into the consciousness of one identity. Adding the potential of our informational systems, it follows that resources will be infinite, and Government will be invisible and in-intrusive, and highly efficient and effective; and most of all global.

You are saying that 'spiritual peace' is authentic, and there are cases when 'political peace' is not authentic.

But there are also cases where 'spiritual peace' is not authentic and 'political peace' is authentic especially when considering two different cases.

But can the difference exist in the same person at the same time? Surely, you wouldn't say that Stephen had no 'political peace' when the rocks were landing on him? In fact, if there were such a disparity in him he wouldn't have chosen a course that would lead to martyrdom.

Therefore, for an action to be authentic, one needs to unify the spiritual and the political.

If there is at least one man who is not selfish, then the statement that all men are selfish is not valid. And indeed, you believe that there is at least one unselfish man; the Christ.

But if you believe in the Christ, then you believe in the joining of the 'political' and the 'spiritual'. For instance, the Lord's prayer is both political and spiritual.

Combining the 'political' and the 'spiritual' in a world view that views the two as different is the problem, but understanding and reconciling the two breeds peace.

I may want peace for selfish reasons, but I may acquire it for unselfish reasons; in between, lies consciousness.

That Christ was and is man, is a matter not in dispute even between orthodoxy and heresy.

'Hakuna mwanaume mwingine kama yeye . . .' I am sure you have sung in church and local fellowship.

So you are surprised at the fact that when you are looking at yourself in the mirror and saying 'Christ!' you are essentially speaking about yourself.

It's good that you don't want attacks from me; I have never intended to attack you in any way. But isn't the last statement an attack?

But still, in trying to spare you the 'big grammar' I'll kindly ask you to google on matters orthodoxy and heresy, and wish you a happy reading.