Is modern Christian traditionalism even possible?

A problem that I experienced upon becoming a Christian, is that the standard model over the centuries is first to discover the true institutional manifestation of Christianity: then believe it, obey it. 

The flip side of this standard model; is that a good Christian does not make up his own mind; because the major issues have already been settled, long ago, by wiser and holier persons. 

The good Christian's job is to discover these already-known truths, then believe and obey them. 

Yet, in our civilization; when it comes to questions of Which religion? Which church? - and Which party or person to believe to believe and obey among the factions within any church - choice is inescapable. 

Literally inescapable. The most traditional and orthodox of Christians inescapably choose to be Christian, choose what kind of Christian to be, choose which particular church institution; and within that church institution they must choose between rival and contradictory claims concerning significant matters. 

Every church-based Christian actually has-made these choices, and continues to make them. 

He cannot believe and obey until after he personally has decided who to believe and obey. 

This is a contradiction; because by a traditional model the good Christian is not supposed to be choosing who to believe and obey. 

However, this contradiction is exactly what all modern Western traditionalists have already done and continue doing.  

**

Note added. The above argument is based on the logic and facts of the situation, and is generic in scope. But the psychological element is also relevant. 

When I became a Christian, I followed the standard model of conversion and practice outlined here. Therefore; once I had decided that Christianity was true; I then sought a denomination, and a church. However; I rapidly found that my first choice of a church was so corrupted with respect to the priority given to major issues of the day, that it seemed obviously harmful to take the approved attitude of belief and obedience. 

I therefore sought an uncorrupted church; and the search eventually expanded to include Protestant and Catholic (Western and Eastern), as well as Mormon. But even when I made a "firm" choice of a church towards which I intended to B and O; it became  rapidly apparent that "the" church was not of one mind - but instead riven by fundamental division on core issues of validity.

...Such that yet more choosing would be required. Until, in the end, it struck me that I was compelled to do so much personal discerning and picking - which never seemed to stop, that it reduced to absurdity the notion that belief and obedience to external-authority ought-to-be primary. 

After all, if we are subjectively picking the authority to which we will submit; then how can we then regard that self-picked authority as objectively valid?  

But there are other individuals who have, nonetheless, decided that the B&O attitude to whatever sub-institution has survived this selective process is the one-and-only valid form of Christianity. Even after themselves having been-through so much, and continuing, discerning - they have convinced themselves that their choice of an authority is objective and with universal validity; such that an attitude of humility and submission is necessarily due to this picked-authority. 

Such a process of choice and its denial seems to result in a vociferous and hyper-aggressive attitude when asserting their "final" choices! My interpretation is that this noisy dogmatism is transparently understandable on a psychological basis, as a form of compensation; whereby such individuals are refusing to acknowledge or defend the non-objective nature of their their own religious incoherence; by a combination of starkly denying any problem, creating abstract models of the unity, and concluding the objectivity of their church's teaching and authority... 

In the end, such "traditionalists" have manufactured a quasi-Medieval fantasy of tradition, rooted in what they personally suppose their church ought-to-be; rather than what it is. So that an attitude of obedient belief and practice against becomes possible, and natural. 

In short, the "Christian Crusader" pose is an act; intended by the pseudo-traditionalists to distract themselves, as well as others, from the fatal knowledge that they are indeed... acting. 

Fascinated by "magic"... But only a small bit of it

I have been reading magical fiction and fantasy since discovering Tolkien in 1972, and continued with a (partly academic) study of animism and shamanism in the early 2000s; but I began reading about 20th century magic at the start of 2020. 

In this I was, belatedly, following-up a recommendation by William Wildblood to read The Magical Battle of Britain by Dion Fortune edited by Gareth Knight. 

Since then I have read, and often re-read, scores of such books - nearly-all by Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight, and their close associates.

This; despite that I have near-zero interest in practicing ritual magic of any kind, and even less in participating in the kind of formal, initiating magical group that DF then GK were trained-in and led - this sustained interest in magic is strange, even to me.

Indeed, I soon concluded that this kind of ritual magical society has become nigh impossible nowadays - or, at least, it is now very weak in the pursuit of positive spiritual development, whether of individuals or (even more) of society. 

Clearly, I have got, am getting, significant satisfaction from at least some of this reading. 

But what? I would characterize it as a kind of enchantment that (sometimes) comes over me while I am reading - of a similar nature to that when reading a good fantasy novel, when encountering elves or entering faerie.

However, it is significant that DF and GK were both explicitly self-identified Christian - albeit of a very different kind than me (but then that applies to almost everybody, anyway). 

Even during the active lives of DF, and even more so GK, there were relatively few ritual magicians who considered themselves Christian. 

Nowadays; it seems that those who practice magic are almost all "neo-pagans" of one sort or another; and those that I have encountered express "anything but Christianity" at best, but are mostly (and often vehemently) anti-Christian.

(This opposition usually boils-down-to an opposition to the constraints that Christian churches have placed on sex and sexuality - i.e. they hate what they regard as Christianity "because" they support some aspect of the sexual revolution of which they desire to avail themselves.) 

While several neo-pagan magical writers seem like decent people in themselves, and surely no worse overall than many/most devout Christian church-members; I cannot shake off a solid awareness of a kind of shadow that lies behind, motivates, and tends to corrupt neo-paganism - whether magical or any other kind.

Consequently I have little interest in the present day practitioners of ritual magic - and very seldom find myself "enchanted" by their work -- indeed more often I experience the opposite: a repulsion.

So my conclusion is rather like Sturgeon's Law: probably 99% of Ritual Magic is crap - but then 99% of all actual Christian Churches (including the best) is crap. In this actual world, here-and-now, 100% of most institutions is crap. If we find something that contains even one percent that is good; then we should cleave to that tiny proportion, and set-aside the rest. 

But experiencing such repulsion when sensing the deep motivations of modern people is actually the norm for me. 

And, on the other side, I find the underlying personal character of both Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight to be very appealing and indeed inspiring; even when I regard them as mistaken or on the wrong track in many specifics.

I find that I am less and less impressed by superficial agreements or disagreements with those who I read; more and more my discernments of good and not-good people, seem to be rooted-in (what I infer to be) some much deeper level of character and attitude. 

This is yet another way in which I find myself at odds with traditional, group-based, external-authority-rooted ways of understanding the purpose and meaning of life; and of the Christian Life specifically. 

It seems to me that anybody - including those corrupted, or even of of deeply evil nature - can make public affirmations or rejections of whatever checklist of doctrines or dogmas will get them accepted by some kind of institution or social group. 

This kind of stuff (which is 99% of "religions") is nowadays (it was not always so) just about gatekeeping, boundaries, gang-membership - in short: attempts to increase this-worldly power. 

And therefore it already-is, or soon-becomes, assimilated to the aims and methods of the ruling totalitarian System; which is why in 2026 all institutions (including all churches) are converged or converging with the evil-strategies of atheistic-materialism.  

On the other side; I am both interested and grateful when I encounter a person (alive or dead) whose motivates are genuinely good; and who is working, in his inner life, for positive and spiritual goals.

I believe these to be the truest followers of Jesus; in the sense that such people are much the most likely to desire, accept, and embrace Christ's offer of post-mortal, resurrected eternal life in Heaven.  

And with such rare people, I will take them where I find them and enjoy the experience, and try to learn from it - whether such individuals are located in or out-of the institutions of ritual magic, or elsewhere.    

