Different people mean (very) different things; but tend to assume their own belief is self evident.
For example: “God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that.” ― Joseph Campbell.
Well, that definition has essentially nothing to do with how I define God, which on the lines of the being/s who created the ordered universe. Of course, any brief definition immediately cries out for further definitions of such terms as 'being', 'create' and 'the universe'.
But the point is that when discussing God I am focused on creation as that-which-was-created by a personal God. I am not talking about everything that is - but that which is created.
I am not talking about God being ultimately physics-y concepts such as forces, tendencies, forms or the like - nor attributes such as infinities, omnis, mysticals, transcendences etc; but I am talking about a being or beings - living, conscious, personal.
I am perfectly aware that many or most other people have a completely different way of talking about God than mine - of which "that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought" is an example. But - what can I say? That is not what I mean by God, that is not what I regard as the ultimate metaphysical assumption - the ultimate basis...
There is not much point in arguing about such ultimate assumptions. I regard God as a person, another regard this is childish and regads God as an abstraction. What could decide - except to locate one's assumptions and then tease-out the consequences of one's own assumptions, and check if these entailments also are endorsed?
But what can reasonably be argued about by Christians is what Jesus meant by God. And what evidence we have on that subject (what we regard as evidence, and why). My primary objective evidence is the Fourth Gospel - for reasons given in the link. Others would have other primary authorities. (For Christians, primary authorities then need to be validated as genuine, solid, bottom line intuitions - by God within each of us (by virtue of us being God's children), and by revelations of the Holy Ghost.
We should probably then ask questions like: Did Jesus know God as a person, or as an abstraction? Did Jesus know God as a transcendent mystery, or as one person knows another person? Did Jesus see God as a personal creator, or that which is defined by attributes or abstractions?
And what relation does Jesus's knowing have to our knowing? Did Jesus see men as like Himself: children of God, His brothers and sisters, his friends? Or did He see Men as qualitatively different from Himself, inferior beings such that Men cannot know God in the same ways that He knew God - and for whom God can therefore only be a transcendent mystery, a negative-not-known...
To ask is to answer - it seems to me.
Monday, 30 September 2019
The Underworld and Fiver - the 'shaman' rabbit in Watership Down (perspectives derived from Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield)
[Fiver:] Well, there’s another place - another country - isn’t
there. We go there when we sleep: at other times too; and
when we die.
El-ahrairah [the rabbits' god] comes and goes between the two as he wants, I suppose, but I never could quite make that out, from the tales.
Some rabbits will tell you it’s all easy there, compared with the waking dangers that they under- stand. But I think that only shows they don’t know much about it. It’s a wild place, and very unsafe.
And where are we really - there or here?
[Hazel:] Our bodies stay here - that’s good enough for me.
I am re-reading Richard Adams's novel of genius, Watership Down, for something like the fifth time in the past decade; and it strikes me as even-better with each re-reading.
One of my favourite characters has always been the seer or 'shaman' rabbit, Fiver; whose trance states and clairvoyant visions guide the chief rabbit Hazel in the big decisions that need to be made.
(The fact that Fiver is meant to be a shaman is confirmed by the heading of chapter 26 which is a relevant quote from Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. Adams was significantly influenced by Campbell's work on anthropology and mythology, and the two men later became acquaintances - Adams speaking ("the proudest moment of my life") at a celebration of Campbell's 80th birthday that is recorded in The Hero's Journey book and video.)
In the above passage Fiver describes the source of his visions; which is the 'underworld' or what Ancient Egyptians termed the 'dwat' - and which was redescribed in would-be scientific terms by Jung as the Collective Unconscious. The world of gods, the spirit aspect of sleeping mortals, spirits of the dead, and perhaps other beings such as angels and demons.
Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield had many interesting things to say about the changing, developing relationship between our conscious and waking minds in our mortal, incarnated (embodied) lives; and this underworld.
The first stage is when men (or rabbits, perhaps) were pure spirits, not incarnated. In this state there is no distinction between the Waking-world and the Underworld.
The second stage is after incarnation, when there is a distinction between the Waking-world inhabited by bodies, and the Underworld which can only be visited by the spirit part of Men (and rabbits) - while 'Our bodies stay here' - i.e. in the Waking-world - as Hazel says.
At this second stage there are 'specialists' in crossing to the Underworld, those who modern people term generically shamans - like Fiver. To do this, the spirit must be separated from the body, in a trance, sleep or some other 'altered state of consciousness'. But this crossing generally needs to be done by an act of choice, and perhaps by means of a learned skill; and is a hazardous business.
There is a personal price to pay for most shamans - in terms of such as illness, disability. alienation, social hostility and so forth. Fiver, for example, was a 'runt', smaller and weaker than average male rabbits and of a more nervous disposition.
The first stage seems to be normal when Men lived before agriculture and settled dwellings; as nomadic gatherers and hunters. When men had access to stores of food, they settled and developed specialised occupational hierarchies.
Direct contract with the gods incrementally faded, and a 'professional' priesthood (in charge of myth, ritual, sacred objects, scriptures etc.) displaced shamans.
As the second stage continued in Man's history of consciousness, it became harder and harder to cross this boundary, until (in the past few hundred years) more and more people become unable to cross the boundary, and attain the experiences of the Underworld which are the basis of knowledge of the gods, the dead and other such matters.
Religion became less spirit-experiential until it became almost wholly material-procedural.
Thus we reach third stage, which is materialism - the assertion that there is no spirit, not Underworld, no gods, and no dead.The fact that extreme changes in consciousness are required to have even a chance of shamanic experiences; means that the content of such experiences are hard to recall accurately; and allows experiences of gods, the dead, clairvoyance etc. to be relegated to the realms of pathology - delusion, hallucination, delirium and the like.
The fourth stage if what Barfield terms Final Participation - it is when experience and knowledge of the Underworld comes directly into the Waking-world - during normal consciousness. So, knowledge of the gods, the dead, angels and demons, and so forth are woven-into the stream of conscious, awake-thinking.
An analogy with the shamanic era is that this integration of the Waking- and Underworld is an act of choice. The Underworld must be believed, regarded as significant, attended to and taken seriously - all of which stands in stark opposition to the materialism of the third stage era.
When the fourth stage happens during mortal life it is a temporary foretaste and learning experience of post-mortal resurrected, Heavenly life; when this becomes the usual nature of consciousness. But our mortal experience of the fourth stage is probably mainly intended to give us a Heavenly understanding of our mortal situation - so that we can learn the significance of our own lives, and the main phenomena in the world around us.
El-ahrairah [the rabbits' god] comes and goes between the two as he wants, I suppose, but I never could quite make that out, from the tales.
Some rabbits will tell you it’s all easy there, compared with the waking dangers that they under- stand. But I think that only shows they don’t know much about it. It’s a wild place, and very unsafe.
And where are we really - there or here?
[Hazel:] Our bodies stay here - that’s good enough for me.
I am re-reading Richard Adams's novel of genius, Watership Down, for something like the fifth time in the past decade; and it strikes me as even-better with each re-reading.
One of my favourite characters has always been the seer or 'shaman' rabbit, Fiver; whose trance states and clairvoyant visions guide the chief rabbit Hazel in the big decisions that need to be made.
(The fact that Fiver is meant to be a shaman is confirmed by the heading of chapter 26 which is a relevant quote from Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. Adams was significantly influenced by Campbell's work on anthropology and mythology, and the two men later became acquaintances - Adams speaking ("the proudest moment of my life") at a celebration of Campbell's 80th birthday that is recorded in The Hero's Journey book and video.)
In the above passage Fiver describes the source of his visions; which is the 'underworld' or what Ancient Egyptians termed the 'dwat' - and which was redescribed in would-be scientific terms by Jung as the Collective Unconscious. The world of gods, the spirit aspect of sleeping mortals, spirits of the dead, and perhaps other beings such as angels and demons.
Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield had many interesting things to say about the changing, developing relationship between our conscious and waking minds in our mortal, incarnated (embodied) lives; and this underworld.
The first stage is when men (or rabbits, perhaps) were pure spirits, not incarnated. In this state there is no distinction between the Waking-world and the Underworld.
The second stage is after incarnation, when there is a distinction between the Waking-world inhabited by bodies, and the Underworld which can only be visited by the spirit part of Men (and rabbits) - while 'Our bodies stay here' - i.e. in the Waking-world - as Hazel says.
At this second stage there are 'specialists' in crossing to the Underworld, those who modern people term generically shamans - like Fiver. To do this, the spirit must be separated from the body, in a trance, sleep or some other 'altered state of consciousness'. But this crossing generally needs to be done by an act of choice, and perhaps by means of a learned skill; and is a hazardous business.
There is a personal price to pay for most shamans - in terms of such as illness, disability. alienation, social hostility and so forth. Fiver, for example, was a 'runt', smaller and weaker than average male rabbits and of a more nervous disposition.
The first stage seems to be normal when Men lived before agriculture and settled dwellings; as nomadic gatherers and hunters. When men had access to stores of food, they settled and developed specialised occupational hierarchies.
Direct contract with the gods incrementally faded, and a 'professional' priesthood (in charge of myth, ritual, sacred objects, scriptures etc.) displaced shamans.
As the second stage continued in Man's history of consciousness, it became harder and harder to cross this boundary, until (in the past few hundred years) more and more people become unable to cross the boundary, and attain the experiences of the Underworld which are the basis of knowledge of the gods, the dead and other such matters.
Religion became less spirit-experiential until it became almost wholly material-procedural.
Thus we reach third stage, which is materialism - the assertion that there is no spirit, not Underworld, no gods, and no dead.The fact that extreme changes in consciousness are required to have even a chance of shamanic experiences; means that the content of such experiences are hard to recall accurately; and allows experiences of gods, the dead, clairvoyance etc. to be relegated to the realms of pathology - delusion, hallucination, delirium and the like.
The fourth stage if what Barfield terms Final Participation - it is when experience and knowledge of the Underworld comes directly into the Waking-world - during normal consciousness. So, knowledge of the gods, the dead, angels and demons, and so forth are woven-into the stream of conscious, awake-thinking.
An analogy with the shamanic era is that this integration of the Waking- and Underworld is an act of choice. The Underworld must be believed, regarded as significant, attended to and taken seriously - all of which stands in stark opposition to the materialism of the third stage era.
When the fourth stage happens during mortal life it is a temporary foretaste and learning experience of post-mortal resurrected, Heavenly life; when this becomes the usual nature of consciousness. But our mortal experience of the fourth stage is probably mainly intended to give us a Heavenly understanding of our mortal situation - so that we can learn the significance of our own lives, and the main phenomena in the world around us.
Sunday, 29 September 2019
How to escape The System (the Matrix)
The System is owned by Satan - I mean that the whole world of System (bureaucracy, legalism, totalitarianism, the Ahrimanic - abstraction and impersonality...) is intrinsically demonic in its ultimate nature and tendency.
Many, many have reached this insight over the past 250 years - but there is a problem...
If Not, Then What? If we recognise The System as evil, from where do we make this recognition? If we recognise The Matrix - then where might we escape to that is Not Matrix?
Is every-thing, actually, really The Matrix?
The answer depends on ultimate assumptions. Is there God? Yes is a first step: is God a God of System?
For many Christians (although not, apparently, for Jesus) Christianity is a System called Church. Yet a deep and honest analysis always leads to the conclusion that Church is also System - and not accidentally, but intrinsically.
Church is Not outside System - it is a part of it. So that really - in actuality and ultimately - Church is Not opposed-to System, is Not distinct-from System - and is Not an alternative nor an escape-from System... except in a sort-of, relative, quantitative (and therefore ultimately un-satisfactory) sense.
(Church which is merely and necessarily Not-so-bad-System is inadequate; Church which is bureaucracy, abstraction, legalism is impersonal - hence System - hence rejected by the heart as ultimately part of the demonic scheme.)
We can imagine an escape from System into childhood, Original Participation, the Luciferic, the Old Magic... but Childhood is innocence and un-conscious, from adolescence we are conscious and sexual beings - so that if, as such, we attempt to return to childhood, we take our sexuality and consciousness with us.
The result is as we saw in the late 1960s - a dishonest, selfish, despairing hedonism. Not the child-like; but a horribly sexualised and manipulative child-ish-ness. We are back to the demonic by another route.
So our escape from System must be into that which is distinct from System*, precedes System; is personal - is a matter of individual and unique Beings and their unique and Loving relationships.
This is not abstract nor wishful - it is there-to-be-recognised as actual personal experience; as the true-and-proper basis underlying marriage and family: deeper and realer than the institutional arrangements by which The System tries to sometimes reinforce and sustain, but nowadays capture and subvert, marriage and family.
There is therefore a real and primary world outside of System, enclosing System (below, all around and above System) - and that is of-God, and of-our-selves.
It can (in principle) be touched and inhabited by any person at any time and is the destination of those who choose to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life eternal.
Escape from the Matrix is to dwell in this world of objectively-loving-relationships (in Heaven).
Albeit our lives in this mortal situation are about learning - therefore, it is not possible (nor desirable) for us to dwell-in Heaven now, constantly: that comes later.
The fact we may go into, and out-from, Heaven - during mortal life - is a vital exprience for our learning.We look at life 'from both sides' - and that is intentional and necessary.
What we do need to do now (in mortal life) is each to learn from our dwelling in a mortal world that pretends to be all-System, and nothing-but System; in all its mixed, but ultimately Satanic, nature. This is termed (variously) theosis, deification, sanctification and spiritual progression.
Each person's proper path of theosis is unique and bespoke-tailored. It uses The System, to teach us lessons (which we may, or may not, learn) while remaining apart from it.
* All (without exception) mainstream politics, all secular (not-religious) political theory, all actual and possible non-creator-god ideologies are ultimately just-another-Matrix. This is why nobody is sufficiently motivated to do anything substantive - high risk, long-termist, self-sacrificing, requiring-of-courage - towards a more common-sensical, more 'efficient', more peaceful and prosperous world... i.e. Why the secular Right just loses and loses and loses. Who wants to risk, probably sacrifice, themselves for a different version of the same thing? Indeed, en masse, secular populations cannot even be motivated to have enough children to replace themselves, cannot be motivated to prevent them-selves being demonised and replaced (at their own expense!) with millions upon millions - unceasing - of assorted hostile outsiders... Because, who wants to commit his life to just-another-Matrix? Nobody, really - or a mere handful of powerless, low status types. Courage comes from a genuine and better hope - which is why hope (and faith and love) is a virtue.
Many, many have reached this insight over the past 250 years - but there is a problem...
If Not, Then What? If we recognise The System as evil, from where do we make this recognition? If we recognise The Matrix - then where might we escape to that is Not Matrix?
Is every-thing, actually, really The Matrix?
The answer depends on ultimate assumptions. Is there God? Yes is a first step: is God a God of System?
For many Christians (although not, apparently, for Jesus) Christianity is a System called Church. Yet a deep and honest analysis always leads to the conclusion that Church is also System - and not accidentally, but intrinsically.
