What to do about "the re-entry problem" in relation to Christianity

Names and describes the re-entry problem - but doesn't suggest a valid Christian solution

Back at the beginnings of this blog I wrote a rather heart-felt post derived from what author Walker Percy termed "the re-entry problem":

What is not generally recognized is that the successful launch of self into the orbit of transcendence is necessarily attended by the problems of reentry. What goes up must come down. The best film of the year ends at nine o’clock. What do you do at ten? What did Faulkner do after writing the last sentence of Light in August? Get drunk for a week. What did Dostoevsky do after finishing The Idiot? Spend three days and nights at the roulette table.

A brief escape, to rise above our normal level - but then comes re-entry...

This re-entry problem applies to Christianity. 

For instance, a new convert will typically experience a great sense of exaltation and possibility on considering the profundities of his new faith. 

But what then? A crash-down into the mundane realities of joining and attending a church, and being expected to conform to a lifestyle so very dull and niggling - when compared with the great cosmic ultimates by which the Christian may have come to faith. 

This is not just emotionally disappointing, but the everyday experiences of (what he is told) means "being a Christian" is typically experientially utterly un-related to the original conversion. 

This problem is not unique to conversion, of course; we get a deflationary come-down after any exceptionally positive experience. 

But it hits hardest in relation to religion - because of our expectation of a qualitatively "more spiritual" life post-conversion. 

Most churches will argue that this expectation is false, and that real-life is what it is, and our job as Christians is to understand and value it accordingly...

But I do not fully agree; because I think this is usually just an excuse for the fact that church religion is almost-wholly assimilated to the mundane world, its values and priorities - and indeed even explicitly aspires to this "relevance".

The worldly aspects of church are propagandized and strongly insisted upon; while in contrast the spiritual aspects are vague aspirations, "just words" - and there is no pressure or encouragement towards pursuing them, nor do they affect church conduct - especially not if spiritual considerations interfere in any significant way with everyday church functioning. 

Well... it's facile to be critical about this world, and the many ways it falls short of our aspirations - and as of 2025 it is misguided to look for higher spirituality from any social institution (except in its unofficial and minor counter-currents to the Zeitgeist). 

Furthermore; it has proved impossible for most people, most of the time, to become spiritually better overall - which was probably why Jesus in the IV Gospel emphasized aspirations and repentance - rather than reform of behaviour - as necessary and sufficient for salvation. 

Yet the re-entry problem will not go away, and is a major difficulty for many people - such that recommending negative stoicism is probably counter-productive: the fact is we must each be motivated in Life, and that means the pursuit of some positive enhancement in our everyday spiritual aspirations and sense of spiritual achievement. 

Instead of giving-up on a spiritual life (and assimilating to the mundane), or aiming for the spiritually impossible (and despairing at the lack of progress); I think we should address the re-entry re-examining what the spiritual quest ought to be in accordance with our Christian goals. 

This may lead to re-framing our personal spiritual quest into something where genuinely valuable progress is realistically attainable, on a frequent, everyday basis. 

For me this implies that, because spiritual progress is not evident in this world; spiritual progress therefore instead "must be" logged and accumulated with reference to our future resurrected eternal life in Heaven.  

So that - whatever brief specific things we achieve in the here and now - in terms of love, understanding reality including evil, thinking from our real selves, participation in divine creation, repentance, aspirations and commitments, good-motivated actions, the attainment of an eternal and "cosmic" perspective to frame this mortal life etc... 

I strive to recognize that every and all such brief, partial and specific spiritual attainments shall be retained and stored; and will be added to the resources of our post-mortal resurrected selves. 

The conclusion: There are always such things we might be doing at any time or place; and they are always worth doing. 

Rather than such palliatives as getting drunk (Faulkner) or immersing ourselves in trivia (Dostoevsky); that is how we might positively respond to the re-entry problem - whenever it rears its ugly head. 

Taize "worship" - the dark side of Liberal Christianity

Artist's impression of a Liberal Christian priest about to perform the "Taizing" ritual

Various "Liberal Christian" churches around here are openly advertising so-called Taize services*.

I have become convinced that Taize is a crudely-obscurationist French translation of Tazer; and that this apparently innocuous form of "worship" must involve ritualistic electrocution.

Covert surveillance is required, but success in this aim has not yet been achieved.

Not many things illustrate the degree of demonic influence on present-day churches more vividly than that such (presumably?) sado-masochistic practices should so blatantly be performed in consecrated ground, under cover of quasi-liturgy.  

*Why openly advertised? This will surely be an example of the Law by which demons must operate by consent and be invited-into the soul - To be spiritually-effective; sin must announce its intention. 

"The problem of evil" just won't go away for Christians

It's remarkable that mainstream orthodox traditional Christian theology has been wrestling with the "problem" of explaining evil for the entirety of its recorded history*. 

Officially the origin and presence of evil has long-since been explained, to the complete satisfaction of theologians; who cannot understand why people continue to harp-on about it. 

Yet - somehow - it just won't go away! 

It seems that everybody who accepts the definition of the Christian God as omnipotent and omniscient, and creator of everything from nothing - rapidly and unavoidably crashes-up against the problem of explaining how this-God is also supposed to be wholly Good and loving of each and every one of his children - all the time.  

Again and again, later if not sooner, people find that - in this collision of principles included in the definition of "Omnipotent plus Good" something has-to give-way. 

Again and again, people insist that to be "God" - God must be omnipotent and creator from nothing; and this primary and prior assumption inevitably makes people realize that therefore God cannot be "Good" in the same way that human beings understand Good...

For Omni-God to be Good either pushes us towards a redefinition of Good as it applies to God - so that our human evaluations become irrelevant, and we must just submit (preferably uncritically) to God's incomprehensible Goodness...

(Christianity tends towards Islam...) 

Or else we are pushed towards a version of Oneness spirituality in which everything that has ever happened or could happen is actually Good - if only we could understand it; and again our own personal evaluations are declared worthless.

(Christianity tends towards Hinduism/ Buddhism...)    

Again and again; thoughtful people are pushed away from Christianity, because they recognize that their own profoundest understanding of Good and evil is being declared irrelevant. 

Of course there is the alternative of challenging the definition of God as omnipotent - but that has been declared not-Christian by nearly all the major Christian churches. 

And since most people believe that Christianity is derived from (one or another) Church - and the individual person's understanding must be subordinated to (one or another) external authority; then redefinition of the nature of God is disallowed.

Something must give-way - and something does give-way - and what gives-way is (nearly always) the possible validity and human desirability of Christianity itself.   

   **

*It is not a problem to explain evil if one regards the Fourth Gospel (John) as the prime and unique overall-valid source of Jesus's life and teachings. Jesus's depicted relationship both with his Father and his disciples are personal and loving - human-like; but raised to an ideal and eternal degree. God is stated and assumed to be wholly Good; but in the IV Gospel's substance, there is nothing to insist upon God's omnipotence and omniscience. Consequently; Jesus and his followers do not seem troubled in the slightest about how to explain evil. The problem of evil apparently comes from post-Jesus theological and philosophical definitions of God, and is apparently related to the development of Christian churches - including the notion that to-be-a-Christian (to follow Jesus, to attain salvation) one must be a member of the true Church.

NOTE: Mormon theology does not posit the Omni-God, nor creation from nothing; and evil is easily explained by Mormonism's pluralist metaphysics. It should be noted, however, that the extremely radical and distinctive qualities of Mormon theology and metaphysics do not much impinge upon the CJCLDS - where the emphasis is very much on doctrines and practices.