The development (evolution) of consciousness is an attribute of creation

Since reading Owen Barfield, in context of my preceding academic studies of human evolution; I have accepted that there has been (and is, ongoing) a development of human consciousness that is evident through recorded history, and consistent with what we infer about prehistory - and evident also in the lifespan of individual humans. 

But I have never been confident about how this development of consciousness happens - its "cause" or reason. 

Barfield (following Rudolf Steiner) regards the evolution of consciousness as a consequence of serial reincarnation; and that it represents a long term process of "learning" from a range of life experiences in very different situations (extending back into pre-incarnate existences) - and that this is, indeed, the underlying purpose of reincarnation.

But I don't think this is right, for various reasons. In particular; since Jesus I think that serial reincarnation has been replaced by resurrection (at least for those who affirm God's creative purpose) yet the development of human consciousness has apparently accelerated. 

On the other hand, I have remained uncertain about the matter; which is uncomfortable considering that I regard the DofC as a vital explanatory concept. 

It now strikes me that the reason it is difficult to assign causes to the development of consciousness is probably that it is intrinsic, not caused. 

In other words; my conclusion is that the development of consciousness is what happens to all Beings, serially, as they continue to exist-in, and interact-with, divine creation.

**

Note: It always seems to be be necessary to emphasize that the development of consciousness is not, not, NOT a matter of "progress" or betterment of a Being. DofC should be regarded as analogous to the biological development of an organism - for example from a fetus to childhood, childhood through puberty etc. An adolescent is not "better" than he was as a child, indeed he is usually worse; but the adolescent is more developed. Likewise modern Man is overall worse than pre-modern Man (not necessarily worse, but mainly by wrong choices and their consequences) but modern man is more developed. Also, as with biological development, spiritual development is linear, cumulative, not-reversible - it cannot be undone, nor made as if it had never happened.

Explaining the origin of irredeemable, never-incarnated, demonic spirits

Following from yesterday's discussion; I shall put forward here an explanation for those beings who are traditionally regarded as demons in orthodox Christian theology:

The definition of which is that they are spirit-beings, that have never incarnated, and which are eternally committed to evil such that they cannot be redeemed or saved. 

There are several other kinds of being that might be termed "demons"* - and these might include currently-incarnated beings, or beings that have previously been incarnated and died (analogous to evil ghosts)...

But here I am focusing on beings that have always been spirits - and I am trying to understand and explain how any being might be outwith the scope of the salvation of Jesus Christ.   

I will first outline my metaphysical assumptions: those who want to cut straight to the explanation of demons will find this after the break: indicated +++

My metaphysical understanding of reality is that it comprises beings in relationships; and that beings have attributes such that they are alive, conscious (to some degree), purposive, self-sustaining and so forth. 

Beings are eternal, always have existed - including before creation.

All beings are unique: that is important. Some Christians (perhaps influenced by oneness spiritualty) assume that all Men are originally equal, and diverge - and then spiritually develop and converge towards becoming very similar, or even identical. 

But in contrast I assume that all beings began as unique (and un-cooperative) and God's plan of salvation is a matter of progressively achieving harmony. At first a partly-imposed and temporary harmony, but a process that is completed by the Second Creation, of Heaven; where each resurrected being has chosen to be remade such as to live wholly from-love, and harmony between unalike beings is then innate and spontaneous**.

That is: living-beings are the primary unit of reality; and "beings" include humans, animals, plants, as well as what are usually considered to be "mineral" entities and materials. 

Everything primary in reality is thus either itself a being, or part of a being. 

A further assumption is that all beings were originally spirits. 

Only later, and only for some beings, there may be incarnation into some material form. 

Many spirits have never been incarnated.  

Originally (before creation) beings may have been aware of each other, to varying degrees, and with varying attitudes - but each being is assumed to have been autonomous, separate, pursuing its own goals. 

Before creation, reality was a "chaos" of beings. 

Divine creation happened when God's love became the means of "coordinating" or harmonizing these already-existing beings. 

However, to become a part of divine creation, a being must first be capable of love; then secondly a being-capable-of-love must choose to live by, or from, this love.

(Because it is love that harmonizes the disparate beings, and this harmonization is creation.)

Hence the formulation "God is love", and the great commandments to love God and fellow Men - which can be interpreted to make the choice to embrace the loving purpose of God as ideal, and to aspire to live wholly from love of other beings. 

+++

Now I will explain the origin of demons:

All beings are unique. To participate in creation, a being must be capable of love; but not all beings are capable of love. 

A love-incapable being happens to be constituted that way. Such a being will not be part of creation, and cannot ever become a part of creation. 

Demons are here regarded as spirits that are incapable of love. 

For a being to be saved or redeemed includes death and resurrection such as to live entirely from love. 

It follows that any being constitutionally incapable of love, cannot undergo salvation, indeed, such a being cannot even want salvation.

Some love-incapable beings might remain passive, detached from creation. But demons are assumed to be those love-incapable beings who have chosen to oppose creation - for various motives. 

For instance; demons may aim to exploit creation, or may seek to destroy it. They may be motivated by their own pleasure, by negative resentment, or sheer spiteful desire to inflict suffering. Or mixture of motivation; and demonic motivations may change over time. 

But although capable of changing their behaviours; a love-incapable demon can never become part of creation, and can never seek or attain salvation through following Jesus Christ. 

The above scheme may explain the occurrence of those demons - traditionally-defined: demons that are spirits, have never incarnated, and are eternally outwith even the possibility of salvation. 

*(And some of these are capable of choosing salvation.)

**(An analogy is that the first creation is like a State ruled by a loving creator God with a mixture of coercion and consent; while the Second Creation is a perfectly loving family.) 

The fact of demons refutes that God can be both "Omni" and Good

What seems to me a very powerful argument against the mainstream orthodox Christian notion that God-the-creator is both Good and an Omni-God; is the theologically-assumed reality of demons - that is, of never-incarnated spirits who are irredeemably committed to evil, and who operate in this world.

In an ultimate sense, this is a just a subset of "the problem of evil" - and its existence At All; but most of the attempted explanations of the presence of evil in this world are focused upon human beings. Apparently; many mainstream Christians (although not me) are sufficiently satisfied by the traditional explanation that human evil is a consequence of 1. human free will (granted by God) and 2. The Fall; plus 3. that there is always a possibility that mortal humans may repent and accept salvation. 

It is this possibility that any human who is currently committed to evil may, nonetheless, repent and accept salvation that serves to explain why such humans are not annihilated or incarcerated somewhere where they can do no harm. 

So; most orthodox Christians believe that evil demons are real, and that they have a harmful effect on this world; but that they cannot ever repent. 

This creates a contradiction. 

It seems obvious (?) that any Good God who had the power to do so (as an Omni-god does, be definition); would decisively sequester such evil beings somewhere where they could not corrupt or damn human beings. 

That God does not do; and allows demons access to humans, implies either that God is not Good, or that God is not "Omni". 

[Note added: To clarify, here I am not trying to refute the orthodox explanation of the existence of demons in the first place. This, in traditional orthodoxy is usually a matter of angels being conceived as a separate creation from Men. Upon having been created, these angels then use their free will to choose evil - they become fallen-angels. This fall is then regarded a - according to the attributed nature of angelic beings - a permanent condition. What I am instead saying here is focused on the question of what God does about fallen-angels/ demons, after they have arisen.] 

