Hi again, Peter:

Like I said before, I really want to process and absorb your posts in this thread over time, that’s why I talked to Copilot right above.

By the way, before I mentioned you to Copilot, we talked about the story or stories of Exodus and seems like one quote was that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but 2 quotes stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Did you notice that?

Also, reviewing the story, in another book, Numbers, or Deutro (can’t spell it), when the Israelites finally entered the promise- land, after 40 years of wondering in the desert- Moses was not allowed in as punishment for getting angry and minimally disobedient earlier. And I think it’s unfair- how can anyone be expected to not get frustrated with all that he went through? Poor Moses.

As to your post earlier this morning: Peter made a funny joke! (I just noticed the first smile of the day ☺️ on my face).

Thank you, Peter, for being kind to me!

I’ll write more later.

🤍 Anita

Good morning, Peter:

Having the use of the computer (not for long), I talked with Copilot about the Exodus story and about your first, original post.

Copilot: As a child, Peter heard the line: “God hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” And it disturbed him. Why? Because the child‑version of the story sounds like God forced Pharaoh to be stubborn, made Pharaoh refuse to free the Israelites and then punished Pharaoh for something God made him do. To a child, that feels unfair, scary, confusing.

Here’s Peter’s whole message in one paragraph: As a child, he thought God forced Pharaoh to be stubborn. As an adult, he sees that Pharaoh hardened his own heart through repeated choices rooted in fear and control. The story is a warning: when we resist compassion long enough, we lose the ability to choose it. And today, many people and systems are repeating Pharaoh’s pattern by treating empathy as weakness and building their identities around rigidity instead of grace.

Peter does not describe God as a person, a judge, a being who controls events, or someone who rewards or punishes. Instead, he describes God as a Rhythm, a Flow, a Current — the natural movement of compassion, truth, and reality.

In his view, God is not a character who “does things.” God is the pattern of how life works when we are aligned with goodness. Think of it like gravity, music, the tide, the pulse of the universe. Something you can move with or resist — but not something that forces you.

Peter’s God = The Rhythm of Grace- He uses metaphors like: “the Eternal Current”, “the Rhythm of reality”, “the Sheet Music of existence”, “the Stream”, “the flow of Grace” This means: God = the natural movement toward compassion, openness, empathy, and connection. When you align with that rhythm, your heart stays soft. When you resist it, your heart hardens.

Peter’s God is: the flow of compassion, the rhythm of empathy, the natural law of cause and effect, the movement of grace through the world

When you move with that rhythm, you stay open. When you resist it, you become rigid.

In Peter’s view: God didn’t harden Pharaoh. Pharaoh hardened himself. The “hardening” is the natural consequence of resisting the rhythm of grace. So “God hardened his heart” is a poetic way of saying: Pharaoh’s choices calcified him, he became rigid, he lost flexibility, he became trapped in his own ego. Not divine punishment — human consequence.

I then quoted from your 2nd post for Copilot.

Copilot: What he’s revealing here is the personal reason he wrote the original post, and it deepens the symbolic meaning he sees in Exodus. 1. Peter is admitting something personal- He says he wrote the post because: he noticed his own heart tightening, he felt himself becoming less kind, he was questioning whether he was still acting from compassion, this scared him. So, the Exodus story came back to him because it mirrors what he was feeling internally.

This is important: Peter is not talking about Pharaoh “out there.” He’s talking about Pharaoh inside himself.

2. He sees Pharaoh as a symbol of inner rigidity- Pharaoh represents the part of us that becomes rigid, the part that refuses to soften, the part that resists change, the part that becomes stone. So, for Peter: Pharaoh = the inner voice that says “No, I won’t change.” Not a villain. Not a historical figure. A psychological pattern.

3. Peter fears becoming like Pharaoh- This is the emotional core of his message. He says: he doesn’t want his own heart to harden, he doesn’t want to become rigid or closed, he doesn’t want to lose kindness, he doesn’t want to be overwhelmed by life until he breaks.

He wants to stay fluid, responsive, compassionate, open.

He sees this as active work, not something that happens automatically.

4. He believes hardening happens gradually- Peter is saying: the heart doesn’t turn to stone all at once, it happens through small choices, each refusal to soften adds a layer, each act of fear or defensiveness adds another, eventually, the heart becomes rigid without noticing. This is why he says noticing “any hardening” is important. It’s early intervention.

5. He applies this to individuals, nations, and the world- Peter believes people can harden, communities can harden, nations can harden, the world can harden. And when that happens, empathy disappears.

This is why he’s so disturbed by modern ideas like “empathy is a sin” — he sees that as a sign of collective hardening.

6. What this adds to his original message- His first post was philosophical and symbolic. This new post reveals the emotional motivation behind it: He wrote about Pharaoh because he was afraid he was becoming Pharaoh. He felt a tightening, a withdrawal, a questioning of his own kindness. And he used the Exodus story to examine that feeling. So, the story is not just a metaphor for society — it’s a mirror for his own inner life.

