The 1983 movie War Games is famous for a response from the computer when it finished war-gaming nuclear war. It said, “Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” Many seem to believe this applies to controversial conversations as well. The only winning move is not to converse at all. When it comes to engaging in controversial conversations, when might this strategy be in divine alignment, and even more importantly, when is it not? What is Creator’s perspective?

While this is a complex matter and could be the subject of a book-length treatment, the particular example narrows things down nicely to matters of high-level concern and impact such as life and death considerations. The irony in the motion picture was such an eventuality where a computer, devoid of humanity but simply programmed to win whatever contest might be presented by its human handlers, ended up seeing, through trial and error, that mutual assured destruction could not possibly constitute a win, and that would be the inevitable result of a nuclear exchange. In other words, winning requires power over another but ultimate power destroys both opponents. This has been recognized in the saying, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thinking of divinity on its most primitive level, representing an energetic equation of positive and negative elements and forces, divine alignment will not be at an extreme, either positive or negative, but will represent a combination of characteristics, energies, and consequences. This is why, when it comes to war and winning a war, a true win almost always demands, eventually, a pursuit of peace resulting in a ceasefire. Holding power is a privilege and, if administered wisely and well, can be a force for good if it is not demanding an absolute extreme adherence to a narrow set of choices, as in, "I win and you lose." Most careful thinkers will look for an outcome that is a win-win for both parties. It might not be the most advantageous for either but that is a narrow view. Many times, reaching a compromise resulting in safety, a sharing of resources in a live and let live mode, will be in better divine alignment as well as a much better outcome serving a greater number of individuals. The other thing illustrated in the irony this movie presents is the demonstration that war has no winners, truly, because everyone loses through a diminishment of some kind. Neither side will be the same once the hostilities cease, whether winner or loser by typical human standards, and most oftentimes, in retrospect, engaging in war will be seen to have been a mistake.