Maybe this is why so many modern Christians who cleave to the definition of God as wholly Good and "Omni" tend to deny the reality of traditionally-understood demons. Instead they (seem to) regard demons ("if they really exist") as merely confused, misguided and "disturbed" spirits who might attain salvation; or in some other way as only-partly-evil, or reversibly-evil.   

Or else such Christians fall back on the "God's Goodness is total but un-understandable by Men" argument; which leaves the Christian "God-is-Good" deity indistinguishable from the Islamic concept of "Good is God".  

Such are the ways in which the stark contradiction of traditional Christian theology when it comes to demons is obscured; and concealed behind imprecision, and complexity of (only vaguely-understood) abstractions. 

NOTE: I intend to present an alternative metaphysics to explain permanently-evil demon-spirits and their continued operations in this world; in a soon-to-be-published post - which will be referenced back to the above argument.

Another tranche added to Bruce Charlton on Music

I have added (and compiled) some more entries for the Bruce Charlton on Music blog - including an extended piece on Music in my Early Life.

This is how it begins:

My first musical instrument, at age ten, was a ukelele - the one that looks like a little guitar - and it cost one pound and one shilling; bought for me on impulse by my Dad, unplanned, from a shop in Bristol. It came with George Formby guide on how to play it.

Within days or weeks my then group of friends had formed a 'pop group' which we called The Shades. We wore sunglasses (naturally!), flared trousers and brightly coloured nylon shirts with cravats.

The Shades comprised an electric and pneumatic reed organ (which sounded like a motorised accordion), a steel strung acoustic guitar, ukelele, and maracas - we had no amplification.

With such a bizarre line-up, I can only attribute our success to the musicality of the organ player - who could compose, arrange, and improvise a bit; and also that we must have had nice treble voices - because it was not long before we were playing 'concerts'.

...

I visit Saint Mungo's Holy-stain in Simonburn Church, Northumberland

Saint Mungo (aka Kentigern) meets, debates and baptises Merlin (aka Lailoken) as depicted in Stobo Kirk, Scotland 

Saint Kentigern (aka Mungo) was one of the great missionaries to the Ancient Britons (including Picts), founder of the Cathedral and Patron Saint of the city of Glasgow; and has many churches named after him in Scotland and the North of England. 

One of these is in the remote-isolated Northumbrian church of Simonburn, just north of Hadrian's wall; whose Parish covered the largest area of any in England; and was also/therefore one of the very richest "livings" (i.e. the priest got an enormous "salary") from Medieval right through to Victorian times. 

As you can see from the above inscription; after St Mungo was driven from Glasgow, he went South to the Lake District, then East along Hadrian's Wall - doing missionary work as he went. 

In Simonburn; Mungo baptised in a particular spring of water, upon which the current church was built.

And to this day, the spring wells up at the end of the aisle; creating a damp, stained-patch on the flagstones that has been regarded as Holy ground - as I point-out below:  

"If Jesus Christ is King, then why isn't he doing a better job?" This is not a trivial quip...

Christians (of various denominations) often make a good deal of the assertion that Jesus Christ is King of the world, and the Universe - everything. 

The intent is, obviously, to emphasize that Jesus is divine, is a god - and (for Trinitarians) that Jesus is The One creator God. 

The intent is to make sure that everybody recognizes that there is no-thing, no-person, no-god that is greater than Jesus, or more powerful - that Jesus can do anything that Jesus wills. To make clear that - because he is the King of everything and always - Jesus not only should-not, but cannot (coherently) be ignored by anyone. 

When Jesus is King of the Universe, then anyone who believes otherwise must be ignorant or insane; or else purposively evil. There can be no rational choice against Jesus.   

But if Jesus is the actual ruler of every-thing, now and forever (and indeed always has been, from eternity) - then why doesn't he do a better job ?

This is not just a rhetorical quip - it is an unanswerable, knock-down refutation of Christ is King.

Because if Jesus rules everything, then either King Jesus is making a mess of things (and always has done); or else Jesus's idea of being a Good King is so different from my idea, and your idea, of a Good King; that most decent people would want nothing to do with such a monarch. 

It is simply not-good-enough to point-out that most things "work" for most of the time, else we would not be here to discuss anything. It is not enough to point out all the good stuff that happens. 

When such absolute claims are being made for Jesus's rulership, claims that include omnipotence, omniscience and the rest of it; then quantitative arguments are irrelevant: qualitative claims require qualitative consistency. 

If Jesus is King of Everything and Jesus is Good, then everything should be Good. 

It is not enough to wave at the "Free Will" of Men, and blame freedom for everything that goes wrong; because that just kicks the can onto why the creator-King made Men such that they want bad things; and why the King doesn't run his realm with all possible inducements to Good and excluding evil.    

Indeed, the presence of exceptionally evil people, some of whom have been that way from early childhood, is the King's fault; and so are "environments" that (we believe) cause so many people to become evil during their lives. 

The more powerful Jesus is claimed to be, the more Jesus's rulership and power is emphasized; the bigger such contradictions become. 

My point is that such Justifications of Jesus Just Will Not Do! 

And insofar as Christian belief in Jesus genuinely depends on this kind of Justification - faith is a house built upon sand. 

It will not do - so, Christians Must Do Better!... 

And this will require reaching a better, more coherent, less complex and abstract, understanding of who Jesus Christ was (i.e. his nature, what kind of person he was), what he did; and what it means for each person, individually. 

And this when attained must satisfy each of us; so as to provide a solid basis for faith; and afterwards Must Be (and it then will be) explainable briefly and clearly to non-Christians. 

How to escape the reductive-corrosive "So what?"

Although an irritating affectation among adolescents; there is more to the "So what?" attitude than is first apparent. 

To respond to information thus is a form of reductionism; and reductionism (aka. scientism, materialism, positivism) has been and is the ruling reality of our civilization - hence the world. 

"So what?" expresses the conviction - and the fear - that nothing really matters; with the possible temporary-exception of how I personally feel in the here and now...

But actually that doesn't really matter either; because how I happen to be feeling is brief and unstable, and a matter of indifference to the mass majority of "Who cares?"  

"So what?" encapsulates the characteristic, all-but inescapable nihilistic-hedonism and hedonic-nihilism of the modern West - manifested as pessimistic selfishness and immersive distraction - occulted by vast, soaring, ineffectual abstractions; such as universal altruism, planetary peace, cosmic environmentalism... 

From inside; the attitude expressed by "So what?" finds that the two extreme replies of "Everything what - i.e. everything matters, or "Nothing what" - i.e. nothing matters; are equally un-tenable as a basis for living - which is all about discernments, choices, motivations and the like. 

In practice, the problem of answering the "So what?" question is ignored, because of its difficulty. The difficulty is that any valid answer would, itself, need to be stable to the repeated question of "So what?" - and this is very difficult to achieve, even to our own satisfaction (leaving aside the impossibility of finding an answer acceptable to "other people")!

The fact is that in this mortal life on earth, everything material is subject to entropy, to death; and therefore is easily dissolved by "So what?". 

If we desire to answer this question, we must move beyond the material world, we must consider the world of "spirit", and tackle the questions of "eternity"... Indeed, we must consider whatever will lead to an answer. 

For most people, such philosophical questions are regarded as irrelevant, unanswerable - indeed meaningless. 

But in this matter, if we decide to seek an answer; our civilization provides no help. Indeed it is the basis of the problem. 

