If we can conceive, we moderns, of a Spirit of the Mother in nature, that from biology an immaterial experience emerges; if we recognize the spirit, the patterns in and of Nature ('Nature's nature', that is),  then why is it so inconceivable to us that the Spirit of the Father which notices those natural patterns, the spirit which is embodied in our very bodies has 'come into', or 'inhabited' these bodies of ours?

The body is tangible, a basis for spirit; just as the spirit acknowledges the body and gives it existential "life." 

The two clearly interdepend.

Matter may well pre-date spirit but its life —the life that comes from being known, named, that is 'life as understood by spiritual experiential beings, begins with, from, and by the naming function, the Logos, the 'word in the beginning'—Being. 

The potential of mother / matter is made real in the World of Being by the pattern that the Father / pattern introjects in relation to her usefulness to and in that same World of Being (that is, usefulness in relation to pattern-recognizing Beings who pattern recognize for a living—literally, in order to survive). 

Even time —the time by which it is conceived that matter might pre-date consciousness— is but a re-cognized pattern (of suns and moons and spinning); but there again—'of what?''...pre-"existent" material. 

And so it is in one way that material nature comes first, and in another that her practical existence is only made (usefully) relative to, and by, the father's patterning function which names the 'nature of Nature'. 

In the world of Mankind, the one which sits atop the natural Earth, without the Individual's spirit, recognized as such, Man is, when he becomes de-spirited, also simultaneously re-Natured (re-animalized) and de-natured (reverted from pattern recognition into animalic pattern obeisance), and this is the very end of the "World." 

Today we are rushed—foremost by the State, who enjoys itself most when governing animals, and also by entertainment—to denature our spiritual inheritance, to hand over our Gift of Consciousness to screens and the mind-grasping ('enter' - 'taining') stories atop them. It is no wonder, then, that those very stories —those that grab or minds most tightly and posit for us realities both supposedly real and imaginary— those we pontificate, speculate, and theorize about long after they've finished playing, are those of Armageddons of just such crises of human consciousness. 

Can we, in time to avoid imitating our art, recognize the root of these introjected potentialities ‚ can we keep our freely given Gift of Conscious Spiritedness? Can we, by its magical use, court our Spirits'  continued presence? Only if we practice fervently that Spirit's needs, its requisites: small, accountable communities allied against the largess-seeking state of the State (Leviathan, that is), and the avoidance of that which de-natures Spirit by means of sin: entertainment of the mind in place of communal reality. 

Should the cozy alliance between State and Entertainment succeed in denaturing we Spiritual beings, they will (as they clearly intend) generate a false world, and without turning inward to that ‘still small voice’, they will dominate our Being —our entire experience— with those false realities. The struggle is not between left and right, nor between economic classes, but between those who secretly know of the profits that can be had by way of the process of denaturing of the Spirit of the Father that resides in the otherwise natural chthonic man; if he is stripped of identity with the father, in his natural nakedness which yearns for a name, he will labor indefinitely in order to purchase some seemingly available, if false, identity in order to fill that generated void.

How might this really end, this endless desire? Do you doubt the limitless want of the gods within—to live eternally in the pleasure of the present? I would count that foolish. And a god of this very sort comes promising “rest” —we do not want it. We’d rather agony if agony promises, however remotely, this grander ideal: eating and having. Only to press atoms and Adam far enough. This is not heresy but Truth: we are pressors for pleasure. Hereby the Jew is more true than the Christian, to the nature and spirit of the Göttmensch. He is a master of the trade, the trans-action; man is this transaction—a ‘from this to that’, a “down-going” of spirit into flesh, and, thereafter, from flesh to spirit; a suspension that —who— enjoys its present. He desires most deeply to remain, and not for salvation; solution from his dilemma, not to escape but to persist, as a god in flesh: his ‘evil’ is death, that rest; and so the presser of rest is executed, for he is the heresy against Life, everlast, remanence, suspension—pleasure’s sake (what else does a god have?). Didn’t God himself —and not his salvific son— hand man that fiery lever of techné bent against death itself?

