A droll music-video - Mission Impossible Theme from The Piano Guys with Lindsey Stirling

A blast from the past (11 years ago) - I remembered this today and enjoyed it as much as ever.

Christianity is ultimately Not about happiness, Nor the elimination of suffering

What is life "for" - it it to be happy - which implies a continual "timeless" state of bliss. 

If happiness is rooted-in the elimination of all suffering (which is the emphasis in some major religions); then there can be no needs, no desire, no "wanting"*. 

All Just Is, and what is, is good.  

Or else is life rooted in purpose? Purpose is dynamic, includes time; and purpose entails and some degree of dissatisfaction, yearning, wanting, desiring.

(Because if here-and-now was wholly satisfactory and sufficient, then there would be no reason to change it - no purpose.) 

Happiness (and the elimination of suffering) is in ultimate conflict with a life of purpose: one or other, but not both, can be the aim of spiritual life. They can't simultaneously be the aim. If we tried to conflate both in a unity, then one or other will - in actuality - be dominant over the other. 

So purpose is in-conflict-with the desire for a state of perfect happiness; and with the desire to eliminate all suffering - because purpose entails some degree of suffering. 

To live (always) with purpose, is always to experience some degree of dissatisfaction with here-and-now; in order to desire some, somewhat-different future state. 

Therefore the desire for happiness (including the elimination of suffering) is incompatible with purpose. 

This is part-of the incompatibility of, on the one hand, the many forms of oneness spirituality - of "Eastern" religion so-styled, yet actually far more widespread that the East, including being strongly, and from early, within Christianity) -- with, on the other hand, Christianity (properly understood).

Christianity is about purpose, ultimately. Therefore, not ultimately about happiness, nor about the elimination of suffering. 

What Christianity is about, is dynamic, purposive, taking place in-and through-time: it is about Love as the basis of creation. 

**

(But because Love has so often been defined in terms of a static state of perfect happiness, the dynamic purposive nature of Love - hence of creation - has become confused and/or occluded. To put is the other way about; there are two distinct ways of considering "Love" as the goal of existence: one is as a timeless, perfect-in-itself, blissful - and essentially impersonal - state; the other is as dynamic, purposive, creative - and essentially inter-personal.) 

*Note added: It could be said that Love (understood as participation in divine creation) is itself the ultimate happiness; and in a sense that would be correct - for those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. But it is not the ultimate happiness for everybody. It seems that for many people the highest happiness entails a changeless bliss. And there are others for whom the greatest gratification (if not exactly "happiness" entails that which Christians regard as evil - selfish gratifications of various kinds. 

The positive path, forward through life

If oneness is primary, why did oneness allow that oneness be fractured; only to permit or demand the restoration of primal oneness? 

Contra-oneness: life is linear and the future is open. Therefore; what we need above all is a way forward; and the inner motivation to pursue it. 

Most important in faith is that there is always - at every moment - a positive path ahead. This must be so; or else we would (by now) be dead. 

Avoiding wrong paths  (double-negative living) does not suffice, since wrong paths are limitless in number; and all living would be expended on error and repentance.  

Our path forward is for each of us to find, because it is not, and cannot be, externally provided from any source in this world. It must be sought (which is our responsibility), and be discerned (by our-selves, as much as is possible). 

There can be, and may be, divine rescue and the external imposition of a direction when our own efforts fail; but remember that this is seriously second-best. 

God most wants us to do it, so that we will learn it. Divine rescue may be useless or counter-productive in terms of what we are here for - promoting passivity instead of creativity.  

What is the bottom-line? Not one thing, because we are Beings, and Beings are complex (irreducible) by nature. 

The true complexity of this world derives primarily from the hearts of Beings; secondly from the relationships of Beings. 

In other words; the complexity of this world is rooted in extreme structural simplicity - therefore Not in complex theological-philosophical schemata. 

Unconditional, universal love is a benign disposition towards abstract "thought forms"; whereas Christian love is for particular and personal Beings. 

Personal and abstract are distinguishable, and vitally so; but are not completely separable. 

...Thought forms become inhabited by personal spirit Beings; thus unconditional and abstract love gets personalized (willy nilly); while personal Love contains the expansile tendency to seek more of itself, pressing towards other and (as yet) unknown persons.     

Jesus overcame the world*- but nobody else among Men has come near!

Including not the Saints (by their own accounts). 

Neither you nor I can overcome the world. 

It is a terrible, and terribly common, error to suppose that Men can overcome the world; or, even worse, that we should. 

That was-not/ is-not how the world is set-up in God's creation. It is not how things work. 

There is no such thing as enlightenment - we cannot overcome the world; but there is repentance, which (properly understood) is the path to eternal resurrected life.  

Men are God-intended to know, acknowledge, and repent sin - to learn-from mortal life; that we may thereby become better Men in eternal resurrected life. 

We should not strive to overcome this world, because Christ's "Kingdom" is not of this world.

Instead we should know and follow Jesus: out of this world and into Heaven.  

*John 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. 

My "kingdom" is not of this world... On being led by the Fourth Gospel (called John)

A couple of days ago I wrote that we should think of Jesus primarily as The Good Shepherd (leading those who will follow to resurrected life everlasting beyond biological death); and not as a King. 

Such is a natural consequence of the decision I made to base my Christian belief on the Fourth Gospel (called John) - the background to which decision is covered in my 'mini-book' from a few years ago, Lazarus Writes. 

I am aware that history took a very different path of putting the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed the Epistles of Paul, above the Fourth Gospel; and also of interpreting the Fourth Gospel in light of the rest of the New Testament. However, I regard this as an error, simply because I believe what the Fourth Gospel says about itself, and therefore put it first and above all other scriptures. 

The Fourth Gospel tells us, repeatedly and in many ways, that Jesus is Not a King, that it is a mistake to regard him as such. How then do I interpret the phrase "My kingdom is not of this world"? [See this verse in context below the post.]

Quite simple - in the context of the whole Gospel and of the section in which this occurs; I understand Jesus to be saying to Pilate something like: My "kingdom" is not of this world. 

In other words, Jesus is telling Pilate something like: "I am Not saying that I am a king - that is Your assertion, and that of Jews who have misunderstood my mission and role. 

"Furthermore what You might think of as the kingdom to which I belong is Not even part of this mortal life on earth. 

"I am, in other words, not primarily concerned with this mortal world. What I have to teach and do is concerned with life beyond death, the world of eternity: Heaven not earth". 

In other words, it is a radical misunderstanding to suppose that the Fourth Gospel asserts Jesus is a King. 

