Sturgeon's Law again - or, is Romantic Christianity *necessarily* just-another liberal apostasy?

If Romantic Christianity is an insistence that the individual (rather than any external authority, such as a church or a prescribed-interpretation of Scripture), and his deepest intuition (rather than e.g. "evidence" or "reason"), ought to be ultimately responsible for his Christian belief...

Then is this not just-another version of the kind of liberal-apostasy - just another attempt to create hedonic or socially-advantageous wriggle-room from the obvious and necessary truths of [insert favoured church or tradition]?

The best answer is not-necessarily, but sometimes, yes... it is bound to be. 

Especially when that individual attempts to impose his own personal intuition on "other people" in some kind of general, quasi-institutional, of self-advantaging fashion.

But even when an individual is going his best, the actual practice of Romantic Christianity will sometimes or even mostly be contaminated by the basic nature of this reality we all inhabit: which is undercut by entropy and permeated by evil.    

After all - so far as I can see - some version of "Sturgeon's Law" seems to apply almost everywhere - in the sense that in any category of phenomena involving people: most of that category is "more or less" crap. 

But the proper question is in that word "necessarily": the question of whether Romantic Christianity must be from-it-nature merely wriggle-room liberalizing-apostasy?

Because even if Romantic Christianity is, by the nature of all mortal earthly things, mostly crap; this is compatible with it being at its best actually good and true. 

I would first say that RC does not have to be, ought not to be a liberal apostasy; and that Romantic Christianity can instead be a genuine, positive, really new (and better!) way of being a Christian: a more authentic and divinely-approved way of "following Jesus".

   

In spiritual work, we need to make conscious effort... But not too hard or narrowly

In spiritual life here-and-now; it seems to be A Bad Idea to be too specific about what we want to achieve; because then there is a danger that we will achieve it!

To make conscious choices of what is "needed" is good; so long as we don't suppose that we already-know exactly what it is that we need (because, if we did, then we would already have it). 

The problem is that if we conscientiously follow, and work diligently at, some pre-set path or program; then will will manufacture a pre-determined result. 

(This happens from various causes: fulfilled assumptions, self-deception, peer pressure, perceived personal advantages...) 

In sum: if we get what we want, then we won't be getting what we need. 

Yet if we do nothing, we shall get nothing...

Apparently - we must go deeper, work from another level - one that is less specific and detailed; even as it is more positively transformative and valid. 

It's time to think about death...

William Wildblood has published an excellent post about a subject that almost nobody (in Western civilization) thinks about, except when compelled: death, and how we ought (yes ought) to prepare for it throughout our mortal lives.  

And by death, I don't mean dying. 

Dying - and especially the fear of suffering when dying - is a subject that almost obsesses our society, albeit usually in a covert sort of way. Not that dying is unimportant, of course it is (potentially) important; but that the fear of dying seems to block consideration of the overwhelming importance of what happens afterwards, and forever.   

The embarrassed evasiveness that greets any attempt to discuss death, would strike our ancestors (or probably most non-Western people) as utterly bizarre. Yet I was exactly like that myself, for most of my life. 

Western mainstream public discourse is (by no accident, I presume) restricted to a forced-choice between either an exaggeratedly childish and sentimental fairy-tale depiction of life after death; or else Nothing At All. 

Modern people have, apparently, really convinced themselves that the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible that death is utter annihilation - and that to think hard about, or to discuss, what happens afterwards - is either a morbid psychopathology, shallowly-idiotic self-deception, or some kind of selfish and dishonest mental manipulation. 

Yet, at the same time - and in mainstream public discourse (prestige mass media, corporate communications, officialdom etc) we see the strong encouragement of exactly morbid psychopathology, self-deception and blatant emotional manipulation when it comes to encouraging and exploiting people's fear of dying...

Fear of what suffering might happen, what it (supposedly) might be like, and how suffering may (supposedly) be avoided. These are recurrent themes in the mass media. 

Returning to William Wildblood's post: 

The everyday has its place... it is wrong to dismiss it as nothing. But that place stands in relation to the spiritual which is primary. And therefore since the spiritual will only fully come into view after death, you must start taking death seriously. 

Not in a way that makes earthly life futile for earthly life must be lived and lived properly. At the same time, death is the goal of life, the goal not just the end of it, and you must see it as in a sense the crowning achievement of your life.

That the great majority of people in the contemporary West do not see it like that may be one reason for the widespread dementia that afflicts much of the elderly population. 

The obvious reason for that is that people are just living longer, kept going by modern medicine. However, there could be an underlying spiritual purpose behind this too or accompanying it...

It could be that dementia strips away the resistance to the spiritual and leaves its victims on some level more open to the next world. An atheist has by definition erected barriers in his mind. Old age in general and dementia in particular might help to dismantle these barriers...

These are fascinating ideas - and similar thoughts have also occurred to me. 

I agree with William that "advances in medicine" and better living conditions (warmer houses, more food) are relevant - but they don't altogether explain the tremendous extension of life among the very severely incapacitated elderly. 

As a strong generalization: Dying is easy - it is staying alive that is difficult. 

However, many people nowadays live many years longer than they say they want to live, and in a extremely debilitated state. 

Yet traditionally, until recent decades; doctors and nurses with extensive experience of elderly people usually said that when someone loses the will to live (for example after the death of a spouse), and are ready to die: then they will soon die - and it used to happen despite even strenuous medical interventions. 

This no longer seems to happen. 

Of course, it is a matter of specific individual persons; but what often happens is, I think, consistent with what William suggests. 

In other words, among those (apparently a majority) who have lived by dogmatic materialism and in utter exclusion of the spirit; and who approach the end of life with the expectation, and even desire for, eternal spirit-annihilation. 

Through the effects of ageing and disease; such people may experience a return towards the simple and instinctive world-view akin to that of early childhood; a time of life when the spirit was a matter of spontaneous everyday experience - but in old age an analogous way of thinking is perhaps manifested as impaired cognition, delirium, and psychosis. 

If this is going-on (and surely it will not always be the case in everyone of extreme old age or dementia), such persons are perhaps being given an extra chance - by God - to reconsider their choice of death. 