But if spirit declines that refreshing tide, then the gods writhe in their heaven, nevermore descending in their temporal turn at time, at fleshiness—at pleasure! Man, this ‘last god,’ he to would write in fleshly decay. Does the vampire maintain? No, he forfeits, and is a forfeiture, of spirit; why I cannot say—the spirit simply flees the cannibal. The gods issue a recall, and so he ‘lives without living,’ for what is this game of transactions without its consequence? Without death, life is static—life becomes a death, meaningless, action without trans-action. Life is in the joint, that “árthrosi” between heaven and earth; hence man’s art is about nothing but this handshake with heaven, this turn-taking in temporality, this recess and recession, this tide of gods spewed ashore like psyche from her mother’s foam. If he hopes for another turn as god in flesh, he must render himself up as such, take pleasure in temporality —for it must be lacking in eternity— and then die. Man’s true dilemma: Jesus or the vampire—which is to say “It’s Jesus or the technical vampire.”

Christ and Nietzsche both crucified in knowledge; one to God, of God; other to Satan of Satan. And to what great end but victimage: martyrs to great kingdoms each; one to heaven; other to earth. Who's message persists? More importantly, who's saves man—his readers?: to die to self; or to kill for self; in service to that sense of fullness of Being—each in respect to despair's reality in man's soul; to give being or to take it? Has one assimilated more, closed desire's gap? 

One: I and the father [of Being] are One; Other: I Am destroyed, nihilism in the name of greatness. —each, annihilated? No. The former in body but aggrandized in spirit—spiritualized, infinitized; the latter destroyed body and mind.  

Simply: 
Nietzsche counted the devil and got his hell in his pursuit of: temporal affective knowing. Christ "won God" and is the ruler, the very measure, of the gap between man's Being and God's—and their bridge across that gap. Eternal effective being.

What is the human-valued value of atheism —that “god does not exist”? Well, existence is a tricky subject. We’ll leave that for later, whether god does this thing we call existing. The human-valued value of [all of society being turned toward] atheism is simple: without the concept of God the people believe they are material.

Governments and kings govern the material world, not the spiritual world, for each man is a sovereign in his soul to the degree that he, paradoxically, orients his being’s pursuit toward oneness in Being with God who begot his beingness (that is, his spirit’s experience of consciousness in and of the material world exterior to that experience itself). Enter the biopolitical state’s implicit mandate: if government aims to govern the zoē, Ambagen’s “bare life,” taming it in aim at encircling (subjugating) all life into and under the law of the Polis, the civilized animal’s environment where the government governs, then it is best, from this government’s perspective, to treat men as monsters. Monsters are men without God, without identity in Being, indeed without experiential being or an assumption about their relation from whence that experience came, for monsters have no being to speak of—they are pure animalic instinct and thusly necessitate governing, limiting, monitoring, caging, and perhaps even monetizing (as we indeed do with beasts in zoos whose implicit message is: you, animal as these, could be here, as these save your governability relative to them). Governments always seek their mandate in some course threat of some half truth: “man is an animal”. Yes, and without a relation to himself, his being founded in the Being of God, he is only that; but he is not only that. Claim otherwise and find yourself, sooner or later, on the wrong side of those bars. Black’s Law dictionary originally defined a Person as “monster”, with no upper case “m” as if to deprive it (Him) of this sense of being and thereby nomos, orientation to Law.

Man was not always thought of as having possession of himself; it is easy for modern man with his blind insistence upon and presumption to “rights” to miss that crucial fact of history. He even misses the point in moralizing over the sins of slavery, whose real sin was inconsideration for the Being inside the enslaved man who identifies per se, because this question provokes that same modern mind toward God as that source of being; else he must admit that the slaves body was, is, “just a body” and thereby governed by man’s law, which is clearly mutable to the whim of the state. Hence the desperation of the modern man to “fix” the state’s morality: it cannot permit, in its “scientific” atheism, that man has a longing for the source of his being because this modern god cannot —that is, science cannot yet— fathom a real yet immaterial being because it, and with it modern man, is trapped in the presumptions which are paradoxically and frustratingly caught between the pre-Christian and post-enlightenment eras. The bio-political golom (Hobbes’ Leviathan) grows larger with every spirit claimed by atheism and away from god; and it is become as such —a blind god— to modern man. Look how he worships and abhors this ambivalent creature. Look at what it’s made of him. The value of atheism to man is nothing, for it convinces him he is all material and no spirit; the value to the state is that it’s implicit mandate is to protect “People” (monsters) from themselves. Thus its mandate is growth. And does it grow? And is it —even its justice— blind? If we are material we are monsters and we democraticians comprise Leviathan. God is not an option, not if you mean to have a soul’s sovereignty; for if you demand there is no god, you claim, like the slave, you are a body to be governed by a principle no higher than the monsters themselves who comprise this bio political, godless monster, the State.