 

Of course, most Christians through history regard Jesus as a King because this is clearly and repeatedly stated in other parts of the New Testament. Jesus (after death and ascension) is often regarded as true ruler of this world ("Pantocrator"). But if the Fourth Gospel is what is says it is; then this must be an error - no matter how common. 

I completely understand that Christians who take the orthodox and traditional, church-led, view of Christianity; will reject this idea outright as being ridiculous. They have made very different assumptions concerning the relative validity and authority of Scriptures, and of the authority of their church - or of historical churches. 

I understand this perspective, and why people do not want to go-against the weight of tradition and church authority - but I reject it for myself; because I believe the Fourth Gospel and therefore think it is a mistake. 

Here-and-now (however differently it may have been in the past) I believe that understanding Christ as King of this world, first and foremost, may well lead to contradiction and adverse consequences.

Instead of a King - we need to grasp that Jesus is essentially the Good Shepherd, one who enables all who will follow him to attain resurrection into Heaven.   

John: 18 [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? [34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? [35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? [36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. [37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

Is BRICS the backlash of Lawful Evil?

As The West continues its path of (in Dungeons and Dragons terms) Chaotic Evil  - or what I would term spite-driven Sorathic self-and-other destruction; it seems to me that Lawful Evil (i.e. the Ahrimanic - control-motivated, hence totalitarian and bureaucratic type of evil) is making an attempt at comeback via the now world-dominant BRICS grouping. 

In other words The System ("the Matrix") is doomed to inwardly-driven (and actively-desired) self-destruction, and is already collapsing, in The West; therefore the powers of evil whose strategy is to impose a material mechanism for spiritual damnation, are shifting attention from The West to The Rest. 

Geopolitics is always evil, no matter its explicit purpose. 

While, from the POV of the dominant countries of the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, BRICS seems to be a means towards the end of national sovereignty and the cultural autonomy in face of a monolithic globalism; the very facts and necessities of any multi-national compromise coalition, continue to push the existing and emerging alliance towards the nature of Lawful Evil. 

This is evidenced by several of the many recent statements of BRICS policy and strategy; which favour UN-type organizations to formulate and enforce "international regulation". 

It therefore seem like the demons of Lawful Evil have abandoned "The West" to the ministrations of Chaotic Evil, and are increasingly directing their main efforts towards "The Rest". 

From a Christian perspective, we are dealing with greater versus lesser evils (at best); therefore there is again the pitfall opening of inducing people actively to support that which is actually-evil, on the basis that it is a different, and maybe less extreme, kind of evil than that which preceded it.  

The danger is that Christians are actively supporting Lawful Evil on the basis that it is possible to be optimistic about its prospects in this-world, here-and-now. 

I suggest that Christians need to be much clearer than they currently seem to be, about the necessity actively to support only that which is Good by motivation and methods - no matter how weak that Good may be in this-worldly terms; and no matter how pessimistic the prospects of Good seem, with things as they currently are.

On the material and earthly level, Christians will inevitably lose - sooner or later; and it is on the spiritual level that are there solid grounds for realistic optimism. 

The grounds of our hope are sure, but Not Of This World. 

Once we have grasped this; then (but only then) can we see and know how such a spiritual and next-worldly expectation, can and will improve things in this mortal life. 

In D&D terms we should eschew not just evil, but the categories of lawful and chaotic, and pursue that which is creative. 

Go to Heaven - Go Directly to Heaven; do not pass through earth, do not collect 200 lashes

One of the questions that are answered inadequately (incoherently) by the off-the-peg mainstream religions is: What is the point of this mortal life on earth? 

Why don't we go directly to Heaven? Why must we mass-through mortal life, why must so many people endure (and, sometimes, enjoy) decades of earthly existence - what may amount to decades of suffering? 

Even for Christians: Why do some of us spend so-much time, effort (and, often, misery) tediously mucking-about in getting, conceived, born, growing-up, living, getting sick, maybe reproducing, getting old and dying (the whole complicated and hazardous rigmarole) - before we get to Heaven (maybe).  

There are indeed ways of making sense of this, but mainstream Christianity - with it's omni-God and double-negative Jesus - is not one of them. 

But do we really need (after 2000 years without!) a deep, metaphysical, theology that tells us positively what this mortal life is for, and what Jesus did, and how it fits into divine creation? 

Surely it is (as Jesus seems to have said) enough to love and follow Jesus Christ to salvation? 

Yes it is enough - for salvation; assuming that we can get through mortal life still wanting it, and not so corrupted as to reject the offer when it is made after our death.

Yet this world is full of ex-Christians, fake-Christians, self-identified by not-really Christians. The churches are collapsing, and those that remain "devout" are evidently on a path leading down and away from Jesus. 

But meanwhile? Are we really living through mortal life just for that final decision? - or is there something we ought to be doing here and now that will contribute to that eternal resurrected life we anticipate with confidence?

Important questions - vital questions - it seems to me. 

And if our society and our churches are not giving coherent answers - then what are we (personally_ going to do about it? Say "it's not my fault"? Or find answers?

(Or, is there something more important that you need to do instead?)

The darkest hour is just before the dawn... No it isn't!

 

From timeanddate.com/sun/uk/newcastle-upon-tyne

"The darkest hour is just before the dawn" may be psychologically true as a proverb - but is astronomically false. 

If dawn is defined as the sunrise; the night goes through three evolving phases of increasing light (defined by the sun's angle below the horizon), that are conventionally separated as such:

Astronomical dawn - Sun is 12-18 degrees below the horizon: when the sky lightens from black towards blue such that fainter stars disappear.

Nautical dawn - Sun is 6-12 degrees below the horizon: when, on a clear day, the horizon and brighter stars are still visible at sea.

Civil dawn - Sun is 0-6 degrees below the horizon: when all the stars (except, maybe, Venus) disappear, and it is light enough over land to do normal outdoor stuff.  

The truth is that it is darkest in the middle of the night, when the sun is at its greatest angle below the horizon. 

That doesn't fit the moral of the proverb - which is rooted in an archetypal narrative of eucatastrophe. 

Yet I can't help but suppose that "the darkest hour is just before the dawn" is a proverbial product of the kind of people who never look at the sky, or who have not been out of bed early enough to observe the dawn for themselves!... 

Relationships with the world of spiritual Beings: Characterizing stronger and weaker interactions between people (and other Beings)

Since I understand reality ultimately to consist of Beings (i.e. Beings are the only final and objective categories of reality); and creation to consist of their interactions and relationships* (so that the laws, processes, forces, fields etc) --  naturally, the question of what influences the relationship between Beings is of interest.  

