Christian conversion as a loyalty-test initiation

One of the reasons that so many deeply-dissatisfied atheist-materialists are repelled from Christianity; is that Christianity means picking a church or denomination and then obeying it. 

As with a gang or cult; the prime demand is for loyalty to the institution; and this is enforced by initiation through loyalty tests. 

Typically, the covert is required to believe and affirm some things he regards as false; and (which is probably worse) must state that some bad things are good.  

There is often a honeymoon period after conversion when everything seems easy - but the loyalty tests will soon arrive!

One classic is Abraham being ordered - as a test of obedience to divine will - to sacrifice his son Isaac; so that he is faced with a choice of disobedience to God and ritual murder of his child. 

The test is that we must agree and believe that the Right Answer was to kill Isaac: that the goodness of God is axiomatic whatever God asks of us; and obedience to the incomprehensible divine will is essential, while eschewing gross evil and doing what we personally believe to be good is irrelevant. 

Well, that is the Old Testament - but there are also some stark loyalty tests in the New; such as the story of Ananias in Acts of the Apostles*. First Ananias, and then his wife, are struck dead by divine will for some combination of withholding tithes from Peter, and then lying to cover the sin. 

The episode seems to be presented as an exemplary punishment - as a warning and deterrent to others not to do this kind of thing. 

No doubt it would have been very effective at ensuring tithes got paid; but... Well, this kind of justice is more like the Forest Laws of the Normans, than the behaviour of a wholly good God whose children we are. 

What such loyalties resemble is a kind of bait and switch con practiced on the convert - who hopes and intends to buy one thing, but being induced to accepts another, and much less desirable thing. 

Or the Christian feels like a Man induced to sign a contract; who then finds himself bound by all kinds of things written in the "small print" of which he had been unaware, and would not wanted to agree-to.

Each church has its reasons for such practice; and claims that the requirements are all logically entailed and/or absolutely necessary for the integrity of the whole. Such tests are seen as a part of the process of learning what it really means to be a Christian. 

However; I have come to see these loyalty-tests as corrupting of Christians, in a process that continues and worsens. 

This process is one I regard as corrupting, because it always seems to push converts towards a conceptualization of God rooted in power not love; and a conceptualization of Christianity as derived-from the group and enforced by authority via rules and tests and practices.

It is this effect of Christian conversion (or devout practice) that is so repellent to non-Christians; and is worsened by Christians who assert that there is no alternative. 

And indeed, there is no institutional or this-worldly alternative; since the attempts at "liberalization" all lead out from Christianity and into conformist left-secularism.  

The only real alternative I can imagine is to recognize Christianity is primarily and essentially a matter between Jesus Christ and each Man individually - not bound-up vitally with any institution; and concerned primarily with what happens to each of us after death, rather than what happens during this mortal life.

Of course institutions are essential and anyway unavoidable; and of course post-mortal expectations can and should influence this moral life...

But it is a matter of what is primary, essential, and mandatory; from which the rest grows and develops. 

It is a matter of the true and necessary root of Christianity.   

* Acts. 5 [1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, [2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. [3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? [4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. [5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. [6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. [7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. [8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. [9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. [10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.  

"My way or the Highway?" - Christian "exclusivism"; in relation to Christian claims of the Necessity of Jesus Christ

A lot of modern people are(or claim to be) averse to the exclusivism of "Christianity".

By "exclusivism" they usually refer to some particular self-identified Christian church, or denomination, or a selection of such churches. 

And by exclusivism is meant a collection of various ideas that limit salvation: for examples that Christianity is the only true religion; that church instructions and/or sacraments provide the only valid path to salvation; that those who are not Christian are doomed to eternal torment, and so forth. 

Various alternatives may then be proposed for these and other various exclusivisms (for instance; that all religions are true, or equally-true; that Heaven is for everyone, eventually; that Heaven is for good people, and others). 

All of these miss the point. 

Christianity is indeed exclusive; and exclusive in the sense that for those who want salvation  - which is resurrected eternal life in Heaven - there is only one way of attaining this goal. 

And that one way is by following Jesus Christ. 

In other words: Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation - meaning that if Jesus had not existed, and was not still alive and active; then there would be no salvation for any of Mankind. 

Such a brief definition may be true and perhaps acknowledged by many or most Christians; yet it leaves some key terms undefined, in particular what it means to "follow" Jesus Christ. 

But the answer to that should, I believe, be regarded as secondary to the first step: which is: 

To want what Jesus offers; to desire salvation for oneself, and to want it as the priority of life. 

I would say that anyone who wants salvation as the priority Is A Christian: by that commitment is a Christian defined.