Maybe they are offered a further opportunity to re-evaluate their long-standing choice of rejecting even the possibility of God, angels, spirits, life-after-death... and resurrection? 

We are always free, and the decision of salvation cannot be compelled: second, third and further chances to recognize spiritual realities may well be rejected. 

But when the inner barriers of willed-materialism have been dissolved by illness - then, what were regarded as idiocies and absurdities may become recognized as real possibilities that could be chosen... if that is indeed what we most want for our-selves.

 

The desire for significance in our lives - versus the desire for pleasure

We want significance in our lives; but we fear it too. 

Significance implies that what we think, say and do has permanence and universality; but that clashes with a sinful desire that we can act without consequences, avoid responsibility.

A desire for significance also gets mixed-up with the desire for esteem, status, prestige - which lead to various types of pleasurable feeling. 

Yet, in wanting significance in our lives; we are wanting an objective, solid, reality - not merely our personal feelings.

In essence, in wanting objective, solid significance; I think we want that (potentially) other people may always be able to know that-which is important in what we think or do.

We want other people to be able to find-out and know what Good we did. Find this out for themselves - without relying us on persuading them, or manipulating them in any way. 

(The modern brainwashing processes of "celebrity status" perfomed by the mass and social media and their false, dishonest, artificial virtuality does not suffice. It does not do the job we want doing.)

But why should we want significance, rather than merely wanting pleasure for ourselves - here-and-now?

Ultimately, the reason is: because of love. 

If we love, we want a shared world - that is an objective reality.

Heaven is the situation in which there is significance, permanence, universality; and Heaven is a place of love - and only of those who love.

Those who do not love, who do not want significance, reality, objectivity, permanence; these are the people who want more than anything current and perpetual pleasure - and they want it regardless of what happened in the past. 

These people dwell in the state of Hell. Because Hell is a wholly-subjective world, a world where My subjectivity - because My pleasure - is primary.

By contrast; a world of relationships, like Heaven, must be objective; and to want objectivity is to want significance.

Note: This is edited from a blog post of 28th August 2019.

When doing theology, I think like a scientist

I have noticed a big difference in the way I think about the way I think about theology, compared with almost everyone else. 

Which is: that I think like a scientist - whereas they think like theologians!

I state this as a matter of observation, rather than trying to assert the superiority of the way that I think - after all, very few people are, or ever have been "a scientist"... 

Indeed extremely-few "scientists" - i.e. professional researchers and scholars in self-styled science subjects - are or ever have been scientists. 

Modern professional and accredited "scientists" do not (with very rare exceptions) think like scientists - for instance, they do not seek and speak the truth - but instead they think like the careerist bureaucrats that they ultimately are. 

Anyway, what I mean is that theologians clearly feel the weight of authority and tradition so heavily that they believe that it would be a ridiculous presumption if they, as an individual person, was to critique, confront, or overturn that inertial mass on the basis of the thoughts of "little old me".   

I don't feel that way. 

As a scientist (especially the kind of theoretical scientist that I was) it is perfectly normal, indeed it is expected and necessary, that "I" am prepared to critique, confront, or overturn decades, hundreds or thousands of years of authority and tradition. 

That is now just allowable - it the job of a real scientist - if possible. That is what the very best scientists of history, the ones we are taught to admire and emulate, have always done. 

Furthermore; the way that science works is by making different (and perhaps new) assumptions, or "hypotheses" and then... trying them out. 

Unless we do this, then we will not make any qualitative difference to science - unless we do this, we will just be extrapolating or interpolating on already-existing science (potentially worthwhile, but an activity that comes almost automatically for competent technicians of science). 

In other words; to do significant science entails being able creatively (and creativity is always and necessarily personal) to select from and reframe existing "evidence" in the making of new "theories". 

Then... taking that new theory and exploring reality on that basis - to see if it holds-up, to see if it has any advantages. 

This is pretty much what I do with theology - i.e. I approach it in a manner analogous to that of the kind of creative scientist that I aspired to be. 

I seek truth in a scientist's kind of way; but that truth is much bigger than the truths of science...

Theological truth is, indeed, as big a truth as I can imagine and express. 

When theorizing about Jesus, we should start from Jesus

The basic problem afflicting the "traditional" ways of theorizing about Jesus; is that they were doing theology or philosophy without Jesus, then trying to insert Jesus into the scheme. 

Therefore; insofar as they have been successful at providing a model of reality without Jesus (e.g. pantheism or monotheism) then they have created a model that has no need for Jesus. 

This has been the problem with mainstream Christian theology - it derives from world-views that existed before Jesus (such as Judaism, or the pagan classical philosophers), a world-view that did not include Jesus - and then has tried to insert Jesus into the model; while asserting (as dogma) that Jesus is necessary to the model. 

The outcome has either been to assimilate Jesus into the pre-existing model - e.g. with Trinitarian formulations of the nature of God, which strive to maintain Hebrew monotheism. 

Or else (as with Neo-Platonism and most of the mystery traditions) they render Jesus an "optional extra" to their already-complete schema - merely helpful, rather than essential. 

What we should instead do in a philosophical or theological sense, is to build our model of understanding from Jesus, around Jesus... starting with Jesus. 

For instance; Jesus says he came to save us from death, to offer us eternal life - so we may infer that this was not possible before Jesus or without Jesus. 

Jesus offered a post-mortal life in Heaven - so we may infer that Heaven did not exist before Jesus.

And so on... 

Of course; we need to insert Jesus into pre-existing reality and reality after Jesus - but this contextualization ought to be done narratively, not philosophically. 

The story of Jesus is a linear story about (among many other things) creation of this world by God, the nature of Men and our place in creation, and Man's possibilities in the future. 

Creation (obviously) came-before the incarnation of Jesus and continued-after Jesus's ascension. 

And it seems most people (at the time of his life, and after) never recognized or accepted Jesus's gift of eternal incarnated life in Heaven. 

And everyday life in this mortal world as a whole (e.g. the balance of present human suffering and gratification etc) seems not to have been positively and qualitatively made-better by the life and work of Jesus.  

