Positive Greatness is non-transmissible. Religions, Ideologies, Systems are useless - when it comes to yielding Good consequences

I find it recurrently very striking that although I may admire, study, reflect upon individual persons (my "mentors"*) - my strongly positive feelings about such people almost-never extend beyond that specific person; almost-never includes even their close associates, disciples, heirs... and almost-never include the religion, ideology or (generically) the "system" that the admired individuals propagate. 

(Negative harm and evil can indeed be encouraged and propagated, as we see all around us; but this does not seem to apply to the positive and Good.) 

In one sense this is obvious and to be expected - and yet it is not what most people, including myself, tend to assume. 

On the contrary, we assume that there is something transmissible about positive goodness and greatness: that the idea of a Great and Good Man will tend to promote greatness, that the associates, disciples, followers, heirs of a GG Man will share - or at least significantly-encourage - the same positive greatness. 

Again and again I find that The Great and Good Man's positive-greatness may be real and strong; and yet the people associated are either mediocre and ineffectual; or else overall malign and negative in their nature and tendency. 

Furthermore, and something harder to grasp: The GG Man's own account of what is necessary and desirable for Goodness and positive change is also wrong!

The Great and Good Man's religion/ ideology/ System of understanding and explanation, his System for working to generate positive change - also shares this quality of being - in actual practice - ineffectual and useless at best; but often and with apparent ease readily made into a mechanism for the pursuit of evil. 

The people who are supposed to continue the work of the GG Man do not do so: they either degenerate into a relatively harmless but ultimately useless-for-Good pastime/ hobby/ club/ lifestyle choice...

Or else they become actually negative and harmful in their intent and outcomes; a vehicle for the pursuit (whether directly, or by lending support) of evil ends. 

Examples of the futility and/or malignity of Systems associated with those I regard as my mentors and Great and Positive persons abound, indeed it is exceptions that are hard to find. 

Most significantly, I have come to believe that this is true even of that greatest of men: Jesus Christ. 

With the single exception of the author of the Fourth Gospel; I do not find the same greatness in any of those who were associated with Jesus, or who propagated what they believed to be The System that Jesus seemed to be recommending/ commanding. 

And I find the usual mixture of ineffectuality and tool-for-net-malignity in The Systems attributed to Jesus, and allegedly associated with Jesus. 

What does this mean? 

The conclusion would seem to be that Institution and System are intrinsically useless at best, but actually net-harmful in practice. 

Perhaps we can only get benefit by direct inner-contact with the spirit of the Great and Good Man himself - because we ourselves are unlikely to do good by attempting to propagate this Greatness. 

When it comes to the good and the positive in this life; maybe we can actually do little more than point at a Great and Good Man, with a personal recommendation; and maybe also give an account of our own experience of such contact? 

*Some of these recent mentors who are writers, who have had a positive impact (as I judge), and who I have often blogged about are ST Coleridge, Rudolf Steiner, Dion Fortune, JRR Tolkien, Owen Barfield, William Arkle, Gareth Knight. Several of these taught a System - and all of these came to seem wrong and net-harmful. They had associates, followers, disciples etc - and unless the individuals were independently Great and Good themselves; such persons have always proved disappointing, exerted a net-negative influence, and often (I judge) were/are of bad intent. 

wrt Tolkien and Barfield - see the comment by AnteB, and my reply. It should be noted that a GG Man may have other GGMs in his circle - but their greatness is, essentially, independently achieved rather than derivative. For instance, and contrary to what he himself asserted and probably believed; Barfield's greatness was essentially independent from that of Steiner. GGMs are not reliable witnesses when it comes to their own special qualities.    

Too many Mainstream Orthodox Christians are "universalists" when it comes to "the resurrection of damnation"

There is a sentence in the Fourth Gospel that contradicts the argument and multiple statements of the rest of the Gospel, and which I assume was a later and alien addition...

But which (with, perhaps, a terrible and malignant inevitability) became standard orthodox compulsory dogma in many Christian churches (at least among theologians):

John 5: [28] Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

The alien-ness of this passage is that, through the rest of the Gospel, it is evident that resurrection is A Good Thing, Good News, the great gift that Jesus offers to all Men who "follow" Him.

This is the real Christianity: one that recognizes that Jesus offered a great gift...

A gift that any mortal man (whether he be good or bad, as evaluated by This World, and after all we are all "sinners". Sinners both in the primary sense that we all shall die, and the secondary sense that nobody lives in full harmony with divine creation). 

Thus, a great gift that all may choose to accept - by following Jesus through death into resurrection and Heaven. 

What I regard as True Christianity, takes-up Jesus's many statements in the IV Gospel and its overall argument; that has resurrection linked with Heaven: resurrection is the needful transformation by which we are "born again" in a form suitable for Heaven. 

So; salvation properly means saving us from death, and the default fate of becoming ghostly spirits, barely our-selves.

Saving us into an eternal life in Heaven. 

Yet here, in the above quoted sentence, there is raised the spectre that Jesus's work was to raise the barely-conscious gibbering ghosts of the underworld Sheol into an everlasting incarnated state in which they would suffer the eternal torment of Hell.

Add to this horror; the statements in some other Books of the New Testament that only few - probably the very few who have "done good" to a sufficient degree, can or shall ever attain the resurrection of life.

And we get that truly horrible depiction of Jesus Christ as cosmic sadist that is so vehemently insisted-up and enforced by so many churches...

I mean the common and horribly inverted picture of a "Jesus" whose "great work" as a "saviour" was to implement a system of alleged-salvation, by which the majority of Men (probably a very large majority) were resurrected from death in order that they could be tortured forever. 

By such means, a large number of self-identified Christians - past and present - chose to make themselves into "Universalists". 

But not the kind of Universalist who assert that Jesus's work was to compel everybody to resurrect into Heaven; whether they wanted it or not...

Instead the kind of Universalist who believes that Jesus made things so that everybody gets resurrected, everybody gets brought to consciousness forever; and afterwards, for most of them, their eternal life will be one of inescapable and ultimate misery. 

Both "universalisms" are wrong: Resurrection is a choice and Heaven too is a choice, therefore neither is for everyone. 

Why is that so hard to grasp? 

And why are self-identified Christians so stubborn in refusing to grasp the Good News, or (worse) insisting that they do not even want it? 

Resurrection, not incarnation, is the most shocking and strange thing about Christianity

I have often heard it emphasised by Christians how remarkable, how shocking, it was that God was incarnated as a little baby, lived, suffered and died an ignominious and agonising death.

But is it really so shocking? All of these are familiar possibilities for a being that is an 'avatar' of a God - a spirit part of God that takes on human form and lives as a human, perhaps a super-powered human, maybe even breeds with humans etc.

(Jesus is not an avatar - but my point is that the general idea of a God taking on a human form is common enough.)

Neither is it all that shocking when the incarnated God comes back to life after being killed - since all societies seem to have believed in some kind of continuation of existence after biological death (so nothing really dies altogether), posited some kind of afterlife; and Gods in particular would be expected to be unkillable. 


What is really shocking is that when the divine Jesus came back to life it was not as a spirit. Instead God became a Man again, in a Man's body, and for eternity. Jesus was resurrected.