Chaotic evil will win, sooner or later: The instability of Rule of Law in the ongoing Totalitarian backlash against Chaos

My understanding of the international scene (which is, in this respect, a macrocosm of what is happening in many individual people); is that most of the populous nations of the world aspire to totalitarianism; but the leadership class of some powerful countries (Western civilization especially) have gone "beyond" totalitarianism - to become dominated by an impulse towards spiteful destruction and the strategic generation of chaos. 

In a nutshell: Chaotic Evil is ascendant, but Lawful Evil is attempting to save the System. 

The System reached its apex in early 2020, with the international Birdemic lockdown - but has been on the defensive ever since. 

Much of this geopolitical backlash focuses upon "Law" - which term here includes all forms of international treaties, contracts, rules, regulations, formal agreements and the like. 

The (Western and "globalist") agents of chaos have abandoned Law and do: whatever they currently want. 

Opportunism, expediency and spiteful-intent are their principles; and the leadership class retrospectively manufacture excuses/ rationales by complexifying/ confusing/ / overwhelming/ boring people. 

Or more often simply ignoring previous agreements and commitments and "changing the subject". 

This is made possible and easy by a combination of the colossal propaganda resources of the Western mass media and social media (long since included in the totalitarian System); operating upon the willing-addiction of the Western populations to mass/ social media. 

Thus in the West; totalitarian structures and processes are used to generate chaos - and to export chaos to the rest of the world.   

  

Against this Chaotic ascendancy (with its inflexion point in summer of 2020) there has been a totalitarian backlash, among the nations and civilizations whose leadership class desire a stable System of population surveillance and control to pursue their various religious-ideological goals. 

These nations are trying to generate a new and international System of Law, plans, treaties, agreements, etc - and these recent Laws are intended to be long-term mutually beneficial (to their leadership classes). 

So - on the face of it, those in favour of Law are pushing-back against the agents of chaos. 

Yet, the gravitational pull is nonetheless towards chaos; because (among such diverse nations and civilizations) there is no coherent basis for these new international Laws except the long-term self interest of the current leadership class, as a whole. 

This "enlightened self-interest" is always under pressure of subversion by internal rivalries within the leadership classes of the nations (encouraged by the external machinations of the agents of chaos and their mass media); and subverted by short-term and individual self-interest - corruption of leaders and factions by immediate temptations such as more-power, opportunities for theft, offers of bribes - and in response to a wide variety of negative threats such as extortion, blackmail, prison, torture, assassination etc.   

Furthermore, the situation of Laws being recent, and the continual revising and adding-to of these Laws - means that there is always the possibility (or likelihood) that todays Laws will sooner or later be superseded by tomorrow's Laws...

And tomorrow's Laws may be made by a different set of people, with different intentions...

We can see this happening already - what what yesterday seemed like solid treaties, agreements, rules; don't actually get implemented today - after circumstances have changed, and obedience has become inconvenient or inexpedient for the currently more powerful side. 

Therefore; the totalitarian backlash attempt to re-impose a stable framework of "Law" seems doomed to fail under present conditions. 

And this failure would be predicted both for international relationships between nations, and also within nations where the interests of bureaucrats and managers come up against the spiteful destructiveness of Chaotic Evil.  

The underlying fact is that Chaotic evil is much easier than Lawful Evil - because destruction is easier than creating. 

And because evil is unstable, and feeds-upon itself...

In a world where the leadership classes and most of the masses have taken the side against God and divine creation; there is consequently an innate tendency towards Chaos - that cannot long be resisted by even the most sincere totalitarian bureaucrats.

The corrupting effect of worldly engagement

It is one of the more obvious lessons of life experience that prolonged engagement with some kind of evil environment almost-always has a corrupting effect on people - and consequently on groups including nations. 

While theoretically avoidable, in practice is seems almost inevitable that dealing with evil and with those who are themselves deeply involved; responding to evil aggressions and temptations, trying to defend against them...

The process of repeatedly trying to seek and pursue the lesser of evils...

Over time, this wears down people and institutions, and they conform to the level of those they engage with - even when they start-out as on-the-side-of Good. 

This wearing-down certainly happened to me whenever (as was common enough) I was often engaged with the activities of those whose motivations I initially tried not to share. 

My principles would become compromised by compromise, my perspective would shift' and the attempt to resist some particular evil, would result in playing people at their own game. 

This can be seen in history; when nations at war progressively become more like those they war with. If World War II began as UK resistance to totalitarian tyranny and population manipulation; the UK very soon began to mirror exactly that which it purported to oppose - especially deliberate mass indiscriminate slaughter of innocents (innocents swiftly being redefined as complicit- and quasi-combatants). 

Total war meant totalitarian - which is intrinsically evil. 

(Although the totality was not uniform - e.g. there remained reciprocity of decent treatment of prisoners of war between the UK and Germany; at the same time as prisoners were slaughtered, starved, enslaved, and worked to death by both sides on the Eastern front.) 

We can see the same in everyday life, when someone somewhat decent takes a managerial job or gets involved in bureaucracy - we can observe the (usually rapid, mostly unconscious) assimilation to totalitarian standards and values. We can observe the assimilation, and this may be extreme.   

I experienced exactly this myself, while working (a couple of days a week, for a couple of years) for the NHS bureaucracy. 

Simply in order to be reasonable friendly - to make the most of a bad situation, and to do my bit effectively - I was quickly drawn into the characteristic habitual thinking of those who participate in the systemic evil of our society.

The has always been some element of this, due to the nature of "human condition". 

But in the past, groups and institutions were sometimes overall-good in terms of their aims and affiliations, and their discourse. And Men we unable to detach from their group-mind - it was simply how human consciousness was. 

And so people got the idea that the fundamental and primary issues of human values were located at the level of groups: that is, our convictions and principles ought to relates to tribes, institutions, religions, nations, ideologies... whatever.  

Whereas nowadays we inhabit a world where all institutions are Systemic; necessarily assimilated to a global ideology that is nameless (because universal), pursues inverted values, and serves a demonic agenda.

So that it is nigh impossible for those who must earn a living and engage with "the world" to avoid the pervasive converging influences that will almost certainly corrupt them - even if they begin by recognizing System-evil and wanting to avoid convergence, and instead adhere to transcendental values of Truth, Beauty and Virtue (which not many do). 

 

The "material" situation for many (most) people is one of being besieged by the world! And this is a war that cannot be won - but shall certainly be lost by trying to win it!

But, God would not place us in a situation where we could not personally achieve spiritual victory; by choosing salvation and learning eternal life lessons. 

Given the fact of global evil and the divine certainty that you and I or anyone can win the spiritual war; The Big Question for each and all is: how?

(i.e. There is, for every person, an effective and attainable answer to our predicament - our job is "merely" to find it! But, while seeking; we should be confident that it is there to be found...) 

What's the use of Jesus here-and-now? Theories about the effect of Jesus on mortal life

What's the use of Jesus in my actual, daily life, here-and-now? 

This question needs an answer that is simple and clear enough to be comprehended and grasped whole - or else it will be ineffectual. 

But also, of course, the answer must be true - not some kind of incoherent answer; nor one that will soon be contradicted by experience because of its implications. 

Furthermore, the answer needs to be one that may - in principle - be endorsed by intuition. It should Not be an answer that depends on "evidence" relating to the validity and interpretation of external authority. 

(...Or else we will enter an "infinite regress" - and one that does not begin with Jesus, but has Jesus at its far, inaccessible, end - where he will never be reached.) 

In other words; we need to know that the answer is true; and we need to know its truth for-ourselves, and from our-selves  so that we personally can take the fullest responsibility for choosing and living-by the answer. 