Church is Not outside System - it is a part of it. So that really - in actuality and ultimately - Church is Not opposed-to System, is Not distinct-from System - and is Not an alternative nor an escape-from System... except in a sort-of, relative, quantitative (and therefore ultimately un-satisfactory) sense.
(Church which is merely and necessarily Not-so-bad-System is inadequate; Church which is bureaucracy, abstraction, legalism is impersonal - hence System - hence rejected by the heart as ultimately part of the demonic scheme.)
We can imagine an escape from System into childhood, Original Participation, the Luciferic, the Old Magic... but Childhood is innocence and un-conscious, from adolescence we are conscious and sexual beings - so that if, as such, we attempt to return to childhood, we take our sexuality and consciousness with us.
The result is as we saw in the late 1960s - a dishonest, selfish, despairing hedonism. Not the child-like; but a horribly sexualised and manipulative child-ish-ness. We are back to the demonic by another route.
So our escape from System must be into that which is distinct from System*, precedes System; is personal - is a matter of individual and unique Beings and their unique and Loving relationships.
This is not abstract nor wishful - it is there-to-be-recognised as actual personal experience; as the true-and-proper basis underlying marriage and family: deeper and realer than the institutional arrangements by which The System tries to sometimes reinforce and sustain, but nowadays capture and subvert, marriage and family.
There is therefore a real and primary world outside of System, enclosing System (below, all around and above System) - and that is of-God, and of-our-selves.
It can (in principle) be touched and inhabited by any person at any time and is the destination of those who choose to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life eternal.
Escape from the Matrix is to dwell in this world of objectively-loving-relationships (in Heaven).
Albeit our lives in this mortal situation are about learning - therefore, it is not possible (nor desirable) for us to dwell-in Heaven now, constantly: that comes later.
The fact we may go into, and out-from, Heaven - during mortal life - is a vital exprience for our learning.We look at life 'from both sides' - and that is intentional and necessary.
What we do need to do now (in mortal life) is each to learn from our dwelling in a mortal world that pretends to be all-System, and nothing-but System; in all its mixed, but ultimately Satanic, nature. This is termed (variously) theosis, deification, sanctification and spiritual progression.
Each person's proper path of theosis is unique and bespoke-tailored. It uses The System, to teach us lessons (which we may, or may not, learn) while remaining apart from it.
* All (without exception) mainstream politics, all secular (not-religious) political theory, all actual and possible non-creator-god ideologies are ultimately just-another-Matrix. This is why nobody is sufficiently motivated to do anything substantive - high risk, long-termist, self-sacrificing, requiring-of-courage - towards a more common-sensical, more 'efficient', more peaceful and prosperous world... i.e. Why the secular Right just loses and loses and loses. Who wants to risk, probably sacrifice, themselves for a different version of the same thing? Indeed, en masse, secular populations cannot even be motivated to have enough children to replace themselves, cannot be motivated to prevent them-selves being demonised and replaced (at their own expense!) with millions upon millions - unceasing - of assorted hostile outsiders... Because, who wants to commit his life to just-another-Matrix? Nobody, really - or a mere handful of powerless, low status types. Courage comes from a genuine and better hope - which is why hope (and faith and love) is a virtue.
Friday, 27 September 2019
Christians (followers of Jesus) cannot work together if they use legalism to enforce orthodoxy
This is restating the argument of my post of a few days ago - from another angle.
There are many Christians of many types - if we take the definition of those eligible for resurrection to life eternal (1) a follower of Jesus who (2) acknowledges his divinity - which is what Jesus says, repeatedly, throughout the Fourth Gospel.
Among those who style themselves Christian in the modern world, there are many who - By My Judgement - are not Christian. This could be termed the 'Fake Christian Crisis' - it is the infiltration of all Western Christian churches by Leftists and Sexual Revolutionaries - aiming incrementally to subvert, destroy, take-over, and invert most of real Christianity. Fake Christianity has replaced all, or nearly all, of the leadership in major Western denominations including Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbytarians and most mainstream evangelicals.
And - also By My Judgement, and according to the Fourth Gospel definition - the real Christians are scattered across many churches denominations and no denomination-at-all.
This is 'easy' for me to assert, since I am in the no-denomination category (although associated with, supportive of, a Church of England Conservative Evangelical church); but, since Christians are in a shrinking and persecuted minority in The West, almost every real Christian wants (as I do) to be able to ally-with/ work-with other real Christians.
But... this become de facto impossible when the real Christians respond to the Fake Christian crisis by doubling-down on the legalism. In a nutshell, the strategy is to define the Leftist Sexual revolutionaries as heretics, and to exclude them on that basis.
But the real problem is not heresy but apostasy - the Fake Christians may be orthodox in narrowly defined legalistic terms, they are usually prepared to stand up and make strict oaths and promises in which they do not believe and have zero intention of living-by; but they are Obviously Not Christian in terms of not being followers of Jesus and/ or not believing in the divinity of Jesus.
This is presumably why the legalistic approach to fighting Fake Christianity has been a near-total failure.
What can easily be seen by the truth-seeking and discerning eye (or rather heart) is typically invisible to the words of legalism. The answer is simple, but it depends on honest, informed human judgement - for which there is no substitute - nor will there ever be a substitute... so long as Goodness is required: Goodness is a personal, not abstract, attribute.
Once we have cast aside the false idea that Christianity is, or ought to be, protected by legalism - by definitions and procedures (surely an idea that would have been rejected - sharply - by Jesus?) then matters can be much clearer - clearer although not, of course, necessarily easy or simple in practice.
For this to happen each must take personal responsibility for the judgement that he or she must make about others: we must judge others, and we must also be clear that the judgement of others is, can only be, must be for each of us - a personal judgement.
That is to say, we each must discern (with the discernment of the heart - not by checklist and tickbox) who are the real, and who the fake, Christians - and act accordingly, And 'must' means must.
There are many Christians of many types - if we take the definition of those eligible for resurrection to life eternal (1) a follower of Jesus who (2) acknowledges his divinity - which is what Jesus says, repeatedly, throughout the Fourth Gospel.
Among those who style themselves Christian in the modern world, there are many who - By My Judgement - are not Christian. This could be termed the 'Fake Christian Crisis' - it is the infiltration of all Western Christian churches by Leftists and Sexual Revolutionaries - aiming incrementally to subvert, destroy, take-over, and invert most of real Christianity. Fake Christianity has replaced all, or nearly all, of the leadership in major Western denominations including Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbytarians and most mainstream evangelicals.
And - also By My Judgement, and according to the Fourth Gospel definition - the real Christians are scattered across many churches denominations and no denomination-at-all.
This is 'easy' for me to assert, since I am in the no-denomination category (although associated with, supportive of, a Church of England Conservative Evangelical church); but, since Christians are in a shrinking and persecuted minority in The West, almost every real Christian wants (as I do) to be able to ally-with/ work-with other real Christians.
But... this become de facto impossible when the real Christians respond to the Fake Christian crisis by doubling-down on the legalism. In a nutshell, the strategy is to define the Leftist Sexual revolutionaries as heretics, and to exclude them on that basis.
But the real problem is not heresy but apostasy - the Fake Christians may be orthodox in narrowly defined legalistic terms, they are usually prepared to stand up and make strict oaths and promises in which they do not believe and have zero intention of living-by; but they are Obviously Not Christian in terms of not being followers of Jesus and/ or not believing in the divinity of Jesus.
This is presumably why the legalistic approach to fighting Fake Christianity has been a near-total failure.
What can easily be seen by the truth-seeking and discerning eye (or rather heart) is typically invisible to the words of legalism. The answer is simple, but it depends on honest, informed human judgement - for which there is no substitute - nor will there ever be a substitute... so long as Goodness is required: Goodness is a personal, not abstract, attribute.
Once we have cast aside the false idea that Christianity is, or ought to be, protected by legalism - by definitions and procedures (surely an idea that would have been rejected - sharply - by Jesus?) then matters can be much clearer - clearer although not, of course, necessarily easy or simple in practice.
For this to happen each must take personal responsibility for the judgement that he or she must make about others: we must judge others, and we must also be clear that the judgement of others is, can only be, must be for each of us - a personal judgement.
That is to say, we each must discern (with the discernment of the heart - not by checklist and tickbox) who are the real, and who the fake, Christians - and act accordingly, And 'must' means must.
What is baptism in the Fourth Gospel? Divine transformation
What happened at the baptism of Jesus?
(The relevant text from the Fourth Gospel is below.)
John the Baptist was baptising many people. From John's perspective, it is implied that at each baptism he saw the Spirit descend and then depart. But when John baptised Jesus, the spirit remained.
This presumably means that all who were baptised by John were briefly touched by divinity but Jesus was transformed and became divine.
So, from John's perspective, it would seem that baptising was primarily a means of detecting, and 'making' the Messiah - the Lamb of God.
What about the people who were being baptised - first by John, then by the disciples - but not by Jesus himself; after the Messiah had been discovered? (Referenced later in the Fourth Gospel.) Presumably these baptisms were done in order to have people touched by the Spirit. Perhaps this induced a - temporary - change of heart (repentance) that could be built-upon.
The Gospel of Luke - 3:3 (presumably) quotes someone who remembered that John had been "preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". What does this mean, if true?
My guess is that those baptised by John were temporarily cleansed of all sin, were turned towards God - so that they could commune with the divine Spirit. When this happened to Jesus, he realised who he was, became fully divine, began his ministry.
But Jesus did not baptise with water - but 'baptised' with the Holy Ghost. And we know (from later in the Fourth Gospel) that the Holy Ghost came only after Jesus had ascended. This seems to be using 'baptise' metaphorically (as we would term it, although at that time and place such a metaphor was literal as well as symbolic) - it is a reference to what Jesus would ultimately achieve by enabling all Men who 'followed' him to become resurrected, divine, and attain life everlasting.
Thus baptism seems to be a matter of being touched by divinity; either temporarily, or else as a permanent process - to become oneself divine.
In other words (at least when performed by John or the disciples); baptism was a temporary divine transformation; analogous to the permanent divine transformation that is resurrection to eternal life.
Note: By 'transformation' to divine I mean the term literally; since we and Jesus are siblings, and the actual children of God, we have the nature and possibility to become divine in the same way (to a subordinate degree, since we dwell in God's creation) as God the creator. It is therefore a 'process' somewhat resembling the metamorphic transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. It follows that there is more than one god in addition to the creator, including - potentially - as many gods as there are Men. (Although in practice some Men - perhaps most Men - reject the gift of Christ to his followers; that of resurrection to eternal life: to god status.)
John 1: [19] And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? [20] And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. [22] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. [24] And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. [25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? [26] John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [28] These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [30] This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [31] And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. [32] And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [33] And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. [34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
(The relevant text from the Fourth Gospel is below.)
John the Baptist was baptising many people. From John's perspective, it is implied that at each baptism he saw the Spirit descend and then depart. But when John baptised Jesus, the spirit remained.
This presumably means that all who were baptised by John were briefly touched by divinity but Jesus was transformed and became divine.
So, from John's perspective, it would seem that baptising was primarily a means of detecting, and 'making' the Messiah - the Lamb of God.
What about the people who were being baptised - first by John, then by the disciples - but not by Jesus himself; after the Messiah had been discovered? (Referenced later in the Fourth Gospel.) Presumably these baptisms were done in order to have people touched by the Spirit. Perhaps this induced a - temporary - change of heart (repentance) that could be built-upon.
The Gospel of Luke - 3:3 (presumably) quotes someone who remembered that John had been "preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins". What does this mean, if true?
My guess is that those baptised by John were temporarily cleansed of all sin, were turned towards God - so that they could commune with the divine Spirit. When this happened to Jesus, he realised who he was, became fully divine, began his ministry.
But Jesus did not baptise with water - but 'baptised' with the Holy Ghost. And we know (from later in the Fourth Gospel) that the Holy Ghost came only after Jesus had ascended. This seems to be using 'baptise' metaphorically (as we would term it, although at that time and place such a metaphor was literal as well as symbolic) - it is a reference to what Jesus would ultimately achieve by enabling all Men who 'followed' him to become resurrected, divine, and attain life everlasting.
Thus baptism seems to be a matter of being touched by divinity; either temporarily, or else as a permanent process - to become oneself divine.
In other words (at least when performed by John or the disciples); baptism was a temporary divine transformation; analogous to the permanent divine transformation that is resurrection to eternal life.
Note: By 'transformation' to divine I mean the term literally; since we and Jesus are siblings, and the actual children of God, we have the nature and possibility to become divine in the same way (to a subordinate degree, since we dwell in God's creation) as God the creator. It is therefore a 'process' somewhat resembling the metamorphic transformation of caterpillar to butterfly. It follows that there is more than one god in addition to the creator, including - potentially - as many gods as there are Men. (Although in practice some Men - perhaps most Men - reject the gift of Christ to his followers; that of resurrection to eternal life: to god status.)
John 1: [19] And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? [20] And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. [21] And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. [22] Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? [23] He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. [24] And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. [25] And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? [26] John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; [27] He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. [28] These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [30] This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. [31] And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. [32] And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [33] And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. [34] And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. [35] Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; [36] And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
What can we learn from the Brexit blockers?
The vote to leave the European Union was more than three years ago, yet we still have not left and are no closer to leaving. This is because the implementation has been resisted every inch of the way by the UK Establishment - by whatever means seemed to be effective.
Over the past fifty or so years, the people's of the developed nations have been encaged by a Leftist totalitarian bureaucracy that now extends through all powerful or wealthy corporations, organisations, institutions and workplaces. We now find ourselves in an insane virtual world of omni-surveillance and micro-control that has inverted natural virtue.
Yet this was hardly resisted at all - I know because I was one of very few who did try to resist it in medicine, science and the universities. Every latest new tyranny was accepted with either a shrug and a moan, or eagerly as presenting career opportunities.
Yet, if each of the incremental stages towards totalitarian tyranny had been resisted; again and again, at every level, by the mass of those whom it would afflict - none of it could have happened.
Why was it not resisted? Why is no top-down evil ever seriously resisted (except as a ruse to introduce something worse)? Because the mass of people lack sufficient motivation.
Why do they lack motivation to defend even themselves - their power, autonomy, wealth, health, comfort, peace, prospects? Because they lack religion.
Men need religion - I mean a real religion. All Men in the past had a religion; most non-Westerners still do. Subtract religion - subtract the spirit world, the soul, the afterlife, spontaneous morality etc - and one is left with the psychotic, foolish puppets that are the mass of modern, Western Men.
Men cannot function without religion. Without religion, Men do not even choose to reproduce at the minimum replacement level - without religion Men choose extinction.
So what of the motivation of the Brexit saboteurs? They are - mostly - exactly the same kind of mass people that have been - over two generations - too feeble and frightened to raise a finger to resist their own incremental enslavement.
The Brexit blockers are doing exactly the same as everybody else. They are behaving psychotically - according to delusions and in response to here and now inducements (sticks and carrots, threats and bribes).