I think that this is so shocking that - as far as I can tell - most Christians still don't believe it, and have never really believed it; but instead have always tried to claim that Jesus's resurrected body was 'not really' what it seemed, but some kind-of embodied spirit.

It is, apparently, very difficult for people to accept that a creator God could have a body like ours, eternally; and still be God. 

To most intellectual Christians, at any rate, it seems intrinsically ridiculous that something solid and bounded might be superior to something unbounded of pure spirit; so they resort to various types of 'yes, but'... argument, that explain resurrection as retaining the appearance of an incarnate body while replacing its inner reality with spirit.

If this was so, the question is why?... Why did Jesus bother with resurrection, if the body was merely a kind of illusion? Why didn't he make eternal life explicitly a thing of pure spirit?

Why go to all the trouble of making it 'look like' Jesus had an absolutely humanish body, why the emphasis on how normal his body seemed?

(An emphasis, but not not exclusive; after all Jesus was hard to recognise, could apparently appear and disappear etc; but certainly the primary point being made is that this was in some essential way the same human body that Jesus had inhabited before he died, with the same appearance, wounds etc; and it was certainly solid to touch, and he ate food.)

If we take the Fourth Gospel as primary (and the other Gospels as partial confirmations) it is evident that the resurrection was into a 'normal', solid, material human body - and that was the main thing about it!

We should not allow secondary explanations to remove that major - and shocking - fact.

The distinctive thing about Christianity is therefore not 'eternal life' in Heaven; but eternal life in some version of our actual solid human body. 

There Must Be something very important about The Body, if it is to become eternal for us, in Heaven.


Note: On further reflection, the fact of resurrection has very wide-ranging implications for the nature of ultimate reality; including the nature of life in Heaven. In a nutshell, resurrection implies that the life eternal promised by Jesus to those who follow him is A Resurrected Life - a life certainly including resurrected entities, beings, things from this mortal life. Not, therefore, a life of pure spirit or thought; but a life of everlasting solid beings and objects of many kinds - thought consisting-of/ interacting-with solid things. Perhaps CS Lewis intuited this, in his fantasy of The Great Divorce? 

Further Note added today: This is an edited repost of what strikes me as a significant insight (i.e. significant for me) which made near zero impact at the time of first publication seven years ago (except on WmJas Tychonievich) - and indeed, I did not properly grasp it myself. So here 'tis again. 

Proof of resurrection?

Many Christians (and the official doctrine of many churches) assert that resurrection does not come soon after death on an individual basis; but is delayed - perhaps waiting until some version of a judgment day, when resurrection happens "communally", for everyone all at once - albeit individuals are "judged" individually. 

However...

The Fourth Gospel does not include a "second coming" or "day of judgment"; and its narrative is consistent with resurrection happening as an individual process, and happening soon after each person's death - with its examples of Lazarus and Jesus himself, both resurrected within days. 

Jesus also seems to describe rapid individual resurrection - for example, as I understand the following two passages: 

4: 31 - In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 

I understand this to be Jesus talking (poetically, metaphorically as we regard it) of how he is finishing the work of "him that sent me" - meaning both that this work was incomplete, and that Jesus has - here and now, not at some future point - finished it. 

Everything has been done, everything is ready.

No need for delays. 

5: 21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ... 

I understand this to be stating that those who believe and follow Jesus will have everlasting life - i.e. resurrection - and will pass from death into life, will pass through death into resurrection. 

No delay. 

Further, that this benefit also applies to those who died before the advent of Jesus. 

"Christianity" ought to be much clearer on this subject; and more focused upon the promise of resurrected eternal life; and that this shall come to each to wants it and follows Jesus, and "soon" after death. 

No delay, no waiting for indefinite periods until a day of judgment. 

This also means that there are many of the dead who have resurrected already. 

And therefore, in principle, these living resurrected people are a potential source of direct personal evidence for the reality of resurrection, available to living people now.    

In other words; we are not necessarily dependent, ultimately, on second-hand sources such as theology, scripture, or the teaching of religious authorities. 

Because there is a possible "proof" of the truth of Jesus's promise - a proof that might be accessed by many people, here-and-now.

This assuming that there can be contact between individual living mortal Men such as you and me; and at least one or more of those who have died and been resurrected. 

Traditional Christianity damns marriage by dubious comparisons, faint praise, and pragmatic functionality

In a world where marriage has been, over several generations; purposively and systematically weakened, subverted, and finally rendered meaningless; it is tempting to yearn for the comparative situation of traditional Christian marriage - for its legal clarity and moral strictness.  

Yet the Christian churches (excepting the CJCLDS) have, in my opinion, seriously trivialized the spiritual potential of marriage.  

And for a very long time. 

I take my example from The Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England Solemnization of Marriage: 

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this Congregation, to join together this man and this woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church;

This is absurd! To justify marriage between two individual persons in terms of a (to my mind) exceedingly dubious and opaque comparison with a supposed "mystical union" between Christ and "his Church"! 

This is to "explain" the simple with the complex; the experiential with abstraction; the clear with the opaque.  

I cannot imagine that anybody who was doubtful about the validity or necessity of marriage would be persuaded by this - or would even understand what was meant by it. The analogy merely opens a can of worms rather than explaining anything. 

After all; what is this supposed mystical union of Christ and Church (which does not feature in the Fourth Gospel)? Exactly who is the MU between - I mean, what counts as "his" Church, and what is excluded? To be specific, which actual people of which particular Church can confidently be asserted to be parts of this mystical union? 

And given the gross corruption and dissent of all the Christian churches - who and what self-identified Christian institutions, and which parts of which institutions - ought to be ignored, and in what respects? 

...which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; 

This is bizarre. Is it seriously suggested that the institutions of marriage is justified because Jesus attended a wedding, and there performed a miracle? 

Using such an argument, all sorts of things might be justified. 

..and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: 

Commended by St Paul? Well, if at all, only in the most grudging and negative way. Paul regards celibacy as the highest state, and did not allow marriage any positive spiritual value.

and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. 

Prudent advice, and nothing to disagree with here, but it would apply to life in general (e.g. eating and drinking) and any major life decisions (like choosing a job or purchasing a house) - and does not help explain why marriage might be "a good thing"

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name. 

The difficulty is that this is first a biological justification merely; and secondly a sociological one - and alternative arrangements for procreation and raising children might be (and indeed are) proposed. 

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body. 

See above. This is an appalling non-justification - and contains the assumption that the avoiding sin (double negative theology) ought to be our primary motivations. 

If this were true - ultimately, it were better not to have been born, or to die before having the chance to sin.   

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.

Unobjectionable, so far as it goes; but nothing spiritual about it - merely a matter of expediency; nothing to do with salvation or theosis. 

I regard such feeble advocacy and rationalization of marriage as a symptom of very deep and widespread spiritual problems. 

This represents a pitiful and significant inability to explain or advocate a thing that has been so obviously, to for so many people, as one of the most wonderfully positive and desirable things in human existence. 

It strikes me as evidence of a grossly inadequate theology that (even) rigorous and honest traditional Christian churches at their best have failed so badly to make explicit the spiritual value and desirability of something that has often been directly experienced and known.  

Our yearning for a life of continual enchantment

The "romantic" search for an escape from the mundane nature of life in this-world - that is, for enchantment - takes many, many forms; and is pursued by different people in widely varying ways. 