Worse than this; we find inadequate, misleading assistance by looking behind our civilization into the past. 

We find answers that are incoherent, based in arbitrary or dubious values; and we find possibly-helpful answers to be packed inextricably with all kinds of other stuff that is said to be mandatory. 

And we find the modern people who assert these old answers, actually are assimilated to modern values - so the traditional answers seem to be little more than just-another lifestyle option.   

In sum: we cannot find anybody to tell us a good answer to "So what?" If we want an answer, we will have to find it for our-selves. 

So our civilization (and nearly-all of its members) is self-trapped in a down-spiral of compulsive distraction and underlying futility; trapped, on the one hand, by its own assumptions...

And, on the other side, doomed by an overmastering mental laziness.

Rather than admit that it is important for each one of us to be able to answer "So what?" - each to our own solid satisfaction; people find it easier to pretend either that the question is trivial and does not need answering, or else that the question is un-answerable - hence best left-alone. 

But who suffers from such a dishonestly slothful attitude? 

The answer is that every-single-person suffers, who has not found an answer.

He suffers necessarily; because for people like us, in a society like this; the question of "So what?" will not go away, and is inescapable.  

God cannot make us Good - The State as an analogy for Heaven

In a universe consisting of eternal Beings, the question arises: When God made divine creation, what could he do with these already-existing Beings, and what could he not do. 

 

God could do many things - such as giving attributes to the Beings, and enforcing upon Beings a passive cooperation with divine creation; but God could not make Beings Good. 

Because, Goodness is living from Love, and in harmony with divine creation. Therefore; for a Being to be Good, it must want to live in-harmony-with divine creation, it must be living from Love. 

(i.e.  Love of God and other fellow-Beings)

And, Love cannot be imposed - it must come from within each being. Ultimately, a Being cannot be made to want anything (induced, encouraged... Yes. But not forced). 

The motivation of "wanting" comes from the nature of a Being and its freedom (with "freedom" being conceptualized as the existential fact of Beings as the prime components of reality: Beings Just Are).

God can, in various ways, compel cooperation on Beings (God can structure reality such that "things work" harmoniously, overall). 

Analogously; a State may force its citizens to cooperate sufficiently that the State is sustained. 

But God cannot make Beings want to cooperate, cannot make us to love God and creation. 

Analogously a State cannot compel its citizens positively to embrace that State's nature and policies (no matter how Good the State's nature and policies may be)... A State cannot compel its citizens to love the State.  

People often call-upon God - in effect - to make everybody Good. But this is not possible. 

God can make some people behave well (overall) by establishing a powerful System of incentives (rewards for Good behaviour, punishments for bad) - but of course Good behaviour isn't the same thing as being Good.  

And a System of powerful incentives isn't what is meant by Heaven!

 

Furthermore; whatever system of incentives is deployed; there will surely be individual Beings (and groups of such individuals) that resist or reject some or many of these incentives (for a variety of reasons); and these Beings will therefore be less-well-behaved in the case of divine creation -- less compliant in the case of citizens of a State. 

The more force that is applied by the System, the more resistance the System is likely to evoke. The System will not be able to enforce complete passive cooperation.  

And some Beings may become rebels against the whole System. 

This can be interpreted, by analogy, as an explanation for the presence of evil in divine creation, the resistance to Good; and the motivation of demons. 

It is because God cannot compel us to be Good, that Jesus Christ was needed. 

What Jesus did was make it possible for those who wanted it, to become fully-Good; via death and resurrection. 

Jesus thereby made Heaven possible: heaven understood as analogous to a "State" of fully-Good citizens. A State without compulsion (or propaganda) because it is comprised of citizens who completely and permanently embrace the goals and methods of the State. 

A State of citizens who from-themselves, and freely: love The State.   

Substitute God for the State; and Beings for citizens; and that is an analogy with Heaven.  

Metaphysics and the Marriage of Jesus - or, how fundamental assumptions shape and determine Christianity

Our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. our "metaphysical" assumptions) have a decisive effect upon our perceptions and interpretations - such that when our metaphysics rules-out something, then that thing is often unperceived - or, if perceived, then regarded as impossible. 

This is, I presume, why the marriage of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene (who is the same person as Mary of Bethany) is either unnoticed by readers of the IV Gospel (called "John"), and/or why each mention of it is interpreted-away - despite that there is ample and coherent reference to the marriage and its profound spiritual significance in that Gospel.  

The reason is not far to seek; because most Christians have the fundamental assumption that Jesus cannot be married, because Jesus is mystically conceptualized (in an Athanasian-Trinitarian fashion) as one of the three persons of the One Godhead. And, as such, a cosmically-significant marriage of Jesus to a human being is so impossible as to be absurd. 

Consequently, each and every mention of the marriage of Jesus and Mary must mean something else; and the only task is to suggest what these references might mean. Since humans are natural experts at explaining-away whatever they regard as impossible, this is an almost automatic process.  

The same applies to reading the IV Gospel itself. As I described at the beginning of Lazarus Writes; when mainstream, orthodox, traditional Christians read this Gospel; they do so by implicitly-but-decisively subordinating it to the numerical majority "consensus" of the rest of the New Testament. First to the Synoptic Gospels (i.e. Gospels I, II, III; but especially Matthew and Luke), and/or the Epistles (especially Pauline), and to some parts of the Revelation/ Apocalypse.

(Almost as if spiritual authority was determined by majority vote!)  

My understanding - that the IV Gospel is the only eye-witness, earliest, and qualitatively most authoritative source concerning Jesus - is regarded as idiosyncratic, and indeed arbitrary. 

Therefore; the New Testament, and whole Bible, are being read in terms of fundamental assumptions concerning the weight and validity of its components, and how this question ought to be determined; that washes-away anything stated in the IV Gospel, or omitted from it, that is regarded as significant but contradictory to the majority of Books (or to other sources such as Matthew, Luke and Paul; that are treated as de facto more authoritative). 

By assumption, therefore, the IV Gospel must be explained in terms that harmonize it with other parts of the Bible; those parts that have, through history and as maintained by the churches, been accorded an assumed primacy. 

Another assumption relates to how we personally (each of us) ought to read The Bible - including the IV Gospel. 

It is assumed that we ought to defer to and obey some external authority in allowed ways of reading or understanding the Bible. 

Which particular authority we ought to defer to is a matter of contention between Christian denominations and churches (e.g. church tradition, or current authoritative church teaching as a whole or of specific persons, or some version of theology, or current linguistic and historical scholarship...). 

Among among those Christians who state that the Bible is primary, and its own authority, and ought to be understood as inerrant and literally true; there are always prior assumptions as to whether this means the Bible as a whole is true, or else the New Testament primarily, or particular parts of the New Testament. 

And the "correct" way of understanding the Bible is likewise a prior assumption. Should its ultimate meaning be understood in an overall sense of mutual cohesion - including all Boks in both Old and New Testaments? Or understood one Book at a time? 

Or does truth reside in the Bible verse by verse - or even word by word? 

And/or do those words ascribed to Jesus (spoken by him, as recorded), have the highest authority?

Even those denominations that assert we ought to read the Bible for ourselves by personal revelation, invariably insist upon some particular interpretations; at least for key doctrines, and for church members we aspire to have good standing in the institution. 

My point here is that our understanding of what is significant and what it means, is structured by assumptions that we all have before we embark on Christian exegesis; and before we read The Bible - or indeed seek guidance from any external source.