Above them are Them: the 'hidden hand' of the Global Establishment - which is a department of the demons, with the agenda of evil - and who find the totalitarian EU a useful tool in their plan of subversion, inversion and control.
I am not saying anything so foolish as that we should 'learn from' the Brexit-traitors, blockers and saboteurs who (ultimately) serve Satan... I am saying that nothing will be done about Brexit, nothing will happen towards a better world, unless or until the British (specifically the English) again become religious.
At present the British are literally hope-less - since the mass majority are hedonistic cowards. They can't even act to defend themselves and the lives in the most basic and obvious ways - naturally they will fail to compel the Establishment to leave the EU.
Courage comes from belief; and a society of materialistic unbelievers is a weak, foolish, distraction-seeking, despicable society; and will be treated accordingly.
The situation is now, here, today... pretty-much as stark as situations get. Each person is faced by a choice, and compelled to make that choice - any attempted evasion of responsibility is to choose totalitarian evil.
I would love to be surprised; but after decades of ingrained cowardice due to unthinking, hedonistic atheism, I am Not optimistic.
Over the past fifty or so years, the people's of the developed nations have been encaged by a Leftist totalitarian bureaucracy that now extends through all powerful or wealthy corporations, organisations, institutions and workplaces. We now find ourselves in an insane virtual world of omni-surveillance and micro-control that has inverted natural virtue.
Yet this was hardly resisted at all - I know because I was one of very few who did try to resist it in medicine, science and the universities. Every latest new tyranny was accepted with either a shrug and a moan, or eagerly as presenting career opportunities.
Yet, if each of the incremental stages towards totalitarian tyranny had been resisted; again and again, at every level, by the mass of those whom it would afflict - none of it could have happened.
Why was it not resisted? Why is no top-down evil ever seriously resisted (except as a ruse to introduce something worse)? Because the mass of people lack sufficient motivation.
Why do they lack motivation to defend even themselves - their power, autonomy, wealth, health, comfort, peace, prospects? Because they lack religion.
Men need religion - I mean a real religion. All Men in the past had a religion; most non-Westerners still do. Subtract religion - subtract the spirit world, the soul, the afterlife, spontaneous morality etc - and one is left with the psychotic, foolish puppets that are the mass of modern, Western Men.
Men cannot function without religion. Without religion, Men do not even choose to reproduce at the minimum replacement level - without religion Men choose extinction.
So what of the motivation of the Brexit saboteurs? They are - mostly - exactly the same kind of mass people that have been - over two generations - too feeble and frightened to raise a finger to resist their own incremental enslavement.
The Brexit blockers are doing exactly the same as everybody else. They are behaving psychotically - according to delusions and in response to here and now inducements (sticks and carrots, threats and bribes).
Above them are Them: the 'hidden hand' of the Global Establishment - which is a department of the demons, with the agenda of evil - and who find the totalitarian EU a useful tool in their plan of subversion, inversion and control.
I am not saying anything so foolish as that we should 'learn from' the Brexit-traitors, blockers and saboteurs who (ultimately) serve Satan... I am saying that nothing will be done about Brexit, nothing will happen towards a better world, unless or until the British (specifically the English) again become religious.
At present the British are literally hope-less - since the mass majority are hedonistic cowards. They can't even act to defend themselves and the lives in the most basic and obvious ways - naturally they will fail to compel the Establishment to leave the EU.
Courage comes from belief; and a society of materialistic unbelievers is a weak, foolish, distraction-seeking, despicable society; and will be treated accordingly.
The situation is now, here, today... pretty-much as stark as situations get. Each person is faced by a choice, and compelled to make that choice - any attempted evasion of responsibility is to choose totalitarian evil.
I would love to be surprised; but after decades of ingrained cowardice due to unthinking, hedonistic atheism, I am Not optimistic.
Be careful what you make your profession
Being a professional is usually morally inferior to being an amateur; because of the very powerful distortions involved in making a living.
Nowadays especially, the immorality of making a living - especially the mandatory dishonesty - is more powerful than it used to be - but it has always been a factor.
Professionals usually have the advantage of devoting more time and effort to what they do (because they don't have to break off every day, and make a living doing something else), and there is usually a 'minimum standard' of professionals, which does not apply to amateurs.
But all modern professionals do less of their profession and more bureaucracy than they used to do - and the trend is everywhere increasing; indeed, the disproportion in favour of bureaucracy may be total.
And bureaucracy means, always, doing 'what other people say' - so your autonomy is lost. And it may well be the hope of making a personal contribution that drew you into that work in the first place.
In sum, here-and-now, it is likely to be better to do what you most care about as an amateur; rather than trying to make it also your livelihood.
Note: The example of science:
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/05/doing-real-science-after-corruption-of.html
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/05/doing-science-after-death-of-real.html
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/05/medieval-science-rediscovered-and.html
Nowadays especially, the immorality of making a living - especially the mandatory dishonesty - is more powerful than it used to be - but it has always been a factor.
Professionals usually have the advantage of devoting more time and effort to what they do (because they don't have to break off every day, and make a living doing something else), and there is usually a 'minimum standard' of professionals, which does not apply to amateurs.
But all modern professionals do less of their profession and more bureaucracy than they used to do - and the trend is everywhere increasing; indeed, the disproportion in favour of bureaucracy may be total.
And bureaucracy means, always, doing 'what other people say' - so your autonomy is lost. And it may well be the hope of making a personal contribution that drew you into that work in the first place.
In sum, here-and-now, it is likely to be better to do what you most care about as an amateur; rather than trying to make it also your livelihood.
Note: The example of science:
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/05/doing-real-science-after-corruption-of.html
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/05/doing-science-after-death-of-real.html
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2010/05/medieval-science-rediscovered-and.html
Thursday, 26 September 2019
The Global Establishment are Not a death cult (It's much worse than That...)
Because evil is Not primarily about inflicting premature death. And certainly Not when death leads to Heaven.
Evil is about damnation. Therefore, for evil, death is something to be delayed until after the individual has made a solid choice of Hell. Ultimately, for evil; human suffering is only desirable when suffering tends to lead to rejection of God, Good, Heaven and Creation.
If They were primarily a death cult, then the developed nations would not be (as they currently are) fuller of old people than any society ever in history.
If They were primarily motivated to cause mass death (sickness and suffering) then it would be trivially easy for Them to inflict a great deal more of it.
Obviously, They greatly enjoy human suffering - especially fear: both long term angst and acute terror - and at the lower levels (among the minions of 'chaotic evil') that may be the mastering passion.
But a mob of lust crazed sadistic demons could not pursue the multi-generational strategy of damnation that has all-but inverted the moral and aesthetic basis of society; and made lies mandatory and truth taboo as Hate Facts punishable as Hate Crimes.
The Establishment leaders and rulers are long-termist strategists of evil; focused on their primary ultimate purpose, which is damnation.
So it is much closer to reality to emphasise that the Establishment are Satanists - "Satan worshipping paedophiles", for example - but for most mainstream people this is all just a joke.
Most people don't believe in damnation, because they don't believe in Heaven; they think Satanism is a joke, because Hell is a joke. Therefore the Establishment can operate on their major task without need for secrecy and in full public view.
It is only the second-order (short-termist, self-gratifying, means to an end) tactics that need to be concealed. Sexual torture of children, slavery, mind-control, intimidation and bribery and all the rest of it.
These are secret because the public find them repulsive, people are misled into thinking that these secret goals are primary; but they are also secret because they are so vile that ordinary people cannot imagine anyone doing them. (And - too often - pride themselves on this limitation of imagination, on this rejection of reality.)
It is perhaps the primary role of the mass media to conceal these second order evil activities, by becoming (through addiction and censorship) the only publicly acceptable source of information.
In fact the main goals of the Establishment are upfront, explicit and official (albeit expressed in bureaucratic, hence misleading, terms); they are the major initiatives of the multi-national organisations (United Nations etc.); the government strategies, the mission statements of all the large and powerful institutions (government, charity, corporations, law, education, 'science', the mainstream churches, the mass media etc).
The only concealment or distraction is that the true goals are often expressed as their reciprocals. Anti-Christianity is expressed as pretended pro-multi-culturalism. Anti-white native men is expressed in terms of systemic and personal preferences pretending to favour women, immigrants and migrants and people other-than white.
The sexual/ gender revolution pretends to liberate when its intention is to enslave and mind-control the masses - economically, sexually and in every other way.
The global system of electronic omni-surveillance and micro-control is presented as a means of protection.
Such excuses would be seen immediately as the naive and dumb manipulations they are by any religiously rooted society; but when the masses are afflicted by the psychotic disease of atheism, their gullibility, credulity and incapacity to reason cannot be over-estimated.
But anyway, the point is that the Establishment are Not primarily trying to harm people; and those who claim they are invite easy refutation. If False Flag terrorist atrocities were designed to harm people, or to make money; there would be a lot more of them, and a lot larger scale. If mass killing and population reduction was their goal; then the world and national populations would be shrinking. If they wanted civil wars - there would be civil wars.
Since none of this is happening - and ought to be happening if They were a death Cult; the reality of a strategically-evil Global Establishment is easily denied because refuted by experience.
If, instead, atrocities by the Global Establishment are understood as primarily a means to the end of damnation, which entails a careful balance of mass manipulation - then it all falls into place. But for that you must believe in the reality of the demonic, who oppose God and God's plans for creation.
Yet the masses are pre-immunised against such simple reasoning by their materialism, atheism, hedonism. They are being incrementally herded into a bureaucratic totalitarian Hell; while themselves believing and asserting that this Hell is a Heaven of sex, fun, distraction and unbounded human possibilities...
This isn't rocket science... Man just-is a religious animal. When God is denied, Man becomes insane, incoherent - loses even basic common sense. When God is denied, nothing makes sense - and people cannot see the obvious. When God is denied - evil can therefore operate in plain sight.
When God is denied, evil takes God's place; and we live in an world of inverted values that - we insist, looked at in properly - is actually the right-way-up.
Evil is about damnation. Therefore, for evil, death is something to be delayed until after the individual has made a solid choice of Hell. Ultimately, for evil; human suffering is only desirable when suffering tends to lead to rejection of God, Good, Heaven and Creation.
If They were primarily a death cult, then the developed nations would not be (as they currently are) fuller of old people than any society ever in history.
If They were primarily motivated to cause mass death (sickness and suffering) then it would be trivially easy for Them to inflict a great deal more of it.
Obviously, They greatly enjoy human suffering - especially fear: both long term angst and acute terror - and at the lower levels (among the minions of 'chaotic evil') that may be the mastering passion.
But a mob of lust crazed sadistic demons could not pursue the multi-generational strategy of damnation that has all-but inverted the moral and aesthetic basis of society; and made lies mandatory and truth taboo as Hate Facts punishable as Hate Crimes.
The Establishment leaders and rulers are long-termist strategists of evil; focused on their primary ultimate purpose, which is damnation.
So it is much closer to reality to emphasise that the Establishment are Satanists - "Satan worshipping paedophiles", for example - but for most mainstream people this is all just a joke.
Most people don't believe in damnation, because they don't believe in Heaven; they think Satanism is a joke, because Hell is a joke. Therefore the Establishment can operate on their major task without need for secrecy and in full public view.
It is only the second-order (short-termist, self-gratifying, means to an end) tactics that need to be concealed. Sexual torture of children, slavery, mind-control, intimidation and bribery and all the rest of it.
These are secret because the public find them repulsive, people are misled into thinking that these secret goals are primary; but they are also secret because they are so vile that ordinary people cannot imagine anyone doing them. (And - too often - pride themselves on this limitation of imagination, on this rejection of reality.)
It is perhaps the primary role of the mass media to conceal these second order evil activities, by becoming (through addiction and censorship) the only publicly acceptable source of information.
In fact the main goals of the Establishment are upfront, explicit and official (albeit expressed in bureaucratic, hence misleading, terms); they are the major initiatives of the multi-national organisations (United Nations etc.); the government strategies, the mission statements of all the large and powerful institutions (government, charity, corporations, law, education, 'science', the mainstream churches, the mass media etc).
The only concealment or distraction is that the true goals are often expressed as their reciprocals. Anti-Christianity is expressed as pretended pro-multi-culturalism. Anti-white native men is expressed in terms of systemic and personal preferences pretending to favour women, immigrants and migrants and people other-than white.
The sexual/ gender revolution pretends to liberate when its intention is to enslave and mind-control the masses - economically, sexually and in every other way.
The global system of electronic omni-surveillance and micro-control is presented as a means of protection.
Such excuses would be seen immediately as the naive and dumb manipulations they are by any religiously rooted society; but when the masses are afflicted by the psychotic disease of atheism, their gullibility, credulity and incapacity to reason cannot be over-estimated.
But anyway, the point is that the Establishment are Not primarily trying to harm people; and those who claim they are invite easy refutation. If False Flag terrorist atrocities were designed to harm people, or to make money; there would be a lot more of them, and a lot larger scale. If mass killing and population reduction was their goal; then the world and national populations would be shrinking. If they wanted civil wars - there would be civil wars.
Since none of this is happening - and ought to be happening if They were a death Cult; the reality of a strategically-evil Global Establishment is easily denied because refuted by experience.
If, instead, atrocities by the Global Establishment are understood as primarily a means to the end of damnation, which entails a careful balance of mass manipulation - then it all falls into place. But for that you must believe in the reality of the demonic, who oppose God and God's plans for creation.
Yet the masses are pre-immunised against such simple reasoning by their materialism, atheism, hedonism. They are being incrementally herded into a bureaucratic totalitarian Hell; while themselves believing and asserting that this Hell is a Heaven of sex, fun, distraction and unbounded human possibilities...
This isn't rocket science... Man just-is a religious animal. When God is denied, Man becomes insane, incoherent - loses even basic common sense. When God is denied, nothing makes sense - and people cannot see the obvious. When God is denied - evil can therefore operate in plain sight.
When God is denied, evil takes God's place; and we live in an world of inverted values that - we insist, looked at in properly - is actually the right-way-up.
Wednesday, 25 September 2019
A child's understanding of the need for resurrection
Why are we resurrected to eternal life? (This being the central and strangest claim of Christianity.)
A child's understanding is probably the correct one - it might run like this...
If I am going to live forever I want to do it in a body, of course!
If I lived-on just as a spirit it would not be me.
I don't want to be just a ghost, forever.
If I lived forever as a ghost, that would be as bad as a dream - it wouldn't be really-real.
For things to be real they need to be solid.
A child's understanding is probably the correct one - it might run like this...
If I am going to live forever I want to do it in a body, of course!
If I lived-on just as a spirit it would not be me.
I don't want to be just a ghost, forever.
If I lived forever as a ghost, that would be as bad as a dream - it wouldn't be really-real.
For things to be real they need to be solid.
Evangelism in an officially-evil world: the Fourth Gospel perspective continues to unfold...