A very incomplete list of the themes would include by religions/ spiritualties/ ideologies; through reading, TV and movies; by personal relationships such as intense friendships and sexual relationships; through the appreciation and making of crafts and arts; by meditative, paranormal and supernatural encounters and experiences; via drink and drugs and other derangements; by holidays and travel; pursuit of personal or formal education; from performing drama and music... 

And so on - fully considered, there are only a few people who are not implicitly pursuing the enchanted life. 

All of these methods and others are at-least somewhat effective and may lead to enchantment: for some people, to some extent, and temporarily...

Because with time and the changes in our-selves, all methods and pursuits always lose effect: 

The once-enchanted becomes mundane. 

In other words, in our  failure to become and to stay enchanted; we are here dealing with the ultimate fact of entropy. 

We are up-against the inescapability of entropy in this-world we all inhabit. 

We are up-against this primary creation where all changes, loss is inevitable, and every-thing ends in its death. 

But this-world and primary creation is not all; because (by Jesus Christ) we all have the the opportunity to undergo the transformation of resurrection after death through following Jesus, and move on to the Second Creation that is Heaven: where the state of enchantment is everlasting. 

It is the state of everlasting enchantment in Heaven that Jesus is describing in the Fourth Gospel - when he uses "metaphorical" examples such as water, food and meat - and compared the inevitabilities of their incomplete, temporary, entropic nature in this-life-now; with the eternally present and gratifying fulfilment in the life-to-come:

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat... but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven... I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever... I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. 

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you... 

When Jesus says that he brings "life", life-everlasting, eternal-life; people nowadays wrongly interpret this as meaning an offer of (merely) continuing mundane life: the (mere) persistence-forever of life-as-we-now-know-it...

Merely the continuance of this entropic life...

But Heaven comes after resurrection, and resurrection is a transformation by-which not only evil, but also entropy, is eliminated...

Or, to put matters positively; when all the denizens of Heaven have made a permanent commitment to live forever wholly by love of God and divine creation and their fellow resurrected humans (and other resurrected Beings)...

Then this is a situation both of eternal goodness, and also of everlasting enchantment. 

Just as we can now, in this mortal life, know the desire for a wholly good world (without evil); but we cannot attain it. And Christians know that full goodness can only be attained after death and by resurrection...

So also we can know that our yearning for a life of continual and complete enchantment (without entropic change, decline, annihilation) - while impossible to achieve here and now - is attainable.

And/but attainable after our death - and by resurrection. 

Mary Magdalene at the tomb and after: Two presumed later excisions from Easter Sunday in the Fourth Gospel

Mary and the resurrected Jesus at the tomb

Where I presume later excisions is marked: [...]

John 20: [1]: The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. [4] So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. [6] Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, [7] And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. [8] Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. [11] 

But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, [12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. [13] And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. [14] And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 

[...] 

[17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. [18] Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. 

[...]

It seems evident that there is something missing between "Master" and "Jesus saith" - because we have no explanation as to what Jesus meant by "touch me not" - in a context that the Gospel is nearly always self-explanatory and indeed detailed with respect to observed, recorded or experienced action - such as the detailed descriptions of how the author and Simon Peter ran t the tomb, and what they saw. 

And also because I am prepared to assume further excisions (and insertions) by a later hand; in the (not-very many, as a proportion) other places where the Gospel is not self-explanatory, nor is "poetic" in form.

And then there is the fact that the Gospel, as we have it, leaves Mary unaccounted for: having been so very important throughout - her story is just "left-hanging". 

This is marked as my inferred second excision.

But I think it can be inferred what is missing in these instances, and why. 

Such inferences derive from the basis of an assumed fact that Mary was married to Jesus; and that the Fourth Gospel tells us this by implication in several places. 

But later hands have removed all explicit references to this, for what may be theological reasons. Presumably they were deleted on the basis of assuming that, because the Mary relationship was (later) regarded as theologically impossible, such references must themselves have been erroneous.

Somewhat as I wrote: The exchange of words between Jesus and Mary at the tomb may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. 

“Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended. 

After all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. 

My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.

Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God the Father has become Mary's Father-‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. 

So, we are being-told, by Mary's brother Lazarus, author of the Fourth Gospel; that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband.  

However, it seems - I assume, that such further explicit and explanatory reference to Mary Magdalene was deleted by some later hand. 

I also assume that this Gospel reference was removed because seen as contradicting metaphysical-philosophical - but not genuinely Jesus-derived - assumptions of a "Trinitarian" and Monotheistic nature; assumptions that seemed to entail that Jesus could not have been married.

Or maybe that, even if Jesus was married, this could be of no theological significance; i.e. marriage could have no relevance to Jesus's divine work.

At any rate; when marriage to Mary Magdalene is not regarded as by-prior-assumption impossible, and when the Fourth Gospel is acknowledged as our first, only eye-witness, and most authoritative source - then the Good Friday encounter between Mary and the risen Jesus at the tomb; emerges as of something close-to primary significance, in our understanding of Jesus's life and work. 

Christianity is Not, never truly was, about morality - except secondarily

Over the past eight years; my reading-of and brooding-on the Fourth Gospel (called "John") has had many and profound effects on my understanding of the differences between what Jesus said and did, and the Christian churches that came after. 

In particular, that the core of Jesus's work was to provide Men with the possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

This means that the primary concern of Jesus was to save mankind from entropy and death - therefore Jesus's primary concern was not to save us from evil. 

To repeat: For Jesus salvation means from death, not from evil. 

However, most of religion before, during and since the time of Jesus is about morality - about the behaviour (and attitudes) of people. 

Such religion is therefore therapeutic - it is "about" minimizing suffering and/or maximizing human happiness in this world and mortal life. 

That is what all those Laws and rules are about, the propitiations offered to divinity, the abasements and obedience - they are trying to make this world a better place, and ourselves to have a better place in it. 

And this is why all religions have considerable overlap in the approved behaviours. 

But this was Not what Jesus was about. 

Jesus came essentially to save us from death, not from moral sin.

Jesus was primarily against death, not evil - but his cure for death was also a cure for evil. 

For Jesus the problem of death (of entropy) was more profound than that of evil; because in this mortal life and world, death is absolutely universal and completely unavoidable; destructive change may be slowed, but is always at work...

Jesus was necessary and unique because he offered a solution to death; not because of his moral teaching, not because of his moral laws and principles, not because people could make a church from the moral laws and principles. 

This was and is very difficult to grasp; because most people (including most early Christians, including those who formed the Christian churches, apparently) - want morality.

Or else they want immortality Now in this world, and without dying first. 

People do not, therefore, usually want what Jesus actually offered... Or, at least, they think they don't want it; or they do not want it as strongly and urgently as they want other things - such as relief from suffering, or happiness now-or-soon.

But relief from suffering and positive happiness in this mortal life are not the core of Jesus's message - because these are promised for post-mortal resurrected life, not for this life. 

The error of making "Christianity" primarily moral distorted it from very early and has led to its current near-destruction. 

Those who made Christianity continuous with Judaism (including the authors of the Matthew and Luke Gospels, and Paul); tried to conflate the primacy of resurrection with their continued primacy of morality...

Leading eventually to the bizarre concoction of Original Sin - in order to pseudo-explain why Jesus was both unique and necessary. 