If it is agreed that Jesus's work was to offer Men the chance of resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then some modern people will regard this as irrelevant to this mortal life...

Either because this finite and temporary mortal life doesn't matter by comparison with eternity...

Or else (more likely) that our post-mortal state and destination, has nothing to do with the practical needs and minutiae of everyday life. 

(i.e. The idea that everlasting life in Heaven would be very nice and all that; but is just pie-in-the-sky - maybe, sometime in the future - when what is needed/wanted is pie on the table, now and for-sure.)

In the past, in the era of church-led Christianity; the everyday implications were set-out in detailed commandments, rules, practices, and (especially) prohibitions - that dictated our lives in all important - and indeed apparently trivial - instances.

The Christian life was a complex and comprehensive instructional blueprint, and Christian living was obedience to its dictates.

I believe that this needs to be replaced - because it manifestly doesn't work, and never really was what Jesus said and did - and people instead require a personal and internally-endorsed understanding of what it means to "follow Jesus". 

That is the nature of the task. When one becomes a Christian - in theory; then instead of looking to one church or another for instructions concerning "what to do next" - this is a personal quest. 

And I feel sure that the quest is not going to be satisfied by any answer that we feel to be drab, materialist, mundane, utilitarian, monochrome, military rations... 

We absolutely require an answer that is as broad and deep as our fullest and most-valued experience of this mortal life, and our most heart-felt aspirations for what we most desire life might ideally become.

And that answer must be the basis for a powerful and robust, inner-generated, personal motivation. 

(Or else, if insufficiently motivated; we will surely succumb to the endemic evil of this world.) 

So that if, like me, you value (insist-upon) that sense of life as being lived at a higher level - a state of awareness of the enchantment of living - then we need to know how the future, post-mortal promises of Jesus shall eventuate in the potential for here-and-now joy, meaning, purpose, and loving-creation. 

 

Bonald's explanation for AI-dolatry

The archetypal modern senior manager: heroic, far-sighted, at the cutting edge... 

A corrupt, mediocre, spiteful, psychopath

Bonald has come up with a convincing proximate explanation for the current AI-dolaltry; that seems to fit with the short/ medium term self-interest of the senior managerial class.  

My paraphrase of his argument is that the managerial class are strategically (and with calculated dishonesty) hyping AI by pretending that it can efficiently replace humans without significant loss of quality. 

This hype provides senior managers a pseudo-justification for making massive short-term savings on salaries by sacking a large percentage of the workforce; under cover of the lying notion that they are enhancing productivity by taking early advantage of a major technological breakthrough. 

What will actually happen is that the senior managers will save a lot of money for their corporations in the short term, will get performance related salary enhancements; and will surf out of the corporations on a wave of prestige, at a job well done - to get a better paid job elsewhere. 

When the company collapses due to the inevitable catastrophic failure of AI, this will no longer be a problem for the senior managers who implemented it - who by that point will long-since have departed to graze on pastures new; there to reap the rewards of their executive genius. 

I'm currently delisted by Google...

I have long been fascinated by the machinations of the Google search engine - who also own the platform on which this blog is published. 

At present, I mean a few minutes ago; this blog seems to be delisted by Google - so that searching my name in quotes for the past week gives no return - zilch. I don't exist.  

By contrast, Bing, DuckDuckGo and Yandex all have me top-ranked. 

Yet Google's own blog statistics award me 638,334 page views for the past week - absurdly high, I know; but these are Blogger's own data. 

I can't fathom what They are up to except that it is clearly purposive, not "random"; nor do I worry much about it or what (if anything) it presages. 

But it is microcosmic evidence of the kind of self-contradicting, and therefore self-destructive, phenomenon that is happening, increasingly - in the mainstream-dominant domain of public discourse. 

There is an epidemic of spinner-throwing into works, sand-putting into gears; all over the place and at all levels - and this is just a slice of my share of it!

NOTE: The reason I mention this; is that this sort of thing didn't happen on the internet 25 years ago, but now it happens All The Time. Back in the 90s and 2000s you could search the internet, day by day, year after year - and invariably re-find something you had found before - plus lots of new stuff. Searches would return thousands, or millions, of results. Now it is normal not to find something you could find yesterday, or earlier in the day. And you can never find much of anything. As WmJas pointed out even if you search something like "Jesus Christ" or "the Beatles", which has trillions of web sources, you'll only probably get a few hundred results. I used to be able to find web references to almost anybody - family, old friends; now most people's names yield no returns at all. The search engine strategy seems to be two-fold - to censor returns (or charge for what used to be cost-free) and severely to limit the volume of results - the first requiring the second of course, but the limitation in returns is far more extreme than censoring would require. 

Further note: Next day. 

I am no longer de-listed, but come up number one on the search - restricted for the past 7 days. 

From Zero to Hero!

Like I said - no point in wasting time overthinking these things. 

In passing, when readers reported I was Not delisted - I wonder whether they had restricted the search to the past week - as I had? Maybe they didn't notice that? Anyway, I've italicized the phrase now, for emphasis. But it's too late, anyway...

The choice is between virtuality and metaphysics

Because of the nature of human consciousness, we inhabit a world where perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc are irrelevant; because what counts as perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc is shaped by our assumptions and interpretations. 

So, most people most of the time (and, apparently, some people all of the time) inhabit the virtual-world - virtuality as contrasted with what used to be called reality. 

People nowadays inhabit virtuality - especially wrt Litmus Test issues: the themes that most obsess and motivate nice people and leaders, the great moral "issues" of our time: antiracism, inequality, climate, the birdemic, wars and disasters in remote places and among strangers... 

All share the characteristic that they are virtual concerns, rooted in inculcating theoretical frameworks that take-up any and all possible facts as confirming evidence for the theories.  

Consequently; old-style reality is (as of 2025) simply not an option, because not available to choose - because that is not how our minds work.

Our reality depends on our fundamental assumptions about reality - i.e. metaphysics; so the answer to controlled-virtuality does not lie in more or different facts; but in disengaging from the nigh-infinite deluge of facts; and instead re-examining ultimate assumptions directly.   

Most people inhabit this world via perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence etc; but are typically unaware that the meanings of their world comes wholly from their assumptions, preconceptions etc -- which they are fed by the mass/ social media, bureaucracy, officialdom, teaching etc.  

So - as is well known in theory, but seldom experientially - people inhabit a virtual world. 

A world where people are unconsciously and pervasively fed assumptions and theories, interpretations - which they are told are rooted-in-facts and objectively true. And from these assumptions and theories they infer the meaning of old and new facts, past and future experiences. 

Which circular process confirms the assumptions and theories they have been fed. 

...e.g. They are fed that science is objectively the only valid form of knowledge - and that this is factually proved; they then interpret the facts of the world on that basis; and these facts (which are the only facts they recognise as facts) tell them that science is indeed the only valid form of knowledge. 

At which point; those who control the feeding, can decide that science is... whatever they want it to be.

This is exactly where we are, almost completely; and have been for some decades, increasingly. 

A world where everything is based on "evidence"; but what counts as evidence, and what that evidence is allowed to mean - is wholly a product of whatever officially -true theories have been fed into the cycle from the beginning. 

The interlinked "system" of media propaganda, officialdom, education, research etc is all about the theories - all about the deep assumptions and derived interpretative schemes by-which facts are understood. 

Once in place, the theories determine the facts, and the facts sustain the theories. 

So long as we stay at this level, there is no way out from virtuality; all labelled "escape routes" lead back inside...

The conclusion ought to be that we need to make our fundamental assumptions about reality without regard to perceptions, facts, common sense, evidence. 