The secondary question of what "follow" means in this context; and how, exactly, I personally (here and now) should follow Jesus Christ; well, such matters are surely more the subject for a life quest, than a thing that can be pre-decided by any act of faith and resolution. 

(Even joining a church and obeying it does not decide what "follow" means in practice; since the Church opinion must be learned, acted on; and anyway there is always dispute on such matters within all churches.)

Anyone who sincerely desires to attain eternal resurrected life in Heaven will, presumably, do whatever is necessary for him to attain this goal (as and when this becomes evident); and will do so according to his own best attainable knowledge and understanding... 

"Following Jesus" is a matter about which it would seem foolish to expect unanimous agreement. 

The core of "what Christianity is may, nonetheless, be a matter of shared consensus among Christians of many types - but only among Christians!

Because, it seems that plenty of other people (apparently a large majority) do not want salvation but want... something else instead, and there are many such possibilities...

Therefore; it seems to me that almost all of the people who object to the real exclusivism of Christianity do not themselves want salvation...

But, for instance, they might deny the real possibility of post-mortal life; or prefer some other post-mortal outcome than everlasting life in Heaven Perhaps they want reincarnation? Or not to die at all? Or for death to be annihilation of the self? Or they prefer eternal life as a spirit rather than to be resurrected bodily. Or they want a post-mortal pleasure-paradise of themselves reborn, but not resurrected. 

Many possibilities exist - including the desire to become a ghost, or a demon - common enough wishes nowadays.  

So the exclusivism of Christianity is seldom a real problem! 

Those who themselves do not desire Christ's salvation, or who regard it as an unpleasant, bad or evil thing - can hardly object that such salvation is exclusive!

And, although theoretically a possibility and a genuine problem; whether people actually exist who sincerely desire salvation (i.e. desire for themselves resurrected eternal life in Heaven), and who also deny that Jesus is truly necessary to attain this salvation, is not clear to me. 

I guess that (if they indeed exist) such people would need to believe that:

1. They wanted salvation

2. There is a path to salvation

3. But a path that does not require Men to "follow" Jesus - in any sense of "follow" - i.e. that (contrary to what Christians assert) Jesus is not-really necessary to salvation.  

Only if such people exist, then I can see that such would indeed have a legitimate grievance against the exclusivism of Christianity! 

Religions and churches are analogous to Tolkien's Rings of Power

The Rings of Power - but especially the One Ring and the three Elven Rings, seem to describe something profound about reality. 

Sauron infuses much of his native power onto the One Ring; which gives him the ability to dominate the other Rings of Power - and, more generally, dominate the will to power of other beings. 

But, the transfer of power means that, when the One Ring is destroyed, Sauron cannot hold-himself-together anymore; he cannot sustain himself coherently as a functioning "self", but diffuses into a dark spirit of largely-passive malignancy. 

What is often missed by readers of The Lord of the Rings (but which was insightfully described by Paul Kocher more than fifty years ago); is that the Elves did something analogous with their three Rings, with analogous but inverted positive benefits; and similar negative consequences after their power was broken.  

The Elven Rings were made by a transfer of vitality from Elves-generally, into the Three Rings specifically. 

The Rings were apparently intended to focus and strengthen Elvish (or rather, specifically High Elven, Noldorian) characteristics - purity and the preservation of unstained beauty, in the case of Galadriel and Lothlorien; wisdom, learning, and healing, in the case of Elrond and Rivendell. 

(Gandalf's Elf Ring was given him by Cirdan, and thereby seemingly repurposed from its original intent.)

I infer that the Three Rings were made exactly because elvish vitality and power was already declining, as a consequence of prolonged residence in the mortal lands of Middle Earth (which was by will of Eru; who always intended that Elves gradually be replaced by Men). 

The Elven Rings were made, therefore, with the ambivalently-virtuous motivation of stopping the ongoing decline in Elvish vitality. 

And for so long as the One Ring was not being wielded; the Elf Rings worked well; and in Rivendell and Lothlorien, High Elven culture continued for thousands of years longer than anywhere else in Middle Earth - but at the price of being increasingly cut-off, encapsulated.  

But, when the Master Ring was destroyed, all the racial vitality of the Elves that had gone into the making of the Three Rings was dissipated and diffused, much like Sauron's beingness.  

Immediately; the special qualities of Elrond and Rivendell, Galadriel and Lothlorien, began to decline, dwindle, fade...

The High Elves could not longer remain High; but must revert towards the much lesser cultural and intellectual level of the "Silvan" or Wood Elves - or else migrate to the Undying Lands before this declining process could advance too far.  