I try to seek such understanding in what we spontaneously know (for example as young children) - or at least seek validation of my ideas in this (because I regard our genuinely innate and spontaneous knowledge as ultimately God-given - because a Good creator God who loves us would - I think - want to build-into us essentially-valid, as well as useful, knowledge). 

On this basis. relationships need to be possible between incarnated people - including those in remote places; and also between us and "the dead", and with un-incarnated spirits (angels, demons, other kinds of spiritual entity) - so we must go beyond the usual materialist ideas of how relationships work. 

So, on the one hand, it seems that there are no absolute physical limits to the possibility of relationships - which is what would be expected given that all Beings are first-and-foremost of a spiritual nature. 

Yet at the same time, I notice that the strength of relationships is influenced by a variety of factors. Most obviously spatio-temporal proximity is a factor that increases the likelihood of a relationship and tends to increase its strength. In other words, Incarnated Beings that are nearby, and are currently "alive", are the easiest to make relationships with, and indeed it may be difficult Not to have relationships with nearby incarnate Beings. 

(Nonetheless, modern city dwellers seem completely to ignore the vast majority of proximate living Beings - so the modern mind seems to block relationships as a default - hence our default state of alienation and isolation.) 

Consciousness also has a positive effect on strength of relationships; such that relationships are more likely, and more likely to be strong, when we are aware of an other Being - than when we are unconscious/ unaware. 

Attention is another positively reinforcing factor on relationships. When we are spiritually orientated-towards another Being, then we are more likely to relate to them, and more strongly. Attention, in turn, may be a product of motivation (and the factors that affect motivation - interest, impulses etc). 

Such a consideration of relationships can be helpful in understanding their strength, or weakness. And it can be helpful in understanding the nature and reason for incarnation - for the material instantiation of spiritual Beings (such as mortal Men) in bodies. 

An embodied Being increases the strength of spatio-temporally close relationships - the relationship between beings her-and-now; at the cost of weakening relationships between incarnate and discarnate (i.e. spirit-) Beings.

In other words; our default insensitivity to spirits that are unincarnated, with non-human and non-biological beings, and with people who are distant in time or space; is the flip-side of our spontaneous social bias in favour of the human beings around us, now. 

This gives insight into why few modern people experience spontaneous and strong relationship with spirits. 

It also explains why consciousness of the reality of spirits (of spirits in general, and also specific spirits - including "dead" humans), and directing attention to spirits, can overcome this default insensitivity. 

...Which fits rather neatly with my oft-expressed conviction that our task as modern Men includes increased conscious and explicit understanding of the ultimate nature of reality (ie. "metaphysics") as including the spiritual as primary; and also that we must make choices, exercise our agency, take responsibility for the bottom-line freedom of our situation in the world. 

In a nutshell: we need to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual world, and choose to engage with it.

But of itself this conscious engagement with the spirit world may be good or evil according to the side with which we affiliate in the spiritual war of this world. 

So, to be Good; all the above should take place in the context of what can briefly be characterized as "Christian Love". 

*NOTE: Relationships between Beings are a primary assumption of this metaphysics, which means that relationships cannot be defined. Relationships can, however, partially be described in terms of attributes - and this is of value in clarifying what is meant by relationships. Just as Beings can be described in terms of attributes such as purpose, life, consciousness, self-sustaining ability, possibilities of growth and transformation... These attributes are open-ended in number, and vary very-widely in quantity between Beings, hence they are not definitive. So relationships can also be described in terms of their attributes. That "description of relationships in terms of some of their attributes" is what this post is attempting. 

Fake garbage vegan pseudo-substitutes for Turkish Delight and Pease Pudding

"It shouldn't be allowed", but it has already happened, that two of my favourite foods have been eliminated and replaced with fake, garbage, vegan substitutes. 

As a kid, Fry's Turkish Delight (milk chocolate coated TD) was my absolute favourite sweet; and when I later discovered actual Turkish Delight (powdered with fine sugar) I liked that very much as well. 

But the stuff they sell under that name now is completely different, because "They" have eliminated the essential ingredient of gelatin, because it comes from animals. 

So the pseudo-TD is just gooey sugar-gel, flavoured with rose water - which I find so vile that I can't eat it.

Pease Pudding (as in the nursery rhyme*) is a traditional, working-class, North English garnish; which is traditionally made from the stock remaining after boiling a ham, ideally flavoured with onion, celery and a carrot. 

You boil dried split peas (which are a bit like larger, beige lentils) in the stock, until they have softened to a thick paste. It is the perfect accompaniment to ham; and makes an excellent sandwich. The only problem is that the process takes long time - more than an hour, and then the pease pudding should be allowed to cool - and this takes longer than roasting the boiled ham. 

So I have recently bought "pease pudding" from the local supermarket; and discovered a pseudo-product that is so bland and flavourless that it actually detracts from the meal. This is simply because it is not the same thing - unsurprisingly, because this vegan product is made of split peas and... salted water. 

And vegans wonder why normal people hate them so much!

*Pease pudding hot, Pease pudding cold, Pease pudding in the pot, Nine days old. Some like it hot, some like it cold, Some like it in the pot, nine days old.

...But nobody likes it with salted water, instead of ham stock. 

Alone, overnight, in Durham Castle

I once spent the night entirely alone in the ancient structure of Durham Castle, comprising scores of empty hallways, passages and a hundred-plus bedrooms; the kitchens, Feasting Hall; and both an underground Norman Chapel with peculiarly eroded primitive cravings, and a severely-dignified 16th century chapel. 

I was, at the time, a Resident Don, living in the junction to the Victorian-restored and residential Keep. It was, I think, the Easter vacation, when undergraduates were absent; and also, for reasons that I cannot now remember, the place was also vacated by postgraduates, the other Dons, and even the college porter and her family who lived in the gatehouse at the back-left of the above illustration.  

The porter told me that I was the only person remaining in residence for the one night; and gave me instructions for locking-up and security. 

On the actual night in question, at first I was unfazed - just getting on with my work. Then it became dark, and mostly very quiet... 

But there were, in fact, many noises of many kinds, of the kind one would expect in very old buildings; especially creakings and short deep thuds.  

Quite suddenly I became afraid; and experienced an involuntary picture in my mind of the many dark, empty rooms that surrounded me - and I felt very alone.

I considered going out, but did not fancy venturing through the empty halls and courtyard, and liked even less the idea of returning. 

I did not even want to speak to somebody on the phone - since this would somehow amplify awareness of the oppressive sense of the building around me. 

In the end, I adopted the cowardly tactic of distraction and hiding; I turned the television and music up loud until I went to bed; inserted earplugs, and took refuge in the oblivion of sleep. 