In other words, they made Jesus primarily "about" morality; and resurrection was made conditional upon the approved morality...

And morality was made to be why Jesus came, and curing morality was made to be what Jesus fundamentally did...

This-world morality was made of core importance to the Christian churches; and morality was made to come first - such that resurrection was relegated to a secondary status as reward for good-morality.  

But morality is about this-world, here-and-now and before death...

Whereas the advent of resurrection was of cosmic and eternal significance - it is a change in the nature of reality. 

Everybody everywhere has their ideas of proper morals; and this is continually contested. And morality does not require resurrection. 

So morality is both regarded as primary by almost-everybody; yet morality is detachable from the reality of Christianity...

And morality has, in fact, already-been detached-from Christianity! - even (or rather, especially) in those lands historically (or nominally still) Christian. 

As of here-and-now; Christianity is just one of many competing this-worldly moral systems; and gets evaluated in terms of its material "success" in producing good behaviour.  

But if we are talking about Jesus Christ, rather than social institutions and traditions; then this is wrong, a mistake, an ancient error. 

Jesus brought the possibility of resurrected eternal life in Heaven - and that fact should come first and foremost, and be kept at the core, of our Christian discussion and teaching. 

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. 

"A chain of loving relationships" - How Christians may help those they love to get to Heaven

I am impressed and convinced by the way that the Fourth Gospel always describes Jesus's love in terms of specific and inter-personal loving relationships.

(This is a very different definition from the more usual understanding of Christian love as ideally having such attributes as unconditional, altruistic, even impersonal.) 

Given that I believe we choose to accept or reject Jesus's gift of resurrected eternal life after our death; this interpersonal understanding of Christian love has helped me to grasp how it is that our love during this mortal life, may help others whom we love to choose Heaven. 

It works as a chain of loving relationships.

In brief; once one person has chosen resurrected eternal life; so long as that dweller in Heaven has had loving relationships with others during his mortal life; then that first person to be saved sets-up a chain of positive influences for those who die afterwards. 

Salvation is always an absolutely free and autonomous personal choice, that can neither be compelled nor prevented.

But if we have had a loving relationship during mortal life with someone who has already attained salvation before we die; then after death, and at the time when we must choose whether or not to accept resurrection, that beloved person will "visit" us - will come into contact with our post-mortal spirit.    

It seems to me that Mormons are correct in their teaching that:

The most powerful incentive for Christian salvation is the desire to continue personal relationships beyond death with those we have loved during mortal life. 

So, when it comes to deciding whether to accept salvation, anyone whom we loved in mortal life (potentially more than one person - but one person is enough) can assure us of the reality of eternal life, its nature, and the presence of those with whom we might to continue relationships. 

There will always be a free choice; but my point is that knowing there is already some particular person whom we have loved that has made the choice of Heaven and who already dwells in that state - could be a positive and decisive influence in favour of accepting salvation.   

As an illustrative example, suppose there was a woman (a grandmother) who was exceptionally loving during her mortal life; loving her husband, children, sons- and daughters-in-law, and grandchildren - and that she accepted Christ's salvation. 

As her husband, children, grandchildren etc. died; she would be able to visit and assure them of what was possible beyond death; of how the loving relationships of mortal life could be continued, and could continue to develop eternally, post-mortally. 

The effectiveness of this influence, would presumably depend substantially on the strength of interpersonal love, during life - and this strength would perhaps (usually) be diluted with succeeding generations, and would cease after two or three generations.

This is where the "chain" aspect comes-in... If the grandmother firstly influenced her daughter to accept salvation; then the daughter would provide her own children with a (potentially more direct) influence of a mother's love (rather than grandmother's), when the time came for the grandchildren to die - and so on down the generations. 

The chain would also potentially branch, with loved husbands and wives - if the one who dies-first accepts salvation, then a loving spousal relationship could provide a link to Heaven.  

Once the "system" had been going for a few generations, it might resemble a web or network, rather than a chain - which would provide (potentially) more robust because multiple possibility of positive personal-loving influences; by which a recently deceased post-mortal spirit may be encouraged or convinced to choose resurrected Heavenly life.

   

The two millennial failure of Christian *Religion*

I admit candidly that my title is more than a little click-baitish! 

However; if Christianity is considered as a religion, then it has failed - epically; given that it has had about 2000 years to succeed.

So the sensational title hides a serious point - a very serious point. 

If Christianity really depends on church membership, then it has failed...

Because even after two millennia and being the official religion of several international empires; most people in the world aren't Christian church members.  

The situation is even worse when it is noticed that most of the main Christian churches have been (more or less) exclusive; and through history did not recognize each other's validity as "Christian". 

From the early centuries of Christianity there have been large sections of what was the Church that were excluded, divided, or destroyed - Monophysites, Arians, Pelagians, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Nonconformists, Mormons...   

Consequently; in practice and throughout history, for any particular church member, the number of "real" Christians has nearly always been very small - both numerically and as a proportion of Mankind.

And Christianity in The West now is not just shrinking in terms of church membership and attendance, but is ever more feebly motivating - makes less and less observable positive difference to how people live. 

Thus we could add that if making a positive difference to how people live is supposed to be the essence of Christianity, then it has failed on that score.  

If we can imagine ourselves back to the last mortal days of Jesus Christ; what happened after the ascension could hardly be termed a success! The disciples and early Christians would surely have been very disappointed indeed, at how poorly Christianity has done.

Of course the same could be said about other religions; but the difference is that Christians believe that Jesus was divine, that that he changed the whole of creation...

If that is true (and I believe that it is true: i.e. that Jesus was divine and did positively transform creation), then the limited spread of Christian churches, and their schisms and mutual hatreds and hostilities; must surely be something approaching a refutation... 

I mean - looking at this world now and through the past 2000 years - does it really look as if Jesus positively-transformed creation?  

All the above refutations seems to be the case... if, if, IF Christianity really is supposed to be a this-worldly and institutional religion. 

If Christianity is supposed to be something that happens in this world, if becoming a Christian is a thing that must happen in this mortal life, if the definitions and membership of Christianity are in the hands of some self-identified Christian church (or even all Christian churches)...

Then Christianity must regarded as a failure.  

**

But, but, BUT if instead we take the Fourth Gospel seriously as as our primary source, and reason from it; then we would instead assume that Jesus changed creation in such a way that its benefits would be independent of any or all churches. 

But how did Jesus change creation? 

Even that is a subject of major disagreement...

Those who say that Jesus came to make better Men, better societies, and save the world - come-up against the stark fact that it hasn't worked. 

But I would say that Jesus made a second creation - Heaven - and offered all Men the possibility of resurrected eternal life in that Heaven...

After Our Death.

Jesus himself died before becoming resurrected and ascending to Heaven, and so must we. 

So - in an ultimate sense - it seems clear that when Jesus was doing his work of salvation, he would ensure that the situation in which any Man finds himself in this mortal life would not be allowed to prevent each individual from choosing resurrected eternal life.   

To my mind, this can only mean that the final decision for or against salvation needs to happen after this mortal life. 

It may happen during mortal life - any of us may choose to follow Jesus Now - but for all Men to have the chance and choice, Jesus would need to ensure that that choice does not have-to happen in mortal life. 