*

I believe that Tolkien was here expressing a profound and general truth about the benefits and disadvantages of concentrating our innate vitality - our human qualities. 

I think that - across the large timescale of human history - there was a decline in the natural and spontaneous spirituality of humans; a decline in the immersive and passive awareness-of, and participation-in the divine.

In effect: there was an intent to stop this process of spiritual alienation; by concentrating and focusing our "spiritual vitality" into what is called religion: into religions and churches, into abstract systems of rituals and symbols. 

Religion is therefore a "Ring of Power". 

But, it turned-out that the Elven Rings, and church religion, did not stop the decline, but only delayed it. 

Outside of the increasingly encapsulated worlds of serious religion; the decline in human spirituality and Man's alienation from the divine continued... indeed it accelerated; given that the spirituality has been drained from it and poured into the churches. 

By this analogy; the various Christian revivals can be seen as the re-forging of further Rings of Power - further attempts to stop this decline by increasing the focusing and concentration.

These later Rings included (in general terms) greater demands for personal commitment, efforts at training of mental powers by new rituals or more frequent practice, increased exclusion of the secular from the sacred... etc. 

At the same time religions functioned like Rings of Power - achieving a sustained awareness and participation of the divine, in the cut-off context of "churches" and their activities - but at the cost of sucking spiritual vitality and divine awareness from the rest of life, and from humanity in general... 

An unintended cost of religion, was therefore the creation of "the secular" - what was not within the concentrated scope of religion, necessarily became secular. 

And as the underlying trend of human alienation continued; the secular realm expanded, while the divine and spiritual realm of religion shrank.

My main point is that when Man has created religion, and infused his churches with much of Man's native spiritual vitality - this means that when churches are destroyed, this focused and concentrated spiritual power is dissipated. 

Much as Sauron minus the One Ring was weaker than if the Ring had never been made; and as the Elves declined more suddenly and rapidly after the power of the Three Rings was lost than if the Elven Rings had never been...

So, Mankind's alienation from the spiritual and divine is more severe and intractable after the decline of church religion, than it would have been if we had not invested so much of our religious vitality into institutional, symbolic, and ritual forms. 

Thus; many modern people living after the (de facto) death of the churches and religions; experience this institutional loss as fatal to the divine and the spiritual - and without church, they feel that there is and can be no God, no creation. 

Post-religion; experienced-reality has been drained - abruptly and very fully - of purpose and meaning; and therefore of lasting personal significance. 

Although some churches/ religions sometimes did an effective job for many centuries in some places in sustaining contact with the divine and spiritual realms; because the spiritual and divine was thereby concentrated, focused, protected by the structures of church and formal religion - it now seems that when mankind's innate consciousness changed, and these social structures lost their power and integrity - then we are left worse-off than we would have been if churches had never existed. 

The churches functioned, therefore, analogously to the Elf Rings in their intent and effect; and in the consequences after the power of religion first declined and then was destroyed. 

Escapism is a good thing - so long as we follow-through...

Escapism is a good, and perhaps spiritually-necessary, basis for Life. 

The desire to escape, the evaluation that escape from this actual-Life is needed, is an aspect of any person of depth and wisdom... 

Which implies that not to be an escapist is to be a shallow, dishonest fool (and there are plenty of these!).   

To be an escapist is to recognize and to feel that Life - as it actually is - is tragic; such that if there were nothing better to hope for, then we need to escape Life. 

The mass majority of mainstream modern materialists - the people who affect to despise escapism, and who pose as hard-nosed realists that revel in sordid cynicism - are all In Fact and ultimately escapists; but escapists of the worst kind. 

Such people, most people, deny the reality of the spiritual; and want death of their own body to be followed by total annihilation of themselves. 

In other words; such people, and I mean most people, so much fear and loath actual Life, that they desire complete and irrevocable and inevitable escape... Not only complete escape from Life, but total escape from them-selves.  

Thus; even though escapism is "a good thing" (and in a sense an inevitable thing for any honest Being capable of Love); escapism is not necessarily a good thing - consequently; there are bad, because dishonest, because half-baked, forms of escapism. 

Having discerned that escape from Life is desirable; the dishonest escapist then tries to ignore the fact - not to think about it; and instead tries lose-himself in Life by attempts at distraction. 

Yet no matter how strongly distraction is sought (e.g. by wishful-thinking, media immersion, immersion on social interaction or sex, extreme busyness, or obliteration of consciousness through intoxication) - all such are half-baked - because partial or temporary. 

Although common, this strategy is incoherent and self-defeating - because it tries to escape the innate tragedy of life, by attempting total immersion in the business of Living. 