From which I infer that the story of Jesus is one that (as he seems to have said) is one that ends and aims-at our situation after mortal-death. 

 

The above are examples - the general point I am making is that we should start our attempts to understand what Jesus did, with the life and death and resurrection of Jesus himself; and our explanations of how this fits with everything else should take the form of a narrative - the history of creation. 

Pantheist, Monotheist, and Jesus-centred Christians

It seems to me that the religion of Christianity - as expressed in the major churches (variously, since very early in church history); was formed from people who wanted several different and mutually incompatible things. 

There were "pantheists" who believed in one deity which was everything - so it was vital that the deity was itself everything, or else had-created everything from nothing. 

They were focused on the inevitability of change and death ("entropy") which they saw in all material things; and therefore recognized the ultimate and ineradicable insufficiency of incarnate mortal life on this earth. 

They also believed that consciousness was a false separation from the reality of universal deity, hence a curse. 

These pantheists yearned most for escape from this incarnate, earthly, mortal life and the curse of consciousness; and their hope was to become pure spirit, and exist in a "timeless" state of impersonal bliss. 

There is no essential role for Jesus Christ in this tradition. 

Jesus is either dissolved back-into the unity of deity; or else regarded as a teacher, helper, advocate or some other such...  

(A job that is no doubt admirable, but secondary and dispensable.)  

This pantheistic strand got rolled-up into orthodox/ mainstream Christianity, especially from the pre-existing Neo-Platonists and mystery religions. In its purest form this led to the Christian Gnostics; but it is found in all the main Christian churches today - most of all in the monasticism of the Catholic churches, and least of all in Mormonism - but is present in all to some degree. 

The other main strand of the religion of Christianity was monotheism; which was mainly from the ancient Hebrews, and the Old Testament. 

This emphasizes a supreme and jealous personal God as the only deity; but its focus was on Man's behaviour and happiness in this earthly mortal life. 

The monotheistic concern was with evil rather than with "entropy". Its concern was with forming "God's people" as a group. 

The monotheistic focus was on morality, on the conduct of life - which was conceptualized as a comprehensive and mandatory Law; with many rules - dictating that which is virtuous; prohibiting that which is evil. 

Morality in this-life dictated the after-life; and the major focus of the after-life was Hell rather than Heaven. 

Hell was the default state of eternal torment - while Heaven was both uncertain and vague, and mostly co-opted from the pantheistic tradition. 

In other words, the monotheistic Heaven (in so far as it is thought about at all) is only superficially distinguishable from the depersonalized state of a pure spirit, dwelling in timeless bliss; thus we get the mental-pictures of de-individualized ranks of Heavenly choirs engaged in perpetual cycles of worship, praise, and celebration of the one God.  

Since there must be only one God; the role of Jesus in this monotheistic scheme is very confused, and indeed incoherent. In practice therefore; Jesus is seen as a Messiah whose fundamental task is to abolish evil on earth. 

This means that - for monotheists; the concept of entropy is subsumed within the concept of evil.

The monotheistic strand of Christianity is found wherever law, rule, and authority are primary; and in such situations Christian churches become structurally all-but indistinguishable from other monotheisms - Jewish or Islamic.   

The task of Messiah is to transform earth into Heaven, to immortalize this mortal lie - and purge it of all evil. 

Since this has not happened; Jesus's mortal life was seen as a failure - and he must therefore return in a Second Coming; in a role indistinguishable from that of the one God; to finish the work of Messiah. 

Traditional, orthodox, mainstream Christian churches are composed of various and oscillating admixtures of Pantheism and Monotheism - varying between times, places, and persons. 

Jesus-centred Christians only really exist as individual persons, or small groups - because they (we) are not church-rooted. 

This kind of Christianity is (potentially) described pretty fully in the Fourth Gospel ("John") - when this Book is regarded as autonomous from, and primary among, all scriptures. 

The focus is post-mortal and incarnated - on resurrected eternal life in Heaven; and Jesus is seen as having made this possible - which is a divine act of creation.

Therefore Jesus is fully a God; therefore a God later than, and in addition to, God the primary creator (therefore monotheism is not true).  

For Jesus-centred Christians; Jesus was absolutely essential for those who desire salvation. 

Before Jesus there was no salvation; and without Jesus salvation would not have been possible. 

Jesus-centred Christianity is personal and inter-personal. 

Jesus was and is a person. Men are individual persons in mortal life. Jesus and Men stay persons after resurrection and in Heaven. 

Love is between persons - not abstract, not "unconditional". 

Consciousness is retained after resurrection. Individual natures and purposes are retained after resurrection.  

For Jesus-centred Christians; without Jesus, there would not be any resurrected eternal life, Heaven would not exist; and it is only by following Jesus that Men can make the choice of resurrection into everlasting life in Heaven. 

Note added: In summary; Pantheists and Monotheists fitted-Jesus-into pre-existing religious structures; suitable for church-based religions - a process that inevitably had the effect of leaving Jesus structurally-inessential, if not redundant (despite whatever protestations). [Of course; I presume that many Christians have been ignorant of, ignored, or pushed hard against the official theology and doctrines - and lived what was de facto a Jesus-centred Christianity - which needed no church, and need not be known to anyone else.] If, instead of insisting upon Pantheism or Monotheism; we start with Jesus and what he said and did (according to the most authoritative source) - we get a Christianity with a very different structure and emphasis. 

Fake fights, fake wars - and when the reason for real enmity is calculatedly mis-described.

That we spontaneously take sides is evident whenever we watch any kind of contest - such as a sport...

We find-ourselves rooting for one or another person or team - even when we know nothing about that sport and have no reason to care who wins, one way or the other. 

We are all and often manipulated by our instinctive propensity to Take Sides; including in evolutionarily-novel situations where we have no need or reason to take sides, and where we have zero reliable information concerning what is really going-on. 

Thus, we frequently - almost automatically - find ourselves supporting some entity engaged in deliberate and strategic evil - wanting them to win, and excusing or denying the harms they are doing. 

In the public domain - in inter-national or within-nation conflicts of all kinds, including wars (of all kinds) we seldom know - are seldom told - what that fight is really about, what really motivates the two sides who have created, sustained and escalated the fight. 