I find that I cannot stop the incremental process of restructuring that was initiated by my reading the Fourth Gospel as the primary and most authoritative source of revelation on Jesus Christ. In particular, the implications that Jesus brought resurrection to eternal life - specifically resurrection. I feel that resurrection is much more important, and much simpler (child-like) than I have been aware.
That, for another day perhaps.
In a strange way, the function of the Fourth Gospel has been to clarify that the work of Christ did not depend upon any gospel; his work was primarily to make possible our resurrection to life eternal. The work was done, it was done well - and in a vital sense nothing more needed to be done.
From that point, it was up to each individual person to make the choice of whether to follow Jesus. That is, to love, trust, have faith in - and also literally follow Jesus through death to resurrection into life eternal, in Heaven, as members of the divine family.
For this decision, revelation is not necessary since we all know Jesus from our pre-mortal spirit lives - so that when we have died (biologically) we will know (recall) what it means to follow him, and will then choose.
This was and is a necessary part of the plan, since salvation could not be made to depend upon contingencies such as date or place of birth or parents. God will ensure that each gets what is needed for this decision, but cannot (because of the absolute nature of freedom) assure that the revelation and scriptures, teachings and authorities, are correct and correctly-motivated.
Which is just as well! Because - from a Fourth Gospel perspective - major errors and distortions were built into the Christian denominations, theology and churches from as far back as is known. If men were reliant upon the validity of teaching, ritual and scriptures, and the validity of their own ability and motivation to interpret these, salvation would resemble a lottery with very poor odds.
And a lottery with poor odds is Not the kind of world that would be made for us, by a loving God who is our Father, and is also the creator of this world.
For Christians this world must (surely?) be fit-for-purpose - yes?
This world is God's creation, and it is well designed for its core purpose. From each person's individual perspective, that purpose is to give us experiences from which we can learn in ways that will benefit us in the coming life eternal (if we choose it). What happens during this mortal life is (from God's perspective) therefore about theosis - the process of becoming more divine, living more divinely - this world is Not primarily about salvation.
That is (ultimately) why we do not remember our pre-mortal lives - for theosis we must live this life with full realism; not as a temporary prelude to eternity. We need to be separated from immersion in the divine in order to choose, freely, our own future - do we choose loving creation, or do we reject it?
It is the demonic powers who try to make this mortal life about salvation, by trying to induce people to reject Jesus.
Some will do this naturally, spontaneously (some demons have always been evil, since eternity); but some individuals have a choice. Up to that last decision whether or not to accept or reject Jesus's gift to dwell in Heaven in a life of creativity and love; anyone can decide for Jesus (this is what repentance is about, and its absolute power).
To induce such people to reject Jesus is difficult, because it entails them embracing an inversion of values - such that good and evil, virtue and sin, beauty and ugliness, truth and lies become inverted. However, we can see that this is possible, because mainstream modern Western society is already 'officially' and extremely value-inverted society.
All that modern people have to do is go along with the mainstream moral, aesthetic and bureaucratic practises; and they will quite 'naturally' choose hell in preference to Heaven, having decided that Hell is the 'real' Heaven, and Heaven is 'really' a place of evil (full of judgemental, hypocritical 'haters').
However, getting the mass of people to reach this inverted state has been a long, multi-generational, delicate process of subversion. The main (not the only, but the major) weapon has been the sexual revolution - such that the demands of sex and (now) sexuality have gradually weakened, demolished and replaced the entirety of the innate, natural and spontaneous value system of humankind.
So, that is the current situation - made possible by the decisions of millions of individuals to reject the gift of Jesus Christ, for all kinds of reasons - and the effect that such has had upon modern Western society.
But - Nothing Has Gone Wrong with what Jesus did 2000 years ago. The Plan has not been sabotaged or anything of that sort - although the mix of personnel has changed, although the nature of social pressures has changed; the ultimate situation is the same now as it was from the time of Jesus's ministry and death, resurrection and ascension.
Each of us still has exactly the same chance of accepting the gift of Jesus; about which we already know from pre-mortal life, and which we will recall after death. I am not saying that each person has exactly the same odds of making such an acceptance, because in the first place these are incalculable, and secondly that is the wrong way to regard our situation.
We need to get used to regarding our situation in a very personal and responsible fashion. This is a great advantage of this modern, Western era. The pervasive evil of our society means that any honest and virtuous person will distrust external authority, and will realise that external authority is arbitrary and labile at best - and over the long term is evil in motivation.
This means that we are each being all-but compelled to take explicitly direct and personal responsibility for our life choices, for our understanding of our situation, for our salvation. This has, in fact, always been the true situation - but in the past a passive, externally-regulated person could go through life without being confronted by the stark fact of it - and this was itself an extremely spiritually hazardous situation, since the ultimate choice was unavoidably personal.
What does this imply for Christian teaching and evangelism. Does it mean that it is unnecessary or futile?
No, it does not. We should learn from the current vast and pervasive environment of evil propaganda that personal choice can be influenced. We are each a part of the environment for 'other people'. Recalling that all this operates at a strictly individual level - what we personally say and do, how we personally think and behave, is a part of the environment that God can use to help other people in their theosis. We are part of the experience of others.
Some people are solidly evil, have made their choices; some would find Heaven intolerable, some are dedicated to the destruction of creation. It would indeed be futile to evangelise such people - even if, as is possible, they are a large majority of the population in the West.
But other individuals are evil because they have been induced into inversion and have chosen that which will make them miserable (even though many people will double-down on that which makes them miserable). These are the people who are open to a change of heart.
A person who is well-motivated - that is motivated (at that particular moment) by truth, beauty and virtue - may make a positive difference... of course! We know this from our own experience, don't we?
The best and most powerful motivation is love - and I believe it is operative post-mortem and at the actual moment of choice for or against Heaven. But effective love is essentially dyadic, and can't be compelled or made; and saving love has a narrow range. The 'benign altruism' kind of love espoused by preachers and edifying writers (such as myself!) is a very different and much weaker thing than real interpersonal love.
So, evangelism is (as everyone already knows) something that all Christians should do at some level - that hasn't changed, ever; and that level ought to be personal - not systematic (not necessarily systematic). If done once, for one person - and it hits home, and if it helps towards a change of heart...
Well... given what is at stake, that of itself would be a cosmically vast achievement.
That, for another day perhaps.
In a strange way, the function of the Fourth Gospel has been to clarify that the work of Christ did not depend upon any gospel; his work was primarily to make possible our resurrection to life eternal. The work was done, it was done well - and in a vital sense nothing more needed to be done.
From that point, it was up to each individual person to make the choice of whether to follow Jesus. That is, to love, trust, have faith in - and also literally follow Jesus through death to resurrection into life eternal, in Heaven, as members of the divine family.
For this decision, revelation is not necessary since we all know Jesus from our pre-mortal spirit lives - so that when we have died (biologically) we will know (recall) what it means to follow him, and will then choose.
This was and is a necessary part of the plan, since salvation could not be made to depend upon contingencies such as date or place of birth or parents. God will ensure that each gets what is needed for this decision, but cannot (because of the absolute nature of freedom) assure that the revelation and scriptures, teachings and authorities, are correct and correctly-motivated.
Which is just as well! Because - from a Fourth Gospel perspective - major errors and distortions were built into the Christian denominations, theology and churches from as far back as is known. If men were reliant upon the validity of teaching, ritual and scriptures, and the validity of their own ability and motivation to interpret these, salvation would resemble a lottery with very poor odds.
And a lottery with poor odds is Not the kind of world that would be made for us, by a loving God who is our Father, and is also the creator of this world.
For Christians this world must (surely?) be fit-for-purpose - yes?
This world is God's creation, and it is well designed for its core purpose. From each person's individual perspective, that purpose is to give us experiences from which we can learn in ways that will benefit us in the coming life eternal (if we choose it). What happens during this mortal life is (from God's perspective) therefore about theosis - the process of becoming more divine, living more divinely - this world is Not primarily about salvation.
That is (ultimately) why we do not remember our pre-mortal lives - for theosis we must live this life with full realism; not as a temporary prelude to eternity. We need to be separated from immersion in the divine in order to choose, freely, our own future - do we choose loving creation, or do we reject it?
It is the demonic powers who try to make this mortal life about salvation, by trying to induce people to reject Jesus.
Some will do this naturally, spontaneously (some demons have always been evil, since eternity); but some individuals have a choice. Up to that last decision whether or not to accept or reject Jesus's gift to dwell in Heaven in a life of creativity and love; anyone can decide for Jesus (this is what repentance is about, and its absolute power).
To induce such people to reject Jesus is difficult, because it entails them embracing an inversion of values - such that good and evil, virtue and sin, beauty and ugliness, truth and lies become inverted. However, we can see that this is possible, because mainstream modern Western society is already 'officially' and extremely value-inverted society.
All that modern people have to do is go along with the mainstream moral, aesthetic and bureaucratic practises; and they will quite 'naturally' choose hell in preference to Heaven, having decided that Hell is the 'real' Heaven, and Heaven is 'really' a place of evil (full of judgemental, hypocritical 'haters').
However, getting the mass of people to reach this inverted state has been a long, multi-generational, delicate process of subversion. The main (not the only, but the major) weapon has been the sexual revolution - such that the demands of sex and (now) sexuality have gradually weakened, demolished and replaced the entirety of the innate, natural and spontaneous value system of humankind.
So, that is the current situation - made possible by the decisions of millions of individuals to reject the gift of Jesus Christ, for all kinds of reasons - and the effect that such has had upon modern Western society.
But - Nothing Has Gone Wrong with what Jesus did 2000 years ago. The Plan has not been sabotaged or anything of that sort - although the mix of personnel has changed, although the nature of social pressures has changed; the ultimate situation is the same now as it was from the time of Jesus's ministry and death, resurrection and ascension.
Each of us still has exactly the same chance of accepting the gift of Jesus; about which we already know from pre-mortal life, and which we will recall after death. I am not saying that each person has exactly the same odds of making such an acceptance, because in the first place these are incalculable, and secondly that is the wrong way to regard our situation.
We need to get used to regarding our situation in a very personal and responsible fashion. This is a great advantage of this modern, Western era. The pervasive evil of our society means that any honest and virtuous person will distrust external authority, and will realise that external authority is arbitrary and labile at best - and over the long term is evil in motivation.
This means that we are each being all-but compelled to take explicitly direct and personal responsibility for our life choices, for our understanding of our situation, for our salvation. This has, in fact, always been the true situation - but in the past a passive, externally-regulated person could go through life without being confronted by the stark fact of it - and this was itself an extremely spiritually hazardous situation, since the ultimate choice was unavoidably personal.
What does this imply for Christian teaching and evangelism. Does it mean that it is unnecessary or futile?
No, it does not. We should learn from the current vast and pervasive environment of evil propaganda that personal choice can be influenced. We are each a part of the environment for 'other people'. Recalling that all this operates at a strictly individual level - what we personally say and do, how we personally think and behave, is a part of the environment that God can use to help other people in their theosis. We are part of the experience of others.
Some people are solidly evil, have made their choices; some would find Heaven intolerable, some are dedicated to the destruction of creation. It would indeed be futile to evangelise such people - even if, as is possible, they are a large majority of the population in the West.
But other individuals are evil because they have been induced into inversion and have chosen that which will make them miserable (even though many people will double-down on that which makes them miserable). These are the people who are open to a change of heart.
A person who is well-motivated - that is motivated (at that particular moment) by truth, beauty and virtue - may make a positive difference... of course! We know this from our own experience, don't we?
The best and most powerful motivation is love - and I believe it is operative post-mortem and at the actual moment of choice for or against Heaven. But effective love is essentially dyadic, and can't be compelled or made; and saving love has a narrow range. The 'benign altruism' kind of love espoused by preachers and edifying writers (such as myself!) is a very different and much weaker thing than real interpersonal love.
So, evangelism is (as everyone already knows) something that all Christians should do at some level - that hasn't changed, ever; and that level ought to be personal - not systematic (not necessarily systematic). If done once, for one person - and it hits home, and if it helps towards a change of heart...
Well... given what is at stake, that of itself would be a cosmically vast achievement.
Monday, 23 September 2019
In response to secular liberal apostasy; Traditionalists double-down on theological orthodoxy, creating schism and conflict among themselves
I see this A Lot in discussions online, and sometimes in real life. Secular liberal apostasy (i.e. the stepwise process of losing faith and leaving Christianity) presents itself as heresy (i.e. an unorthodox type of Christianity).
Traditionalists fall into the trap because they are unwilling to judge the true motivations of the liberalisers. Instead they try to resist apostasy legalistically - by more tightly defining and enforcing theological doctrines and rules of church order. They do this because it seems more 'objective'.
But the more tightly they define and enforce the 'objective' rules and practises of their denomination or church; the more they separate themselves from other Traditionalist Christians.
So, with legalism traditionalist Roman and Orthodox Catholics are driven apart, Catholics from Protestants, Episcopalians from Congregationalists. All the above are driven apart from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh day Adventists...
In the end, the Christian Traditional 'voice' becomes a Babel of increasingly mutually hostile factions. Christianity - as such - is weakened.
This is the consequence of Traditionalism resisting liberalism by increasing legalism.
Traditionalists fall into the trap because they are unwilling to judge the true motivations of the liberalisers. Instead they try to resist apostasy legalistically - by more tightly defining and enforcing theological doctrines and rules of church order. They do this because it seems more 'objective'.
But the more tightly they define and enforce the 'objective' rules and practises of their denomination or church; the more they separate themselves from other Traditionalist Christians.
So, with legalism traditionalist Roman and Orthodox Catholics are driven apart, Catholics from Protestants, Episcopalians from Congregationalists. All the above are driven apart from Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh day Adventists...
In the end, the Christian Traditional 'voice' becomes a Babel of increasingly mutually hostile factions. Christianity - as such - is weakened.
This is the consequence of Traditionalism resisting liberalism by increasing legalism.
Not even trying... not even Wanting to do the right things
When I wrote my 2012 book about the corruption of science, called Not even trying, my main argument was that the root of the problem was that the people who controlled science, the people who called themselves scientists, were Not Even Trying to be truthful and to discover the truth.
Therefore science was inevitably corrupt, in hundreds of ways - simply because it was aimed-at other things than those which science ought primarily to be aimed-at.
This is a very general phenomenon, increasing in strength and prevalence every year. In particular i applies at the societal level - and from there it permeates down to affect all other levels.
The fact is frequently neglected by those hoping for a positive change. If 'people' don't want positive change - where is that change supposed to come from?
Of course, there is a very influential school of thought that says Good can come, does come - and indeed perhaps ought to come - from evil intentions. This began with the Adam Smith-derived idea of free markets and free trade, whereby the selfishness and short-termism of actors in the 'marketplace' is supposed to yield long term group-benefit. Although Smith argued this only within a strongly Christian moral context, which was assumed.
Then came Darwin; who metaphysical idea of evolution by natural selection did not require any larger moral context; but asserted that the more complex and the higher, the more altruistic and the longer-term; could arise from purely short-termist selfish competition between reproducing entities - so long as reproductively-successful traits were inherited.