Unsurprisingly; all such dishonest or half-baked escapism gravitates towards the desire of permanent annihilation: that mainstream modern death-wish that underpins the suicidal self-hatred of contemporary Western Civilization: a yearning for death-as-the-end. 

Honest and rigorous escapism - on the other hand - leads the escapist towards God and Jesus Christ... 

Towards acknowledging that we inhabit a created reality, made by a personal and good God; therefore escape from the tragedy of this-Life is both meaningful and possible. 

And towards to the possibility of an eternal and complete "escape" from the innate tragedy of our present mortal Life within creation - an escape by following Jesus Christ to resurrection in Heaven. 

Note added: I am not saying that everybody will eventually choose the salvation of Jesus Christ. For a start, Heaven has no interest for those incapable of Love. And Heaven does not appeal much to those who have some other and higher-priority than the divine principle of "loving-creation" that is the necessary eternal commitment for those Beings who choose Heaven. 

However; I do think that many people who acknowledge the primacy of the spiritual and the need for escape; will choose Heaven, when it comes to the point. 

For example, some of those who in their earlier lives declare a preference for reincarnation into a future series of mortal lives will change their minds. When a post-mortal spirit looks back at the totality of his mortal life, including the immediate pre-death experiences, and considers the prospect of more-of-the-same - for many people the prospect of reincarnation will be much less appealing than it seemed in their busy and pleasure-dominated early- or middle-lives. The here-and-now prospect of instead choosing resurrected Heavenly life may be much more attractive!

Those who expressed a desire to discard the incarnate body, and become "pure spirit" - perhaps to live in contemplative bliss, or become assimilated into the divine; may feel differently when the alternative is a resurrected body; and when Heavenly life is known to be the escape from both evil and "entropy" (loss/ sickness/ degeneration/ death).  

Similarly for the long-term atheist-materialist. When faced by a choice between on the one hand (apparently) eternal extinction of his self, his consciousness, all potential for experience... And on the other hand the real possibility of a living world of love and creativity; and in a world perhaps inhabited by some of those he most loved and who loved him? 

I am not saying - and I do not believe - that all will eventually choose salvation. Not least because I assume every human (and every other being) is unique. But I do believe that when the prospect of salvation is known to be real, understood, and constitutes a genuine possibility - even lifelong expressions of intention may change.    

Christian polytheism - from William Wildblood

William Wildblood's latest post analyses and expresses well something I have felt for as long as I have been a Christian. 

Edited excerpt:

Paganism died out for a reason. It was superseded by the advent of Christ who really did make all things new. 

And yet some things were lost in the process, in particular a real connection to creation and a contact with the inner workings of nature as well as a proper relationship with the spirit of place. 

This is why the contemporary Christian needs to re-engage with paganism and even add a pagan element to his Christianity. This element should be seen in the light of Christ, in other words it must be baptised, but it provides a form of spiritual nourishment that Christianity lost as it lost touch with nature, with the earth and the land. 

This is what I mean by Christian polytheism. Such a polytheism does not mean believing in many gods rather than one God. It means that under God there are many what we can justifiably call gods who carry out his work in creation. 

This is not too great a leap from where Christians already are, characterising them as angels, but angels are often regarded as somewhat abstract or, worse, sentimentalised. By seeing them as gods our minds can enter more deeply into the spiritual universe and the inside of creation. 

You could call them the inner energies of creation though with the understanding that behind these energies are beings not mere impersonal forces.

This could be envisaged as a way of understanding the two concepts included in the term "Romantic Christianity" - with "paganism" doing the work of "romantic". 

My understanding of Christianity being essentially about choosing to accept Jesus's offer of post-mortal resurrected eternal life in Heaven; is of course easily compatible with many aspects of paganism. 

I assume this is why it was so easy and straightforward for pagans to become Christian - they regarded Christianity as an addition, a bonus: paganism-plus. 

The main (and only essential) difference between what they already had from paganism, and what they would get with conversion to Christianity; was that Christianity offered the possibility of a Happy Ending beyond death. 

Instrumental attitudes and spiritual contact with "the dead"

By "instrumental" I mean "making use of" - so that having an instrumental attitude to somebody means "making use of him".

By "the dead" I mean those who have mortally died, biologically died. 

By "spiritual contact" with the dead - I refer to the fact that we (naturally and spontaneously) have spiritual contact with some of those we love (or with whom we have some other love-rooted relationship such as ancestors), and who have died. 

The real possibility of spiritual contact with the dead is not something that requires proof or argument. It is spontaneous and regarded natural and inevitable for human beings in most places and through most of history. 

Indeed; spiritual contact with the dead only wholly-absent when a person has decided that it is impossible... Here-and-now, typically; because so many people have inculcated the weird, incoherent and self-destructive socialization of modern atheistic-materialism. 