Indeed, we must rigorously eschew any external, material, sense-mediated influence on our fundamental beliefs concerning the nature of reality. 

This exclusion encompasses nearly-all of what is traditionally regarded as religion; because churches, traditions, scriptures, theologies - all of these are aspects of those externally-fed interpretative schemes by which virtuality exists. 

And this means that at some point, sooner or later - unless content to remain in the virtual world; each person needs to step-back and to stop taking notice of external inputs and inculcated theories...

 

Instead to consider directly - for himself and from himself - the nature of ultimate reality and the fundamental questions: answers to which determine... everything else.

This activity is called metaphysics. 

(If you don't understand - then just do it. Do it ASAP. Once you've done it, you will understand what metaphysics is, and how things work at that level.) 

As we now are; our actual and inhabited reality does not - it just doesn't! - depend on external inputs - perceptions, facts, common sense or any other such. 

It depends on our virtual-world metaphysics, which we have been fed under the disguise that it is objective fact. 

As of 2025; we should not seek reality from outside us - because only virtuality lies outside . 

We should, indeed, shun the external, and exclude the external from consideration; as a first and essential step. 

It's either metaphysics; or we shall continue to live inside virtual world - under control of its masters, and not even wanting to escape... Indeed, not even aware that there is anywhere else that we might escape to.     

We are born and live as young children with a coherent world view

It is strange to a modern mind, but makes obvious sense if this is the creation of a good and loving God; that our innate understanding of the world, which we spontaneously experience as young children, often (and ideally) seems to be more coherent than any of the others which come to replace it. 

In other words; a child's experience and explanation of reality makes sense and hangs-together better than mainstream modern materialism, and also better than the complex intellectual structures of religions. 

However, a vital element of this coherence is the mind of the child - the consciousness of a child (the way he apprehends, experiences, explains the world); which is different from the minds of those who come-up with alternative explanations. 

I have come to regard the young child's understanding as innate because God-given, part of divine creation - which is why it is true; so although different, other forms of understanding (e.g. among adults, and in various societies) ought to be compatible with those of the child. 

This innate understanding relates to the pre-Christian world, the not Christian world - or what I term Primary Creation: creation without Christ. 

A loving child in a loving family knows the goodness of God; and that this world is purposive and has meaning is implicit. 

Reality is personal - a matter of beings not things. And the world works in terms of the relationships between beings - in terms of desires, motives, etc. 

I don't think young children spontaneously think about "creation"; rather, they implicitly assume that the world is created by personal intentions - the world doesn't "just happen", is not random nor mechanical.  

But the child also has an implicit understanding of both entropy (change, death) and of evil that sometimes impinges upon goodness and happiness. He realizes there are threatening beings, that want to scare and harm him. 

The child also knows that he is involved in this, that bad things happen in part because of something in himself - e.g. it is because he thinks about them or dreams about them - that monsters and other threats are attracted, and may come. (It is because he got angry that his favourite toy was smashed.) Yet he cannot stop himself from thinking/ dreaming about monsters; cannot stop himself getting angry, spiteful...

This implies a knowledge of evil in himself. 

The child also realizes also that people and "things" change, and he does and may lose things and people from forgetting, breakages, destruction, theft, removal, death etc. 

And also that when these happen, or might happen; the child will also himself have something to do with it. 

Irresistible, irrevocable change is inside himself, as well as outside. 

The child's spontaneous "answer" to these problems would seem to be a wish for invulnerability for himself and those he loves; so that the bad things of the world do not affect him or his life.

A wish, too, to be free from those bad thoughts that attract trouble and misery.  

This relates to the fascination for heroes - whether divine, demi-god, angelic, or "superhero"... what lies behind this is the idea that we may personally be transformed - while remaining our-selves - such that the bad things of life do not affect us personally, or those we love. 

If this were to happen, then we could live in the world without fear of pain, harm or loss; and this I believe is a daydream hope of young children. 

So far this is negative; but a child aspires to the positive as well. 

Especially if we recognize that a child spontaneously knows that the material is always spiritual, and nothing is neutral - all has meaning and relates to purpose. For a child; everything is personal and relational, and everything has resonance and depth and is important - nothing is mundane or trivial. 

Children's play and talk is full of fantasies, of wishful thinking and make-believe. And these are important to the child. 

It is here we should be looking to find spontaneous creativity. 

One common fantasy aspiration of childhood (which can stand for many others) is to fly - fly without wings and by will-power (again the "superhero" idea, or in the past some kind of spiritual being, were-being, demi-god or the like). 

This is a way in which a young child is creative, or proto-creative: wanting to expand his experience, especially in ways that lead to a new quality of experience. 

Hoping to do something of his own that adds to the world (adds to creation).

This lies behind the wish-fulfilling fantasies of being a superhero or a princess; of being unique, special, famous. This isn't merely trivial hedonism or conceit; because to a child such a possibility is creative, important - enlarging and changing the world for the better.   

It seems to me that - in terms of a young child's world - the meaning of what Jesus Christ made possible lies in the relationship between his understanding of everyday reality; and the world of his wishful thinking and fantasies. 

The work of Jesus impinged upon the already existing world; to offer a new possible reality; and this unique historical event may be recapitulated in the development of a child. 

Anyone who was genuinely wholly satisfied with "Primary Creation" - with the world as-is - would not be interested or attracted by Jesus's possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

What such a person wants is to become something like an invulnerable superhero - a super-man (Ubermensch) who inhabits this world as it is, but is personally invulnerable to the entropy and evils that are intrinsic to Primary Creation. 

Resurrection and Heaven are, on the other hand, attractive to those whose child-like day-dreams are of a world - that is, a Second Creation - in which there is only love and no evil in ourselves and all other beings whom we love.

A world in which all change is good: the exciting possibility of growing-up. 

What Jesus offers is that instead of only living in this world but becoming invulnerable to its bad things; we can also inhabit a world where we have become all-good, there are only loving relationships, and happy day-dreams can become reality - with our help.  

That - in a young child's terms - is approximately what Heaven offers; above and beyond the wishes or hopes of pre-Christian and non-Christian understandings. 

Christians are badly mixed-up about Hope - with evil consequences

It seems to be a hallmark of the dangerous stupidity of most self-identified Christians that they translate the injunction to Hope - as one of the core virtues - into a kind of dumb optimism about the people and social institutions of 2025. 

They "hope" that if they continue to believe, support and obey their leaders, national government, church, science and medicine etc; then this kind of undiscerning process of taking the side of evil and obeying it, on the basis that it "might" (hopefully) actually be good is A Good Thing. 

Good and also necessary because a "Christian" thing. 

The reasoning is that if a good thing is not certainly utterly impossible, then Christians ought to believe it - or, at least, say they believe it. 

Such Christians seem to spend most of their energies and efforts in lending assistance to evil-affiliated people and institutions; on the grounds that "there is always Hope!" that these might already are secretly good, or good despite everything, or change their minds and become good...

Especially if we "give them the benefit of the doubt" - who knows? 

(It is easy to imagine what Jesus would have said if he had been told to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the activities of Temple money-changers, or the Pharisees?)

So people continue (actively as well as passively) to support Western nations and social institutions - including churches - that once may well have been overall-good; but now are quite openly and aggressively untruthful and pursue value inversion... 

And all on the basis of what they call Hope!

This is evil in at least two ways: Firstly because it supports the strategies of evil institutions in their work of corrupting the world. Secondly because it corrupts the individual who supports evil institutions. 

It's my impression that such is one of the most common methods by which individuals, including many individual Christians, get corrupted; and drift into changing sides in the spiritual war of this world.

Even worse, they change sides without realizing that they have done so, and therefore they have aligned with evil without repenting. 