This idea permeated society generally, including science; so that it is assumed that it is The System which is moral, and not the individual; it is The System that sustains functionality independent of individual personal aspirations and motivations.
In other words, here-and-now in this modern mainstream world; it doesn't matter what people think or want or how they behave as individuals; they may be as selfish, short-termist, or corrupt as is expedient in any given situation - because the overall functionality is located at the group and system level of things. The assumption is that good overall group-outcomes cannot come from individual motivations; one person cannot make a positive difference.
Individual belief is regarded as irrelevant, individual effort is simply futile - except insofar as it promotes or interferes with The System. The individual can only - on the one hand - give a 'good example'; or on the other hand encourage the forces that oppose ideology of The System, The Establishment.
That's where we are. Everywhere among the international and national institutions, organisations, corporations. Nobody wants to do the right things For Himself or Herself; instead people want The Right Thing to-be-done by The System. There is a cleavage between these vague wishful aspirations - which may be Good; and actual personal motivations - which conform to The System.
This is why I keep emphasising that - from where we now are; nothing Good can come without people First wanting it. And wanting Good not vaguely as a daydream aspiration but powerfully as a persona motivation. Because contra the metaphysics of natural selection, markets, and the like.
Since Good is an actuality, a reality (Good is taking the side of God and creation) - therefore Good results cannot emerge from nothing-but evil motivations.
The System can do more than harness Good aspirations and behaviours; it cannot manufacture Good outcomes from evil inputs.
At root, unless we each take personal responsibility; there can be no group benefit.
Therefore science was inevitably corrupt, in hundreds of ways - simply because it was aimed-at other things than those which science ought primarily to be aimed-at.
This is a very general phenomenon, increasing in strength and prevalence every year. In particular i applies at the societal level - and from there it permeates down to affect all other levels.
The fact is frequently neglected by those hoping for a positive change. If 'people' don't want positive change - where is that change supposed to come from?
Of course, there is a very influential school of thought that says Good can come, does come - and indeed perhaps ought to come - from evil intentions. This began with the Adam Smith-derived idea of free markets and free trade, whereby the selfishness and short-termism of actors in the 'marketplace' is supposed to yield long term group-benefit. Although Smith argued this only within a strongly Christian moral context, which was assumed.
Then came Darwin; who metaphysical idea of evolution by natural selection did not require any larger moral context; but asserted that the more complex and the higher, the more altruistic and the longer-term; could arise from purely short-termist selfish competition between reproducing entities - so long as reproductively-successful traits were inherited.
This idea permeated society generally, including science; so that it is assumed that it is The System which is moral, and not the individual; it is The System that sustains functionality independent of individual personal aspirations and motivations.
In other words, here-and-now in this modern mainstream world; it doesn't matter what people think or want or how they behave as individuals; they may be as selfish, short-termist, or corrupt as is expedient in any given situation - because the overall functionality is located at the group and system level of things. The assumption is that good overall group-outcomes cannot come from individual motivations; one person cannot make a positive difference.
Individual belief is regarded as irrelevant, individual effort is simply futile - except insofar as it promotes or interferes with The System. The individual can only - on the one hand - give a 'good example'; or on the other hand encourage the forces that oppose ideology of The System, The Establishment.
That's where we are. Everywhere among the international and national institutions, organisations, corporations. Nobody wants to do the right things For Himself or Herself; instead people want The Right Thing to-be-done by The System. There is a cleavage between these vague wishful aspirations - which may be Good; and actual personal motivations - which conform to The System.
This is why I keep emphasising that - from where we now are; nothing Good can come without people First wanting it. And wanting Good not vaguely as a daydream aspiration but powerfully as a persona motivation. Because contra the metaphysics of natural selection, markets, and the like.
Since Good is an actuality, a reality (Good is taking the side of God and creation) - therefore Good results cannot emerge from nothing-but evil motivations.
The System can do more than harness Good aspirations and behaviours; it cannot manufacture Good outcomes from evil inputs.
At root, unless we each take personal responsibility; there can be no group benefit.
Saturday, 21 September 2019
Death before and after Jesus (and the possibility of resurrection)
The coming of Jesus Christ changed the nature of death.
More exactly, I believe that this happened at the point of his baptism by John; the time when Jesus became divine; when the divine spirit rested upon him and stayed with him.
From then; those who loved, trusted, had-faith-in, 'followed' Jesus (those who wanted to be resurrected and dwell in Heaven for eternity) would be resurrected.
So time is real, history is real; the nature of death is divided into before and after that moment. That moment introduced the new possibility after biological death; which was resurrection to eternal life.
Before Jesus, there was no resurrection. When Men died, the spirit was separated from the body. What then?
My understanding is that the body is what enables greater agency, greater freedom; our capacity to be an actor rather than acted-upon. A spirit without a body has a much lesser degree of agency; so when the body dies there is a loss of The Self.
We experience an analogous situation each time we sleep. Sleep itself represents two of the possibilities after death - when we live in the spirit.
Deep sleep is the loss of consciousness. We are alive but don't know it (or barely so); alive but unaware of anything. This is the nearest reality to the subjective perception of death as annihilation.
Genuine annihilation of an individual spirit is impossible since our primordial spirit had no beginning, is eternal, has no end - but self-awareness can be annihilated (which represents a return to our primordial state, before we became Children of God) - alive but unaware.
When this state of alive-but-unaware is pleasurable, blissful - then it is Nirvana; the state of being sought by Hindus and Buddhists. So I am suggesting that deep sleep is a temporary Nirvana.
Dreaming sleep is equivalent to Hades or Sheol; which are seen as conditions of 'delirious', or demented half-being; when men become witless ghosts or similar.
This is seen in the state of dreaming sleep insofar as we are in a passive state of being. Memory constantly slips away, our capacity for agency is feeble so that we 'go along with' whatever is happening.
Dreaming sleep is an experience of passivity, loss of reason and purpose. It is a vision of spirit life without incarnation.
I suggest that these states - Nirvana and Hades, corresponding to deep and dreaming sleep - were the possibilities of spirit life before Jesus.
A further possibility was reincarnation. The spirit could be re-housed in a new body.
Since the body, and its specific nature, affects the spirit - this meant the reincarnated spirit, reborn and leading another life, was 'a different person' - not the same person repeated.
An analogy would be a relative who shares a certain fundamental similarity, the same flavour, deep character - "He's Just Like his uncle John...".
After Jesus a further possibility was introduced, in addition to 'Christian resurrection' - and this was Paradise.
Paradise takes various forms - Valhalla, or the Muslim Paradise. Implicitly, Paradise is a state in which our-selves are retained and our agency; so paradise is a kind of resurrection.
But Paradise is not a resurrection to the presence of God and the participation in the work of creation that is Heaven. It is a place where one's favourite activities become possible, in principle eternally (and subject to the limits of that aspiration, and the constraints of mutual existence).
Paradise (in its variants) is, indeed, pretty much the lower or 'Telestial' Heaven as described in Mormon theology. It is pleasurable and enjoyable, but in Paradise men are not qualitatively different from how they are in this mortal life - there is no ascent to a higher, more conscious and creative and loving, form of life.
In sum; Paradise is essentially uncreative, passive ('contemplative', appreciating, consuming) a reversion to childhood or adolescence; to Original Participation. And I believe it is possible that some people in Heaven are actually experiencing Paradise - e.g. those who are resurrected as (in their essence) children, but who live (as children) with their families who include those who are participating with God in the work of creation.
What about Hell? Well some will choose that, on the basis of how they choose in mortal life - maybe even a large majority of people in the modern West.
These are self-excluded from heaven, and self-excluded from resurrection; Hell is the exclusion of Love.
Such remain spirits in the condition of Sheol, but isolated by the perspective and priorities of those who choose Hell.
Their state seems terrible to me; and is based upon a primary (pride-full) dishonesty of denying that they are God's children living in God's creation... but Hell is what they get, having rejected all the above.
So, Jesus brought Hell, as well as resurrection in Heaven - because it is deliberate, conscious rejection of the world of God, Good, Creation and Love that makes Hell hellish.
Note added: Resurrection is the single most astonishing, incredible, mysterious thing about Christianity. That is my point. What that means is that resurrection is Not something that can be 'explained' in common-sensical, ordinary, easily intelligible, procedural terms as if it was a chemical manufacturing process. It is incredible. I am not At All surprised if people don't believe it. Nonetheless, resurrection is something near the core of what Jesus taught (and did). I think resurrection is probably a much more important fact of Christianity than commonly regarded. We should work from that, rather than try to make the incredibility go away.
More exactly, I believe that this happened at the point of his baptism by John; the time when Jesus became divine; when the divine spirit rested upon him and stayed with him.
From then; those who loved, trusted, had-faith-in, 'followed' Jesus (those who wanted to be resurrected and dwell in Heaven for eternity) would be resurrected.
So time is real, history is real; the nature of death is divided into before and after that moment. That moment introduced the new possibility after biological death; which was resurrection to eternal life.
Before Jesus, there was no resurrection. When Men died, the spirit was separated from the body. What then?
My understanding is that the body is what enables greater agency, greater freedom; our capacity to be an actor rather than acted-upon. A spirit without a body has a much lesser degree of agency; so when the body dies there is a loss of The Self.
We experience an analogous situation each time we sleep. Sleep itself represents two of the possibilities after death - when we live in the spirit.
Deep sleep is the loss of consciousness. We are alive but don't know it (or barely so); alive but unaware of anything. This is the nearest reality to the subjective perception of death as annihilation.
Genuine annihilation of an individual spirit is impossible since our primordial spirit had no beginning, is eternal, has no end - but self-awareness can be annihilated (which represents a return to our primordial state, before we became Children of God) - alive but unaware.
When this state of alive-but-unaware is pleasurable, blissful - then it is Nirvana; the state of being sought by Hindus and Buddhists. So I am suggesting that deep sleep is a temporary Nirvana.
Dreaming sleep is equivalent to Hades or Sheol; which are seen as conditions of 'delirious', or demented half-being; when men become witless ghosts or similar.
This is seen in the state of dreaming sleep insofar as we are in a passive state of being. Memory constantly slips away, our capacity for agency is feeble so that we 'go along with' whatever is happening.
Dreaming sleep is an experience of passivity, loss of reason and purpose. It is a vision of spirit life without incarnation.
I suggest that these states - Nirvana and Hades, corresponding to deep and dreaming sleep - were the possibilities of spirit life before Jesus.
A further possibility was reincarnation. The spirit could be re-housed in a new body.
Since the body, and its specific nature, affects the spirit - this meant the reincarnated spirit, reborn and leading another life, was 'a different person' - not the same person repeated.
An analogy would be a relative who shares a certain fundamental similarity, the same flavour, deep character - "He's Just Like his uncle John...".
After Jesus a further possibility was introduced, in addition to 'Christian resurrection' - and this was Paradise.
Paradise takes various forms - Valhalla, or the Muslim Paradise. Implicitly, Paradise is a state in which our-selves are retained and our agency; so paradise is a kind of resurrection.
But Paradise is not a resurrection to the presence of God and the participation in the work of creation that is Heaven. It is a place where one's favourite activities become possible, in principle eternally (and subject to the limits of that aspiration, and the constraints of mutual existence).
Paradise (in its variants) is, indeed, pretty much the lower or 'Telestial' Heaven as described in Mormon theology. It is pleasurable and enjoyable, but in Paradise men are not qualitatively different from how they are in this mortal life - there is no ascent to a higher, more conscious and creative and loving, form of life.
In sum; Paradise is essentially uncreative, passive ('contemplative', appreciating, consuming) a reversion to childhood or adolescence; to Original Participation. And I believe it is possible that some people in Heaven are actually experiencing Paradise - e.g. those who are resurrected as (in their essence) children, but who live (as children) with their families who include those who are participating with God in the work of creation.
What about Hell? Well some will choose that, on the basis of how they choose in mortal life - maybe even a large majority of people in the modern West.
These are self-excluded from heaven, and self-excluded from resurrection; Hell is the exclusion of Love.
Such remain spirits in the condition of Sheol, but isolated by the perspective and priorities of those who choose Hell.
Their state seems terrible to me; and is based upon a primary (pride-full) dishonesty of denying that they are God's children living in God's creation... but Hell is what they get, having rejected all the above.
So, Jesus brought Hell, as well as resurrection in Heaven - because it is deliberate, conscious rejection of the world of God, Good, Creation and Love that makes Hell hellish.
Note added: Resurrection is the single most astonishing, incredible, mysterious thing about Christianity. That is my point. What that means is that resurrection is Not something that can be 'explained' in common-sensical, ordinary, easily intelligible, procedural terms as if it was a chemical manufacturing process. It is incredible. I am not At All surprised if people don't believe it. Nonetheless, resurrection is something near the core of what Jesus taught (and did). I think resurrection is probably a much more important fact of Christianity than commonly regarded. We should work from that, rather than try to make the incredibility go away.
Friday, 20 September 2019
Implications of the Crystal Set Radio
When I was about seven years old, a friend showed me a radio receiver he called a Crystal Set. This was the middle 1960s, and there were amplified valve radios plugged into the electric mains in all homes, and battery powered portable transistor radios becoming increasingly common (although generally not owned by children).
But this Crystal Set was extraordinary. It was small and had very few components - too few, it seemed, to be able to do anything like pick-up a radio signal. But what amazed me, and in a sense changed-the-world for me, was that the crystal set had no source of power - no battery or anything. You simply made the set, tuned it, listed to the ear-piece - and then you could hear what was on the radio channel: music, speaking, weird noises...
At first this seemed like something-for-nothing - a real life perpetual motion machine. Somehow the speaker in the little ear piece was generating sound, without any power.
Later on it began to dawn on me that the power must be coming from the radio waves themselves, from whatever broadcast radio program I was listening to; from the energy with which the radio station was being broadcast via an antenna somewhere.
The Crystal Set was picking-up the radio waves, both tuning-into them and and also using the energy of the radio waves to power the tiny loudspeaker.
This was both exciting and troubling. I realised that I was, all the time, being bathed in radio waves that had power, energy, information - these were going-through me; All The Time (at least, wherever a radio signal could be detected).
I found this very strange to contemplate - and still do.
Since it is a rule of Life that one never gets something for nothing, this must be a trade-off. If there is enough energy in radio waves to power an ear-piece there is enough to do other stuff; most of it, on average, bad stuff.
And there is, of course, manyfold magnitude more energy from electromagnetic waves going through me now than there was fifty years ago; and a great deal more planned for the near future.
That Crystal Set seemed to have the whole essence of electromagnetism in microcosm - the obvious marvel and usefulness of the device, and the occult, implied... well, something else.
Jesus came to bring resurrection - and to show what that meant
Since Jesus came to bring resurrection - the Fourth Gospel also shows what resurrection means - shows what happens after our bodies die.