By the next morning, everything seemed normal and friendly, and I rather enjoyed the interval until people began to trickle back. But I still recall how thoroughly I spooked myself -- or else became aware of aspects of the situation that were normally drowned-out of consciousness by the intrusive presence, activities, sounds of many people.   

 

JRR Tolkien's implicitly positive attitude to magical methods and practices in the modern world

Over at my Inklings blog, and by reference to The Notion Club Papers; I suggest that JRR Tolkien implicitly displayed a (perhaps) surprisingly positive attitude to that approach deployed by the British tradition of Christian White Magical Societies. 

  

Tethered caps on disposable bottles - a microcosm of strategic cultural suicide

I began to notice recently that I could not get the caps off bottles of drinks, which remained tethered to the bottle, until I cut them with strong scissors, or tore them free by main force. Otherwise it was nigh impossible to pour the drink because the tethered cap got in the way - and even unscrewing a tethered cap is mechanically self-defeating. 

After this became more and more common, I belatedly discovered that this was due to a new EU law - and (of course) the UK has never left the EU. 

This business is a perfect microcosm of here-and-now. Tethered caps are supposed to "encourage" recycling of the drinks caps, and recycling is always and invariably A Good Thing. And the more plastic crap we manufacture, the more we can recycle it - Yay! 

It's all an oh-so-serious issue - but conveniently serves the stepwise agenda of universal and detailed surveillance and control; by which permissible screw-on bottle top design has been brought under globalist totalitarian control.  

So, yet again; a dysfunctional and utterly futile law in service of an evil-motivated, anti-life agenda (CO2 Climate-excused totalitarianism) has been oh-so-laboriously discussed and decided-upon, and imposed internationally by vast bureaucratic-regulatory efforts. 

One of the stupidest and wrongest of traditional sayings, an inversion of truth - is: Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves.

(Especially stupid since it arose when there were 240 pennies in a pound sterling!)

Yet this is modern Green "environmentalism" in a nutshell. In service to fake knowledge about a fake-and-evil theory concerning "climate change" - we have governments imposing energy-consuming and CO2 producing laws in pursuit of changes that - even if all predictive climate-change models were accurate (which they certainly are not, never having been validated), would have undetectably trivial benefits. Meanwhile engaging in mandatory and colossal environmental destruction - for example by gratuitous and mega-polluting wars.    

As another instance; thus we have (in the UK) truly draconian criminal laws protecting certain species such as bats against humans - we are not even allowed to touch these creatures. On the other hand, bats are being slaughtered by the ever-increasing numbers of "environmentally friendly" (but functionally counter-productive) wind-turbines at an admitted rate of thousands-to-millions per year! 

Nobody sincere, rational and well-motivated could possibly behave this way - hence we know for sure that those ruling The West are overall dishonest, irrational and evil-motivated. 

This is possible only by the docile, stupid, and preeningly self-satisfied mind-set of the Western managerial-intellectual class; a group who personally profit from laboriously and expensively implementing an agenda of pointlessly symbolic pseudo-reform in context of a strategy that is ultimately aimed-at purposive political, social, and personal destruction. 

The ruling demons are laughing themselves sick - pay attention, and you can "hear" them!

Why do I believe that we should we become aware of our metaphysical assumptions?

From a strictly metaphysical perspective, I guess that the important thing is to recognize what we are assuming in an "it just is" way, and what is secondarily explained in terms of these assumptions. 

If this is achieved to some extent; I think we can then compare metaphysical "systems" or schemes, and then there is a basis for choosing between them. 

For instance, one person may regard an explanation of freedom/ free-will/ agency as vital to him; but another person may desire that everything he considers important must be as it is, with no contingency, and no possibility of things being otherwise. 

Such personal imperatives will influence the choice of metaphysical assumptions. Or perhaps, when a person becomes explicitly aware of his own current imperatives, he may come to disapprove of them, and may then reject them*.   

Simply to clarify what one actually is assuming - in a clear and explicit way - is itself something very valuable -- maybe essential when it comes to really fundamental matters. 

Personally, I want my primary assumptions to be the kind of thing that is knowable intuitively, by personal revelation - and without having to depend on communications that may be unreliable, from secondary sources that may not be accurate or trustable. 

This has meant that - over time - it has been necessary to reduce the dependence of my core faith not only on church teachings, but also on scripture. I have come to regard both church teachings and scripture as (for what seem very obvious reasons) unsure and unreliable. 

I simply cannot stake everything on the accuracy of scriptural transmission and interpretation, or the integrity of any actual modern institution - whether or not it calls itself a church. 

To generalize, and for a Christian, this means (among other things) "knowing" both God the creator, and also (and more importantly) the person of Jesus Christ for oneself; know them "here and now" as it were - and as the root of everything else.

This is edited from a comment at Francis Berger's blog

*As an example of what I mean: One metaphysical assumption of this kind that I rejected after having become aware and clear about it; was that God our loving Father would create the world such that "the church" (or churches in general - or access to accurate scriptures) was necessary to salvation. This is a very common assumption, even nowadays; but once I had made it explicit, it seemed clearly wrong. A Good and Loving God who desired the salvation of Men would not organize things thus; because the world and its people are far too varied (over time and geographically), and there is far too much that could (and would, and has) go awry in terms of making salvation depend upon any specific worldly entity, its dissemination, and understanding. It seemed obvious that God would make it possible for all of his children to attain salvation in whatever circumstances they found themselves or contrived; and this would need to be done directly - that is, by sufficient and needful unmediated contact: by what is sometimes termed "personal revelation". Since it is Jesus Christ who is essential for each Man's salvation; the attaining of salvation would need to be something primarily decided between Jesus (here and now - not depending on historical records), and each Man in his specific circumstances... Including (importantly) each Man's specific circumstances after biological death, and before the choice of salvation or not.     

No space for Jesus (in mainstream Christian theology)

It is clear that freedom does not matter much to many people (perhaps because spiritual freedom entails ultimate responsibility for our own fate). So the fact that mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology has no place for freedom in its conceptualization of God; is not something that deeply bothers those who aspire to total obedience, or the annihilation of "the self". 

This exclusion of space for freedom is somewhat distinct from an explanation for freedom - although the two can go together. 

There is no space for freedom when God is assumed to be "omni" and to have created everything from nothing; because every-thing then is ultimately made, known and controlled by God. 

To explain what freedom is requires a rather different understanding. We need to get an intuitive grasp of what we are talking about when we reference freedom, free will or agency; and develop a picture of how it could happen (even if it seldom does actually happen). 