[In this world of sin; to do evil, even to support evil, is itself not the most fundamental spiritual problem. Jesus came to save sinners, exactly because we cannot stop sinning. The really serious, indeed lethal, spiritual problem is to do evil without recognizing, acknowledging and repenting that evil.] 

Such Christians have set-aside the need to take personal responsibility for their discernments and judgments, and personally to make spiritual choices in this mortal life. 

Instead, what they actually do, is make more-expedient, more socially-acceptable, more personally-rewarding life choices on the excuse of Hope... 

Which as of 2025 means supporting organizations and groups that are overall explicitly evil in both their aims and methods. 

The problem with this "Hope" is therefore that it blocks thinking, discernment, judgment and personal responsibility - and dissolves the very purpose and meaning of life.

Not good.  

If not; then what?

Christian Hope is meant to be something very solid and sure; it is meant to be rooted our firm intention and belief in our own salvation. 

We ought not to be un-sure about this, because the matter is in our own hands. Jesus made it possible; after that, it is our choice. 

Vague wishful-thinking Hope has no place in this - we ought to be thinking of salvation in a realistic way: do we want it, will we commit to it? 

But what about other people? 

In the first place we have no business hoping for the salvation of people in the mass or in the abstract ("people" reported in history books, or the mass media); and our feelings are only genuinely Christian when they relate to actual human beings...

Indeed, to those whom we love to at least some degree. (Bearing in mind that love is inter-personal - between human and other beings.) 

We can and should and do Hope for the salvation of those we love: and this is very important. 

Loving is, indeed, the single most important thing that we can do for them. 

But this Hope is rooted in the fact that the game is not over until it is over. 

In particular, no matter how deeply enmeshed and engaged in evil; those who currently reject salvation are allowed to change their mind at the very last moment - and perhaps forever.

It can be seen that this Hope has nothing to do with the necessity for judgment and discernment in this our mortal lives. 

We can, should and must evaluate other people, organizations, nations; in terms of whether they are good-affiliated on the one hand - or else opposed to God and divine creation. 

We need to make and act upon such judgments. Obviously we do! As Jesus did. 

And this has absolutely nothing to do with any claim that our judgment is fallible... Of course our judgment is fallible, in this as in everything! If infallibility were required we could never do anything, and neither would we choose to do nothing. 

To demand infallibility before judgment is incoherent; hence (even for this reason alone) evil.  

Genuine, strong Christian Hope is in fact a product of faith in God: faith in a God who is our loving parents, and who is the creator. 

But that is not sufficient, because for Hope to be real and for us personally, we need furthermore faith in Jesus Christ who made our salvation - resurrected eternal life in Heaven - possible to those who follow him. 

All genuine Hope therefore springs from our personal confidence in our own salvation. 

So, in this sense, and contrary to mainstream Christian teaching; we ought not merely to "Hope" for our salvation, because it is guaranteed us - if we make the needful commitment to live wholly by love. 

We should therefore live in sureness of our salvation. 

And Hope? 

Well, Hope is for those we love; and Hope is an ultimate aspiration related to their final choice and destination.

Hope is not a guide to our behaviour in this mortal life.  

We harm people by treating metaphysical errors with psychological palliatives

There is a very common psychological scenario in which someone is (or feels himself to be) motivated by high goals, then he is given "well meaning" advice that addresses mundane concerns. And the consequence is that the high-aimer feels misunderstood and alienated.   

For instance, somebody wants to change jobs or get married; and such risky (and perhaps genuinely misguided) behaviour is met by "well-meaning" pragmatic advice pitched at the level of probabilistic human psychology.

Perhaps advice about being cautious, not burning bridges, maybe by describing the kind of adverse scenarios that could be expected to eventuate - and so forth. 

In this situation; one person is operating at a higher level of aspiration and motivation than the other; and the attempt to drag him down to mundane cautiousness and matters of practical expedience may (quite accurately) be experienced as a profound misunderstanding - and the process leaves the high-aiming one feeling isolated.

This is a serious error of discourse. 

Yet, I'm sure we have all done it - and more than once. 

Especially because in our society, the mundane is equated with the only-real - and high goals seems imaginary and delusional - which indeed they may be... 

But the point is that even "obviously" mistaken, imaginary and delusional high aspirations need to be addressed at the same level - or a higher level. 

We should learn not to try and drag-down high aspirations to expedient pragmatism - even when (perhaps especially when) the aspirations are wrong. 

This situation arises in individual persons and at a societal level. For example; it describes public discourse concerning 1960s counter-culture - as it affected many millions of adolescents and young adults. 

The counter-culture included a great deal of manipulation and wishful-delusion; and was based on wrong metaphysical assumptions and included many selfish and hedonic intentions - nonetheless it operated at a higher than mundane level: a level of "idealism". 

When flaky and naïve 60s ideals were met with pragmatic and mundane arguments concerning the Real World and economic necessity, status and security - this was (rightly) experienced as an attack on idealism, and a dragging-down of high aspirations to the futility of barnyard materialism.

In dealing with high but wrong aims; we ought to eschew the temptation of shooting at the easy mundane targets - and consequently reducing the discourse to a level of mere survival and selfishness. 

We ought to respect the aspiration for higher things - and sympathize with the instinct to reject mere expediency as the primary guide for life. 

We need to meet naïve idealism on its own level, or above. 

NOTE: This point was derived from re-reading and considering Chapter Four of William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness. 

What blogging should be about - and sometimes is

Last week the "secular right" blogger ZMan - who I had been reading regularly for several years - apparently died suddenly of natural causes; and I find that has saddened me more than might be expected.

The reason seems related to this strange and recent literary form of blogging, which I have been reading for more than twenty years, and myself doing regularly for fifteen.

In particular to the distinctive relationship that may develop (inwardly, perhaps wholly in imagination) between a blogger and his readers - and vice versa.   

To read and get-something-from a blog, it really needs to be a personal thing - either frequent, or else extensive. This is because there needs to be a persona behind the blog; we need to be aware of a person behind the opinions. 

(On the flip side; for a blogger to sustain his work sufficiently; he must himself be motivated by the process of blogging - and by its opportunity for presenting miscellaneous ideas freshly, and without being subject to overview.)

And - while there obviously must be a significant degree of common interest to keep reading a blog; there need not be any very complete "agreement". For instance, several of my long-term favourite bloggers long-term have been orthodox and traditional Roman Catholics - people such such as Bonald at the Orthosphere, who I've been reading for a couple of decades. 

Instead there has to be some kind of basic affinity with the blog persona - but especially with the person we infer behind that persona. I say infer, because we don't need to know much specifically about the blogger "in real life" - so long as what we do know is honest and unpretentious.

I personally find it very irritating/ intolerable when bloggers are trying to impress me, especially when they try to stimulate may admiration or envy!  - no matter what other valuable qualities they have. And there are many such bloggers, and unfortunately their need to brag seems to feed upon itself, and get worse.

In other words, we keep reading a blog attentively because (to use an English phrase) we have come to believe that the blogger is Basically A Good Bloke. That is far more important than a close fit of specific convictions or opinions.

But, as the pretentiousness/ bragging aspects makes clear - bloggers change; and someone we begin liking may evolve into somebody we find intolerable - and so we bale out from readership. 

Beyond that, because blogging needs to be relatively high volume, interest is maintained by insights - and a good blogger needs to generate plenty of these to sustain attention. 

Blogging is, I think, mainly a stimulus; rather than a medium for conclusive argument. So, a blogger like ZMan kept me reading partly because he had many insights that seemed personal rather than (as with mainstream journalism) merely parroted; and partly because I found what he wrote stimulating.