First we see Lazarus (author of the Fourth Gospel) resurrected. He has been dead a few days, his body has begun to decompose - and he is resurrected to resume his discipleship. It seems to be implied that the damage of putrefaction was healed (he isn't a zombie).
We aren't told what happens to Lazarus after writing the Fourth Gospel - but I have come to assume that at some later time he followed Jesus, ascending to Heaven.
Then we see Jesus resurrected two days after being beaten, mutilated, crucified. Something seems to be different, because he is not immediately recognisable - but he retains some marks of his mutilation. He also eats and drinks. And seems able to appear and disappear. He later ascends to Heaven.
What I wish to emphasise here is the Fourth Gospel shows us that resurrection happens soon after death - a few days. There is nothing about awaiting a second coming, or a long sleep awaiting a day of universal judgement - there is no mention of a such matters in the Fourth Gospel.
The implication is that resurrection happens - if it is going to happen, and I presume there are other possible outcomes - soon after we die.
We will then be solid, incarnated, indestructible eternal Beings. According to the Fourth Gospel, we then 'ascend' to Heaven - where we will meet with God, Jesus, and other resurrected Men who have followed Jesus. So there are other 'solid' Beings in Heaven. It seems to be an actual, solid place.
And there are also unincarnated spirit Beings. For instance, Jesus says he was in Heaven as a spirit before he was incarnated as a Man.
So Heaven seems to 'house' both spirit Men (who may, or may not, be incarnated at some future time) and resurrected Men. Apparently, Heaven is a place where the spiritual and incarnated are in full relation and interaction.
First we see Lazarus (author of the Fourth Gospel) resurrected. He has been dead a few days, his body has begun to decompose - and he is resurrected to resume his discipleship. It seems to be implied that the damage of putrefaction was healed (he isn't a zombie).
We aren't told what happens to Lazarus after writing the Fourth Gospel - but I have come to assume that at some later time he followed Jesus, ascending to Heaven.
Then we see Jesus resurrected two days after being beaten, mutilated, crucified. Something seems to be different, because he is not immediately recognisable - but he retains some marks of his mutilation. He also eats and drinks. And seems able to appear and disappear. He later ascends to Heaven.
What I wish to emphasise here is the Fourth Gospel shows us that resurrection happens soon after death - a few days. There is nothing about awaiting a second coming, or a long sleep awaiting a day of universal judgement - there is no mention of a such matters in the Fourth Gospel.
The implication is that resurrection happens - if it is going to happen, and I presume there are other possible outcomes - soon after we die.
We will then be solid, incarnated, indestructible eternal Beings. According to the Fourth Gospel, we then 'ascend' to Heaven - where we will meet with God, Jesus, and other resurrected Men who have followed Jesus. So there are other 'solid' Beings in Heaven. It seems to be an actual, solid place.
And there are also unincarnated spirit Beings. For instance, Jesus says he was in Heaven as a spirit before he was incarnated as a Man.
So Heaven seems to 'house' both spirit Men (who may, or may not, be incarnated at some future time) and resurrected Men. Apparently, Heaven is a place where the spiritual and incarnated are in full relation and interaction.
Love doesn't scale - does it?
I keep returning to this problem at the root of Christianity as it is usually observed and defined...
In the second part of the Fourth Gospel there is a great deal about the need for love as the core of how we should be, and about the very specific love between Jesus and certain specific people - members of his family; Lazarus, Mary and Martha; and the disciples. This is love in a context of intense, prolonged, personal relationships - often between familially-related people
The problem is then scaling-up this personal love. Most Christian churches instruct their members to love everybody; and there are frequent 'claims' of love between those within the church. I know such claims are familiar to the point of stereotypical; but I doubt whether this is even possible (in the same sense that Jesus meant love).
And if it is Not possible really-and-truly 'routinely' to up-scale love from family and close friends, to a specific church, to a denomination, to all Christians, to all the world... then this is a very serious dishonesty or error at the heart of the institutional and social basis of what has usually been termed Christianity.
The love that Jesus spoke-of and lived in the Fourth Gospel seems like a very different thing from the love discussed (as an abstract idea) by so many Christians since that time.
If real love operates at this familial-friendship scale; then real Christianity may be an almost invisible and imperceptible thing. It is possible that most real Christians (followers of Christ) lived and died unrecorded, unknown to history - or even to the people among whom they dwelt.
In the second part of the Fourth Gospel there is a great deal about the need for love as the core of how we should be, and about the very specific love between Jesus and certain specific people - members of his family; Lazarus, Mary and Martha; and the disciples. This is love in a context of intense, prolonged, personal relationships - often between familially-related people
The problem is then scaling-up this personal love. Most Christian churches instruct their members to love everybody; and there are frequent 'claims' of love between those within the church. I know such claims are familiar to the point of stereotypical; but I doubt whether this is even possible (in the same sense that Jesus meant love).
And if it is Not possible really-and-truly 'routinely' to up-scale love from family and close friends, to a specific church, to a denomination, to all Christians, to all the world... then this is a very serious dishonesty or error at the heart of the institutional and social basis of what has usually been termed Christianity.
The love that Jesus spoke-of and lived in the Fourth Gospel seems like a very different thing from the love discussed (as an abstract idea) by so many Christians since that time.
If real love operates at this familial-friendship scale; then real Christianity may be an almost invisible and imperceptible thing. It is possible that most real Christians (followers of Christ) lived and died unrecorded, unknown to history - or even to the people among whom they dwelt.
Thursday, 19 September 2019
If Heaven is a Family...
Much follows. But we need to consider family in an ideal way that is not seen (except in glimpses) in the modern world.
We need to imagine an extended Family, or clan - many extended Families linked by marriages and committed friendships.
A Family world that is the basis of society - the political, economic, and also artistic, scientific, and - in general - creative grouping.
In our world, Families are seldom the environment for creativity; but an exception is perhaps when new religions emerge. These are often family affairs in their early years. We can see this in Christianity, when it seems that Jesus's family were the basis. Another example is the growth of Mormonism from Joseph Smith's family.
The Fourth Gospel depicts exactly this phase - and it could be taken as a vision of Heaven. No institutional forms, no hierarchy, no rules or laws - but a wholly organic, spontaneous, love-based human grouping. And creative.
In this mortal world, this phase has - usually sooner rather than latter - been fitted into the formal 'political' structures of settled society. So we get churches.
Probably inevitable, probably (at least in the past) A Good Thing.
But not ideal, not Heaven.
We need to imagine an extended Family, or clan - many extended Families linked by marriages and committed friendships.
A Family world that is the basis of society - the political, economic, and also artistic, scientific, and - in general - creative grouping.
In our world, Families are seldom the environment for creativity; but an exception is perhaps when new religions emerge. These are often family affairs in their early years. We can see this in Christianity, when it seems that Jesus's family were the basis. Another example is the growth of Mormonism from Joseph Smith's family.
The Fourth Gospel depicts exactly this phase - and it could be taken as a vision of Heaven. No institutional forms, no hierarchy, no rules or laws - but a wholly organic, spontaneous, love-based human grouping. And creative.
In this mortal world, this phase has - usually sooner rather than latter - been fitted into the formal 'political' structures of settled society. So we get churches.
Probably inevitable, probably (at least in the past) A Good Thing.
But not ideal, not Heaven.
Treachery - worst of crimes
At least, that's how it was regarded in traditional societies. A Traitor being someone who poses as a friend, but works for the enemy. Far more dangerous, more damaging, than a known enemy...
From a 'natural justice' perspectives it seems unsurprising that it was the last remaining crime to be punishable by execution; and also that to the modern secular Leftist way of 'thinking' treachery isn't a bad thing at all...
It was the upper class communists in Europe, the UK and the USA who made treachery into an 'acceptable' option; by working for the Soviet Union and against their 'host' nations (as parasites, they saw their own people that way).
Nowadays, it has become infra dig, a mark of low-class loser status among the Establishment, even to think about the possibility of treachery. Again, no surprises; considering the entirety of the ruling Establishment are themselves traitors; blood-sucking leeches growing fat from devouring the resources of those whom they purport to lead and guard.
That this is the case in politics is obvious, yet still not fully appreciated - at least in Britain. That the Left have been solid traitors since the middle 1960s, loathing and despising those whom they claim to 'represent', is still denied.
But it applies across the board. Someone who is a traitor and nothing but a traitor, such as Theresa May, is instead the object of sympathy or regarded as a well-meaning incompetent. Something like the Conservative Party is institutionalised treachery; yet people still regard them as superior to the leftists; when the difference is merely between species of Quisling.
The people who represented the medical profession in the 1900s were all traitors; and that the same applies to those who are the leaders of science: the 'great and good' of the peer review cartels. Yet this simple, obvious fact still is not acknowledged.
The leaders of all the mainstream churches are not benign bumbling fools - they are traitors, plotting and scheming how personally to profit from their employment as destroyers of their churches, while rehearsing conciliatory hand-wringing and concerned frowns...
It could not be much more obvious - yet most people don't see (and congratulate themselves on their blindness; as if being a smirking dupe was something to be proud of...).
The mental convolutions through which people will spin in trying to deny common sense and the evidence of experience is remarkable.
Sometimes - indeed, usually - things are as simple as they seem to be. The reason They fail - again, and again, and again - is simply because they are not even trying to succeed.
This basic fact needs to be clear before we can proceed - which is exactly why so much effort is put into obfuscating it.
From a 'natural justice' perspectives it seems unsurprising that it was the last remaining crime to be punishable by execution; and also that to the modern secular Leftist way of 'thinking' treachery isn't a bad thing at all...
It was the upper class communists in Europe, the UK and the USA who made treachery into an 'acceptable' option; by working for the Soviet Union and against their 'host' nations (as parasites, they saw their own people that way).
Nowadays, it has become infra dig, a mark of low-class loser status among the Establishment, even to think about the possibility of treachery. Again, no surprises; considering the entirety of the ruling Establishment are themselves traitors; blood-sucking leeches growing fat from devouring the resources of those whom they purport to lead and guard.
That this is the case in politics is obvious, yet still not fully appreciated - at least in Britain. That the Left have been solid traitors since the middle 1960s, loathing and despising those whom they claim to 'represent', is still denied.
But it applies across the board. Someone who is a traitor and nothing but a traitor, such as Theresa May, is instead the object of sympathy or regarded as a well-meaning incompetent. Something like the Conservative Party is institutionalised treachery; yet people still regard them as superior to the leftists; when the difference is merely between species of Quisling.
The people who represented the medical profession in the 1900s were all traitors; and that the same applies to those who are the leaders of science: the 'great and good' of the peer review cartels. Yet this simple, obvious fact still is not acknowledged.
The leaders of all the mainstream churches are not benign bumbling fools - they are traitors, plotting and scheming how personally to profit from their employment as destroyers of their churches, while rehearsing conciliatory hand-wringing and concerned frowns...
It could not be much more obvious - yet most people don't see (and congratulate themselves on their blindness; as if being a smirking dupe was something to be proud of...).
The mental convolutions through which people will spin in trying to deny common sense and the evidence of experience is remarkable.
Sometimes - indeed, usually - things are as simple as they seem to be. The reason They fail - again, and again, and again - is simply because they are not even trying to succeed.
This basic fact needs to be clear before we can proceed - which is exactly why so much effort is put into obfuscating it.
Colin Wilson on Buddhism
This very interesting passage comes from Poetry and Mysticism by Colin Wilson (1970) which was developed from an earlier, smaller book named Poetry and Zen. It has apparently never been reprinted but so far (I am on page 80) it seems to be one of Wilson's best books in the Outsider series - with a likable freshness and urgency about it.
This energetic quality probably derives from it being written in the era when Wilson was stimulated by several stints as a visiting professor in American colleges. This led to some interesting experiences and meetings - this book was written for City Lights press - the 'Beat' bookstore in San Fransisco after Wilson had met its owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti (who is, remarkably, still alive - aged 100!).
What makes the book significant is that it was his first exposition of the 'robot' idea, which featured strongly in his work from that point. The robot is the idea (which he shares with William Arkle, under a different name) that modern consciousness gains efficiency from the way that so many skilled and difficult tasks (like typing, driving a car - even basic abilities like walking and talking) become automatic; allowing us to focus attention on other matters.
But the robot also takes-over the things that most interest and satisfy us - like reading novels, listening to music, talking with friends... In the end, life becomes merely automatic - the robot does everything - unless we are shocked out of this comfort zone by some emergency, when we may come-alive again for a while.
Because it was Wilson's first discovery of the idea, there is an enjoyably exploratory feel about the book. Also, it has more detail about Wilson's evaluation of 'Eastern religions' than I have seen elsewhere. This following passage about Buddhism struck me as insightful - and there are several other similar sections which seem to bring out truths that seem valid (From page 30.):
Buddhism is an extremely positive religion. Its world rejection is quite unlike the Christian 'renunciation'. You wouldn't call it renunciation if you rejected cold tea for champagne.
This also explains why exponents of Buddhism feel only a patronising contempt for Christianity - as well as for Judaism, Mahommedanism and the more traditional forms of Hinduism.
The basic Buddhist belief is identical with the basic vision of science; it has no use for 'belief' or dogma; it aims at pure contemplation, as detached and unprejudiced as a scientist examining an unknown virus under the microscope.
But anyone who has fallen under the spell of Buddhism - or other eastern religion, for that matter - will have discovered the drawback. You can determinedly withdraw your mind from the objects of sense, assure yourself that you are free of all desire - and nothing whatever happens.
You cannot 'contemplate' merely by wanting to contemplate. In fact, you soon realise that contemplation is closely bound up with desire.
When you first perform that mental act of rejecting your desires and obsessions, the feeling of freedom is magnificent, and the mind is launched like a rocket, powered by the desire you are rejecting. That is why religious conversions are such violent experiences.
[However,] When there is nothing more to reject, the mind becomes static. And there is a world of difference between serenity and mere lack of emotion.
I would not go so far as to reject the whole Buddhist concept of contemplative objectivity; it can be achieved in flashes. But I am inclined to believe that when the aspirant sits cross-legged and concentrates the gaze at the end of the nose, his immediate aim should not be a state of contemplation. It is too negative. The mind requires a more positive aim.
This energetic quality probably derives from it being written in the era when Wilson was stimulated by several stints as a visiting professor in American colleges. This led to some interesting experiences and meetings - this book was written for City Lights press - the 'Beat' bookstore in San Fransisco after Wilson had met its owner Lawrence Ferlinghetti (who is, remarkably, still alive - aged 100!).
What makes the book significant is that it was his first exposition of the 'robot' idea, which featured strongly in his work from that point. The robot is the idea (which he shares with William Arkle, under a different name) that modern consciousness gains efficiency from the way that so many skilled and difficult tasks (like typing, driving a car - even basic abilities like walking and talking) become automatic; allowing us to focus attention on other matters.
But the robot also takes-over the things that most interest and satisfy us - like reading novels, listening to music, talking with friends... In the end, life becomes merely automatic - the robot does everything - unless we are shocked out of this comfort zone by some emergency, when we may come-alive again for a while.