But starting from this weird a-spiritual materialism we moderns inhabit; it is a valid question concerning just how we may attain, resume our natural birth right of loving interaction with some of the dead. 

How to attain contact with the dead turns-out to be very much affected by our attitudes and intentions for that relationship. 

The whole matter of contact with the dead is very badly muddied and distorted by instrumental attitudes. 

In other words; many people seek contact with the dead in order to gain something from the relationship. And we ought to recognize the wrongness of such a motivation. 

We do recognize this wrongness in the material life of our mortal waking state. We recognize that to seek "friendship" in order to get something from somebody, is not friendship at all; but is simply making-use-of somebody; exploiting, or at least making a convenience of, another person. 

Such "friendship" is not friendship at all - it is attempted deception and manipulation. 

Why, then, do people so often have exactly this motivation when it comes to seeking contact or maintaining relationships with the dead?

So often these spiritual relationships are sought in order for the living person to get something from a dead spirit - at the least to get instruction - "teaching" or "information" - knowledge of some kind useful to the living party; or even to get power (as when black magicians seek to enslave and use spirits). 

There are plenty of examples of people who claim relationship with some deceased person as a way of claiming personal prestige and authority; as a way of validating their work or teachings. 

For instance; to seek contact with the dead in a spirit of serving some supposed destiny... Maybe the living party seeks to serve (perhaps channel) the spirit of the dead person - to extend or to finish "their work" on earth? 

But this intent-to-serve is at root another species of instrumental motivation - and may well open the living person to manipulation by malign dead-spirits; dead spirits who seek to corrupt and exploit the living for their won purposes.   

My point is that none of this is a good basis for seeking a relationship with the dead. 

The proper basis is surely love? The same as our living ideals of family, spousal or friendship love? 

A loving relationship in this mortal life is the highest - perhaps the only genuinely high - form of relationship; and so it should be in relationships between mortally-living and dead. 

The proper initial aim in seeking relationships with one of the dead, ought to be rooted in a particular and personal affection; and ultimately aim to have a relationship of participation - of sharing. 

Therefore we should not aim at a "functional" relationship; not have an aim of achieving fulfilment of some plan, not doing some-thing.  

I think the reason that the claims for relationships with the dead are so incoherent, so riddled with self-deception and self-seeking - is this matter of the attitude with which they are sought and maintained. 

This is why so many attempts at relating to the dead fail. They are not rooted in love; or when they are rooted in love - because they are seeking some functional benefit for the living party. 

When the relationship with a particular post-mortal being is sought is a properly loving attitude, in order to participate not use; for itself rather than to achieve something -- then it is (surely?) much more likely genuinely to be be achieved; will very probably be wholesome; and may be relied upon as valid and real*. 

Note: This is why I think it better not to be too eager to "share" one's own specific experiences of contact, of friendship, with the dead. Such claims may easily become status-claims; or else their validity may be challenged leading to a defensive and argumentative assertion.  

It's time to think about death...

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

And by death, I don't mean dying. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Returning to William Wildblood's post: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This no longer seems to happen. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

"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 desire for spiritual power...

Once one has acknowledged the reality and primacy of the spiritual world, comes the question of what to do about it; and since we dwell in this world then it seems inevitable we shall hope that spiritual power will be used to improve this world in ways that we desire. 

This motivation is often ascribed particularly to those who practice magic in its various forms; but is equally common among the religious - including Christians. 

Most of what Christians hope-for and work-for is focused on improving mortal life in this world - albeit sometimes this improvement is conceptualized in terms of providing a better environment for the encouragement of conversion and spiritual development. 

Yet, I suppose that most Christians would acknowledge that their primary efforts ought to be devoted towards eternal life beyond this mortal life - to whatever is the form of spiritual preparation for Heavenly existence that they personally regard as most necessary and desirable. 

This, then, seems to be our situation. The way we are made and the way of the world dictates that we cannot help but focus on the material and physical conditions of this mortal life, and from our own perspective. 

While at the same time Christians know that this ought-to-be secondary to regarding the spirit as primary and post-mortal life as the priority. 

In this respect, the situation resembles the rest of life: we know better than we can actually live-by, and often by a large margin; and therefore repentance rather than reform is the only sure answer. 

Nonetheless, most people make matters much worse than they need to be, by their chosen commitments to this-worldly engagements; and then they are led-into choosing to make this-worldly considerations (usually political in nature) not just their consuming interest - but their bottom-line morality: that upon which they are most motivated, most intransigent.   