Even though I often disagreed with it both ultimately and superficially; and even though I think his blogging was constrained by the constraint of monetization and pseudonymity, which prevented it from achieving the highest levels of the form.

(I have come to believe that professional writers very seldom generate first rate work, although they may produce a large amount of second and third rank work - furthermore I think all the greatest writers did something else, worked some other "job", before they wrote their greatest work. Writers who have done nothing but write as adults; never, I think, attain the highest levels.) 

I think readers usually judge a blog by its best, rather than its average, level - just so long as the gaps between the good stuff is not too great. So long as we retain our basic liking for the blogger - we don't much mind the duds. 

And in fact we cannot have the peaks without the troughs, as we see from the history of even the greatest artists. Even so supreme and natural and artists as Mozart, for instance, continued to produce dud operas and concertos even during his greatest phases of achievement and right up to his death. 

To do our best, we must take risks; and when we take risks we shall sometimes (or often) fail. And we can learn much from acknowledging our failures - but first the failures have t happen.   

At any rate, blogging benefits from a careless attitude of freedo-, and the ability to shrug-off those times when posts don't take-off or just don't gel.

As an example of a recent example of the kind of blog post I like best; here is (non-famous) blogger Irish Papist; with a very personal and honest, free-associational development of ideas on the theme: Everything comes back to religion. 

As often said: writing is thinking (or it can be); and here you can sense AP thinking as he writes; and share his excitement at the insights as they emerge from the exploration.

I've been sampling Irish Papist on-and-off for several years - long enough to have decided he is a Good Bloke; and from this assumption I find that he produces a stimulating post every so often, that seems to set off associations and notions in myself. 

And this perhaps is what good blogging is about; and why regular readers come to care - at least somewhat - about our favourite bloggers; and miss them when they are gone.  

When nobody believes what everybody believes - more on Word Spells

In response to Francis Berger's comment on Word Spells in Christian theology

Maybe it's like this... 

If someone becomes convinced by the usual-mainstream-modern assumption that truth is objectively located in the external world ("truth is out-there"), and our job is just to perceive and recognize this external truth...

Then such a person never has to convince himself of truth. 

He feels more confident of some proposition only secondarily, not inwardly; e.g. by re-reading and reciting it, by propagating and defending it in public discourse. 

This way of thinking may explain how arguments that cannot really convince, become perpetuated over centuries. 

It happens because, when truth is out-there, reasoning does not even need to convince.

Indeed, nobody ever needs personally to be convinced! 

So we get a world (and this is our actual world, and the world of historical past) where everybody claims/ argues and acts-like they believe some-thing... some-thing that - inwardly - literally nobody believes!

Word Spells in Christian theology - We absolutely need simplicity and clarity concerning what it is to be a Christian

When "explanations" get complex or highly abstract, they become Word Spells, and people think a question has been answered when they have actually just been lulled to sleep. 

This is perhaps why questions asked of witnesses in court, and their answers, need to be short and simple. 

(But this is misleading if the assumptions behind the questions, the assumptions within-which the questions arise; are wrong.) 

That's perhaps functionally OK... if it works. 

But Word Spells may work only temporarily, or in certain contexts. For instance; the complex and abstract Word Spells of Trinitarianism were not designed to answer questions; but to stop Christians persecuting and killing each other in the early Christology disputes, by employing a kind of hypnosis. 

This, more or less, worked... for a while - until the soothing enchantment was broken by the rise of Islam 

(Which was, I think, substantially rooted in a clear, simple, rational rejection of the literal non-sense of Trinitarian Word Spelling.)  

Other initially successful examples of word-spelling include the crucial areas of the necessity for Jesus Christ, the nature of free-will, and the origins of evil - in a world that is defined as the product of an omnipotent and omniscient God who created everything from nothing. The traditional answers to these questions work insofar as they complexify and abstract; until the problem is lost-sight-of and/or the irrelevance or insufficiency of the answer is lost-sight-of. 

But in Christian theology, the traditional Word Spells clearly do not work anymore, and has not worked for several generations. 

Word-spelling comes with the price that everybody is then asleep or dazed, insofar as they are Christian. 

Since they are deeply and ineradicably confused and disorientated by the abstractness and complexity their theology; Christians are not strongly motivated. they are in a state of permanent uncertainty as to what they are supposed to have as their primary priorities and fundamental convictions and desires.

Therefore Christians have, by default, become passively-assimilated to worldly evil and; and now Christian churches support the Satanic totalitarian agenda - as became explicitly evident in 2020 and since.

Any viable answer must include a refusal and rejection of theological Word Spells; and the inexorable demand for simplicity and clarity concerning what it is to be a Christian, what is entailed by becoming a follower of Jesus. 

A suitable answer must, like any truthful answer, depend on valid assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

But it must also be the kind of short, simple, and concrete answer that would be acceptable in a law court.  

**

Note: This post was developed from a comment I made at Francis Berger's blog.

Is life after death important? CG Jung's opinion

Jung in his shirmer phase - beside his mistress/ extra-wife Toni

Regular readers will know that I regard Christianity to be, in essence, Jesus's offer of resurrected eternal Heavenly life to those who follow him. Yet this is very far from being regarded as the core of Christianity. Indeed most Christians would disagree - both now and throughout the history of the Christian churches. 

The idea that we might want/ need/ expect eternal life after mortal death - especially first-and-foremost - is something that the modern mind sees as a bad thing; selfish, childish, indeed ridiculous. To the typical modern atheist-stoic; a desire or demand for life everlasting is seen as irrational; and a product of psychological deficiencies such as wishful thinking and/or cowardice. 

It is interesting to consider what CJ Jung - son of a Protestant Pastor; in late life probably a deist rather than theist, and not a Christian - had to say about life after death, writing in the middle 20th century and in old age. 

It is not that I wish we had a life after death. In fact, I would prefer not to foster such ideas. 

Still, I must state, to give reality its due, that, without my wishing and without my doing anything about it, thoughts of this nature move about within me. 

I can't say whether these thoughts are true or false, but I do know they are there, and can be given utterance, if I do not repress them out of some prejudice. Prejudice cripples and injures the full phenomenon of psychic life. And I know too little about psychic life to feel that I can set it right out of superior knowledge...

I lend an attentive ear to the strange myths of the psyche, and take a careful look at the varied events that come my way, regardless of whether or not they fit in with my theoretical postulates. Unfortunately, the mythic side of man is given short shrift nowadays. He can no longer create fables. As a result, a great deal escapes him; for it is important and salutary to speak also of incomprehensible things. 

Such talk is like the telling of a good ghost story, as we sit by the fireside and smoke a pipe. What the myths or stories about a life after death really mean, or what kind of reality lies behind them, we certainly do not know. 

We cannot tell whether they possess any validity beyond their indubitable value as anthropomorphic projections. Rather, we must hold clearly in mind that there is no possible way for us to attain certainty concerning things which pass our understanding.

From Memories, Dreams, and Reflections by CG Jung 

Jung seems confident that ideas concerning life after death are in the realm of anthropomorphic stories we tell-ourselves, and therefore cannot in principle be understood in terms of truth to reality. 

Nonetheless Jung feels that there is a psychological reality to life after death - and he personally cannot-help but regard an afterlife as something that will happen to him. 

Such a perspective seems only to have been a genuine possibility as a relatively brief transitional phase; possible only for those who were raised religious, became atheist in adolescence or young adulthood, then came to value psychological (or social) aspects of religion as helpful (or indeed necessary) for an integrated and fulfilling life. 