The difficulty is that most people have an unconscious assumption that understands every possible action (including every thought) to be caused by some prior stimulus. Such assumptions leave no space for freedom. 

So freedom must be uncaused. But many modern people vaguely-but-firmly believe in a thing they call "randomness"; so then they assume that stuff happens completely unpredictability... 

But randomness is not freedom, indeed it is not an explanation At All but the opposite of explanation - "randomness" (if it existed, rather than being just a mathematical tool) would be a denial of even the possibility of explanation. 

Freedom must therefore be the attribute of a particular person and his nature and motivations. In other words, freedom must be an uncaused cause, a first-cause - which is a partial definition of God. 

Hence; freedom is a first-cause, which is a divine attribute. 

It seems that the conclusion is that Men are gods, of the same kind as God; insofar as they are free.  

Insofar as Jesus Christ really matters to Christians, it is noteworthy that so many Christians have been so concerned to assert the absolute power and fundamental nature of God's unity, omni-qualities and total-creation, that they have left no space for Jesus the mortal Man.

And no possibility of explaining why Jesus was necessary - after all, if God is defined as having everything possible already covered, there is nothing substantive for Jesus to do.

If God does everything, either directly or via creation; then Jesus is merely optional.   

The exclusion of freedom by theological assumptions is therefore another side of the same coin that excludes the possibility of a coherent explanation of why Jesus is necessary for the accomplishment of what Jesus offered. 

If we agree that Jesus (a mortal man, living in a particular place and time) offered the possibility of for Men to choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then there must be some reason why Jesus was needed for this task - and if God is predefined in terms of omni-qualities, it seems clear that the Man Jesus was not necessary for anything.

Yet those who accept Jesus's claim to divinity and to be the necessary path to eternal resurrected life should - it seems to me - be making metaphysical assumptions and constructing their theology around that fact. 

In sum: If Jesus is a Man and is necessary - then God cannot be Omni. 

My view is that the reality and necessity of Jesus must be the primary focus and structuring factor in creating a Christian theology of God; not the other way around.

NOTE - It may be asked why, if there is indeed no space for Jesus, so many previous generations of Christians were satisfied by theological explanations. The first answer is that many weren't and these stayed Jews or embraced Islam. But the main answer is that Men's consciousness has changed through history - and world-pictures that strike us as abstract and dead used to be spontaneously infused with purpose and meaning - by the innate Original Participation which Men have only recently left-behind.  

The impulse and motive for divine creation

Kristor at the Orthosphere has written a post in response to mine of yesterday and others by Francis Berger - that asks several questions. These seem to require and deserve a more extensive elucidation than can be done in comments, including an expansion of underlying metaphysical assumptions; so here it is. 

This procedure distorts my metaphysical views, because they are being expressed in response to Kristor's framework of ultimate assumptions - so that, even when I try to elucidate - means that my account is fragmentary and seen from an alien angle. But maybe this is the best that can be managed in the circumstances. 

(Obviously, I usually and by preference express my metaphysical ideas in their own terms, trying to make a model or paint a picture of how reality is structured and proceeds.)

 

From Kristor is in italics - edited by me; my responses follow BC: 

The situation prior to creation that Bruce describes is already a world: a disharmonious congeries of eternal conscious selves, purposive beings who suffer affects, who feel, want, act, and so on, 

BC: That is a correct description of my views

who relate to and influence each other (so that they can love, or not), all more or less ordered to a good, which apparently they can all more or less recognize, and to which they are more or less attracted. 

BC: No. Before creation there is no such interaction or harmonization. 

They are from eternity past together in a temporal – and so, presumably also spatial – milieu, in which they have and prosecute lives, but only messily. 

BC: Sort of... but before creation there is no comparison by which their autonomous lives can be called messy. 

Thus they can apprehend each other, and God, and his creative plan; they can find it attractive, can want to participate in it, and can then actually do so. 

BC: No. I regard the above description as happening after creation has been initiated. 

The question then arises, what is the reason of this world that was running along from eternity past, all on its own, before one of its constituents got started on his creative project – or after, for that matter? If we answer that there is no prior reason it is what it is, that its eternal existence is a brute fact, we have admitted that it is fundamentally unintelligible; for, what has no sufficient reason to be what it is cannot be reasonable, either in whole or in part: for, brute facts are utterly inscrutable, in principle, thus even to themselves. 

BC: Correct. Before creation there can be no reasons, except internally - "privately", within beings. Things Just Are.  

What is not reasonable cannot be a world, or for that matter any such thing as the items we find all around us, and in us. It can be rather only just stuff happening for no reason: the chaos of Democritean atomism, but with the atoms all sentient, solipsistically. 

BC: Yes, pretty much a correct summary- except that having sentient beings/ "atoms" makes all the difference. Divine creation is (pretty much) the transformation from solipsistic to ongoing-creation - insofar as creation has happened (which changes through time, because creation is linear and sequential).  

If we say that this world prior to creation has no cause because it is necessarily what it is, then every detail of it must be necessary; in which case there is in it no freedom, for it is a spatiotemporally extended block, in which nothing really moves or acts, or therefore is. 

BC: No, this is wrong. "Necessity" does not come into it when things Just Are. Things really "move" but only within beings, not between beings. 

What we end up with then is either the pure chaos of brute unintelligible fact, and no world, or else the wholly determined motionlessness of universal necessity. 

BC: No, neither of these alternatives; because they are regarding the primordial beings as if unalive. Starting with beings rather than "things" makes all the difference. 

There is of course a third option: the classical metaphysics of Nicene Christianity, in which God as uniquely eternal and necessary is the sufficient reason for all being, including his own: not a brute fact, but on the contrary the perfectly intelligent and thus intelligible fact, in whose light all other things are intelligible, at least in principle, so that knowledge is possible; and in which creatures are not eternal, but rather contingent upon God, so that as contingent they can change, act, suffer, move, love, learn, grow, understand and be understood, and so forth. 

BC from now onwards: 

This leads on to consider God's motivation for creation.

If God is a unity, there can be no motive for anything. Such a God Just Is. 

But my understanding is that God is a dyad of Heavenly Parents - Heavenly Father and Mother. My understanding is that it is the love between our Heavenly Parents that is the motivation for creation - in a way closely analogous to the spiritually-understood way that love between two (ideal) loving human beings may lead to the choice of initiating pro-creation - that is having children who are loved; and beginning what may be an extended family.

(Of course, mortal human parents are born as already part of an extended and (ideally) loving family. But I am here talking about how this all began.) 

Creation is therefore a concept that arises from love, and includes procreation as well as all the other many ways in which loving relationships between beings of all kinds may become.  