Because it was Wilson's first discovery of the idea, there is an enjoyably exploratory feel about the book. Also, it has more detail about Wilson's evaluation of 'Eastern religions' than I have seen elsewhere. This following passage about Buddhism struck me as insightful - and there are several other similar sections which seem to bring out truths that seem valid (From page 30.):
Buddhism is an extremely positive religion. Its world rejection is quite unlike the Christian 'renunciation'. You wouldn't call it renunciation if you rejected cold tea for champagne.
This also explains why exponents of Buddhism feel only a patronising contempt for Christianity - as well as for Judaism, Mahommedanism and the more traditional forms of Hinduism.
The basic Buddhist belief is identical with the basic vision of science; it has no use for 'belief' or dogma; it aims at pure contemplation, as detached and unprejudiced as a scientist examining an unknown virus under the microscope.
But anyone who has fallen under the spell of Buddhism - or other eastern religion, for that matter - will have discovered the drawback. You can determinedly withdraw your mind from the objects of sense, assure yourself that you are free of all desire - and nothing whatever happens.
You cannot 'contemplate' merely by wanting to contemplate. In fact, you soon realise that contemplation is closely bound up with desire.
When you first perform that mental act of rejecting your desires and obsessions, the feeling of freedom is magnificent, and the mind is launched like a rocket, powered by the desire you are rejecting. That is why religious conversions are such violent experiences.
[However,] When there is nothing more to reject, the mind becomes static. And there is a world of difference between serenity and mere lack of emotion.
I would not go so far as to reject the whole Buddhist concept of contemplative objectivity; it can be achieved in flashes. But I am inclined to believe that when the aspirant sits cross-legged and concentrates the gaze at the end of the nose, his immediate aim should not be a state of contemplation. It is too negative. The mind requires a more positive aim.
Wednesday, 18 September 2019
Why have so many people over the past two hundred years concluded that Christianity is Not The Answer?
This interests me, because I was one of them.
The question was triggered for the nth time, when reading Colin Wilson; who does this in the space of a couple of paragraphs in Poetry and Mysticism (1970) - one of his Outsider series of books that I am currently reading for the first time (it's hard to find, usually expensive to buy).
Plenty of people have made an accurate diagnosis of the problem of Modern Man - because nearly everybody suffers from it, after all. The diagnosis is followed by a rapid, almost cursory, dismissal of Christianity as The Answer.
Why is it so easy for people to reject Christianity? When by contrast the same people will be prepared to put immense time and effort into (for example) trying to rehabilitate some version of Leftist politics as a possible answer; or paganism, Hinduism or Buddhism as a possible answer?
With Christianity it is a case of glancing briefly in the general direction of whatever preconception of Christianity that one has imbibed, then... Well, I don't like the look of that - straight down the plug-hole with it!
Yet with with anything else other than Christianity it is - let's find-out more, give it some serious work, and see what can be discovered...
There are several reasons. First, that the powers of darkness increasingly rule this world; and so Christianity is subjected to By Far the most pervasive and venomous smear campaign of any ideology or religion.
(Not even excepting 'fascism' - since what people now mean by that term bears near-zero relationship to the Socialist Workers Party of Germany, nor to any other of actual various supposed-fascisms. Fascism is just a Boo word used expediently against any opposition; such that real-life actual fascists such as the black-shirted Antifa, paid for by multinational money, are exempted from criticism.)
Christianity is continually under siege from combination of Global and Western National institutions (governments, politicians, large corporations, law, science, education, the mass media - and most mainstream self-styled Christian churches).
The accusations include extreme opposites (Christian churches are a living tomb inhabited by sentimental old women; yet also highly-organised patriarchal nests of fanatical white nationalist terrorists); but one or another criticisms will strike home for someone who is looking for a convenient excuse to reject Christianity.
Second is sex. Sex is probably the second-most-powerful mass motivator, after religion; absent religion, sex assumes primacy.
There is a strong and correct assumption that Christianity places restrictions on sexual activity; and for many people that is sufficient reason to reject it as evil. (Modern people regard any restriction of their own sexual desires as an evil of the worst - most fascist - type.)
Whatever excuse is used to reject Christianity as an answer - the real reason is very often something to do with sex. Sexual revolutionaries (of all types) have been, for more than two hundred years (starting with Byron, Shelley and their clique), at the forefront of atheism, apostasy, secularisation, Leftism. This continues post 1960s, with each successive sexual/ identity phase picking up the anti-Christian agenda.
Since Christianity is in fact The Answer - or, more exactly, contains the answer; this means that there are many people who, for many generations, have lived and died unsatisfactory lives (and perhaps gone to a post-mortal destination other-than Heaven) because of a hasty, ill-considered, and dishonest rejection of Christianity.
Well, it's their choice...
The question was triggered for the nth time, when reading Colin Wilson; who does this in the space of a couple of paragraphs in Poetry and Mysticism (1970) - one of his Outsider series of books that I am currently reading for the first time (it's hard to find, usually expensive to buy).
Plenty of people have made an accurate diagnosis of the problem of Modern Man - because nearly everybody suffers from it, after all. The diagnosis is followed by a rapid, almost cursory, dismissal of Christianity as The Answer.
Why is it so easy for people to reject Christianity? When by contrast the same people will be prepared to put immense time and effort into (for example) trying to rehabilitate some version of Leftist politics as a possible answer; or paganism, Hinduism or Buddhism as a possible answer?
With Christianity it is a case of glancing briefly in the general direction of whatever preconception of Christianity that one has imbibed, then... Well, I don't like the look of that - straight down the plug-hole with it!
Yet with with anything else other than Christianity it is - let's find-out more, give it some serious work, and see what can be discovered...
There are several reasons. First, that the powers of darkness increasingly rule this world; and so Christianity is subjected to By Far the most pervasive and venomous smear campaign of any ideology or religion.
(Not even excepting 'fascism' - since what people now mean by that term bears near-zero relationship to the Socialist Workers Party of Germany, nor to any other of actual various supposed-fascisms. Fascism is just a Boo word used expediently against any opposition; such that real-life actual fascists such as the black-shirted Antifa, paid for by multinational money, are exempted from criticism.)
Christianity is continually under siege from combination of Global and Western National institutions (governments, politicians, large corporations, law, science, education, the mass media - and most mainstream self-styled Christian churches).
The accusations include extreme opposites (Christian churches are a living tomb inhabited by sentimental old women; yet also highly-organised patriarchal nests of fanatical white nationalist terrorists); but one or another criticisms will strike home for someone who is looking for a convenient excuse to reject Christianity.
Second is sex. Sex is probably the second-most-powerful mass motivator, after religion; absent religion, sex assumes primacy.
There is a strong and correct assumption that Christianity places restrictions on sexual activity; and for many people that is sufficient reason to reject it as evil. (Modern people regard any restriction of their own sexual desires as an evil of the worst - most fascist - type.)
Whatever excuse is used to reject Christianity as an answer - the real reason is very often something to do with sex. Sexual revolutionaries (of all types) have been, for more than two hundred years (starting with Byron, Shelley and their clique), at the forefront of atheism, apostasy, secularisation, Leftism. This continues post 1960s, with each successive sexual/ identity phase picking up the anti-Christian agenda.
Since Christianity is in fact The Answer - or, more exactly, contains the answer; this means that there are many people who, for many generations, have lived and died unsatisfactory lives (and perhaps gone to a post-mortal destination other-than Heaven) because of a hasty, ill-considered, and dishonest rejection of Christianity.
Well, it's their choice...
How Not to be afraid of living inside the demonic electronic web
If we live in fear we have lost.
On the other hand, we already live inside an inescapable Global system of evil, administered by demonic powers and their servants and dupes - and the meshes of this web are tightening.
The good news is that we can win this battle, whatever the odds may be; and maybe even enjoy the process.
The situation resembles one of those horror movies in which the vampires cannot enter unless invited. But this applies to our souls rather than our houses; which means we can live well in the midst of evil, so long as we don't invite it in...
Of course, sooner or later, we will invite-evil-in; given the pervasiveness of temptation. What then?
In the vampire movies, that would be the end of the matter; but in real life, people can fail and fall; but then repent and win.
We live in a spiritual war. That is the first and most important insight.
And the spiritual war is won in the end by repentance, not by indomitable strength in resistance. There is no limit to the number of defeats, of lost battles; so long as each loss is recognised, and repented the war will be won.
Repentance has unlimited power, and unlimited battery life...
So we should focus on what enables a person to repent. And that is having something better to live for.
To repent, the person must have within them (as a lived experience) something better than what is being pushed onto them from outside, by the demonic web.
The first and vital battle is over whether there really is a spiritual war.
The spiritual war was initiated by the demonic powers with the objective of denying that there is a war.
When a person becomes convinced that there is not a spiritual war, the demons have won a soul; because that person will not repent - because he regards himself as having nothing to repent.
The victory of evil will only be achieved when this outcome is regarded as a victory of Good
The point is therefore not to live a life of 100% successful resistance against overwhelming odds; but simply to know when we have been beaten.
The danger here - in the spiritual war - is not the matter of being beaten in a specific battle, but in not realising that there has-been a battle, not realising that one has-been defeated. Because on the one hand, defeats are inevitable; on the other hand, no defeat is decisive so long as it is repented.
What is required to live in conditions of overwhelming adversity - under massively successful demonic influence - is to recognise Good and evil, and to take the side of Good. So long as that is the situation, then the individual can win any battle in an instant - and he will always be safe.
Indeed, so long as the individual knows Good from evil and recognises that it is easy to win any spiritual battle by repentance, then he is safe. He can get-on-with living, can appreciate life as best he may. He can enjoy the process of living, experiencing, learning...
Resisting evil is only the half of it, and without the other half it will fail. The other half is knowing and wanting Good.
And knowing Good is knowing God, as a person.
Faith, Hope and Charity - these are the positive virtues; the essence of a joyful life. The life of Faith is one of Hope based upon total confidence in the power of repentance to win against any odds; and the Love of God expressed in the choice of Good.
There is no need to live in fear; and if we are living in fear - we need to think again; because our faith is defective... something needs repenting.
On the other hand, we already live inside an inescapable Global system of evil, administered by demonic powers and their servants and dupes - and the meshes of this web are tightening.
The good news is that we can win this battle, whatever the odds may be; and maybe even enjoy the process.
The situation resembles one of those horror movies in which the vampires cannot enter unless invited. But this applies to our souls rather than our houses; which means we can live well in the midst of evil, so long as we don't invite it in...
Of course, sooner or later, we will invite-evil-in; given the pervasiveness of temptation. What then?
In the vampire movies, that would be the end of the matter; but in real life, people can fail and fall; but then repent and win.
We live in a spiritual war. That is the first and most important insight.
And the spiritual war is won in the end by repentance, not by indomitable strength in resistance. There is no limit to the number of defeats, of lost battles; so long as each loss is recognised, and repented the war will be won.
Repentance has unlimited power, and unlimited battery life...
So we should focus on what enables a person to repent. And that is having something better to live for.
To repent, the person must have within them (as a lived experience) something better than what is being pushed onto them from outside, by the demonic web.
The first and vital battle is over whether there really is a spiritual war.
The spiritual war was initiated by the demonic powers with the objective of denying that there is a war.
When a person becomes convinced that there is not a spiritual war, the demons have won a soul; because that person will not repent - because he regards himself as having nothing to repent.
The victory of evil will only be achieved when this outcome is regarded as a victory of Good
The point is therefore not to live a life of 100% successful resistance against overwhelming odds; but simply to know when we have been beaten.
The danger here - in the spiritual war - is not the matter of being beaten in a specific battle, but in not realising that there has-been a battle, not realising that one has-been defeated. Because on the one hand, defeats are inevitable; on the other hand, no defeat is decisive so long as it is repented.
What is required to live in conditions of overwhelming adversity - under massively successful demonic influence - is to recognise Good and evil, and to take the side of Good. So long as that is the situation, then the individual can win any battle in an instant - and he will always be safe.
Indeed, so long as the individual knows Good from evil and recognises that it is easy to win any spiritual battle by repentance, then he is safe. He can get-on-with living, can appreciate life as best he may. He can enjoy the process of living, experiencing, learning...
Resisting evil is only the half of it, and without the other half it will fail. The other half is knowing and wanting Good.
And knowing Good is knowing God, as a person.
Faith, Hope and Charity - these are the positive virtues; the essence of a joyful life. The life of Faith is one of Hope based upon total confidence in the power of repentance to win against any odds; and the Love of God expressed in the choice of Good.
There is no need to live in fear; and if we are living in fear - we need to think again; because our faith is defective... something needs repenting.
Tuesday, 17 September 2019
I love stainless steel
Since I discovered stainless steel as a concept, in earlyish childhood, it has always seemed a wonderful - almost magically marvellous - material. Surely the best?
For instance, I have a potato masher, somewhat like this - but nicer
The tool is elegant and simple in design, does not rust or tarnish, does the job very well - and is built around the properties of stainless steel - its strength combined with elasticisty; so that one can press down very hard on the masher without bending the shaft. Breaking it (whether accidentally or deliberately) would be out-of-the-question...
We take stainless steel for granted, but - wow!
For instance, I have a potato masher, somewhat like this - but nicer
We take stainless steel for granted, but - wow!
The self-refuting paradox of materialism - a 4 minute comic vid
An amusing and virtuoso bit of philosophy from the animator and author of the Brief Outlines vlog (dedicated to expounding Owen Barfield) is a video about the sad fate of a materialist philosopher called Zarathustra (with a luxuriant moustache suspiciously reminiscent of Nietzsche!).
It also forms a preliminary to Rudolf Steiner's (excellent) PhD thesis Truth and Knowledge.
Love is a world realm (for Christians)
Since Christianity puts so much emphasis on Love; putting it, indeed, as the very core value - it is essential to understand what is meant by Love.
Currently, most mainstream Christians have adopted mainstream society's post-1960s idea that Love is (merely) a feeling or emotion - as such, a subjective phenomenon, usually ephemeral, and ending at death or before. Such a definition defines Christians as idiotic dupes; and renders any sin into a virtue simply by claiming that it is based-on Love.
But Christians have not been very effective at explaining - even to themselves - what Love actually is if it is not merely a temporary emotion.
This is probably because Love is not taken seriously enough by Christians. If Love is primary, it must be located at a primary level, as one of the fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions of creation - Love needs to be what makes-possible this creation, this world.
First, this world, this creation, is alive and conscious, made of Beings (not things). But Beings tend to be fissile, to pursue each their own self-centred gratifications - Love is the choice, the ultimate commitment, by which Beings align their methods and goals.
Indeed, I would say that Love is God's realm - the world of creation.
Inside the realm of Love, there is possibility of creation; because Love is what makes for coherence, cohesion, the attractive 'force' that does not just hold-together the disparate Beings of creation; but intrinsically-harmonises their aspirations and motivations.