In considering what is objectively real and knowable; Jung's perspective makes the same assumptions and exclusions as natural science - therefore its conclusions are inevitable: and Christianity becomes nothing more than a potentially therapeutic fairy-tale - something that it may make us feel better, if we believe it. 

In a word: for Jung, as for many other modern people, religion is, at best, a palliative. 

He would have said that (for many people) it is "good to believe" - and by "good" he meant good for our health and happiness, here-and-now. 

This (I think) is what underlies the common assertion (something we heard a lot from Prince/ King Charles - for instance) that "faith" is a good thing; while atheism is (usually a mistake, because is makes many people ill, miserable, dysfunctional. 

Jung may argue that life after death is important; but its importance is confined to how we are feeling in life before death. 

Life after death exists as an idea, and its reality relates to the role that ideas have in human functioning. 

(For Jung, this included a collective unconscious that was part of - and accessible to - all humans, and extended through many generations. Yet the nature and value of ideas in the collective unconscious ultimately and inevitably cashed-out in term of human mortal lives; human happiness or misery, health, social functionality and the like.) 

Life after death therefore is excluded from any cosmic role; it cannot have anything to do about solving the fundamental problems of existence - the problem of evil, and the problems of entropy (disease, degeneration, death). 

Life after death by Jung's account can affect what we think about such matters; it is a matter of adjustment to immoveable realities - it is a therapeutic understanding of religion.

As I said, Jung did not, apparently, seriously identify himself as a Christian; but here are plenty of people who do self-identify as Christian and who have a closely similar understanding of life after death. 

Paging Boromir! Anyone who approves of (real or imagined) "4-dimensional chess" strategies in politics is on the side of evil

Let me explain what's really going-on...

There has been, I notice, another and severe outbreak of 4-dimensional chess attribution among political commentary in relation to the current US President's foreign policy. 

I would suggest that politics when it is Good is actually very simple.

Whenever politics actually is, or aspires to be, complex, nuanced, multi-faceted - then we should know that we are confronted with our old friend the Boromir Strategy. 

Under all the rationalizations it's just another case of: Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron! 

It's not that the US President and his gang couldn't or wouldn't play some kind of 4-D chess game; but that insofar as they do operate thus - then they objectively are on the side of evil. 

And those political commentators and analysts who approve such modes of operation are part of the pseudo-alternative, but in fact totalitarian Establishment-allied, "Boromirosphere"...

They are doing the work of Satan; however they may self-identify or self-present as one of the Good Guys. 

Church faith, or church superstition

If once a person becomes convinced that a church (i.e. his church) is ultimately not an institution but also a divine entity; then there is a faith in the church which, in principle, cannot be refuted by any possible experience or action.

With faith; the divine nature of a church is irrefutable. 

And if such a faith is lacking, then there can be nothing that could happen that would ever prove a church to be divine. 

In other words; the judgment is contained in the assumptions.

Yet the above two faith-focused alternatives do not exhaust the possibilities; because a church may instead be, or become, the object of superstition.

Superstition is an interesting and seldom remarked phenomenon, because it does not make sense either to real spirituality or to materialism - yet it is almost universal. 

A person can be, and innumerable people actually are, highly superstitious, yet in their theoretical understanding of the nature of the world, they reject any possible explanation for having their superstitions.

Superstition survives and thrives in this "age of science", just as it did in the preceding "age of faith" - but although powerful superstition is also... uncomfortable. 

So we can be confident that superstition is not the same phenomenon as religion, nor necessarily a part of religion; also that it is a spontaneous and innate aspect of being human. These by the fact that superstition as a phenomenon has been nigh-universally rejected: it was (sometimes) rejected as evil by religion -- and currently is (usually) now rejected as non-valid by mainstream leftist-materialism.  

Superstition is therefore disreputable, furtive, and we sense that it probably "does us no good" even as we feel it personally necessary to yield to its insistent claims. 

The sceptical materialist explains superstition as a phenomenon of psychology; indeed psychopathology - an irrational symptom of some dysfunctional mental condition. 

Yet this does not coherently explain why this aspect of psychology survives (and thrives) without the oxygen of societal approval, and in face of ridicule; when so much of human instinct (eg in the sexual realm) has been inverted. 

Superstition is instead perhaps best understood by a follower of Jesus Christ as part of a constellation of extremely durable ideas to do with luck and propitiation. 

Luck and propitiation are, in turn, bound up with implicit assumptions concerning the incomprehensibility and hostility of supernatural and divine entities. 

There ideas have seemingly been integral to past religions - for instance, Roman religion and superstition were so integrated as to be inextricable. 

Superstition is still very much a part of religion as-is in 2025 and The West - in particular, I would say, in terms of people's attitudes to their church. 

There is no strong faith in churches, as was evident by church behaviour in 2020 and the birdemic; but as is evident in almost everything almost all of the time.      

Instead we have superstition about churches. 

The difference between faith and superstition is the difference between positive and negative. 

Faith is positive, superstition negative. 

Faith is expressed by a trust analogous to the young child's trust in his loving parents in a good family. This trust is something like the opposite of superstition. 

The faith of a Christian is an analogous trust in God; because God loves us personally. 

Conversely, superstition is rooted in mistrust; and the need for propitiation. 

The implicit assumptions of superstition is that the world is alive and purposive - which is why materialists cannot explain it - and the world is partly incomprehensible in its motives (hence the attention to "luck"), and partly hostile. 

Superstition focuses on the negative harm that may be done to us, if we anger or offend those entities who have power over us. 

We can't really understand these entities, therefore we sometimes must do things that make no sense to us - yet we fear not to do them, lest this cause offence...

Why must we grovel, kneel, prostrate, avoid eye contact? Who knows? But best to do it, to be on the safe, side, to avoid offence. 

Why must we perform superstitious rituals? Same reason. We don't believe in the validity of these rituals, but we do fear not-to-do them. 

Why must we make ritual obeisance to church authority, why refrain from acknowledging personal discernment, why refuse publicly to acknowledge that we have taken ultimate responsibility for our fundamental convictions? 

Therefore superstition is a double-negation; it seeks to avoid the harm that may result from antagonizing the world, and its entities. 

People neither believe-in nor act-upon positive faith in a church and the goodness of God the creator - yet we double-negatively fear to deny the claims of the church, and its ultimate and eternal authority over us.

(After all; somebody might notice, might be listening - and then who knows what may happen?...) 

It seems to me that the continuing power of churches over Men's minds, especially among Christians, is of this superstitious nature - which is why churches have survived the extreme loss of faith occurring both in church-rulers (priesthoods, ministers leadership) and among church laity/ members. 

Church Christians do not positively and faithfully trust their churches in any strong and durable or primarily-motivating way. 

And churches have almost ceased to be a force for good in the spiritual realm; but instead net-support the agenda of totalitarian evil. 

Yet Church Christians fear to antagonize their churches (even mentally); in a way closely analogous to that by which people fear to go against irrational and meaningless superstitions. 

Church adherence by superstition is thus, like other superstitions, not a product of theory or understanding; but something people do despite their theories, and because of their lack of understanding.

One who faithfully believed and trusted in a creator God who loved us each as His individual children; such an one would have no truck with his own felt-needs to propitiate the divine. 

However motivationally or psychologically powerful, such a desire would be recognized as a sin - because it misrepresents the nature of God and divine creation. 

Superstition is strong and superstition is wrong - but this is no paradox, and quite normal in our lives and this world 

 

A Christian should know and acknowledge that superstition is an evil; even though he cannot stop feeling it, and even when cannot stop yielding to it. 

And even when it applies to his church. 

Superstition should lead to repentance, not to the attempt to justify its necessity.   