Unfortunately, the Christian churches encourage exactly this; in that they operate in terms of self-definition, inclusions and exclusion, primarily in terms of various this-life and this-worldly stances... As is almost inevitable for any institution in today's totalitarian environment. 

In conclusion; the most important thing is that we can and do, as individuals and in our personal conviction, stand apart from this-worldly concerns; and refuse to be manipulated sufficiently to keep a clear head and heart about what is primary...

Get clear on what ought-to-be most important.

And what ought-to-be our bottom-line, no compromise, motivating convictions. 

...This will not be found in the realm of public discourse; which is the domain of Satan. 

Apparently very few people, very few Christians, are able to accomplish this basic spiritual task at present.

As is evident from their passionately-expressed concerns about an event mega-reported as top news in the mainstream mainstream over the past couple of days.

This is, in other words, another Litmus Test - and, as usual, most self-identified Christians who have expressed their "opinion" (i.e. adopted a pre-allocated role in the totalitarian narrative) have - so far - failed it spectacularly.  

Old Men in Shorts - versus growth in old age

A phenomenon that has swept my part of the world over the past couple of years is old men out and about on the streets and in shops, wearing shorts - or what Americans call "short pants" - ie. short trousers. 

This used to be very rare, except at the height of summer and on holiday - but nowadays, it's clear that old men have - in droves! - set aside their long trousers, and taken to wearing shorts all the time and in all seasons. 

This weirdly-misguided and counter-productive assertion of continuing youthfulness; fits with the theme of  a thought-provoking post from Francis Berger where he discusses "growing old" with an emphasis on what kind of growing this ought to entail:

"Growing old should refer to the spiritual—that we should use old age to focus on changing, developing, and expanding our spirit; on reflecting on our mortal lives and our memories; on learning lessons yet unlearned; on tying up loose ends and neglected frays from our mortal relationships; on preparing and building up our “self”, our true “self”, for resurrected life."

While the sight of superannuated codgers in cut-off trews seems like a trivial inconvenience, merely an eyesore; I have nonetheless come to regard this as symptomatic of a deep and increasing the spiritual resistance to growing old; which is one of the besetting sins of modern Western civilization. 

The reason is obvious enough; that, without a confident expectation of continued personal existence beyond death - a post-mortal life that is affected by present life; then there really is no benefit but many disadvantages in getting-old, and no viable coherent prospect of growing-old. 

The life of the modern middle-aged and elderly person (including, so far as I can tell, nearly all self-identified Christians) is then inevitably some kind of combination of an always-losing battle to remain (or seem) youthful; and a progressively-increasing terror of physical deterioration, suffering, dying, and then annihilation. 

Recognizing "Entropy" (change, death) as The Problem - there have been three suggested Answers

Even if we (somehow) lived in an utterly perfect society under an utterly ideal political system - there would still be the problem of evil. 

Even if the problem of evil was (somehow) cured; then there would still be the problem of entropy - of change, degeneration, disease, death. 

Entropy is the ultimate enemy.

(Although modern Westerners have lost sight of it; the ultimacy of the problem of entropy has been recognized at least since the earliest known Greek philosophers, and is the focus of the Fourth Gospel's account of the purpose and work of Jesus Christ - i.e. at the very heart of Christianity.)  

There have been (I think) three suggested ways that purport to solve the ultimate problem of entropy:

1. By Stasis

2. By Spirit

3. By Resurrection  

The cure by stasis is that entropy is caused by (indeed actually is) change; and is solved by a reality in which there is no change. Eternity is therefore static. 

The cure by spirit is that entropy is caused by matter, by "the material"; and therefore is solved by the replacement of matter by immaterial spirit. (Including that our death is, ultimately, due to being incarnated.) Eternity is therefore spiritual. 

The cure by resurrection is that there must first be death, and after death (for those Beings that "follow" Jesus Christ) there can be a transformation, a re-making; such that we again become incarnated (i.e. made of solid "matter") that is everlasting, inhabiting a Heaven where we remain our-selves, and in which there is change.  

The idea of resurrection as a cure for entropy is therefore something new and different from the more ancient ideas of stasis and/or spiritualization.  

I find the answers of stasis and spirit to be incoherent from a Christian perspective; because they raise the problem of why a loving personal God would compel His children to pass-through the entropic phase of mortal incarnation. If stasis, or spirit, are the answer - why bother with all this tedious mucking-about in this state of change and as matter? If entropy is to be solved by stasis or spiritualization, why create the problem at all - why create change, why create matter?  

But resurrection has not been understood as a third and qualitatively different solution from stasis and spirit - so that most supposed-explanations of resurrection, instead revert to variations and combinations of stasis and spirit. 