And (being a divine creator) this is what Jesus was able to do and did - or so I presume. 

By offering post-mortal resurrection into a new creation, and by making this a post-mortal choice; Jesus made "Christianity" into a society-proof faith. 

All the slow and incomplete growth of churches does not ultimately matter; the apostasies and feeble faith; the schisms and intra-Christian hatreds... 

These are bad; these have an effect on individual persons - but none of them have prevented the work of Jesus from happening at all times and everywhere over the past two millennia...

Every one of those who loved and desired to follow Jesus, all who would have wanted salvation - have-been and are-being given the chance to have this happen - because the choice happens after mortal life.  

So, even if the religion of Christianity has failed, and seems to be headed for more and greater failure - ultimately this does not stop anyone from following Jesus Christ - even if they are ignorant or misinformed about him during their mortal lives. 

The divine Jesus made sure that the evil of Men would not prevent the Good of his own work. 

Good News, surely?

Spiritual History - The compulsion and demand - And the Impossibility, here-and-now

There is an activity that might be termed Spiritual History; by which I mean a purported history that derives from within a particular spirituality. 

And this Spiritual History will typically become regarded as "objectively true" by adherents of the spirituality: true for everybody (not just for the adherents). 

So, what is a Spiritual History? 

As one example; Helena Blavatsky described a vast, detailed, and complicated panorama of supposed world history, which became integral to the Theosophical Society she founded. 

This includes descriptions of creation from its earliest stages; many historical "races" of proto humans (the earliest very un-like modern humans; and lost civilizations such as Lemuria, and Atlantis -- indeed; it is mostly because of Blavatsky that so many people have heard-of, and been-discussing, Atlantis over the past century-plus. 

Blavatsky's Spiritual History was very influential on the emerging occult societies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; was expanded and reshaped (and extended millennia into the future) by Rudolf Steiner into his Anthroposophy; and has since become a part of the vast and diffuse New Age movement of the past several decades. 

My point is that in the past a spiritual society - or a religion - would nearly-always tend to elaborate (or as it is presented "discover") a vast, detailed ,and complex historical picture; which then forms a kind of metaphysical backdrop to the everyday practices and beliefs.  

We can see something similar among the best-documented of the recent world religions, Mormonism; particularly stark in that the Book of Mormon* came before the beliefs and practices that distinguished Mormonism from mainstream Christianity had been elucidated and fixed.  

An analogous process of elaborating a Spiritual History apparently applies to mainstream Christianity, in that the process of elaborating a justifying and explaining vast/ detailed/ complex historical backdrop was apparently separate from, but in this case later than, the foundational teachings**. 

In other words, the Gospels (especially the Fourth, and earliest, Gospel) depict a very different - far-briefer/ less-detailed/ much-simpler "religion" from the colossal artefact that Christianity became over the following centuries - which means that mainstream Christianity also discovered/ developed a Spiritual History. 

So far as I know, something similar applies to all religions - not to the same extent, but to a significant degree. 

This suggests that - at least in the past, and especially until about a century ago; a detailed Spiritual History was probably both necessary-to the establishment, and sustaining, of a successful church; and was demanded-by the members of a church (e.g. to answer their natural questions regarding their religion's origins, purpose, and validity). 

But that was then, this is now; and Spiritual Histories (especially the historical factuality of The Bible) have been undergoing systemic challenge, subversion, and destruction from mainstream secular "scholarship" - for at least 200 years. 

And this continual challenge has its effect whatever the conclusion; because the process implicitly regards the religion as disprovable by the same secular mechanisms as other knowledge-claims. 

(Most of the most-effective attacks on religion are implicit; and these are pervasive and unavoidable. Because the entirety of the systems of modern society are based upon secular - God-excluding - assumptions. This includes religions, which survive only by compliance with multiple laws and regulations of a secular type: to do with personnel and employment, "human rights", "hate speech"; buildings; taxes and exemptions and subsidies... many, many such.)    

The process of evaluation of Spiritual History accepts the definitive nature of secular scholarship - so that religion always and necessarily loses - religion has pre-conceded defeat, by assumption. 

Yet the "fundamentalist" approach of asserting the validity of Spiritual History does not work, either! - it just puts the History into a sealed capsule where Spiritual History cannot (therefore does not) have anything to do with the mainstream secular world of history. 

Consequently, even the most fundamentalist church Christians are just as subservient to the processes and procedures of totalitarian secular society as everybody else; believing and supporting nearly-all of the main strategies of totalitarian evil - except for a symbolic handful of dissenting denials that adherents merely-say, and a handful of self-reassuring dissenting-activities that are (currently) tolerated by The System. 

In other words; Spiritual History has, in the modern era, come to represent an unprotectable Achilles Heel for all religions - and the bigger, more detailed, and more complicated the History, the more points that will be attacked - both explicitly and (even more powerfully) implicitly. 

Consequently Spiritual History no longer convinces many people; and those who remain "convinced" are not substantively affected by their encapsulated dissent - because they live "in" a society with which these Historical assertions are incompatible.  

My conclusion is that Spiritual History needs to be abandoned as a requirement of a spiritually viable, and sufficiently-motivating religion***. 

I feel that we simply cannot afford to open ourselves to the process of refutations, in a situation where we cannot ourselves deny the validity of that process. 

Or, to put it differently: our belief in Alternative Histories must be made independent of the processes of Historical validation. 

And this includes beliefs concerning the foundation of our church or the origins of our scripture - because these are just as vulnerable to secular assumptions and processes as are the "factual content" of the Spiritual Histories...

I mean that we cannot argue the validity of our church on the basis of History; because that historical "evidence" is itself vulnerable. 

And we cannot argue the validity of the Bible, for the same reason. 

My conclusion is that we need to rely for our deepest and most-motivating convictions, only upon "evidence" that is derived personally and by criteria that satisfy our-selves primarily, and for which only self-validation is necessary. 

I mean, in other words, Direct Knowing - which might also be called a kind of intuition - needs to be our "bottom-line". 

This also means that - by eschewing external "evidences" - we cannot convince other people that we are right!...

But we can't do that anyway! 

So we are not being asked to give-up very much. 

+++

*I am not saying that the Book of Mormon is entirely or even mostly fictitious - IMO it does seem to include a good measure of objective fact and other phenomena that suggest that at least some of it was divinely inspired and "true", rather than "made-up". Nonetheless it is a valid example of Spiritual History because of the BoM's provenance and role in Mormonism.  

**As with the BoM; I am not suggesting that there is zero objective fact in the post-ascension Spiritual History of Christianity - but that its development is separable from the beliefs and practices of core- "Christianity". 

***We can continue to derive benefit from Spiritual History - as, for instance, I do from the Christmas Story. But, for this to be safe and personally-effective, we must regard the truth and reality of Spiritual History to be a qualitatively different and more personally-validated thing than that of secular history. And this in-turn is something we will need to sort-out for, and from, our-selves. As a favourite example; I regard The Lord of the Rings as a true and real history of the world and Men; but not as an objective or "evidenced" history.   

The divine "purpose" for individual persons: God gives us what we need (but Not Only what we need)

Each person's life has "meaning" - and that meaning is related to divine purpose. 

I think this is quite clear, if you know what to look for - in your own life, and the lives of those you know and love. 