This is just a fact of things: our fundamental metaphysical assumptions have structured our Christian faith, determine what counts as evidence, and shape what that evidence means.  

We cannot choose not to have fundamental assumptions. 

Therefore your choice and my choice as Christians; lies in whether we acknowledge and become aware of the fact of prior assumptions; or - as is more usual - to deny and refuse to discuss the fact.  

 

NOTE ADDED: A further example of a prior-to-Christianity and fundamental structuring assumption is the nature of God-the-creator. Most theologically-minded Christians insist that God is and must be an Omni-God that created ex nihilo. Such a person's entire Christianity is built within such assumptions; such that (for example) "God is Love" is conceptualized within the metaphysical assumption that the loving God must be the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God; such that whatever Love means to them (their conceptualization of the nature of Love) is subordinated to the imperatives of the Omni-/ ex nihilo-God. Yet, such persons usually refuse to admit that their metaphysical assumptions regarding God Just Are prior-to, and therefore not derived-from, Christianity. 

Should we be spiritually engaged at all times and in all situations? Or stick to a schedule?

From the classical and Medieval eras, during which Christianity was established, the ideal was an overall religious basis for society, with a religiously approved monarch - but in practice life was divided between religious and secular activities.

In essence; there was a prescribed (minimum) ritual and ceremonial religious life; and the rest of a personal and community time was de facto engaged in all the other necessities of living. The proportions of secular and sacred varied, but the division was necessarily present (in practice) even in monasteries. 

This division was also (usually) reflected in terms of individual subjective experience. In general, people strove, and were perhaps often able, to achieve a properly spiritual, devotional attitude during daily prayer and formal church services and the like; but accepted that this level was impossible to sustain.

And indeed, from whatever combination of character and circumstances, it was often impossible to be spiritual at all. The main thing was to "do it" in the prescribed times and places. 

Indeed, as the centuries passed, it seems that even the minimum frequency of experienced religious participation was increasingly difficult to achieve. People could conform to all requirements in "the letter", yet "the spirit" became feebler...

More and more often, "the spirit" was altogether absent. 

Against this backdrop of enfeebled faith and increasing apostasy; were those (from the late 1700s, but much more so later) who advocated (and sometimes claimed to achieve) a continuous and unbroken spiritual life. 

They claimed, indeed, to strive for what they saw as the real possibility of living all life (from waking to sleeping, and ultimately even during sleep) in a state of devotion, spiritual awareness, religion. Conversely, they poured scorn on the ideal and reality of "Sunday Christians" - who switched-off religion, in between their required church attendances. 

Such people included Christian revivalists of various kinds  - and often these claimants were not Christian. Often enough they were atheists (spiritual but not religious), or neo-pagans of a wide range of types. For instance a serious Buddhist told me that a Zen Masters' whole life was one of continual spirituality, even when doing the most routing chores. More generally, it was claimed that this could happen by the continuous and habitual effect of prayer (i.e. a "mantra": this is also one of the expressed ideals of the Jesus Prayer.) 

As of now, in The West, these two religious ideals still dominate:

On the one hand, a Medievally-rooted ideal that aims at serious spiritual participation in relation to a finite series of discrete and pre-specified practices, times, and places; usually of a formal and prescribed nature. 

And, on the other hand, an ideal of qualitative "enlightenment": the idea that a person can break-through to a permanently transformed nature; a life that is always and everywhere spiritual. 

My belief is that neither of these ideals actually work - for different reasons...

But that they don't work just seems a fact of observation. 

Therefore we ought to seek for something that does work. 

We need another ideal for our spiritual life. 

One might be that we try various possibilities, and do more of whatever works for us... Meanwhile monitoring the situation for how things are progressing (with an awareness that any activity or plan may do us - personally - harm, as well as perhaps good). 

Another notion is that we strive for a higher self-awareness, and by this aim to recognize and "seize the moment" for spiritual activities - not to put them off. 

And also we might strive to hold-onto the insight that - whatever we do in this mortal life - it cannot be sufficient; because this mortal life is not, and is not intended to be, The Whole Thing. 

If we are (as I believe) eternal Beings, then we lived (as spirits, IMO) before this incarnated mortality; and also we will continue to exist (in some form, about which we have a choice) after we die mortally. 

This life is therefore a finite phase between eternities. 

Therefore, instead of deluding ourselves that there is any possibility at all of an ideal life during this mortality; our best bet is to regard our task as trying to have the right kind of helpful experiences; and learning the right kind of lessons from whatever actual experiences come our way. 

This mortal life is intended to be transformative; but the intended (and perhaps, in significant ways although not completely,  achieved) transformation is not for this mortal life; nor is eternal qualitative spiritual transformation even possible in this world of change, of entropy and death. 

Therefore, as with any kind of intentional development, such as the following analogy of school or college work; we may realize that:

On the one hand that we cannot always be studying and practicing. And if we seriously attempt this, we will not only be wasting our time - but indeed sabotaging the possibility of that focused and intense (therefore necessarily brief) learning which really works. 

And, on the other hand; that one secret of effective learning is to be aware of any moments when the opportunity for some really special experience has arrived. 

When that moment is here; we should be able to set-aside the routines, plans and programs devised to get us through dull-dry times; and, seizing the opportunity, take the chance, here-and-now.

And learn from it that which is divinely-intended for our benefit. 

If at all possible.  

Project Hail Mary, the 2026 movie

Project Hail Mary is a 2026 movie which I would recommend watching, because it is (overall) very well-made (well written, scripted, directed, edited, visuals etc) and also enjoyable - often funny, and emotionally powerful in several points.

Note: The movie is adapted from a book of the same name by Andy Weir, author of The Martian, which I regard as a first rate work of "hard" sci fi and in a new genre. However, I have not read the book of PHM; so this is a review of the movie qua movie.  

Further note: There are some generic spoilers here; so I would recommend watching the movie naïve to what I (or anybody else) says about it - which is what I did.  

**

No mistake, Project Hail Mary is a successful movie, an impressive example of the craft.

Nonetheless I give it four, not five, stars; because it is too long, employs too much "Pork Pie peril", and ends... well, if not exactly badly, then it ends significantly sub-optimally given the implicit and unavoidable requirements of the story.  

Nonetheless; when a very expensive mainstream movie is strongly-hyped and accorded unanimous mainstream critical praise, we can be sure that this accolade is not because of the film's virtues, but because it is believed to progress the Establishment agenda in one or several ways. 

The main way this is accomplished is in PHM presenting a wholly artificial, un-natural, representational, computer-interfaced, "AI" virtual-reality Life - as not just adequate, but capable of being the basis for a Good Life. 

So, PHM "shows" the watcher the "sufficiency" of a materialistic non-spiritual life consisting of only things that we enjoy and give us pleasure - a life-experience tailored, indeed, to suit our individual preferences in a way that "real life" never is. 

Clearly, this is supportive of both the Great Reset/ Agenda 2030 globalist totalitarian plan...

Or not so much "plan" as "incentive for willing compliance"; because (of course!) the reality of "15 minute" "pod-person" permanent-lockdown cities is not honestly being offered. Even this miserable not-life confined-to-barracks is a lie; and something much worse is the covert intent. 

And the movie, overall, just assumes as a fact the vast functional benefits of the "AI"/ Robots that are (since late 2022) being tera-dollar subsidized and coercively-imposed; top-down and at mega- and micro-levels pervasively; in By Far the biggest and most expensive totalitarian project of all time. 