Such is the nature of sin and of human beings in this world: we just-are "sinners", and cannot cease from sinning - but we can always repent. 

Therefore, like other superstitions; Church Christianity as-is in 2025, is primarily a consequence of lack of faith in the personal and loving goodness of God the creator.

And the spiritual harm of church superstition is sustained by the refusal to repent.        

Note: The above is a harsh teaching, but I believe that it is true. The only way out and up from where we now are, is first to return to unexamined or denied root assumptions; then to acknowledge and evaluate these assumptions - and that is what I am trying to stimulate here. In other words; far too many Christians actually are assuming that God is incomprehensible and unloving - when the reality is very simply that God the Creator is our Father who loves us as His children, and God's motives are understandable as those of ideal parents are confidently known by their offspring. A child ought not to regard genuinely loving parents in a superstitious manner, and to assume that fear is appropriate and propitiation is necessary is a sad and self-harming misunderstanding - that actually denigrates love. All I am suggesting is that Christians take seriously, and put first, the teachings and example of Jesus concerning his Father - especially as it is revealed in the IV Gospel. This teaching on God as an actual and loving parent of us as His children is what is literal, sure and certain about Christianity, above all else. And all else, all other claims of church, theology, philosophy, doctrine, church history etc.; needs to be judged by this. 

Time Loops and other temporal paradoxes don't Really exist. Charles Williams's novel Many Dimensions (1931)

I am currently reading Charles Williams's 1931 novel, in which there is a very early discussion of the possibility of a "time loop". 

In his biography of Charles Williams, Grevel Lindop suggests that this novel contains the first discussion of temporal paradoxes in any fiction, since the subject was first broached by HG Wells in The Time Machine (1895).

The stimulus for Williams's discussion seems to have been the 1927 non-fiction volume An Experiment with Time, by JW Dunne.  

But I regard the whole notion of temporal paradox as unreal; an artefact of distinctively modern scientific-abstract modellings of "time", as if it were a separable thing.

Read the whole thing at my Notion Club Papers blog.

An area of genuine supremacy of Girl Geniuses - spiritualist mediums and psychics of the past two centuries

Genius is much commoner in men than women. 

Indeed, in Charles Murray's historical survey of Human Accomplishment; English literature was the only one of the subjects surveyed in which women made a strong showing. 

And, even there, women did not feature among the very highest literary geniuses such as Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe. 

But there is one neglected but culturally highly significant area in which it seems as if women geniuses have been supreme, in terms of ability and influence; and that is as spiritualist mediums and psychics. 

1. The Fox Sisters, who from 1848 were the origin of Spiritualism, which became a global phenomenon for a century, and still persists (there is a spiritualist church within ten minutes walk of where I write).  

2. Madam HP Blavatsky - the founder of Theosophy; whose international influence is so vast as to be difficult to calculate and of extraordinary breadth. For instance; much of Rudolf Steiner's vast oeuvre derives from Theosophy; and it was the Theosophical Society in London that converted a secular-minded Gandhi to Hinduism. 

3. Mary Baker Eddy founded Christian Science, which grew very fast and went all around the world in a couple of generations to become extremely widespread at its peak - and, although much diminished, it still continues. (There is a Christian Science Reading Room about a mile from here.) 

4. Ellen G White was the prophetess whose insights underpinned the Seventh Day Adventist church - global in reach and apparently still growing, especially in the third world.  

5. Dion Fortune - who was the leading Christian magical occultist of the twentieth century. Her teaching and Fraternity of the Inner Light gave rise to multiple other major magicians and magical societies. Nowadays DF's influence appears to be growing in New Age and Neo-Pagan media.  

These five women (to which some others could be added) constitute a pretty formidable tally in a short space of time.

And the contributions of these women was apparently of a fundamental and foundational (rather than derivative) nature. 

This also fits with the oft-noticed fact (across several religions and churches) that women are intrinsically more often naturally psychic and mediumistic; and can also (like Dion Fortune, who was not naturally a medium) become psychic by effort and training. 

It is no coincidence that the (currently) best known, most beloved, English Christian mystic is Lady Julian of Norwich. 

Although genius is always rare, and in most cultures for most of the time (including our own, now) essentially absent; there are, indeed, solid psychological reasons (e.g. innate personality and intelligence) why genius is overall much more often to be found in men.   

Despite which, over the past half century, it has become a rather dodgy academic-journalistic pastime to manufacture and fake women-"geniuses" in science and the arts (and culture more generally). 

This has been attempted even in several fields in which there are zero women of the first, or even second, rank (such as mathematics, and the composition of classical music). 

Meanwhile, there has been this area in which women really do excel; but which has been ignored!

...Albeit for fairly obvious reasons; in that their activities seem fake, mad, or wicked both to the outgoing Christian traditionalists and the incoming Leftist materialists. 

Nonetheless, if evaluated by the normal standards of our culture; these womens' achievements clearly emerge as both socially significant and distinctively creative - and can then be recognized as products of genius.

  

God works primarily with individual persons, and always has done - thus God merely "makes-the-best-of" man-made groupings such as civilizations, nations, religions, churches...

It suddenly seems obvious that God has always worked primarily with and by individual persons; and that the historical necessity by which Men came to regard divine providence and plans in terms of tribes and nations and churches was partly a spiritual fact and partly a psychological constraint. 

In other words, Men of the past experienced the world and themselves, spontaneously (often unconsciously), as part of a group consciousness. 

And reality was experienced (psychologically) as oneself being primarily a group-member, whose primary role in life was to serve the group. 

In sum: the group came first, individuality was dependent on the group. 

"Individuality" was hard for such people even to conceptualize; but insofar as it was conceptualized, individuality was spiritually regarded as a sin, and psychologically as a menace to society. 

But Man's consciousness has changed since ancient times, and so has his psychology. 

Now that the spiritual group mind has substantially dwindled and weakened to a level of insufficiency; and now that Man's psychology is substantially autonomous and spontaneously alienated - these have ceased to motivate people strongly. 

It has at last become clear that God always was working primarily with individual persons; but this fact was obscured by the earlier more "pooled" nature of consciousness, and the innate needs of psychology. 

All that stuff about God working through tribes, races, nations, civilizations - and via the primacy of churches and other institutions - we (from our individuality) can now recognize to be merely God making-the-best-of whatever and various human groupings by which men used spontaneously to identify themselves themselves. 

We now (like it or not) realize that God must either primarily be working through groups with individuals as subordinate and in-service-to group interests... Or else God relates primarily to individual persons, with groups secondary*.

(*There is an exception for groups rooted in mutual personal love, such as some families, marriages, and deep friendships. It seems God is directly concerned by such - when they are real; for the obvious reason that love is the basis of divine creation. Any individual incapable of love or excluding of love, is beyond God's reach. Thus, in summary, God works on that aspect of individual beings which is loving of other individual beings.)  

This means that we now are called upon to drop many habits of thinking about God, providence, destiny and the like. 

We need to stop thinking of God's will in terms of civilizations, nations, religions, churches, tribes...

Instead; we are asked to recognize that these institutions are man-made and man-sustained - and God simply makes the best of them. 

The future of our souls, and of the world, depends first and foremost on God's relationship with each and every being (including human beings). 

We should regard our relationship with God in terms of this inter-individual reality, and what helps this relationship - and not psychologically-erect a mandatory groupish barrier or buffer-zone between our-selves and the divine. 

And the rest of it (civilizations, nations, religions, churches, tribes...) is - ultimately - a distraction and a self-deception. 

Group-primacy is - here-and-now - a perspective capable of leading us towards evil affiliations; but not towards Goodness.