To put matters very simply: there is a Timeline for creation. The primordial situation of autonomous and not-relating beings becomes creation as a consequence of our Heavenly Parents meeting, becoming mutually aware, and committing themselves to eternal love. 

Our Heavenly Parents thus became God, and creation began by God's "interventions" on primordial reality; and to the extent that primordial beings opt-in to live by love. 

This was not the original situation of reality, there was a time when it happened, and it might not have happened. 

Furthermore, beings are usually only partly capable of love; and presumably some beings are incapable of love (and therefore do not participate in creation). 

Thus God's primary creation is a mixed state of love, and not-love. 

And it is this deficit in primary creation that led to the need for Jesus Christ and the Second Creation, "needed" because Jesus completes the work of creation by enabling Heaven which is the eternal situation of beings living by love; leaving-behind other and evil motivations at resurrection.

**

By Contrast: Orthodox-traditional "Nicene" Christianity perhaps needs to posit a motive for creation - a motive for God creating rather than not; and therefore (sometimes) posits an analogous impetus for creation in the love of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - each for the other. 

It is the differences-between the Trinity that enable the love that leads to creation...

However this explanation is made confusing/ incoherent by also insisting that the Trinity are not only different from each other, but also simultaneously the same as each other (because there is only one God). 

(This is required by the insistence on a monotheistic Omni-God creating ex nihilo - such a God cannot be internally subdivided.) 

And furthermore; ortho-trad theology has it that that the "process" of creation (and of love among the Trinity) happens outside of time - so creation always-was-and-is; so there is no "Timeline" of creation. All that is now, ever was and shall be. 

And this is the point at which orthodox Christianity reaches its particular It Just Is assumption - explanations stop at this point.

All metaphysics must reach this point, sooner or later - the point at which we must make assumptions regarding the ultimate nature of reality. 

The goal (as I see it) is to become aware of where this point is reached, to acknowledge this; and to know that here we are indeed making assumptions... 

Which activity is (I suggest) properly called "metaphysics" 

Is poor concentration and "clouded" consciousness a spiritual problem?

As a young adult and into middle age, I seemed to have an unusually strong ability to focus on a particular theme, and stick with it; in the context of feeling very clear in my thinking and holding to the willed topic. 

That ability has diminished significantly as I moved into old age (later fifties). 

Initially I fought the changes, but gradually realized that there is nothing that can be done about this. Thinking depends on the body and its health and functionality - so its quality is not something that can be changed by will power - will power being, of course, subject to exactly the same changes! 

Given my overall understanding of the nature and purpose of our mortal lives, I assume that these problems - and they are problems, pathologies, because they are dysfunctionalities - ought to become the focus of learning. 

Not as things to be "overcome", because we are mortals in an entropic world and will functionally decline and die; but as stimuli towards a change of purpose. 

In the first place - my thinking abilities when I was healthier and more functional - did not lead to spiritual benefits! 

Indeed, by the early 2000s, I had thought myself into a pretty appalling spiritual impasse of the usual, mainstream type: materialism, positivism, reductionism, relativism, scientism... 

Proving (yet again!) that ability (and power) is a curse when misapplied. 

My sense of things is that when one cannot think with the same clarity and purpose, this signals the need to move towards less strategic, more here-and-now, purposes: in particular awareness, discernment, and repentance. 

In other words, rather than trying to direct and control thinking in pre-decided directions; I ought to be more aware of what is currently happening in my thinking; aware that thinking is indeed (at some point) currently clouded, or perhaps blunted...

That I am Not currently conscious-of and engaged-with the environment (physical and social) and the world of spirit in the ways I want: the ways I regard as optimal (i.e. discernment is needed)...

That I repent this state of mind, and regard the situation as sub-optimal at best, and often evil in terms of being wrongly-motivated - e.g. seeking comfort, pleasure, rest, relief from suffering; rather than being creatively orientated to reality with love and in freedom.  

I assume that what I can do, is also what I most need to do - here-and-now, at this point in the proceedings: i.e. to clarify my self and my intentions and attainment in an honest and accurate way. 

And to be clear also about what, behind the unavoidable but superficial constraints of the mortal body and entropic/evil world, I most want...

Even though I cannot usually make myself want it - in the present time and circumstances!

The nature of Primal Chaos: God or Chaos versus God or Nothing (continuing a dialogue with Francis Berger)

The background goes back some way, but could be regarded as a post by Francis Berger discussing the nature of freedom, and comments from Kristor Lawson of the Orthosphere. The theme then became the nature of God, as God ought to be understood by Christians - in particular whether, on the one hand, God created absolutely everything from absolutely nothing ("ex nihilo"). Or on the other hand; whether  God created from something pre-existent - in particular "beings" (living, purposive, conscious to some degree, self-sustaining etc) that had always existed, coeternally with God. 

Bruce Charlton comment (edited by me): 

Kristor comments: "Because he is subultimate, the Mormon God is unnecessary, contingent, and dependent (like Zeus or Thor)". 

This is interestingly wrong, in part; because it reveals several of the assumptions into which philosophy came to embed mainstream Christian theology. Perhaps the key term is contingent - in that the desire of classical theology is to describe a state of affairs that could not be otherwise than it is. 

If that was true then (by my understanding) there can be no real freedom. Freedom has been excluded by assumption. 

"Unnecessary" is related to the desire to escape all contingency: to insist that things cannot be other than what they are, however this also also entails that nothing can really change. 

But when there is life/ consciousness/ being - there is change, and change is directional and sequential - and this is something that everybody is born already knowing. 

The Mormon concept of God (and IMO the real God!) is indeed "necessary" in the sense that God is the creator, and without God there would be no creation. So it is a case of God or Chaos. 

But the philosophy (expressed by Kristor) that (IMO) captured Christian theology, wants it to be that there must be God, now and always, and nothing would be without God. 

This is a case of God or Nothing. 

Well, that idea of necessity is a very particular view of God. Most gods/Gods throughout history and the world (including some descriptions of the God of the Old Testament, it seems clear enough) do not conform to this idea of necessity. 

Indeed extremely few people - now or ever - could even conceive of a God in that sense, and could not express it if they did. They would not want or see reason to posit such an entity. 

What is strange to me is that so many Christian theologians (from very early in the Christian church) seem to have decided to make the assumption that only such an abstract entity is a "real" God, or deserves to be considered a God.

It is strange because of Jesus Christ. If Christianity had been a pure monotheism, this dogmatic assumption would be comprehensible; but given the incarnate nature of Jesus the Man, Son of God, who was born, grew, lived "in time", who died etc etc... 