My best guess is that almost-all real wars at present are about something quite other than the explicit, publicly proclaimed, reasons for war. 

And indeed there may not be a real fight! 

Plenty of the "conflicts" reported and analyzed in the mass media and among politicians are utterly fake. 

I mean; both parties are on the same side, and merely putting on a drama of fighting each other. 

"We" are manipulated into taking sides; but "They" are all on the same side, and against "Us"!*

Our best hope in resisting psychological (and spiritual) manipulation by the powers of evil; is to become conscious of our own innate tendency to take a side; and deliberately to disengage mentally from the given-choice.

To take neither side; but because we must do something, we need to push out the wrong with something right. 

Instead we ought to support some other side. Support a third side. And make sure that side is in-harmony-with the purposes of divine creation.

*Note added: That should be our default assumption - whenever presented by the media and officialdom with some conflict. In other words; we should assume that They are being untruthful - either about the reality of conflict, the causes, the real sides... or something. We may occasionally be wrong - a stopped clock sometimes tells the right time, and They will sometimes tell us something factually-correct - but even then the interpretation of the facts will surely be false. Detection (of what is happening), disbelief, and disengagement, should be our default response - if we can manage it! We can seldom know what really is happening; but we can be sure it is never what They are telling us is happening.    

Transformation and Translation: "Born Again" into the "Second Creation"

Joining-up a couple of dots from what I've said; when Jesus met Nicodemus and told him that Men need to be "born again" - Jesus meant that we must die first, in order to attain resurrected eternal life. 

And, if we follow Jesus; this second birth will be into the Second Creation;  the creation by Jesus - which is Heaven. 

We must be born again, by resurrection into Heaven: which involves both personal transformation (resurrection); and personal translation (moving from mortal Earth to Heaven). 

** 

John.3 [1] There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: [2] The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. [3] Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. [4] Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? [5] Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. [6] That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [7] Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Memory, dreams, and Heaven

My understanding of dreams is that their specific content, their details; are much less important than their general theme and emotional tone that they leave behind. This is why many people (including me) don't remember their dreams, or else have only hazy and partial memories. 

Indeed, the unreliability of memory - its fading, distortions, and apparent loss; its second-rate quality compared with lived experience - is something that seems to threaten even the possibility of a meaningful life - at least, if memory is regarded as necessarily a physical, material thing. 

A dream last-night seemed to be "about" memory itself; and that way that - somehow, in some part of our selves - the joyful essence of the very best of our past life experiences (even of decades before) is alive. 

Such a dream was every bit as real and powerful an experience as anything material in the waking world - indeed it seemed to surpass "real life". 

Such a dream reveals that the best memories are not lost - nor even faded or distorted; but significant memories are powerfully and actively present in our minds and spirits, here-and-now. 

This fits-with and makes-sense-of my understanding of Heaven; because some dreams (not often! - at least not often for me) can be a foretaste of what Heaven is like and how it "works". 

I interpret the way a dream can be experienced as the best of ourselves, the best of others, and the best of this world; and that during the dream we can really respond fully to such things - as a practical demonstration of what resurrection will do fully and eternally. 

I am the way, the truth and the light... (Explained)

John 14: [3] And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also. [4] And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. [5] Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? [6] Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

My understanding of this report of Jesus's teaching is that he is implicitly contrasting the new dispensation with the old. 

In the old dispensation "the way" was a highly literal "way" - it was single path (the Law) - a single life-pattern of beliefs and behaviour that every man needed to follow if he was to be favoured by God in this mortal life. 

But the old "way" made no difference to what happened to him after death - the ghostly realm of Sheol was the common destination for all Men. 

When Jesus says that he himself is the "way" this is at first a paradox - because a person cannot be a path. So Jesus means he himself is replacing the old idea of a single and specified path-through-mortal-life.  

In future, in Jesus's new dispensation; to "do the right thing", to live well; we ought to think of our relationship with the person of Jesus, because Jesus is now "the way"...

We should therefore have a relationship with Jesus instead of trying to stick to "walking" along a semi-literal, and single, legally-pre-specified, "track" through the choices and chances of this world. 

By my understanding; "the truth" seems to refer to "reality" - or how-things-are with respect to what is important. In other words; our relationship with Jesus is the most important thing, from now...

All this is assuming that we ourselves want what Jesus is offering in his new dispensation; which is described as "the life". 

The life is, in other words, being used here as shorthand for "resurrected eternal life in Heaven"; Heaven instead of Sheol. 

(And also instead of any other other alternative post-mortal situation or state - such as annihilation, depersonalized bliss, or some kind of reincarnation.) 

 

The phrase "cometh to the Father" is less clear, and may (I think) be a later interpolation. 

But "the Father" could be taken to refer to the nature of divine creation; such that "coming to the Father" would mean coming to live in perfect harmony with divine creation which is Heaven - that is to say living by love always and wholly...

Therefore being with the father might be living in the Heavenly state which is by love and without evil; and Life without coexistent death meaning something like "entropy" - i.e. disease, damage, ageing, etc.  

A loving relationship with Jesus, and intention to accept what Jesus offers, is now replacing the old conceptualization of the "way"; it follows that following Jesus is the only "way" to Heaven, there is no other "route" through life to resurrection; "no man cometh to the Father" except by the nature of his relationship with Jesus.   

Note: As background: I also understand that our relationship with Jesus is by "the Holy Ghost" - which is the spirit of the ascended Jesus as we may know it in this world and mortal life. And I also assume that although we can and should commit to love and follow Jesus in this mortal life; the actual following Jesus to resurrected eternal life in Heaven must happen (and can only happen) after death; i.e. post-mortally. 

Becoming a Christian is not the answer

People seem to think that becoming a Christian is an answer: the answer. 

They think; if they can only become the right kind of Christian - i.e. join the right church and believe and do what it says - then they will have the answers.

(Not all the answers, but all the most important answers.) 

Because people think that being a Christian is itself the answer, then they make-it-so - or try to make-it-so. 

If they succeed in making being-a-Christian the answer - then from-that-point-onwards, they hand-over responsibility for ultimate values to... whatever they consider to be Christianity. 