I mean that people always (sooner or later) get the experience/s they most need for spiritual development. 

However, that does not mean that every individual "automatically" learns from each such experience -- Indeed, very often, it seems that people do not learn from personal experiences that could be of great personal benefit. 

Or else people learn something wrong and contrary to divine purpose, from experiences; they choose to lean a lesson contrary to God's hope and intentions. 

For instance; when some adverse experience that could be corrective if properly understood; is instead used as an excuse or rationale for doubling-down on some sin; such as fear, resentment, or despair. 

But what makes all this less obvious is that not all of life is related to divine purpose. 

It is the nature of this life and world we are currently experiencing that there is entropy/ death and there is evil. 

What this means is that things happen that are Not part of the divine purpose. 

What God the Creator can do and does; is make the best of these things. 

So that if some-thing happens to a person that is simply the result of entropy (some degenerative phenomenon or disease for example*); or a consequence of evil motivation or service to evil; then consequently God will create - such as later to enable something to be gained (or salvaged) from this adverse occurrence.   

All of this points at the need for discernment, because understanding and learning are inevitably confused and clouded by the nature of ourselves and this world; the process of discerning and learning is one requiring active participation and culminating in freedom to choose how to be, and where to go next. 

We must be able to discern which experiences are God given, and which are not. We must and inevitably do also work from our state of freedom. 

Creation is not something done-to-us. Divine purpose is that we participate in creation. 

And when an experience was not a part of divine purpose, we may need to be able to discern at what point God has (later) been able to present us with the possibility of deriving Good from evil. 

We make such discernments partly from that which is divine within-us; and partly (since the time of Jesus Christ) by guidance from the Holy Ghost... 

In other words, the capacity for true discernment is innate, and does not need to be derived from external sources - although, of course, external sources of guidance may be helpful in true discernment - just as external guidance is (here and now) more usually harmful. 

So much for this world we live-in, this mixed-world, this world that mixes divine creation and purpose with entropy and evil...

A further thing that God purposes that we learn is that this mixed world (the Primary Creation) may be escaped after death and the separation of our spirit from our incarnate form; because after death (and only after death) we may follow Jesus Christ through resurrection with eternal life; and into a Second Creation that is Heaven. 

Therefore, there will be divinely purposed experiences in this mortal life of ours (assuming we live long enough) that may be understood (if we are prepared to learn) as pointing towards the possibility of Resurrection and Heaven beyond death. 

i.e. Experiences that may (if we discern aright) be understood as pointing towards Salvation. 

Yet if, for whatever reason, we do not get such experiences during this mortal life (perhaps we die in the womb, or as infants) then such experiences as we need to be enabled to choose Heaven; will surely be provided after death. But again we are free to learn from them or not, and to choose Heaven or not. 

In sum: there is a divine purpose (or more than one purpose) for each person incarnated into this world; and this purpose is related to learning a lesson, or several lessons, during our life. 

Each person's purpose will be unique, because each person is unique - because each person had a pre-mortal spirit life before human incarnation  - which is why people are unique individuals from before birth. 

Because our purpose is unique, and because this world is a mixture of divinely created purpose with entropy and evil; discernment is required. We must recognize when we are being divinely taught; and when not...

But even when our life's happenings are due to evil Beings, or due to the innately entropic nature of this world - we should be alert to the ways in which divine creation can shape subsequent events, sooner-or-later to present us with possibilities for learning important life lessons.

Meaning and purpose are not "given": they need to be discerned...

We need to learn from them, and that is our job: we also need to learn the right (i.e. divinely intended) lessons from them.  

*Or death. The Fourth Gospel strongly suggests that death was regarded as The Number One Main Problem of life as-is-on-earth. Death is the problem that Jesus for which usually claims to be offering a solution. 

Knowing Jesus from personal experience - how is it done?

Meeting Jesus in a dream...

What does it mean, how should we understand it? 

I suppose that - for a Christian to have strong faith - he needs to know Jesus from personal experience. 

But what does this actually mean, in practice? - and in a world where there is an apparently infinite amount of conflicting advice concerning how to do it. 

Where should one even begin to look? 

Most sources of advice on how to know Jesus will direct us at specific secondary and second-hand sources, that need first to be discerned and recognized as true (among a mass majority of other sources of information that are required to be rejected), and then the information provided about Jesus needs to be understood. 

This will not suffice for obvious reasons; including failure to locate, failure to evaluate correctly, failure to comprehend correctly. 

And it observably does not suffice for most people most of the time - who never get to know Jesus.  

To know Jesus, indeed to know anything, we need to know it directly, unmediated. 

Know from inner contact, yes; but specifically the contact of Love. 

This knowing is and must be simple; because it must be comprehended by a single mental "moment".

With Jesus; the need and purpose is to have a clear and simple apprehension by which we know a few things (whether separately or perhaps all-at-once); such as what he offers us, that this offer is real, and what to do if we want to accept his offer. 

This experience of direct-knowing is what matters - but it does Not matter how this experience is achieved...

Possible examples of "how" people get to know Jesus include the usual religious activities: scripture, ritual, symbolism, churches, prayer, meditation, spiritual and physical disciplines...

It may included divinely-purposed experiences in this mortal life: such as miracles, answered prayers. 

Or it may include dreams, near-death, or post-mortal encounters (e.g. meeting Jesus, meeting a beloved resurrected person). 

But in practice; how we get to know Jesus may also include many negative experiences; such as realization of death, rock-bottom despair, extreme fear, sin, loneliness... 

Therefore; in principle, almost anything that induces a turning-away which becomes a turning-toward may lead a person to experience Jesus directly and personally. 

So much for the direct experience; but this is useless unless recognized as such! If we insist on rendering the clarity and simplicity of direct knowing into indirect forms - by translating into words, concepts, pictures - then we have made it into something abstract, complex, ambiguous... 

Into something that requires theoretical interpretation. 

Consider the example of a dream. 

In a dream we may meet Jesus in visual or audial imagery - and there is a strong tendency to focus on dream content: what Jesus looked-like, what did did, what he taught us...

Thus we get misleadingly caught-up by trying to interpret the meaning, decode the message, understand the implications... 

But the proper way to understand this kind of dream - or any other experience of Jesus - is to disregard specific content; and instead reflect on what we know experientially in consequence; and know so simply and so clearly that we can grasp it whole. 

**

NOTE ADDED: The above came from my reflecting upon how it is that the Fourth Gospel ("John") had become so important to me over the past years - its simple and clear "message" hitting me with the force of revelation; but that I would not expect other people to learn from reading it in the same way. 

For me, that particular means worked towards the desired end. But for other people, a very wide range of means might lead to the same end. 

In sum: the means to the end are personal, contextual - hence idiosyncratic. 

The problem is that - for too many people - being given the right answer is insufficient, because they are set-up to reject any answer when that answer is simple. 

Furthermore (as I said in a comment over at Francis Berger's place) It is a huge change of attitude required, from people assuming that reality is going to be something forced-upon them (almost irresistibly) by external power -- to recognizing that (as of here-and-now) people who want to know reality must make an explicit choice and pursue reality actively - and as an individual. 