Well, it is just plain strange for Christians to make an insoluble problem from Jesus - just because of their pre-existing philosophical convictions. And having made the nature of Jesus such a Big Problem, but not so strange to pretend that all questions have been answered but at a level of abstraction so remote that all contradictions dissolve into each other! 

**

Francis Berger then wrote a post amplifying on some of the above concepts (edited): 

In his comment, Dr. Charlton refers to two disparate cases concerning the nature of God and Creation—the first being the conventional conceptualization of God or nothing and the unconventional view of God or chaos.

The first case posits God as the ultimate creator of everything and argues that there would be nothing without God. The second case envisions God as a primary creator who shaped and formed Creation from pre-existing “material” (for lack of a better way of putting it) that was chaotic and purposeless. God or nothing and God or chaos is another angle from which one can view the old creatio ex nihilo versus creatio ex materia debate.

The God or nothing approach insists upon the absolute necessity of God for the simple reason that without him, nothing could exist or be. God not only is—he absolutely must be, for without Him, there would be nothing but a void of nothingness.

In other words, I am must be because there is literally nothing on the other side of that thunderous I am. Every being needs God, but God needs no other beings. No being is utterly necessary but God.

This absolute necessity of God relegates everything in existence or being to the state of contingency. Every being in existence is utterly dependent on God in every way imaginable, even when they exercise their God-given freedom to reject God altogether.

However, the God-given free rejection of the Divine Creator does not negate God’s thunderous I am declaration. The creatures he created from nothing can never return to the nothing from whence they came. They either come to know and worship him or suffer the consequences of their free rejection, the capacity for which God created from nothing.

The God or chaos case envisages God as the primary creator. Without God, there is no Creation, only chaos. God can still say I am, but his necessity takes on an entirely different hue.

The creatures he shaped existed in some form before entering Creation, so he is not necessary for their core pre-existence as beings but crucial to their existence in Creation. They come to know him and attempt to understand why they are Creation, or they may reject him and, perhaps, choose to return to the chaos from which they emerged. ​ Since God did not create the freedom driving such a choice, it remains authentically free. 

**

Me, now: 

Deriving the nature of God from a "God or Chaos" distinction, seems to be a useful shorthand of the the paired alternatives that arise from the metaphysical assumptions that I share with Francis Berger. 

His comment stimulated a few further clarifications. God or Chaos could be re-framed as Love or Chaos - since creation derives from Love. 

Furthermore, it is vitally important that God creates from "beings" and not from "materia" - by my understanding, God did not start with inert, unalive, "stuff" but already alive and conscious, purposive beings. That pre-creation reality was of beings is essential to the reality and nature of freedom. 

If pre-creation reality was not already-alive and already-conscious - by their nature and from-eternity, then the problem of "where freedom comes from" remains unanswered. Because, ultimately, freedom just isn't something that can be made or gifted.

(And the same applies to life, or consciousness, or purpose - these are attributes of beings, and cannot be bestowed upon no-beings, "things" or "material".)  

Therefore, Chaos should not be pictured scientistically as some kind of Brownian motion of dead-molecules. Instead, Chaos should be understood as a situation in which beings are self-centred in their purposes and methods, autonomous in their world view... 

So, this debate is not a re-run of creatio ex nihilo versus creatio ex materia - because the starting point is an already-alive ("animated") universe, but one in which living beings are "uncoordinated" - each pulling in a different direction, all with with different motivations. 

Creation is therefore understood as the incremental and progressive harmonization and direction of a multitude of already-existing living beings by Love: that is, by Love of God (which provides ultimate coherence), and of each-other (without which creation would break-down). 

In other words; the "Two Great Commandments": first to love God, then to love our "neighbour", fellow Men (and by extension all other beings).  

Chaos is a collection of unharmoniuous beings, each "doing his own thing", wholly self-motivated, un-loving and indifferent to other beings (and perhaps unaware of them). It is this kind of situation, upon-which God initiates the process of creation.

But, this was only the beginning of creation - because it led to a mixed world of continuing chaos and ("within" this) an expanding divine creation. Creation exists insofar as love motivates; but love is (at best) incomplete in any being. 

So far this is monotheism, not Christianity. The completion and "perfection" of creation, into a wholly good world - i.e. Heaven - required the later intervention of Jesus Christ. This is therefore The Second Creation.  

 

Faeries and ETs - appeal to different kinds of person

An "alien" disguising itself as various faeries

Many have noticed that there is a generic similarity between reports of sightings and contact with faeries and with Extra-terrestrials (ETs) - and this has been variously explained in Jungian terms, either with or without some objectively real +/- perceptual basis. 

In other words; at some deep level (whether psychological or physical), faeries and ETs are "the same phenomenon" that manifests superficially in very different forms. 

But the kinds of people who are interested by (and report) faeries versus those interested in ETs, seem quite different in terms of their general stance and motivations.

Faeries are a focus for people with a range of New Age and esoteric interests; those who I would characterize as seeking a reversion towards the ancient and early-childhood consciousness of "Original Participation". 

In other words such people seek an escape from the cut-offness and alienation of modern consciousness; and desire immersively to integrate with a living (animated) world; that includes faeries along with animals, plants and landscape. 

Thus, faeries seem to serve as an intermediary between Man and Nature - or Man and The Earth more generally.  

By contrast; ETs are of interest to people with an alternative ("conspiracy theory") political stance. The idea that alien species from outer space have an interest in the earth, a presence among Men, a desire for contact with Men - and they desire to exert an influence of some kind on this world... 

ET enthusiasts therefore usually "place" ETs into a world view that is "mundane", and indeed primarily socio-political. ETs are variously regarded as either/or/both benign and malign in their intentions for the organization and goals of the Earth. 

Sometimes ETs are interpreted as intending to protect the earth (eg against catastrophic pollution, or against the possibility of nuclear war) - and also sometimes other kinds of ET are understood to be among or influencing the Global Establishment in their sinister plans to enslave and exterminate Men and the planet.  

So, maybe their is some kind of common basis for experience of faeries and ETs; but if so, differences in personality and ideology/ spirituality lead to a different ascribed function, motivation, and human-role for these beings. 

Tam Lin - a "strong female protagonist", folklore faeries, and low magic - in the Scottish Borders

We recently visited Carterhaugh and "Tamlane's Well" in Eskdale, in the Scottish Borders west of Selkirk - which is the location for one of the most famous of the supernatural ballads: Tam Lin.

(Note - the above are not my pictures.)