A satisfactory and coherent explanation of resurrection needs to include:

1. Why death is necessary? Why does God not go directly to the non-entropic state of things? 

2. Why our continued mortal life is necessary? If death is necessary to the abolition of entropy, then why don't we die ASAP and get on with the real business of post-mortal resurrected living? 

It is because I could not find any such explanations, that I was compelled to devise coherent answers for myself; and why I ended-up with a new kind of metaphysical Christian theology. 

Miles Mathis's "credo": On Jesus and Fear

Miles Mathis has written his "credo" - a long, somewhat sprawling, but honest and probing examination of his guiding principles and assumptions. 

Most interestingly, to me, this focuses on the nature of Jesus - especially in relation to an overarching theme that Mankind has been manipulated by Fear primarily, for many centuries and continuing. 

(This is something I have also become convinced of - including that fear should be known as a sin.)  

The essay also describes how, despite Jesus's teaching and example to the contrary; the Christian churches have all too often been co-opted as agents of this evil agenda.  

I have written about Mathis before, on a couple of occasions, and my mixed feelings concerning his writings. 

But when I say "mixed", I mean that there is a significant amount of very good stuff in his writings, as well as plenty that I regard as wrong. The test being that I keep returning to read his articles. 

And his personality, too, seems a mixture of admirable traits, with other attributes I find off-putting. But the strengths are more important.   

In this latest essay, I found a good deal to appreciate. It strikes me as an exceptionally honest and self-revelatory piece of writing; and such writings are rare, and always of considerable interest to me. 

Because such writing is well-motivated, his  particular current conclusions are less important to me than than a particular revelation of the process of an individual person earnestly trying to sort-out his understanding of the basic human condition. 

Caveat: MM's interpretation of Jesus, Jesus's example, and Jesus's core teaching; misses-out the single most important fact - i.e. that Jesus claimed to offer resurrected eternal Heavenly life to those who followed him. 

I think this is because (unlike me) Mathis is not interested by resurrection and everlasting life in Heaven, apparently because he is one of those (apparently rare) people who regard this mortal life as ultimately sufficient... He is satisfied by his life and by life in general; as it has been and is. 

Of course this overall satisfaction may, or may not, survive to the end and into post-mortal existence - but it seems clear that as of now, MM has no desire for a qualitatively different way of being. 

Consequently, Mathis genuinely (it seems) wants nothing more or other than to have more of the same-kind-of-thing, recurrently, forever - i.e. a continuation of the cycles of reincarnation, not resurrection. 

MM himself wants repeated mortal lives, not eternal Heavenly life. 

Accepting this difference of desire and motivation as real and valid; Mathis has some excellent (and clearly heartfelt) comments to make about how Men must strive to overcome fear - or else be manipulated and tormented by the powers of strategic evil...

Powers that he here calls the Phoenicians (and which I would regard as Satan and the demons, and their servants among Men).  

It is, of course, necessary to "read the whole thing" to appreciate its qualities - even if some parts of the essay are at a lower level, this is a necessary part of any honest exploration. 

But here are a couple of excerpts, that may whet your appetite: 

**

What are people most afraid of? Death, torture, loss. 

Well, of course Jesus and the other prophets taught there is no death, since your spirit lives on. 

Like matter, spirit cannot be destroyed. It simply changes forms. 

The Modern definition of death as a stark and final end was invented by the Phoenicians, and it was invented on purpose to scare you and control you via that fear. Jesus was among the first to counter that definition, reminding you we have no evidence for that and a lot of evidence against it. 

Tribal and pre-Phoenician peoples never believed that, and it wasn't because they were ignorant savages. It was because, given everything we knew then and everything we have since learned, the default assumption was for continuance, not a final end.

*

Same for torture, which Hollywood shoves down your throat year after year to keep fear high. About half the movies now released have an nearly unwatchable torture scene. 

One problem: in reality, torture isn't very successful, due to a little thing called shock. The body can only take so much pain or stress before it goes into shock. 

Shock is another gift of Nature, and you can understand it most easily by again looking at animals. A zebra in the jaws of a lion almost immediately goes into shock. 

What is shock? It is the disassociation of the animal from the pain. The mind separates from the body, so the pain never makes it to the brain. It is sort of like a dream state. 

So in real life (not Hollywood), torture is generally more stressful for the torturer than the tortured. The torturer has to stand there and watch the proceedings, while the tortured has drifted into a dream state and doesn't even feel it. 

When you watch a torture scene in a movie, it is far more stressful for you, the viewer, than it would be for the victim, because you aren't in shock. So if you think about it that way, many Hollywood movies are a form of successful, low-grade torture of the audience. And you are so messed up from a life of that, you pay for more of your own torture. I suggest you stop doing it.