From-that-point-onwards their job is to understand and obey.  

They regard becoming a Christian as arriving, coming home: as the end. 

If, however, they fail to make-it-so, and discover that becoming a Christian is not the answer - then they stop being a Christian. 

However, I would say that becoming a Christian is Not the answer. 

Instead; becoming a Christian is to ask the right question.

I would say that becoming a Christian is not the end, but instead the beginning. 

 

The artistic genius of Buddy Christ

It is possible some of my readers do not know that remarkably... memorable image of our Saviour "Buddy Christ" - which was a briefly glimpsed statue, peripheral to the plot of a rather mediocre 1999 film called Dogma. 

Such is the genius of this movie prop that it has since become a lasting cultural phenomenon.

 

Francis Berger and I try to analyse the greatness of this icon in the comments to a post at his blog; which is primarily about another (for rather different reasons) striking image of Jesus:

 

Symbolic leaders: able, drooling, or crazy puppets

We know (ought, by now, to realize) that our leaders are puppets - but not all the same kind of puppet. 

The point is distraction - to have everybody looking-at and discussing the puppet - rather than noticing (or even asking!) who is people pulling its strings. 

Distraction can take many forms. Some are constructed as "strong" puppets - pseudo-competent, attributed with ability. Such a puppet may even be intelligent and hard-working as a person - but is still a puppet. 

Other leaders are constructed as incompetent, naïve, ignorant, or drooling idiots. We observe the incapacities and dysfunctions; empathize or mock the human wreckage; agonize about what is to be done. 

Others act the role of a crazy - firing-off opinions, assertions, threats, promises. People are confused, encouraged to try to make sense of it all - become enmeshed in discerning the puppet's strategic from his reactive nature - and so forth. 

Many kinds of puppet are possible; and the person deployed as puppet may be more or less convincing his role - may even really be what he is depicted as!

This doesn't much matter, because the point is distraction; and the totalitarian media collude in evoking, amplifying, and sustaining this distraction.

Since distraction is primary; it can work equally well to have a beloved and admired heroic puppet; or a hated and demonic puppet - or to alternate between them.  

Thus the job is done.  

It's a very flexible system! 

In some places leadership puppets are constantly being replaced; and that business takes-up a great deal of here-and-now attention and energy. 

In others, the puppet replacement is less frequent, and there is a long narrative attached to the process. 

In others, the puppet is supposedly permanent - and the debate is about whether rule by a long-term puppet is an unjust and intolerable imposition.  

Of course, when there is a puppet, then there are puppet-masters - those who choose the puppet, and pull the strings. 

Which means that the real societal power struggle is not between puppets, but between alliances of puppet masters. 

For the puppet masters, the advantages of puppet rulers are so great that they collude to maintain the public pretence that the puppet is "in charge"; and that policy U-turns and contradictions are due to changes of the puppet's mind, or corruption of the puppet.

(eg. When a drooling idiot is the puppet leader; then nobody asks - nobody with power, anyway - who chose that leader; and who was ruling when the leader was acknowledged incapable of doing so.) 

When we see self-contradiction, and unimplemented policies and the like; what is actually happening is that one masters-alliance has grabbed the strings and imposed control and pursue their agenda - only for another alliance to wrest the strings away, then make the puppet say or do... something else.

All of which public discourse attributes to the nature and motivation of the puppet. 

In sum; the puppets are, at most, superficial froth on the surface; while the direction of water flow is the product of puppet-master activity; and tidal changes of direction are a consequence of different groups of puppet masters in covert conflict, different of their parties achieving temporary dominance. 

The lasting influence of alchemical thinking on mainstream modern ideology

[The aim of alchemy was] to hasten the ... processes of nature by precipitating matter through stages of decay and decomposition into a new birth whereby it would become "perfect", in the Latin sense of "completed" or "fulfilled", and having once achieved this state, the new born matter could then be used to heal any sickness in the rest of nature. 

From Wizards: a history; by PG Maxwell-Stuart (2004)

This strikes me as a basic way of thinking that survived long beyond the discipline of alchemy. 

As I understand this passage; "alchemy" could be generalized thus:

This actual world is of-it-nature imperfect - only ever partly and intermittently as it should be; continually assailed by unavoidable evil, entropy, death.

The aim of the alchemist is to transform this actual world into a "perfect" state of fulfilled completion. 

And this alchemical transformation works by controlling and shaping the natural process of dying, death and rebirth.

So that the world (individual people, human society, nature itself) is alchemically-"perfected" by accelerating its "decay and decomposition", through dissolution, and into a new birth.

Imperfect matter is alchemically-transformed to perfect matter.  

The imperfect is therefore deliberately deconstructed, reduced to its fundamentals. 

In effect, it is destroyed.

But... this destruction is justified and idealized (for the destroyer) because that which is destroyed is intrinsically flawed; while the destruction is aimed at a re-made "perfection". Belief in the perfection of the re-made justifies the preliminary destruction. 

If perfection is desired, preliminary destruction must be accepted. 

The re-made, new-born, perfected entity produced by alchemy - which might be a person (New Man), society (New World Order), or an artefact like the "philosopher's stone" - will then alchemically work-upon, transform, and progressively perfect the un-transformed whole.

As I read the above passage; it suddenly struck me how often I have come-across this alchemical way of thinking (and justifying) among the ruling class - or more generally (and in a reduced and materialistic form) among managers and other bureaucrats. 

The idea of perfecting via destruction; of transforming by controlled decomposition and re-making.

This includes the real truth that things can (typically) only get better, via getting worse; and makes of it a universal justification for making things worse.

(Including when the real motive is personal benefit, resentment, or spite.)

Alchemical thinking provides a permanent rationalization for all possible harms inflicted by selfish manipulation or people and the world*. 

And, as I have noticed more recently; this idea of "alchemical transformation" can take the reality salvation from Jesus Christ - i.e. resurrection to into eternal and wholly-loving life in Heaven, on the other side of death - and appropriate it to this-worldly human will.  