That people do not do this is partly from psychological factors such as laziness and wrong priorities; but also most people assume that any belief or knowledge that is actively-chosen on the basis of inner-conviction (no matter how solidly-affirmed that conviction), must be just engaged in a wishful-thinking fantasy.

What is it to be spiritually uncompromising? (With reference to the Christian Litmus Test Fail of so-called "AI")

A couple of years after becoming a Christian, I encountered the work of Fr Seraphim Rose - I warmed to him immediately, as he was a modern Westerner who had become an uncompromising and spiritually-dedicated Eastern Orthodox monk - while at the same time embodying a warm-hearted, loving nature.  

One of my greatest disappointments on becoming a Christian was the insipid worldly compromise of all the Christians I knew-of: they were, where it most mattered, spiritually indistinguishable from the mainstream of atheistic materialists. 

Seraphim Rose - with his ascetic and hermit-like life - was (it seemed to me) on a different and qualitatively higher level of holiness; that very unusually enabled him to discern clearly; and give full value to the depth, as well as breadth, of the modern spiritual malaise.

By contrast, other Christians I came across really did not seem to grasp the profundity and seriousness of our civilization's spiritual malaise. 

However; I fairly soon recognized that the monastic life - which attempts to live materially in a way that is compatible with spiritual understanding; is not an answer. 

Seraphim Rose was almost unique among monks in his warm-hearted asceticism; because other monks are either warm-hearted but worldly, deluded, often corrupt -- or else they may be genuinely ascetic but with a narrow, harsh and prideful rigidity. (A group that Seraphim Rose called "the super-correct".) 

In other words, I now distinguish between the inner spiritual self on the one hand; and the public and social self. 

Indeed, I think that the - inevitably failing - attempt of people to live their lives fully in accordance with the highest Christian hopes; is actually a major source of spiritual corruption among Christians.

What actually happens is that Christians cut their Christianity to fit the cloth of their nature and circumstances. 

In other words, the limitations of their personality and abilities, and the pressure of their lives, are allowed to dictate the scope and aspirations of their Christian faith.

They limit their definitions of Christianity to whatever they can themselves accomplish.    

Examples include the spiritual Litmus Tests of our time. 

The practicalities of living in an evil totalitarian system mean that most people will "inevitably", more-or-less, go-along-with the demonically-originated evil strategies that are designed to engineer our society into a machine of damnation. 

A current example - a spiritual test that most Christians have failed spectacularly! - is so-called "AI". 

The way it seems to work is that a Christian finds himself in a work or life situation in which he is compelled to use, and even to work-with and develop and propagandize-for - "AI" systems. Compelled in that either he follows these bureaucratic diktats, or else he fails to get the job, is sacked from his current job, or cannot get promoted above a low level. 

Or else the Christian cannot resist the temptations of using AI to amuse or divert himself. 

Or he may find that he cannot resist using "AI" to add a professional (pseudo-creative) gloss to his own productions; or to project an image of greater knowledge, competence, understanding than he personally possesses - maybe at work, or in his hobbies.  

Then, because Christian finds himself in his actions and life either compelled to use, or expediently using, "AI" - he argues that therefore "AI" is not (in its actual origins, and implementation) intentionally evil; but is merely a neutral tool; or a Must-Do qualitative breakthrough in societal capability - with potential significant benefits for humanity that we therefore have a duty to exploit... 

Because Christian actually uses "AI" and has no intention of stopping; he infers that - because he is A Christian - therefore "AI" must be A Good Thing, and he soon finds himself defending and proselytising for "AI" in both public - but also even in private.   

I have come to believe that if Christians try to insist upon a compatibility of Christian actions with spiritual aspirations; what this actually leads-to is a dishonest denial of real and significant evil among Christians, and the air-brushing of their own sins as trivial or non-existent.

"Rigorous" and devout Christians are therefore, in practice (nearly-always) those who make a big deal about their own avoidance of some categories of Big Sins (like murder, theft, rape, sexual infidelity and unchastity, drug use &c.) - while denying, engaging-in and defending many other sins; but especially those expedient and publicly acceptable besetting-sins of mainstream modern life...

Sins such as systematic untruthfulness  - eg. the frequent and extreme levels of habitual and pervasive dishonesty that are now a condition of all middle class employment, including in all churches. Or fear and resentment. 

And defending or promoting the cause of global AI.  

The orthodox and traditional idea is that all men ought to cease from all sinning; so the answer to such examples of sinning as lying for money and status, and covering-up the demonic totalitarian plans for corrupting Mankind with "AI" - is that people ought to stop doing this - as people should stop doing everything bad. 

My view is different, because I accept as a fact that people cannot (as well as will not) stop sinning*. 

People who must deceive in order to keep their jobs and get promotions, will continue to deceive. 

People who are managerially-instructed to implement and promote "AI" will continue to do this; and those who personally get pleasure or profit from using "AI" systems will continue to exploit them for such purposes. 

In general terms: people will continue to sin, and will continue to have no serious intention of ceasing from sin. 

However, this is not a reason to pretend that sins are not sins, that evil strategies are not real, that people personally aren't working to overall-promote the plans of the demonic world rulers. 

But following what I take to be a core teaching of Jesus, I expect that all Men are and will be sinners and will not, cannot stop doing this, and shall not even have any serious or workable plans to stop sinning - and this applies even the most devout and ascetic and good of modern monks like Seraphim Rose, even in the most ideally un-worldly of environments. 

I see no reason why this our pervasively-sinful and evil-promoting lives are incompatible with being a genuinely devout and uncompromising Christian in our spiritual aspirations.  

In sum: we must not compromise our Christian principles in all their depth and rigour merely because we cannot and never will live-up-to-them. 

Indeed, only by separating our spiritual understanding and aims from the corruptions of everyday life; can we really discern, understand, appreciate the nature of this world - and the profundity of our own corruption - and do this without being overwhelmed by despair (which is itself a potentially terrible sin).  

We can always be at work at clarifying our spiritual nature in the most uncompromising way - indifferent to the constraints and practicalities that are inescapable. 

+++

* This is what Jesus also says, by my understanding; at least in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus does not select his followers for their good behaviour, nor does he say that his followers should cease from all sinning - but instead Jesus implies and says he came to save actual sinners. Stopping sinning - either in particular or in general - is Not the way that Men attain eternal resurrected Heavenly life. 

Is the primary authority of the Fourth Gospel "just" a matter of my personal preference?

My according the Fourth Gospel primary authority is indeed a matter of my personal preference, since even before I was a Christian it always seemed that it was the most beautiful book of the Bible. 

But is it just that - merely personal?

No - there is something more to it than taste, and something that may be generally true.  

For many years I interpreted the IV Gospel in the mainstream orthodox way, as a kind of "mystical appendix" to the Synoptics and Paul's letters, or else part of a mosaic of Biblical evidence but without special eminence. 

This framework meant that the meanings of the IV-G could-not and did-not change anything substantive - it merely provided a kind of "radiant glow" around the main stuff, which was elsewhere. 

It was only after I had decided to read and re-read the IV Gospel as the primary authority - on the basis of what the book said about itself confirmed by my deepest intuitions, and that it really did feel deeply like a near contemporary eye-witness account by an intimate of Jesus...

Only after doing this multiple re-read; did I realize - and with considerable shock - that instead of being mystical, abstract and vague - the IV-G was actually highly coherent and clear...  