Part of this was the false picture of Big Science as meritocratic, functionally-directed, well-motivated, and highly competent; in its aims and actuality. 

Whereas the reality of Big "Science" (here-and-now and for several decades) is one of extreme dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence; driven by inverted-values.     

Secondly; PHM represents a Man without partner, family, or friends on earth; who yet finds a genuinely loving friendship with an alien being. 

Thereby offering this "possibility" (or, the "thought-form" of this possibility) as an optimistic yearning, a positive day-dream, to the alienated masses of (especially) Western Men... 

An optimistic day-dream for those many who regard themselves as lacking any satisfactory this-world loving-relationship with an earthly (or Heavenly) being - whether human, animal, plant, or whatever... 

(The direct relevance of this fantasy may become evident if/when a suitable alien contact or invasion is simulated by the globalist totalitarians - as has often been suggested may be Their genuine intent.) 

Such are some reflections on Project Hail Mary - not so much while I was immersed-in the world it created, but afterwards - looking back on it, and the ways it "made" me feel.

My attitude towards the better examples of mainstream popular art is not one of strict avoidance, because there may be much to enjoy and to learn; but to enjoy and learn with awareness of the fact (and I regard it as A Fact) that those who funded, produced and disseminated such Big Movies have absolutely-malign reasons for doing so. 

In conclusion; IMO there is a genuinely-sinister covert agenda here, at the level of assumptions, framing, and in the distortion involved in imposing the actual ending - i.e. replacing the ending that the deep nature of the story truly implied ought to be the ending. 

But - exactly because Project Hail Mary is an effective and pleasurable movie - there are (there must-be, else it world not "work") plenty else going-on that is positive and wholesome, and fun; which I why I recommend it for "people who like this sort of thing".    

Explaining precognitive and synchronistic experiences

The doyen of precognition, fictional and IRL, is perhaps Philip K Dick: so much so that psychologist Anthony Peake wrote an entire book about this aspect. I didn't particularly like or agree-with much of the theorizing; but the subject matter certainly seems valid. 

As has happened before several times, a question or query from William James Tychonievich has extracted an answer; the production of which made me think a bit harder and more specifically than I wanted. 

The context was a discussion at his main blog, concerning the nature of Time; and the class of experiences that get termed "precognitions" - but also (relatedly, as it seems to me) synchronicities. 

I first put forward the basis of my explanations: 

In a nutshell; I think that most experiences that contradict modern concepts of clock time, are explicable on the basis that all Beings are eternal. We (and they - all other Beings - including God the Creator) were always around, and always will be around - and Beings have potential for direct inter-Being knowing, and communications. This (I think true) assumption has vast potential implications - and may serve as the basis for alternative (but mostly unconsidered) explanations for many paranormal and supernatural experiences to do with time, precognition, reincarnation, destiny etc.

To which William responded:

"Bruce, I'm not sure how that would explain most instances of apparent precognition." 

To which I produced the following reply:  

The difficulty with precognition is that most definitions of the things are (from my POV) metaphysically impossible - so that what is being explained is the experience, and the experience is (more like) that, sometimes, something, with some very specific similarities, is fore-seen by somebody. 

IMO The precog experience relates to a tiny and discrete slice cut from the continuum of a reality whose only Real division is between Beings - all the other divisions being hypothetical "models" designed to "save the appearances". 

A precog experience might be caused by one Being (as it were) announcing to another that he knows about something specific that will be encountered, or that he will be creating/ making some specific change - at some point in the future. And then the Being doing something like engineering the specific encounter (as best he may, typically incompletely, by influencing "behaviour") or making that thing happen (as best he may, usually approximately, by similar means). 

This raises the question of "why?". There might be an intent to harm, or to provide some worldly benefit - but I tend to think that most of these attributions are secondary and after the fact, and to the extent that they are true they are at least somewhat manipulative. 

The primary Good impulse behind two Beings interacting is more like the desire/ need for relationship. 

In other words Love is the impulse - when "Love" is seen as dynamic, purposive, and having "creating" as intrinsic to it. 

This is a gross overgeneralization of what may be a multitude to relationships between many specific Beings - but precogs and synchronicities could be understood as rather crude and ineffectual forms of attempted relationship between other Beings, and oneself... Perhaps a way of getting attention, an intended start-point to something more. 

I am pretty sure, however they are explained, that synchronicties and precog experiences are meant to be (as they were for me) a means to an end, not an end in themselves; the Start of a process of re-orientation, of challenging false and harmful metaphysical assumptions. 

In other words - "the medium is the message": it is the form rather than the content of precog/ synch experiences that matters. 

(Which also fits with the fact that the experiences are nearly always "useless" - in this-worldly pragmatic terms. People who get them a lot don't usually thrive in a this-worldly and social sense - indeed, often the opposite. The intended benefit of a typical specific experience of precog - if any benefit is intended - is directed at the experiencing person and his spiritual development, assumptions, motivations etc.)

Jerome K Jerome's second-best book

Many people know of Jerome K Jerome's timelessly funny and period-charming account of a trip on the River Thames - Three Men in a Boat. 

And, those who seek more of the same are usually disappointed by its official "sequel" Three Men on the Bummel. 

But there is another book by Jerome that - while somewhat narrower in appeal, and different in tone, comes near to matching the comic excellence of Three Men in a Boat; and that is the (rather unappealingly-titled) Diary of a Pilgrimage.  

DoaP is the story of Jerome's visit with a friend, to watch the (once a decade) Passion Play at Oberammergau in the Bavarian Alps of Germany. 

The comic writing of DoaP has a quite different quality to that in Three Men. AT times, it is as if we are getting the subjective stream of conscious, and the humour comes from this being stated as "fact". 

A point-of-view on events asif from inside Jerome's frequent travel-induced perplexity, seasickness, half-asleep drowsiness, struggles with foreign languages etc.

Once the reader has tuned-into this; Diary of a Pilgrimage is very funny, and exudes an improvisational freshness. 

And the satire and a bizarreness is pleasingly underpinned with Jerome's special personal character: his likeability, human fallibility, and ultimate decency. 

   

Bruce Charlton On Music - a new archival blog

I have begun to compile a blog of my postings on music over the past sixteen years, selected from pieces published here; called Bruce Charlton on Music. 

So far, I have included some early stuff, from up-to about 2012. 

The Time Trap

It is dismaying to observe how many Christians, and other religious and spiritual people, get drawn-into saying (and trying to believe) stuff like:

All Time is Now - Time is unreal -- Past, Present, and Future are simultaneous - Everything is always happening...

The intent behind this kind of Time stuff is various. Usually to seek significance, to assert that "everything matters", to explain why all is linked. 

Often to "affirm" that all is One.  

For whatever reason; the people who have "discovered" that all Time is One always seem to announce it as if this is wonder-full, life-enhancing, hope-full, joyous!

Having demolished the straw-man that is mainstream, materialist clock-time; they present their insight of the TT as a liberation. 

Yet, I believe it is a Trap.    

Time is not real, Time does not exist...

This is what I mean by the Time Trap; and it is a trap because it is half-baked: a pseudo-explanation. 

"Pseudo" because it is put forth to explain experiences and phenomena; but the "explanation" is so incoherent and abstract, that the explanation itself requires further explanations...

Explanations of explanations... And all the time we are getting further and further away from that which needs to be explained...