It’s a pervasive thought: “speak to us, you mighty God, if you’d have us believe. We are here alone and the devil is ever-believable, for we act him out to one another most vividly.” That devil is a positivist! We like our evidence even at the cost of evil.

But the devil, real as the whip in one man’s hand as the crack upon his brother’s back; from whence comes he? What a predicament, an undeniable agent in the material; if real then created —surely we won’t accept him as suigenerous— but created by whom? If we allow for a creator, an increasingly reasonable parsimony even and especially to our modern physicists (and who is more practical?), then this creator is versed, and loudly so, in evil?

A bit of irony, that: a positively definable devil from a strictly negatively definable creator; not here, not speaking but spoken for by tyrants, an abandoner of his bastard son —a forsaking-creator? It is no wonder mankind, largely holding this materialistic and doubtful idea in turn forsakes such a God.

Only, a subtle detail is here missed: If he left after creating, and if creation itself is undeniable, did he not, could he not have, come into it—into us humans (with our self-evident evidence of being itself within us, practically and positively provable) particularly. We do see it, observe it —this being (meant as the verb); participating in it via our own subjective judgement of good and evil. An equally pervasive thought —so pervasive that we forget it as a fish in the water in which it lives and moves and has its being: He does speak— as sure as we do.

That we are verbal is that we act, as verbs do in our speech; and in so doing, through our speech and action, the proof that we participate as actors of being —and perhaps in Being— becomes clear and self-evident. This becoming is the function of Being: to become. I think this is what God is doing through his creation and that this is evident in our own intrinsic desire to become. The infinitive form of any verb is indeed infinite, as we conceive of our God, the god of Infinite Being. And this is undeniably our nature, for what are we doing at any moment, most essentially, but being. It is absurd, if God can be described as the source of experiential being, rather than as some physical body for which we search but cannot find, for the very reason that being —as we experience through our own subjectivity— is immaterial in its nature, to consider that God “unreal”; for we realize —that is, we make real— this body for which we’ve longingly and mistakenly searched: through both our own physical and verbal expressive act of being by being. Man’s becoming is the manifestation of God—how clever a God is that! A god of creation, in his creation, creating infinitely. To what end would this God create? If being is immaterial, and it seems so, but propagates through the material and into it, then the only pursuit such an infinity might find worthy is an eternal pursuit. In our material finitude we seek the knowledge of and presume a finite end, but the immaterial and thereby infinite being inside us seeks eternity—and our souls’ longing for immortality, however mistaken an understanding of the necessity of material death for such a spirit’s infinite development we may cling to, is evidence, positivistic and personal to each of us of the reality (however quasi-corporal) of this spirit’s existence in us, and thereby Its existence per se.

No, he did not abandon us, his children. We are not bastard sons and daughters. We’ve simply taken for granted this innate being, as all children do, because all has indeed been granted. We are the fruit of this God’s labor in creation, we are endowed by it. We’ve simply misjudged his locality, as a foolish child might imagine his father’s disappearance to his work of a day an abandonment. For, where does your personal father hide his love for you but within? If God absconded, it is my contention that he poured himself into we, his creation. If he does not speak, he the thousand voices you’ll hear today and your own. “The kingdom of God is within”, and this is undeniably a kingdom to which we are heirs, for it is evidenced through each of our own interiority which is the very basis upon which we seek answers to the question “Where is God?”.

Here we have reason for the devils we are unto ourselves; if God is within, such creative force per se bears an equal capacity for destruction. Man manifests both good and evil, and creates and destroys manifestly. What more evidence (in the scientific Positivist sense) have we need for, the evidence is in our own hands. We speak magic words, manifesting our desires, however deep, however dark, however collectively or individually, consciously or unconsciously; we create goods and good and seek the eradication of evil as we see it. We ourselves create; we Ourselves create.

What more could plausibly be desired—even our desire itself is unbounded and eternal.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’ But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

—Jesus, the Christ

The answer, to mortals, those possessed of being by Being (God) itself, sons and daughters, creators but not the Creator himself, is “eternity.”

Does God speak? As sure as you and I speak—as sure as we be, yes: within us, from us. That we are ashamed by our own mortality and so desire for Being that we envy immortality rather than rejoice that the creation and destruction of the world is only partially our duty is a farcical and childish resentment. No more do we truly want this burden than the infant wants full independence from its parents. This is the day the Lord hath made. We ought rejoice and be glad in it—in Him; for in his Being we live and move and have ours, granted and given; and too often, as children are apt to do, we take this gift as such.