Alchemy (thus considered, in its ultimate sense) can therefore be a fundamental alternative to Christianity; and one that has a special appeal to the leadership class of this mortal world.  

 

*I am certainly not saying that alchemical thinking is always or necessarily evil. I don't believe that is true. Plenty of good people, and Christians, have studied or practiced alchemy - which does contain significant truths, especially when regarded as a way of achieving limited, specific, partial goals. But I am saying that - as a general principle, alchemy is mistaken; it is ultimately not reality, ultimately untrue. 

And alchemical thinking actually-is used to contradict one of the fundamental assumptions upon which Christianity is based...

Which is that the evil, entropy and death in this world and mortal life are intrinsic, and cannot be transformed-away; and that the only true-and-real escape from entropy and evil is the salvation of Jesus Christ, on the other side of our personal death.  

Note added: The way to consider the value of alchemy is as a science. Science has been useful in many ways; but science is not just harmful but actually destroys itself when regarded as metaphysics - i.e. when scientific assumptions are regarded as necessary and universal. 

Why is seven *the* magical/ mystical/ mythical number? Geoffrey Ashe's answer...

I have previously written about the strange way that things fall into sevens; but it is also well known that seven is usually primary in a most (although not all) magical, mystical and mythical contexts - dating back to Medieval times, and far more anciently. 

Seven has some interesting properties arithmetically, and is notoriously difficult for children to handle, when it comes to times-tables and mental arithmetic - but these aspect of the number are hardly mystical. 

And the psychological origins of this primacy of seven is very difficult to explain, because there aren't any very obvious sevens in nature. 

Indeed, the seven-ness of things is often attributed rather than actual - as with the (supposedly, but not really) seven stars in the Pleiades, the colours of the rainbow, and the "planets"*...

(*To make seven planets required leaving-out the earth, and instead including the sun and moon; until, eventually, Uranus was discovered.)  

Furthermore, there are exceptions to the primacy of seven - so that any explanation of its role must take these into account. 

A few weeks ago I discovered a book that tackled this seven business head-on, analysed the phenomenon in great detail; and offered a plausible and coherent explanation: it is The Ancient Wisdom by Geoffrey Ashe (1977). 

Ashe's answer (as some will have guessed from the illustration) is that the number seven derives its importance from the stars of the most obvious and recognizable of all constellations of the Northern Hemisphere; known at the Plough, Big Dipper, Great Bear and Arthur's Wain - which has been used for a long time** to find the North Star - Polaris. 

(**If you go back far enough, Polaris was not always close enough to true north to be a useful guide; and it will not always remain where it now is - axial precession.)

Geoffrey Ashe's argument is too long, complex, and nuanced to summarize - but it convinced me! 

If you are interested in the origins of magic seven - you now know where to look. 

The "magical scientist": Ceremonial Magic and Science

From the Yu-Gi-Oh! card game

I am re-reading Wizards: a history, by Peter G Maxwell-Stuart (2004); and reflecting on the use of ceremonial magic throughout recorded history; including in the Bible itself, and other early Christian texts where the magic attributions were sometimes vastly amplified.

It all seems to confirm my strong impression that magic and science were pretty much the same thing through most of history, and constituted part of the "this worldly" and social aspect of religions. 

So how and why did they separate - or is science still actually a kind of magic? Maybe...

The virtue (or otherwise) of magic was mainly a matter of the (genuine) motivations of the magician - whether, for instance, these were selfish or spiteful; or else altruistic and intended to benefit good causes. 

And to a lesser extent, the quality of magic was influenced by the good, neutral, or evil nature; of spiritual beings that were contacted and summoned, and whose cooperation or aid was sought. 

But mostly magic was regarded as method; a way of getting things done; such as a means to learn information or accomplish a desired goal. As are science and technology nowadays. 

 

Therefore the main question about any particular usage of ceremonial magic* was - does it work?

And the answer seems to be - Yes! Magic did work... 

Which is to say that magical ceremonies worked sometimes - magic sometimes did what it was intended to do. 

But magic typically worked (it seems to me) partially; by which I mean that although effective, the effects were achieved with great effort on someone's part, sometimes achieved only slowly; sometimes the magic only partially solved the problem. 

And the outcomes were often controversial - accepted by some, denied by others. 

And the explanation of any specific magical effect was also controversial; as we see in relation to Jesus in the New Testament. 

We see differing views of miracles. Was the "magic" done by Jesus himself (as a divine being); by God via Jesus; by angels or demons Jesus had enlisted; was there a natural explanation; or was the miracle some kind of illusion, trick or fraud? 

Much the same could be asked of any magician - since some magicians claimed (or were asserted to be, by followers) divine avatars or emanations (i.e. themselves a god), or to have assimilated to the divine. 

 

Therefore, although it can be said that magic "worked"; there remains the deep question of what it means that magic works; and (in sum) it is evident that any evaluation of any kind of "working" cannot be made wholly objective and impersonal. 

That is: different people, different societies, different social contexts - all affect evaluations of whether a procedure is "working", and to what extent. 

But it is possible to regard modern science (say, from the 1600s onwards) as a systematic and communal attempt to make magic work more reliably by diminishing the personal and contextual. 

Such that a given scientific procedure can be counted-upon to produce a given result, to a greater extent than was the case with ancient magic. 

And this goal was pursued, over several generations of scientists, even when the results were more modest, less spectacular, than the results claimed for magic.

The point was that scientific results could be relied-upon in a way that was less dependent on the qualities of the scientist and the specific situation, than was the case with magicians. 

Science required much less training and knowledge than magic; and the accepted societal applications of science became much wider than achieved by magicians - indeed, science became almost universal. 

"Less" dependent - but still dependent to a degree; because any reflective and critically-minded real-scientist would know that the results of science still depend on many of the aspects of ceremonial magic: the knowledge and skills of the scientist, elaborate procedures and equipment etc. 

My conclusion is that the magical elements of science were never eliminated, and science could still, therefore, be regarded as a type of magic. 

However; the successful attempt to reduce the magical aspects in science came at a cost; because the trend led, incrementally, to the eventual elimination of the divine and spiritual from scientific discourse... 