Mystical Time-talk is also "pseudo" because these Time assumptions have consequences that are not considered. 

The implication is that nothing matters. 

Nothing makes a difference - because nothing can make a difference. 

There is no possible freedom, no possibility of learning; no possibility of betterment of any kind. 

Indeed there is no-thing At All - except what is, was, always, and evermore... An unchanging situation, that might equally well be nothing as anything. 

What appals me about the Time Trap assertions are that the statements of no-Time are put forward as if they were a wonderful insight, an enhancement of life, a hope-full way of apprehending reality. 

This can only happen because the logic has not been followed-through, because the implications are ignored or have not been grasped - or are incoherently being denied. 

The Trouble Is... 

My understanding of how things work-out spiritually, is that people (broadly speaking) get what they ask for - or, at least: 

What people want, is what they experience - in the end, ultimately. 

So the misguided souls who have thunk themselves into the Time Trap, and who have not bothered to trace-out or have denied the implications; may find that (later or sooner) they come to experience that which they have advocated: 

They will then (more or less) experience living without Time, without change, without hope...

In other words, living with just the barest minimum of here-and-now awareness, and zero memory, and no imagination. 

Well, it takes many types to make a world - and a Time Trap is really what somebody wants for himself... Fine. 

But is this really what people want for themselves? 

Is that the best that can be envisaged? To exchange this mortal life for... Nothing? 

Communications and relationships versus "touching minds" - more autobiography

At the end of my teens, in the late summer and autumn (after my family moved from Somerset to Scotland), I seemed to go through a stage of development towards becoming more self-aware. 

This manifested in many ways, including a greater interest in philosophy of an existential flavour, and in books that explored similar territory. But in terms of personal relationships, I became aware that there was a qualitative difference between the level of everyday interactions on the one hand, and what I then termed as "touching minds" - which phrase is pretty self explanatory. 

I would nowadays probably equate touching minds with "direct knowing" - an un-mediated relationship between persons or other Beings, without the interposition of senses and communications - something akin to a simultaneous (albeit momentary) sharing of thoughts. 

Anyway; I had the idea that touching minds was what it was all about; and would often brood on the rarer occasions in which this had happened, and what these might mean - and, reciprocally, I also became much more conscious of the lower, and unsatisfying, level of most of life. 

In sum; I became aware of the problem of "alienation" and that it was my usual state - and apparently that of nearly everybody around me; the difference being that (unlike most people around me) I was aware of and interested by the situation, and wanted to escape from it, as much as possible - whereas "they" were neither aware nor interested.

This self-recognition coincided-with, followed, and was amplified-by; reading Colin Wilson's The Outsider, and parts of William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness (especially Wilson's introduction to this). I was ready and primed for this reading; and/but the reading also interacted with my dawning self-awareness to accelerate it.  

Ever since that time, some half a century ago, I have believed that such moments as "touching minds" are among the most significant in life - and this significance somehow transcends the moment, and has almost nothing to do with what happens afterwards; and also that the great bulk of our life (including most of our relationships with other people) are, by comparison, trivial.

At first, I imagined that this new knowledge would enable me to transform my own life positively - for example by having more of these enriching mind-touching experiences, more often and with more people. 

At first I supposed that this lack of mind-touching was due to the undoubted presence of those defensive shells or manipulative pretences with which most people chose to surround themselves. Maybe if these shells could perhaps be dissolved mutually, or the self-image unilaterally cracked... Maybe we could live in realities rather than images? 

But I soon discovered that - once the mind's capacity for self-delusion had washed-out (and the touching of minds had become distinguished from sexual attraction!) - this was, beyond a rather limited point, not something to be got by wanting, nor even by striving.      

This early conclusion was, I now think, a correct generalization about life; and one that tends to lead to the condition of "romantic despair" so commonly found among the most reflective and responsive people. 

I mean the conclusion that the primary and most-valued of our experiences are relatively infrequent and temporary - and the bulk baseline of mundane living is second-level, and a majority of human relationships (even some that have frequent interactions, and are relatively long-term and intense), are apparently stuck at a level of indirect, distanced, symbolic "communication" - with a complete (or nearly complete) absence of mind-touching.  

The idea that the higher we have risen, the further we shall be compelled to fall - so that one who successfully sometimes "escapes" into a more intense, better, more creative and participatory - more real world; is "doomed" to a sharply-divided, and thereby tragic life...

In that the mundane and false troughs will always be our baseline; but can never be merged with the best of which Men are capable. 

This would be, and was, where matters rested - until after I began to understand more about the possibility (and choice) of Resurrection and Heaven; and how these post-mortal states are rooted in our mortal experiences and character.

Without that which Jesus did for us - life is a Tragedy, albeit it rises to the level of a comic-tragedy: fun and joys en route to a bad finale, the stage strewn with corpses: an unhappy ending. 

Whereas with Jesus; life is a Comedy, symbolized in Shakespeare by the open-ended possibilities of loving "marriage"...

Albeit that life is more like a tragi-comedy than a pure comedy - life usually being strewn with serious travails (including deaths) en route to that happiest of possible endings...

Which will include "touching minds" featuring as the normal, maybe universal, form of relationship; instead of being a rare and fleeting experience.  

**

Note: The above derived from reflections provoked by yet-another engagement with JRR Tolkien's great essay On Fairy Stories.  

Jesus is the divine creator of Heaven; but Not the same creator as his Father - and this is what makes Christianity "optional"

For Christians, Jesus is divine, and a creator: he created Heaven, and made it possible for us to resurrect to eternal life. 

But Jesus is not the same creator as created the reality that existed before Jesus.

The God-before-Jesus on the one hand, and Jesus himself on the other hand, are different individuals: different Beings. 

To claim that Jesus is the same divinity as that who created before Jesus, is to negate the significance and essential quality of Jesus. 

Christianity entails (surely) that Jesus changed the fundamental structure of reality, and that this change happened as a consequence of Jesus, therefore after a particular time. 

Christianity entails a before, and an after. 

For Christianity to be both true and distinctive; something about the birth/ life/ death/ resurrection/ ascension of Jesus must make a difference!

Because reality was already-created before the advent of Jesus - and (for example) many generations of humans had existed before Jesus, and many generations of not-Christians have existed since Jesus; this implies that the Second Creation of Jesus is "optional". 

Resurrection is a possibility, a choice - and not to choose is also possible - as happened while Jesus was alive, even among the disciples.  

And that choice is made in the context of, against the backdrop of, already-existing and continuing reality. 

Jesus came into already-creation; and offered new possibilities for those who desired to follow him - but the option remained open for people who did Not desire to follow Jesus, to continue to dwell in the already-existent First Creation. 

Christianity was and is opt-in. For this to be the case - it must be (and is) a viable option to decline the offer.  

Jesus's claim is that it is better to follow him, better for those who want what he offers - but Jesus does not claim that a failure to follow him would result in the end of reality, the end of all existence.

A real and created "reality" preceded Jesus, and has not stopped - and the majority who are ignorant-of, ignore, or reject Jesus - continue to inhabit that reality. 

I mean that these not-Christians orientate their lives to the First Creation; and choose Not to live in accordance with the expectation of eternal resurrected life in Heaven. 

All this is possible exactly because Jesus is not the same entity as the creator God whom Jesus is recorded as addressing as his Father. 

Heaven structures mortal life, somewhat like graduation structures medical school

When I argue that the essence of Christianity is Jesus's gift of post-mortal resurrected eternal life in Heaven; come people have said that this devalues, renders pointless, and stops us from working hard at, this earthly mortal life.