But about what? There I was shocked to find that what it was so clear about was that the essence of Jesus's teaching was that of resurrected eternal life, possible for all those who recognized and "followed" Jesus. 

This was shocking because it was so plain; and because I had a kind of inner snobbery against a religion which was based-upon promising its adherents eternal and fulfilling life after death... 

This offer of better times to come later seemed like a simple-minded basis for a religion, designed to appeal mainly to selfish and simple-minded people...

Almost like the nasty caricature of Christianity by its enemies - a controlling socio-political scheme offering "pie in the sky" for those who do what we say, and think what we tell them to think. 

A classic bit of priestly manipulation...

Except that in the actual IV Gospel, when read as a coherent whole; the offer of resurrected life was not conditional upon obedience to an external authority or adherence to complex laws and rules. 

Indeed, there wasn't anything in the valid parts of the Gospel* about setting-up a priesthood or church. 

The Gospel is about an un-socio-political, as non-institutional, as could be imagined; it is all about loving familial and marriage relationships.  

IV-G was about our attitude-to and relationship-with Jesus primarily, and his Father secondarily yet necessarily. 

So that when I then went back to re-read the other books of the New Testament in light of the IV, I often seemed to be reading about another Jesus; a Jesus whose focus was very different from IV-G, and who was (as his priority) proposing primarily to set-up a new priesthood and a new church - with all that entailed in terms of laws and practices**. 

Therefore to read the IV Gospel as the primary authority of Jesus Christ that the Gospel itself tells us that it is; seems to entail a very profound reshaping of what has become the mainstream orthodox understanding of "what Christianity is" - its nature, aims, mechanisms.

If the IV-Gospel is accepted and embraced as true and valid in its own right; then the rest of the Bible needs to be approached with a great deal of selectivity; and a good deal of it needs to be discarded.

Small wonder - it seems to me - that the IV Gospel has, and apparently since very early after the ascension of Jesus; been accorded only a minor, subordinate, supplementary role in defining the teaching of Jesus and the true nature of substantive Christianity.   

*The process of reading and re-reading, spontaneously led to the rejection of a few parts of the Gospel being recognized as - to me - obviously alien and from another source, with a contradictory implication from the unity of the whole. For instance, Chapter 21 comes after the Gospel - pretty clearly - has ended with a recapitulation. 

**. More exactly, "Christianity"/ following Jesus is presented an inner desire and attitude, that can (when necessary) be practiced in the context of any religion, or none. 

How do future expectations (doctor, husband and father, resurrected Man) affect present behaviour?

Possible future expectations need to be confident in order to be effective in shaping present life. 

At least, "confident" to the degree that we can be sure of anything in this mortal life of change and uncertainty.

When I was a medical student I was confident of becoming a doctor; therefore that expectation shaped my present behaviour so that I did far more than the minimum necessary to pass qualifying exams. I looked ahead to being a doctor - and wanted to equip myself for that situation - so I did extra classes, sought ought extra teaching - made more effort to prepare myself. 

In other words, as a medical student I was willing, able, indeed keen to forgo present gratifications (to the extent of which I was capable); when this seemed likely to contribute to my future state as a doctor.

In contrast; as an adolescent and young adult I did not expect to become a husband and father - and did nothing strenuous to prepare for that eventuality - made no serious or significant sacrifices of pleasure, or creation, or career to that end. 

The vague possibility that I might become a husband, a father; was insufficiently motivating to shape my life. 

If I had been confident that was what I wanted and would likely happen - things would, presumably, have been different.  

What about the possible future state of salvation - the possibility of resurrection to eternal Heavenly life?

The lesson of the doctor and husband examples, is that we need to want and be confident of a future state, in order that it shall shape our present life. 

Therefore; if it is desired that Christians' present behaviour be shaped by resurrection; then our understanding of salvation will need to be one that could instil confidence that we could get it if we want it! 

(This understanding of salvation as something anyone can have if he wants it and will follow Jesus; is set out in The Fourth Gospel... Assuming this book can be read and understood as an autonomous text.) 

By contrast; the traditional mainstream Church understandings of salvation that render it not just uncertain, but unlikely. 

e.g. Because these Churches regard salvation as requiring a wide range of particular and mandatory behaviours, knowledge and judgment of which is administered by A (particular) Church

And because damnation is regarded as the natural default state - render our hope of salvation something about which it is impossible (and indeed counter-productive) to be confident...

Which understanding thereby renders our expectation of salvation so feebly motivating as to be incapable of shaping our present life. 

The outrageous imposture of Christian Churches as gatekeepers of Heaven

Looked at retrospectively; it seems extraordinary that all the major Christian churches went down the path of claiming to be the gatekeepers of Heaven: of claiming that the eternal salvation of every individual Man depended on the say-so of a church on earth. 

It is not really difficult to understand this in terms of sociological advantage; in terms of how a church - which is a mortal, material, human institution - can enable itself to grow, survive and expand. 

It is clearly an advantage in this-world, if an organization can persuade enough people that it is essential for resurrected life in the world-to-come. 

This applies even when the fundamental basis of the Christian religion is one of the primacy of each individual person's spiritual relationship with the ascended Jesus Christ. 

While there are insufficient historical records concerning the mainstream Christian churches, the trajectory can be seen for the Mormon church (CJCLDS). 

Mormonism was built around assertion of the primacy of personal revelation (a direct spiritual relationship between each person and the divine), and a conviction that salvation to a kind-of Heavenly state was the default outcome for all but the most depraved persons. 

But the church rapidly developed a gatekeeping role analogous to (although not identical with) the mainstream Christian churches; in that access to the highest levels of eternal Heavenly exaltation after death; were asserted to depend upon church membership and the performance of particular rituals on this mortal earth. 

I suppose that something similar applied to the mainstream churches. For example, the individual and non-church family-like Christianity described in the Fourth Gospel ("John"), lost out to the organizational church by which salvation was institutionally mediated. To be "a Christian" soon became a matter of formal membership of (and submission to) a defined institution, and participation in official and prescribed procedures.  

Such gate-keeping claims as churches make, elide the distinction between earth and Heaven. Of course anyone can claim anything, and we need to ask why such claims were accepted. 

I think the ability of churches to make this elision probably rests on a capacity to provide - albeit briefly and partially, but with some degree of sureness and reliability - experiences of Heaven while still on earth.

It has been the progressive decline, since Medieval times, of Western churches ability to provide to the mass of people such "religious experiences" (e.g. by means of their earthly symbolism, ritual, scriptures, and spiritual training); that has perhaps done more than anything to erode belief in the necessity of any particular church to salvation. 

And when a person "sees through" the false claims of any Christian church to gate-keep Heaven; this involves a recognition that the church is constructed upon a lie. 

At this point, most people seem to give-up on both church and Christianity, together and altogether. 

But the proper conclusion is to separate church from Christianity. 

And then to choose Christianity, while recognizing that any particular church is secondary - maybe helpful to our salvation, but maybe (and more often!) not helpful...  

But responsibility for our salvation after death is always primarily our own; and a matter of our spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. 

My (or your) decision to be or not to be a Christian, and to choose to follow Jesus to eternal salvation, should not be mediated.

And cannot be blocked, by any earthly church...

Unless you choose to make it so.