If it exists anywhere except in one's imagination, it would seem inevitable that it should have those qualities. On the other hand the assertion that, “I am like God”, is about as egotistical as any assertion can be, whether one believes in God or not. Egotism has been likened to a tendency for the consciousness to go into spasm, which is the opposite of being relaxed. The perfect consciousness (if it exists) is almost by definition one whose natural state is relaxation, and for whom a hardening of the consciousness represents a voluntary effort of the will. The egotistical person may be capable of relaxation, but it is an unstable equilibrium, as the consciousness is continually tending to go into spasm. The consciousness of the egotist therefore has an entirely different quality from the perfect consciousness; and cannot, I would have thought, be equated with it.
For the Christian, there is the dilemma of whether to allow the clergy to come between God and himself, because this naturally limits his ability to have the consciousness of God? Historically they have claimed to do so; and today they still claim the prerogative to forgive sin. It is difficult in an Apostolic Church to deny them all authority. But what is this authority, in a world where nobody has the monopoly of spiritual knowledge or spiritual power? Is it anything other than the eloquent authority of persuasion and example? And where is it? Is it, as in Conciliarism, in the parson with his flock; or in the parson over his flock? Is the forgiveness of sins every Sunday just a ritual? If not, it difficult to deny that one is subject to them. Who would snap his fingers at someone who had the frightening power to give, or withhold forgiveness? Yet if the Christian allows it to happen, he is prevented from sharing the perfect consciousness of God, and retains the vivid awareness that he is a miserable sinner, with all its crippling inhibitions, and all its fearful impotence in the face of demands for action. What action demands is…