The point at which the spiritual and divine were altogether eliminated from scientific thinking (in the later 20th century); was the point at which science ceased to be real and became, instead, merely a branch of the totalitarian bureaucracy; and scientists merely a species of research bureaucrat.  

In sum: Real science is a sub-branch of magic built-upon those areas of life where the desired effects can most reliably, and more completely, be achieved...

Which also means that many aspects of life are ignored by real-science because outcomes are unpredictable; or depend too much on individual persons and circumstances. 

*By "ceremonial" magic; I mean that requiring some combination of knowledge or scholarship; training and practice; and using some kind of (more or less complex) physical procedure, actions, words, and/or material artefacts.  

Sorting the results of three decades of publishing hypergraphia

It was in the middle 1980s that I began to publish scientific papers and publish them in professional journals. And this activity naturally spread to the related academic outputs; such as conference abstracts, commentaries, book chapters, book reviews, letters, and discussion pieces. 

A couple of years later this spilled-out from the specialist journals into more mainstream news-stand magazines (New Scientist, Times Higher Education Supplement, The Times newspaper and some others). 

But when you write as much as I did, and when that writing is for-publication; you soon spread into a multitude of that vast, submerged-iceberg of "little magazines" - with readerships measured in hundreds, rather than tens of thousands - of which most people are utterly unaware. 

Later a published some actual books; of which I wrote or co-authored seven - not counting some online pseudo-books published only in the form of blogs.  

It fairly soon became apparent that this kind of writing was something I could do, and increasingly enjoyed doing. 

Writing was a kind of thinking: it seemed to help me understand and discover. 

And I did this manic publishing for about thirty years - albeit dwindling considerably from 2010 - and finishing publishing altogether in 2017. 

(Albeit my hypergraphia affliction is not cured, as readers of this blog are all too aware.) 

I had become a case of publishing hypergraphia; as has become apparent to me while sorting through the boxes of papers I salvaged from my university office when I retired. 

I have copies of many, many hundreds of items - many of which I cannot remember thinking, writing or publishing. 

This should not really be surprising; because someone who publishes some-thing (no matter how small or trivial) even at a modest rate of once a fortnight; would produce 26 items per year, 260 in a decade, and 780 in thirty years. 

And I was publishing somewhat more than once a fortnight. 

But even that productivity makes a big, heavy heap of papers; especially when (as usual) I had made several copies of each item (so I could distribute them if asked for). (And even when not asked.) 

Thus I have been engaged in the melancholy task of throwing-out the excess copies; although I still cannot quite persuade myself to apply even minimal quality control about what is saved: I cannot, yet, rid myself of even the most trivial, most obscure, most ephemeral items - I'm still hoarding them sentimentally.

But in a few more years (if I am spared) I shall perhaps have rid myself of the delusional conceit that my every micro-emanation is worthy of preservation; and shall, no doubt, have developed the necessary ruthlessness to cull the drivel...

At least; that's what I tell myself.  

NOTE ADDED. I should emphasize that I made very nearly zero money from 30 years of writing. The best money was from New Scientist (especially when I once wrote a front cover feature, which paid about the same a month of my salary as a newly-appointed lecturer); and The Times, which paid 300 pounds apiece in the mid 1990s. But, as a freelance contributor all these decently-paid outlets dried-up and completely disappeared from the mid-1990s, due to internal changes in the way that magazines and journals operated. 

Why do people still have faith in inverted institutions? (Such as churches?)

Why do people still have faith in inverted institutions?

Why, that is, do people still assume - and live on the basis that - institutions/ organizations/ corporations/ nations of 2026; retain the same basic motivations and nature as they did 100 - or even fifty - years ago? 

Why don't people realize (and operate on the basis that) these institutions are (in almost all cases) long since subverted, corrupted, and substantially inverted in their basic quality? 

My own experience of this reluctance to recognize fundamental change was that - due both to upbringing and ideals - I had a faith and hope in universities and science (among other types of institution I "believed-in" - but these were perhaps the main ones). 

It took a long time before I recognized that these had changed their nature, ceased to strive for what they used-to strive-for; and were not going to reform - because the large majority people in them - and virtually all the leadership - did not want to reform. The large majority preferred the institutions to be corrupt; that is - to be subsidiaries of the single, generic totalitarian-left bureaucracy that controls the UK (and all other "Western" ex-nations).  

The original functionally-motivated people who pursued scientific truth and scholarship had been replaced by bureaucrats and careerists - and the politically-motivated. 

But for quite a while I carried on "believing" in the institutions; even though I realized that it was only me (and, at most, a handful of others - a tiny minority) who were carrying what I regarded as the spirit of the "true" institutions: the spirit of science, the spirit of universities. 

At first I had a quasi-magical belief, and hope, that my own faithfulness to the older nature and motives was keeping-alive the - otherwise lost, otherwise actually opposed - spirit of the ancient and original institutions of science and universities. 

Here, I don't intend "quasi-magical" to be utterly dismissive, but to recognize that mine was a covert recognition that in the material realm the institutions was lost, was gone - and that the "spirit" of the institution was now something that lived only in the mind; and only in the minds of a relatively very-few persons... 

And then I realized that - this being the case - the actual material institutions of science and universities - the professional career and educational structures, building, money, writings, conferences... the bureaucratic systems - all of these had become obsolete, unnecessary - in fact hostile to the ideal. 

In sum; the act of recognising a distinction between the spiritual and physical institutions - which was necessary in order to believe-in them - implied the irrelevance and counter-productive nature of the actually-existing 2026 institutions. 

To be true to "the spirit" and to resist short-termism, materialism, subordination to alien and hostile agendas; I needed to rely on my own discernment in choosing goals, selecting evidence and proof, in evaluating quality. 

I needed to rely on myself (and the sources I had chosen) in determining what and who was true to the spirit - and what or who was indifferent or hostile. 

Yet; if I, as an individual, could locate and sustain the spirit of science or academia - and if, indeed, it needed me as an individual to do so in the face of at first institutional indifference, then active institutional hostility...

Then the institution itself - actual universities, the actual structures of science - had become first obsolete, then irrelevant, then an enemy of the ideals they had once (albeit imperfectly) incorporated. 