While Thomas the Rhymer is a high magical ballad, dealing with matters of elves as a third kind (neither Men nor angels) death and prophecy - and a possible source of insight and enhanced power; Tam Lin is much more of a folkloric depiction of faeries: beautiful yet dangerous because alien. 

And the ballad of Tam Lin is a love/lust story, focused on the need for human courage and ingenuity in dealing with the Fair Folk.

While the most famous recording of Tam Lin is by Fairport Convention; I personally don't much enjoy it, nor any of the others I have encountered except for the incomplete version by The Pentangle, used in that weird, flawed, but somewhat interesting, 1970 movie. 

Tam Lin continues to exert a fascination across recent decades, especially for women singers; probably because it may be taken as a prototype of a currently dominant narrative trope of a spunky heroine who falls in love with, and redeems, a dangerously attractive Bad Boy.

...Although naturally; being a traditional and orally-transmitted poem (with many, and contradicting, variants!) the original Tam Lin does this now-clichéd trope much better than modern Hollywood!

Stephanie Beacham as Janet, Ian McShane as Tam ("Tom") Lin, in the 1970 movie - depicting her "Have I just made a terrible mistake?" moment. 

Fakers and frauds can be very clever and industrious (as well as the opposite)

Not by Vermeer

I recently attended a lecture on frauds in the world of fine art, especially painting - the more notorious examples of those who pass-off their own work as that of famous, prestigious, expensive painters from the past. 

My take-home message was that the world of fine arts is rife with fakes, the "experts" are easily fooled (and indeed an integral part of the scam), and some of the fakers are not just skilled but very clever in marketing their forgery by indirect and non-obvious means. 

I also read more about a notorious and very successful Welsh literary faker called "Iolo Morganwg" (Edward Williams) - who was so skilled, industrious and clever that his frauds have become inextricably bound-up with Welsh literary history (and the history of revived neo-druidry). 

My own reading has led me to consider an influential twentieth century mystic called Wellesley Tudor Pole; and the eventual conclusion that he was essentially (but, of course, not wholly - successful examples never are) a fraud and liar - also clever, capable, industrious, and charismatic. 

It is not exactly Big News that the world of esotericism and mysticism has many fakers and frauds, but perhaps it is more surprising that some of the most feted instances of art are (at least I believe) fakes. These are fields in which the basic set-up makes it easier to be fraudulent. But nowadays the same applies everywhere of which I have insider knowledge, such as science (and especially medical research - as became blazingly obvious in 2020!)  

One difficulty in acknowledging this, is that people underestimate the industriousness and strategic thinking of frauds; another is that they underestimate the degree to which truth can be distorted or inverted by "seeding" broadly correct information with a few key falsehoods; another is to underestimate the importance of theory as compared with "facts". 

But a further difficulty relates to motivation. What motivates the faker or fraud. 

"Normal" people are not only too lazy to be seriously fraudulent, but they lack sufficiently strong motivation. Some frauds seem clearly to be after money, or sex, or status - which are pretty normal motivations.  

However, not all fakers and frauds are impelled by normal motivations, or else their "normal" motives are so extreme as to become abnormal. Normal people are too normal for them to realize the strangeness of motivations in the kind of people who do become successful frauds. 

I include myself here! The motivations of some people can be so strange as to be utterly obscure, and this fact strongly protects Frauds and Fakes (F&Fs) from detection.

This can be such a strong block on understanding, that even solid and certain examples of fraud tend to be neglected, ignored, or forgotten - because thy just don't "make sense" to people, and can't be integrated into their ideologies and schemes of understanding.  

All of this is extremely important in terms of someone seeking "the meaning of life"; and addressing ultimate questions. Because it is quite likely that the "experts" and "wise men" that we encounter in our searchings will - no matter in what domain we are searching - include some (perhaps many) frauds and fakes. 

And yet the evidence suggests that these F&Fs are not detectable by any feasibly attainable level of expertise and specialized knowledge - and with the time and energy we have available.  

So what can we do, in practice?

In my experience, the best guide - and maybe the only guide - is when we have a genuine intuitive conviction that some kind of fakery and fraud is afoot...

(Shomething Shurley Wrong - Shomwhere!)

When the "alarm bells" go-off (often subconsciously, at first; or subtly) at the time we encounter a person or work - a sense that somebody is "...up to something", and not "what they seem" - or, more exactly, not what they are trying to make us believe. 

Yet a great deal of modern culture is (for obvious reasons!) dedicated to inducing us to ignore, systematically, such intuitive promptings - and to induce other, alternative, external, cultural, "fake intuitions" - especially that somebody or some-thing that is actually-good (true, beautiful, virtuous) is instead untrustworthy. 

"They" want us to reject as F&F exactly that which we most need and would most benefit us. 

Therefore, even in terms of what seem to be our own intuitions of validity, we need to apply our best-possible and deepest intuitive awareness; and to become aware of the difference between a real intuition, and something that has been artificially - perhaps subtly and deviously - implanted; including implanted in exactly the strategic and indirect fashion that fakes and frauds pass-off their work. 

(Sometimes - I find - all that needs to happen, is that we seriously consider that some-thing, some person, some-event may be an F or F; then immediately to realize that Of Course! Obviously it is.)

This may sound superficial, but isn't - at least not if your metaphysical assumption is that we really do have a real - eternal and potentially divine - self; that can form a genuine bottom-line for our knowledge. 

Did Jesus make a better world?

So many aspects of Christian theology seem to take it for granted that Jesus made a better world. That the world after Jesus was better than the world before Jesus. 

If this was truly so, then the world should have undergone a very obvious transformation in or around 33AD. 

One would expect massive disagreement as to why this had happened, and even disagreement about whether or not this massive change had been for the better or worse. But that this had happened - that the world (indeed the universe) had been transformed at this time would - presumably - have been so obvious as to require no argument. 

Yet that is not the case. Nobody seriously argues that the world underwent an unique and qualitative change around AD33. 

I regard this as a powerful argument against this-worldly interpretations of Christianity - and this-worldly interpretations of Christianity were those that I nearly always came across when I was an atheist. 

On the other hand, if we take Jesus as his own word in the Fourth Gospel; then his work was not about this world, but the next world: not so much about what happens in life, but instead mostly about what happens after death. 

Therefore it is unsurprising if the world did not change in any obvious way during or after the ministry and death of Jesus. 

I put this forward as an instance of the way in which Christians need to be careful, much more careful than they generally have been, about how they describe the faith, and the aspects that they emphasise. To advocate Christianity as a means to the end of a better life or a better world, seems like a good idea in the short term - but it is fundamentally false and alien to reality. And, sooner or later, this tactic will - and rightly - discredit Christianity.