For example; a group of people without Love will relate to each other 'instrumentally' by means of various compromises between selfishness and altruism, between short-termist gratification and long-term survival etc. This situation is familiar in the workplace, and in public life generally.
By contrast; a group of people inside the realm of Love (for example, an ideally Good Family; which we can all imagine, even when we have not experienced it) will find that their aspirations, goals, methods are all developed within the context of Love; so that they will 'automatically' be aligned; and will continually be adjusted (as things develop) in light of that Love.
These alignments and adjustments are not compromises, nor are they experienced as compromises; they are instead just exactly what the Family members most want to do.
And that is the difference made by Love - the difference between (on the one hand) life being, at best, a compromise of long-termist mutual exploitation; and (on the other hand) a life in which Love is a medium within-which individuals may live positively, creatively.
Without Love there can only be indirect communications; each requiring cycles of many unreliable steps such as encoding information, transmission, perception, analysis, understanding etc. But Love is a communion of Beings, and Love makes communion possible by enabling a direct and unmediated, immediately apprehended, knowledge - each of the other.
So Love does not merely 'bind', it transforms the very nature of the situation; in exactly the way that a loving Family is different from a random collection of people trying to function-together according to various and labile sets of objectives, rules and practices.
Christians identify this realm of Love with the fact that we live in a creation, made by a creator whose children we are and who loves us.
By means of our brother, Jesus Christ; we are invited to join the eternal realm of Love after biological death; where we will participate as resurrected Beings.
Christians are those who believe in the reality of this eternal realm of Love, and who wish to inhabit it; who joyously accept that invitation.
Note added: The difference between Love in this mortal life and in Heaven, is that of permanence. By accepting the offer of resurrection into Heaven we (as immortal, indestructible Beings) make a irreversible commitment to Love. This solidity of Love is what then makes eternal positive creating a reality. By some contrast; here on earth our condition is one of learning primarily, one characterised by innumerable sources of change: sin, corruption, disease, degeneration... Yet we all experience Love, and can learn from that experience, if we so choose.
Currently, most mainstream Christians have adopted mainstream society's post-1960s idea that Love is (merely) a feeling or emotion - as such, a subjective phenomenon, usually ephemeral, and ending at death or before. Such a definition defines Christians as idiotic dupes; and renders any sin into a virtue simply by claiming that it is based-on Love.
But Christians have not been very effective at explaining - even to themselves - what Love actually is if it is not merely a temporary emotion.
This is probably because Love is not taken seriously enough by Christians. If Love is primary, it must be located at a primary level, as one of the fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions of creation - Love needs to be what makes-possible this creation, this world.
First, this world, this creation, is alive and conscious, made of Beings (not things). But Beings tend to be fissile, to pursue each their own self-centred gratifications - Love is the choice, the ultimate commitment, by which Beings align their methods and goals.
Indeed, I would say that Love is God's realm - the world of creation.
Inside the realm of Love, there is possibility of creation; because Love is what makes for coherence, cohesion, the attractive 'force' that does not just hold-together the disparate Beings of creation; but intrinsically-harmonises their aspirations and motivations.
For example; a group of people without Love will relate to each other 'instrumentally' by means of various compromises between selfishness and altruism, between short-termist gratification and long-term survival etc. This situation is familiar in the workplace, and in public life generally.
By contrast; a group of people inside the realm of Love (for example, an ideally Good Family; which we can all imagine, even when we have not experienced it) will find that their aspirations, goals, methods are all developed within the context of Love; so that they will 'automatically' be aligned; and will continually be adjusted (as things develop) in light of that Love.
These alignments and adjustments are not compromises, nor are they experienced as compromises; they are instead just exactly what the Family members most want to do.
And that is the difference made by Love - the difference between (on the one hand) life being, at best, a compromise of long-termist mutual exploitation; and (on the other hand) a life in which Love is a medium within-which individuals may live positively, creatively.
Without Love there can only be indirect communications; each requiring cycles of many unreliable steps such as encoding information, transmission, perception, analysis, understanding etc. But Love is a communion of Beings, and Love makes communion possible by enabling a direct and unmediated, immediately apprehended, knowledge - each of the other.
So Love does not merely 'bind', it transforms the very nature of the situation; in exactly the way that a loving Family is different from a random collection of people trying to function-together according to various and labile sets of objectives, rules and practices.
Christians identify this realm of Love with the fact that we live in a creation, made by a creator whose children we are and who loves us.
By means of our brother, Jesus Christ; we are invited to join the eternal realm of Love after biological death; where we will participate as resurrected Beings.
Christians are those who believe in the reality of this eternal realm of Love, and who wish to inhabit it; who joyously accept that invitation.
Note added: The difference between Love in this mortal life and in Heaven, is that of permanence. By accepting the offer of resurrection into Heaven we (as immortal, indestructible Beings) make a irreversible commitment to Love. This solidity of Love is what then makes eternal positive creating a reality. By some contrast; here on earth our condition is one of learning primarily, one characterised by innumerable sources of change: sin, corruption, disease, degeneration... Yet we all experience Love, and can learn from that experience, if we so choose.
Monday, 16 September 2019
Is Artificial Intelligence alive and conscious; and, if so, how?
I regard the notion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as manipulative or delusional, built upon many layers of incompetence and dishonesty.
But there is a fair question that could be put to someone like myself who believes that Everything is alive and conscious: reality is made-up of Beings.
Since Everything (humans, mice, trees, mountains, planets) is - in some sense - alive and conscious; then why not computers?
My answer is that computers Must be alive and conscious in some sense; but it all hinges on how.
Some things are Beings, and other things are parts of Beings. Humans are Beings. But most of the things we commonly regard as not-alive and not-conscious are parts-of Beings - things like the cells of a coral, the atoms of a grain of sand... These are probably not Beings in their own right, but participate in larger, more inclusive Beings that do have some degree of bounded, agent consciousness.
So, it is in this sense that computers are alive and conscious - they are part-of Beings; not Beings in their own right. Computers can participate in systems of intelligence, but cannot themselves be intelligent.
And these intelligent systems are Beings (at least, they are Beings by a minimalist definition).
The danger of AI is therefore Not that computers will become Beings, agents, conscious and alive; but that we will begin to treat them as such. This would be intrinsically evil, and lead to greater evil.
The Turing Test is an example of evil propaganda. It argues and implies, rhetorically, that anything that superficially appears to be a Being by reductionist and simplified criteria; really is a Being, and ought to be treated as a Being.
This treating of a part-of-Being asif it were a Being would actually be a human choice - and would be a chosen-lie, a falsehood, Not-Really Real - thus it would clear a path to the condition of virtuality; in which the not-real it lived as if it were real; and the real is ignored or denied.
Which is precisely where we are now.
But there is a fair question that could be put to someone like myself who believes that Everything is alive and conscious: reality is made-up of Beings.
Since Everything (humans, mice, trees, mountains, planets) is - in some sense - alive and conscious; then why not computers?
My answer is that computers Must be alive and conscious in some sense; but it all hinges on how.
Some things are Beings, and other things are parts of Beings. Humans are Beings. But most of the things we commonly regard as not-alive and not-conscious are parts-of Beings - things like the cells of a coral, the atoms of a grain of sand... These are probably not Beings in their own right, but participate in larger, more inclusive Beings that do have some degree of bounded, agent consciousness.
So, it is in this sense that computers are alive and conscious - they are part-of Beings; not Beings in their own right. Computers can participate in systems of intelligence, but cannot themselves be intelligent.
And these intelligent systems are Beings (at least, they are Beings by a minimalist definition).
The danger of AI is therefore Not that computers will become Beings, agents, conscious and alive; but that we will begin to treat them as such. This would be intrinsically evil, and lead to greater evil.
The Turing Test is an example of evil propaganda. It argues and implies, rhetorically, that anything that superficially appears to be a Being by reductionist and simplified criteria; really is a Being, and ought to be treated as a Being.
This treating of a part-of-Being asif it were a Being would actually be a human choice - and would be a chosen-lie, a falsehood, Not-Really Real - thus it would clear a path to the condition of virtuality; in which the not-real it lived as if it were real; and the real is ignored or denied.
Which is precisely where we are now.
Sunday, 15 September 2019
Could demons inhabit the omni-surveillance micro-control electronic system?
You can't say we weren't warned... from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
A fascinating post called Computers and Demons from William Wildblood . He opens up a discussion on whether demonic spirits may, in some way, be using the electromagnetic mass media as a way of influencing the world.
I think that the computer revolution has been driven by demons. It has certainly been captured by them but it was probably instigated by them too... If the IT revolution is demonically inspired the question is why? The immediate answer might be to distract people from the spiritual and make them more susceptible to evil using that word in its broadest sense to mean anti-spiritual...
But is there more? It seems to be the case that the demons cannot take physical form except under certain very particular circumstances and for brief periods... Demons would probably like to incarnate directly on Earth because this would give them greater power over us. There might also be something about being in a body that they covet.
Might the drive towards artificial intelligence, quantum computing and developing computers that are carbon-based actually be all about enabling demons to incarnate? ... What if the true purpose of the computer revolution, the end game so to speak, was to enable the incarnation of demons in this world? Is this a possibility we should start taking seriously?
This looks like an important insight. For example, it seems to fit with the frantic urgency with which the global Establishment are pushing ahead with 5G. Perhaps the aim is that 5G, potentially via the network of interconnected, externally-controlled and -monitored 'smart' devices that has infiltrated and been forced-upon so many homes and workplaces, is to be subject to some relatively direct demonic influence?...
I am unclear about the mechanism with which this might work; indeed I don't think we need to know such details. However, (according to the historical delvings of Jeremy Naydler) there has been a traditional understanding of electricity (going back millennia) which regards it as an inhuman and sinister phenomenon.
It is possible that such ancient wisdom had more truth in it than is apparent from a reductionistic scientistic perspective which sees electromagnetism only in terms of its potential convenience, usefulness - and as a means of amusement and the medium of virtuality.
In a time when things are coming to a point, it seems likely that our choices will be stark; and the cost of avoiding damnation (after two centuries of collusion) may be extreme.
Saturday, 14 September 2019
Jeremy Naydler on the impending 5G
In November of 2018, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorised the rocket company SpaceX... to launch a fleet of 7,518 satellites...
The satellites will operate at a height of approximately 210 miles, and irradiate the Earth with extremely high frequencies between 37.5 GHz and 42 GHz. This fleet will be in addition to a smaller SpaceX fleet of 4,425 satellites, already authorised earlier in the year by the FCC, which will orbit the Earth at a height of approximately 750 miles and is set to bathe us in frequencies between 12 GHz and 30 GHz...
There are at present approximately two thousand fully functioning satellites orbiting the Earth...
Other companies... are each launching their own smaller fleets, bringing the total number of projected new broadband satellites to around 20,000...
The introduction of 5G will require hundreds of thousands of new mini mobile phone masts... in urban centres throughout the UK, and literally millions of new masts in cities throughout the rest of the world, all emitting radiation at frequencies and at power levels far higher than those to which we are presently subjected.
These masts... will be discreetly attached to the side of shops and offices or secured to lampposts. The 20,000 satellites are a necessary supplement to this land-based effort, for they will guarantee that... not one inch of the globe will be free of radiation.
Edited from an article by Jeremy Naydler in New View magazine.
Regular readers will know of my respect for Jeremy Naydler; so I take his warnings seriously.
My understanding of the 5G phenomenon is that it part of the Global Totalitarian (and transhumanist) agenda - it appears to be, in its urgency and almost wild desperation and over-reach, a last and largest grab at achieving that centrally-directed omni-surveillance and micro-control that the demonic powers apparently regard as their best strategy for mass damnation.
Since - in this post Christian, materialistic world or hedonic nihilism; there is near-zero resistance to the totalitarian agenda and its aspects such as a 5G-irradiated-everything - indeed, there is far more of keenness and approval; the race is on between opposed trends: one towards the collapse of social order/ technological capability; and the other towards the waking-nightmare of Global Transhumanism.
Which will come first? Collapse or the Brave New-1984?
Which would you, personally, prefer?
Note: By my understanding 5G is not an issue of business profits versus mass health - as most of those who oppose it seem to suppose (after all, with this level of infrastructure, the only 'profits' will come from truly-massive hidden subsidies paid-for by taxpayers: it's basically a government-funded project). The issue is whether or not we want a quantum leap in Global totalitarian surveillance and control versus rolling this back at whatever cost it takes.
The satellites will operate at a height of approximately 210 miles, and irradiate the Earth with extremely high frequencies between 37.5 GHz and 42 GHz. This fleet will be in addition to a smaller SpaceX fleet of 4,425 satellites, already authorised earlier in the year by the FCC, which will orbit the Earth at a height of approximately 750 miles and is set to bathe us in frequencies between 12 GHz and 30 GHz...
There are at present approximately two thousand fully functioning satellites orbiting the Earth...
Other companies... are each launching their own smaller fleets, bringing the total number of projected new broadband satellites to around 20,000...
The introduction of 5G will require hundreds of thousands of new mini mobile phone masts... in urban centres throughout the UK, and literally millions of new masts in cities throughout the rest of the world, all emitting radiation at frequencies and at power levels far higher than those to which we are presently subjected.
These masts... will be discreetly attached to the side of shops and offices or secured to lampposts. The 20,000 satellites are a necessary supplement to this land-based effort, for they will guarantee that... not one inch of the globe will be free of radiation.
Edited from an article by Jeremy Naydler in New View magazine.
Regular readers will know of my respect for Jeremy Naydler; so I take his warnings seriously.
My understanding of the 5G phenomenon is that it part of the Global Totalitarian (and transhumanist) agenda - it appears to be, in its urgency and almost wild desperation and over-reach, a last and largest grab at achieving that centrally-directed omni-surveillance and micro-control that the demonic powers apparently regard as their best strategy for mass damnation.
Since - in this post Christian, materialistic world or hedonic nihilism; there is near-zero resistance to the totalitarian agenda and its aspects such as a 5G-irradiated-everything - indeed, there is far more of keenness and approval; the race is on between opposed trends: one towards the collapse of social order/ technological capability; and the other towards the waking-nightmare of Global Transhumanism.
Which will come first? Collapse or the Brave New-1984?
Which would you, personally, prefer?
Note: By my understanding 5G is not an issue of business profits versus mass health - as most of those who oppose it seem to suppose (after all, with this level of infrastructure, the only 'profits' will come from truly-massive hidden subsidies paid-for by taxpayers: it's basically a government-funded project). The issue is whether or not we want a quantum leap in Global totalitarian surveillance and control versus rolling this back at whatever cost it takes.
William Arkle and the royal connection...
From Nick Arkle's Facebook pages - That's Nick (son of William) Arkle presenting one of William Arkle's pictures to Prince Charles at a charity event in Bristol a few days ago. Between them, holding a copy of The Great Gift, is Nick's wife Tara.
Also on Nick's page is a preliminary version of the design for the forthcoming (in just a few weeks!) edition of A Geography of Consciousness, with my new introduction as well as Colin Wilson's original essay.