Insofar as there is an ethic from mainstream secular-materialism; it is that we modern people are better, more moral, than those in the past because instead of daydreaming about an imaginary Heaven, we instead focus on real and present issues such as our personal happiness and development; helping other people; and making this world a better place.  

But I believe the opposite is the case; and I will illustrate this with an analogy of the possibilities of the relationship between medical school, and medical practice as a qualified doctor (also discussed here). 

Analogy

This mortal life on earth = being a student at medical school

Resurrected eternal life in heaven = working as a doctor

If we take the secular materialist view that there is only this mortal life; then this is analogous to being a medical student but never qualifying, never practicing as a doctor - indeed a closer analogy is that there are only medical schools, only student, only the processes of training - but there is no such thing as working as a doctor. 

Once the novelty of medical school had worn off, the endless drudge of attending lectures, learning material, studying for and doing examinations - analogous to the business of doing chores, and maintaining ourselves alive as mortals - would soon being to seem a futile treadmill if the process was not going anywhere! 

Yet this is how mainstream modernity depicts mortal life on earth; when it assumes that death is annihilation. Mortal life is then a difficult and tiring process, leading - nowhere.  

When medical school is structured by the aim of qualifying and working as a doctor; this does not devalue medical school, but instead the intent of qualification is exactly what gives the process purpose and meaning. 

The prospect of eternal life in Heaven serves to structure this mortal life analogously to the way that qualification as a doctor structures the student training at medical school.  

Properly considered; Heaven does not devalue mortal life; but is exactly what gives mortal life purpose and meaning. 

Further: If you found yourself in medical school but had no knowledge of (indeed denied the reality of) being-a-doctor; then your life as a medical student would be meaningless - it just wouldn't make sense. 

When the structure of medical school is designed to make students into doctors, and that is why students are required to do unpleasant things like dissect corpses, learn biochemistry, practice interviewing patients, and get interrogated by senior medics etc. 

If it wasn't for the intent of preparing the student for working as a doctor - such activities would be experienced as gratuitous intrusions into the necessities of daily living, and lifestyle choices of undergraduate pastimes - rambling conversations, sports, college societies, personal relationships etc.  

But when the reality of "doctors" is lost or rejected as a possibility - then medical school just becomes a sequence of arbitrary and pointless experiences and activities (some pleasant, others very nasty). 

And this is analogous to the mainstream modern person's experience of mortal life: life just seems like a meaningless sequence of happenings and duties - aiming nowhere, going into nothingness. 

When there is no aim or purpose, then the events of life can have no meaning. Personal experiences that might be understood in terms of opportunities for learning, or preparation for the life to come; are instead reduced to a sequence of random occurrences - whether nice or nasty.  

With nothing but annihilation at death to look forward to; the only reasonable attitude to life seems to be short-termist and focused on increasing pleasure and reducing suffering in the here-and-now. 

Biographical retrospective: Early adulthood and the search for purpose/meaning in life

Looking back to my early adulthood; it is evident that I was assailed by a sense of meaninglessness. 

This, in retrospect, was ultimately inevitable, given that I had since childhood decided to share our mainstream civilizational assumption that there was neither meaning nor purpose to ultimate reality - that it all "just happened" as a combination of accidents and necessity.

But there was also a more pressing problem for me personally; in that, after graduating from medical school, I could barely tolerate the work and conditions of being a doctor. In particular, the long hours including being on-call (and mostly working) through whole days and the nights between, was something that rapidly wore me down, hardened my personality, and amplified my selfish and hedonistic traits. 

I also found my work meaningless, in the sense that - even ideally - I had the continual sense that I was trying to keep things going for people - in a situation where things were not going anywhere in particular, nor for any particular reason. 

It all seemed very negative - what I would nowadays characterize as "double negative"; in other words, trying (albeit usually failing) to deal with problems; but without any positive notion of what was supposed to happen after the problems were dealt with. 

OK; as a doctor I might be part of a system that (sometimes) kept people alive, functioning, pain free... but without some sense of what the life of a functioning, pain free individual was for.  

I had supposed, as most people do (vaguely) suppose, that "doing good" was its own reward - but for me it just was not; or only feebly so. I usually felt "we" were not doing good in addressing misery and threat of death, fairly often suspected "we" made things worse, especially in the longer term - but even when we did "help people" I could not shake the question of what we were helping; helping to do what? 

For many reasons, I therefore needed to and ought to get out of clinical medicine; and into something else. At first this was into science; and I began a doctorate involving laboratory research into clinical problems - analysing blood samples (which, as part of a team, I organized and gathered) and post-mortem brain samples (from an already existing brain bank). 

But while this empirical science went very well in terms of discovering things and publishing papers etc; I was still plagued by a sense of meaninglessness in it - especially after it became evident how much of science was subjective judgment and standard group assumptions and practices. 

I had supposed that science was a special method of discovering real and objective reality - but it turned out that this was a text-book illusion (or delusion) - science seemed more like a set of of fundamental shared conventions, only within which was there research and discovery.

Once I had learned the relevant conventions and techniques, it was pretty much a routine: cranking a handle - at any rate there was little depth of satisfaction, and it did not answer to this nagging need for meaning. 

I had an idea that I might find what I wanted in the arts and humanities, instead of the sciences; or, at least, that they might be a suitable "backdrop" for my own investigations. Implicitly, I assumed that the answer to what I sought lay in that direction - if not on the official curriculum, then nearby or by extension of it. 

My first step was to read philosophy with more seriousness and intent than I had been doing up to that point. I attended a couple of evening classes about Wittgenstein, was drawn-in; and then applied and was accepted to study a philosophy degree at Trinity College, Cambridge (presumably, because that was where W. had been a Fellow). 

I then had second thoughts about whether this two-year (accelerated) degree was the right thing, and how much it would cost; and instead arranged to go to Durham for a one year Masters by research, in English Literature. During that year; I read a good deal in both English and Philosophy, attended seminars in both subjects, and read papers to their journal clubs. 

But by the end of the year; I realized that I did not want to take these subjects further in a professional sense; but instead embarked on the plan of making a living from teaching and researching science; while continuing to do "academic" work in the arts and humanities in my own time. 

This continued for several years; but instead of finding what I had originally sought, I was instead drifting further away from it. 

Eventually... I recognized that what I was looking for was not to be found in any academic discourse, nor any combination of such discourses - including not in any recognized philosophy. 

And that was when I began to shift my primary focus to theology, to God, to Jesus Christ - and all that followed.   

Lessons? It now seems obvious that I did not find any meaning or purpose to my life or the world for the simple reasons that I had already (at the very beginning) made the fundamental assumption that reality was accidental and/or entailed - so there could not be any purpose or meaning for relevance to myself.  

Or, more exactly; any meaning or purpose I located was wholly subjective; put-there by me, or copied by me; and that this had no higher status or validity than the self-pleasing delusions of a madman or drug-addict. 

It was not until I realized that I had made this assumption; that I could challenge, and unmake, the assumption - when I found I implicitly believed in just what I denied: that there was a creator, that it was a personal deity, and that this God loved me. 

Finally (and by then I was about forty-nine years old!) I got onto the right track!

**

NOTE: Some of the same ground as the above, and other stuff, is covered in my (so far 12K words) autobiographical notes: Lucky Philosopher.