Simple Summary of What’s New- Peter is saying: “I wrote about Pharaoh because I felt my own heart starting to harden. Pharaoh represents the rigid part of us that refuses to change. I don’t want to become that.
So, I pay attention to any signs of hardening — in myself, in my country, in the world.”

(have to get off the computer)

* okay, really there was a different vomit face that I click but it translate to the old one. I give up.

It’s time for the night🌙 Owl 🦉 to go to bed. Good 🌃 Confused. No, haven’t been at the taproom. It closed for good last Friday (4 nights ago). Had some 🍷 at home.

By the way, you first posted here on Dec 19, page 13- 65 pages of just you and I talking.

* Sadly, I lost my beloved vomit face for no apparent reason, and this one showed up instead 🤢. Not the same.

🦉🍷🌙 Anita

Hey Night Owl 🦉 Confused:

I pray 🙏 to God every day: rationally I don’t believe in God, but emotionally I have to.

I am imagining right now the two of you living together: three rooms are needed: one that’s your private room, another that’s her private room, and a third where the two of you meet.

No, no, too many rooms. Only 2 are needed: one for when the 2 of U spend nights together and another room for when either one of you needs alone time.

Then a kitchen and a living room.

Or, if you can’t afford a kitchen+ 3 rooms, then there need to be a sign that says NITM2T2A (not in the mood to talk to anyone). Abbreviated: NA.

There can be simple solutions to complex problems depending on budget

🤔 🤢 🙂 Anita

A minute at a time is a good beginning.

“In the beginning” are the first words of the Bible (Genesis), and paraphrased, it says: In the beginning the earth was a mess with darkness over the earth .. and then God separated the sky from the ground, day from night, etc.

It took god step by step to organize the mess, so, yes, start with a minute 🙂

You .e tinned fawning in the message before last and in this message you mentioned having a really hard time setting boundaries and asking for space.

That’s something perhaps to talk about in therapy?

Hmm, if you feel like you can’t set boundaries with her- that’s scary, isn’t it? Like you’re in danger of your personal space being invaded by her?

🤔 🤢 🦉 Anita

Hey Peter:

“I still need to work on that”- on being you or on being silly?

I don’t remember Peter being silly 🤔

Thank you so much for telling me that you think it’s great that I can express myself as I did. I was a bit afraid that you’d think otherwise.

Really? It’s really what you think? (no need to answer, of course you mean what you say. I know you well enough to know that you are.. religiously 😉 honest)

It’s just that it’s hard for me to believe that how I spontaneously express myself is truly okay with another person.

“Between ‘Egypt’ and ‘Promise land’ lies the wilderness”- the wilderness here is me being silly and then a bit anxious about whether it (my silliness/ spontaniety) was received or rejected.

I am curious if your religious background is Catholic or Methodist (two possibilities that come to my mind). I don’t expect an answer. It’s perfectly okay with me that you don’t answer any question you’re uncomfortable with or if you just don’t feel like answering.

The value in my asking may be just to share with you what crosses my mind.

“Whatever you lose, you’ve won”- winning distance from ‘Egypt’ and getting closer to the ‘Promise land’- within my own mind, mentally and socially?

If I remember correctly, the Jews in the desert 🏜 never got to enter the promised land (I didn’t get a chance to look it up, having a limited use of the computer).

🤔 🎶 🏜 Anita

Good 🌄 Peter:

In the past, I would feel embarrassed for having submitted an emotional, silly message like the one I submitted at 9:12 pm last night (my time).

But this morning I felt embarrassed by the dry, clinical, emotionally- detached posts I had submitted so often over the years (you can look at my first response today to “A”, a 9 years ago thread in which you posted as well).

But now, although the faint taste of embarrassment is still in my mouth (for the dry-clinical post to A, and for the silly-emotional post to you last night), I feel almost okay with both.

For the post 9 years ago- because I didn’t know better. THAT was my best at the time.

And for the post I submitted to you 13+ hours ago- because it is better. Emotions are okay. Emotions are welcomed.

I no longer need to suffocate, flatten.. suppress them under a cover of clinical, dry analysis (which is what I did as a child, surviving a highly chaotic, out of control, scary emotionality dished out by my mother).

The thought that last night’s post (and similar ones I submitted to you before) are unwelcome, or makes you cringe- crossed my mind. If this is the case, please tell me and I won’t post such in any of your threads anymore.

Our emotional languages are changing over the years.

Looking at your reply to A 9 years ago, you wrote that following an ex’s decision to end contact with you, it “Hurt” (your word, big-case letter, H- a direct expression). That was simple and direct. But that was a 1 2 1 exchange, not a literary piece directed at an audience (I hope you submit these pieces in other, more popular websites where they can be read by more people)

I still want to process your last 2 amazing posts a bit later.

🎶 🤍 Anita