Because of corruption and inversion, a wedge needed to be driven between myself and the institution; and that wedge drove the person and the institution ever-further apart. 

What applied to universities and science applies also, and more importantly, to Christian churches. 

Insofar as we depend upon our-selves to sustain the true spirit of Christianity against the indifference/ hostility of an actual church; insofar as we must divide the actual church into a material-organizational corrupt part on one side, and a spiritual-mystical "true" part on the other side.

Then exactly this activity and necessity implies - indeed entails - that we as individuals (and not any actual church) have become discerners, discoverers, and carriers of Christian truth. 

Churches have become first feeble, then irrelevant, now mostly hostile to the reality of Christianity. 

So it is up to us - each of us - as individuals; or many small handfuls of the like-minded.

The age of "good" institutions is dead and gone - and this inversion has been (by the majority) unlamented and indeed even celebrated.

It's about time, overdue, that Christians ceased evasive optimism and recognized the actuality.  

A Messiah could make no significant difference - leaves the problems of Life untouched

There has usually been, and commonly, a yearning for a Messiah - a deliverer or saviour of a people or the world. 

The deep problem is not that the Messiah never actually comes; but that even if there was or is a Messiah, and even if he actually liberated or saved his people or the world; then doing this would leave the fundamental problems of Life untouched.

This because even if "my people" or the world was somehow genuinely and lastingly saved from any kind of worldly-affliction such as enslavement, poverty, natural destruction, war, poverty... then there would still be entropy (disease, degeneration, death) and there would still be evil. 

This came to mind in reading Philip K Dick's Exegesis - and considering that for many years he yearned desperately for a Saviour; in the last weeks of his life, he announced his vision of "Tagore" whose role was vicariously to save the planet from Man's ecological destruction.  

But PKD was being short-sighted and overwhelmed by current emotion - like when we are sick or afraid; and imagine "if only" we could be well we would never be unhappy again. 

Even if Tagore had been true and had achieved exactly what Dick hoped he would - this would have made zero qualitative difference to the human condition. 

It is the problem of double-negative values; the Messiah is supposed to save-from - and no matter how many things he was able to save me or us from; then the problems of entropy and evil would still remain.

 

Indeed; no matter what I personally was saved-from - I would still have the problem of my-self and of my-death. 

Like everybody I have ever heard of; I am quite capable of tormenting myself into misery (even despair) even when I am currently un-afflicted by any significant problem - when I am free of pain, of hunger, when I am warm and comfortable and here-and-now secure. 

When I imagine or dream terrible things - I am doing this to myself, and the evil is from me. 

There is the evil in me; there are an uncountable number of bad things that could happen, that cannot be excluded - and there are the universal actualities and possibilities of entropy (especially death) and evil.

The most that could realistically be achieved by an actual Messiah would be to impose on his people (because few would accept it) a kind of irreversible blissful ignorance of the fundamental problems - which would need to be some kind of permanent annihilation of consciousness...

Which is, if not exactly death, then subjectively indistinguishable from being unalive; and amounts to the wish that we never had lived. 

This is the terminus of the primacy of any double-negative values: a preference for not-existence. 

Why "AI" is qualitatively worse than the internet/ social media/ smartphones

People apparently have difficulty understanding (or explaining to themselves) just why post-November 2022 "AI" is qualitatively worse than the previously-existing computer-media phenomena - such as the internet, social media and smartphones. 

The answer is quite simple: upfront and no secret. 

As usual; probably because evil must be invited into the heart in order to damage the soul; the agents of strategic evil always tell us what they intend for us, before they try to do it. 

In this case, "They" have told us explicitly that the purpose of "AI" is to replace human thinking, judgment, creativity - and loving-relationships. 

Again: "AI" is intended to replace humans in the realms of:

1. Thinking

2. Judgment

3. Creativity

4. Loving-relationships

In other words, the explicit intent of "AI" is to replace human beings in their most distinctive and spiritually-highest aspects. 

And that is what people are agreeing-to, when they defend and promote the "AI" project. 

The fact (and I regard it as a simple and sure fact) that "AI" cannot replace human beings in these aspects is almost irrelevant to the purpose of "AI"; because the purpose does not depend upon "AI" actually being able to do these things; but only on convincing human beings that "AI" can do these thing. 

In sum; the reason for the tera-dollar investment and subsidy of "AI"; the mandatory top-down societal transformations, the colossal pro-"AI" career and status incentivization of the intellectual, technical, and managerial class...

Is simply that people will believe that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships.  

The endemic condition of AI-dolatry can therefore be defined the belief that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships. 

Because if you believe that "AI" can replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships; then you will almost-inevitably (sooner or later) conclude that "AI" should replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships.

The "should" follows the "can", because "AI" is (and has been grossly subsidized, at our expense, so as to be) quicker, easier, and more reliable than human beings. 

In other words; if we believe "AI" can do X as well as (or better) than humans, then it follows that "AI" should do X.  

To conclude: It is the belief about "AI" that does the spiritual harm to human beings. 

We have been told explicitly what "AI" is intended to do, and there is a trillions-dollars international program tasked with implementing this...

Thus, those who justify and advocate "AI" just-are agreeing-with, justifying and advocating; the actual and on-going totalitarian strategy of replacing human beings in their most distinctive and highest aspects. 

This is the side the AI-dolators have chosen, in the spiritual war of this-world. 

And who could deny that the global totalitarian "AI" project and strategy has (so far) been overwhelmingly successful in convincing great swathes of people (especially in the managerial, technical, and intellectual classes) that "AI" can (and therefore, implicitly, should) replace human thinking/ judgment/ creativity/ loving-relationships? 

In three short years; AI-dolatry has become not just statistically normal; not just a functional requisite for tens of millions; not just ubiquitous and unavoidable on and around the internet and social media; not just socially-rewarded...

But AI-dolatry has become positively-valued. 

Given the provenance, intent, and effects of "AI"; we have here an explanation for the observation of a unique and qualitatively-enhanced nature of personal spiritual corruption; directly resulting from the high and increasing prevalence of AI-dolatry.