*

The Phoenicians learned a lot from Jesus. . . namely how to most efficiently prevent people from developing that character. They could see that character was dependent upon being fearless, and the reverse, so job one for them became instilling fear of death and loss, and inverting everything Jesus taught. 

Some of that they did by rewriting and bastardizing scripture directly, but most of it was done over the centuries by infiltration. Within a few decades or centuries they had infiltrated the Church, and in this position they didn't need to rewrite scripture. They could achieve the same thing by stressing some things and downplaying others. 

They sold Jesus as the Prince of Peace to further pacify the masses, while importing a hell of tortures into the afterlife, to make sure the fear remained. 

Jesus was trying to dissipate the false fear of this life, but the Phoenicians brilliantly transported that torture into the after-death, making it almost universal. In that way, even death was no escape from the Phoenician gaslighting: they could frighten you retro-actively, from beyond the grave. 

Overnight, Jesus' good news or glad tidings had been flipped into an infinite future of dread and punishment, one that many Christians still believe in. The fear hadn't been mitigated, it had been magnified a thousand times, while seeming to keep Christianity. 

Surely the greatest reversal in history.

"Those who prefer security to freedom have lost both" - Dion Fortune writing during the Battle of Britain

From a letter of August 4th 1940 

There is something very strange about this war. The nations that have been subjugated were not beaten in the field, they fell to treachery and internal corruption; to lack of morale and lack of the will to victory. 

The key to their fall may be found in the words: "he who would save his life shall lose it, and he who will lose his life for My sake shall find it."

Those who prefer security to freedom have lost both. 

England stands alone and happy. All war gloom has gone. There is confidence in the future and pride in the present. Power is rising within us like a tide. The inflowing of a new life impulse is making itself felt. 

**

Letter 36 from The Magical Battle of Britain, by Dion Fortune. The war letters of Dion Fortune, edited by Gareth Knight.  

**

This insight of Dion Fortune referring to a very particular and unusual time and place has general validity. After the Second World War, there was a massive and (so far) irreversible collapse of Christianity in Britain. It was replaced by an overwhelming focus on this-worldly and material matters - i.e. what DF here terms "security". 

Nothing mattered to post-war people except security, happiness, prosperity, comfort, convenience and diversion. 

And, as predicted, this has led to the erosion, and incipient near-complete loss, of all of these - but especially security. 

Dion Fortune was talking about nations - but the same applies to individuals. 

Although we all (to some extent, sooner or later) crave security: there is none to be had in this mortal world; and the attempt to ensure it will bring the opposite - because by seeking security primarily, we will become oriented away-from reality. 

Unless the material is located in the spirit, unless the mundane is situated in the divine, this-world in eternity - then the material, mundane, this-worldly Goods will not merely be lost - but thrown-away. 

 

Where did I come from? Where am I going?

Where did I come from? Where am I going?

What was I before I was born, what will happen to me when I die? 

These questions are probably spontaneous among many people - if not all people. 

They arise from a sense of trying to understand "my" situation in life, in this world.  

The current options in answering include the following:

1. The questions make no sense. There is no you except in this temporary life and world, a current by-product of brain activity. And indeed "you" is probably only the same thing as itself here-and-now - and was not so when you were a young child, and "you" may be obliterated before your body dies by brain pathology. This is mainstream secular atheism, as taught by Western culture.  

2. The second question: Where am I going? is a real question, and the answer is [some kind of afterlife, such as heaven]; but the first question: Where did I come from? is an illegitimate question that has no answer; because "I" did not exist until my-self/ my-soul was created from nothing, some time before it was incarnated in a body. This is the conviction of mainstream orthodox Christianity, and some other religions.   

3. The reincarnation answer, which varies in its ultimates on either side of this particular mortal life (eg, varies concerning explanations of the ultimate origin and destination of "me"); but reincarnation belief generally has the take-home message that where I came from was a previous mortal-earthly incarnation, and where I am going is another mortal-earthly incarnation. This is asserted by the likes of Hindus and Buddhists and Eastern influenced Westerners of a New Age and/or Esoteric flavour. 

Answer 2 - we came from nothing, and/but will live eternally after death - is the mainstream, orthodox Christian answer. 

I would draw attention to its intermediate position in the above list; in that it asserts that (like mainstream atheism) there was a time in the past when we did not exist. 

This mainstream-orthodox-Christian asserted non-existence in the past of some essential "self" that is me; is something contradicted intuitively in some people (including myself) - to put it simply, I (like may people) have some kind of an inner conviction of a pre-mortal existence*. 

That mainstream, orthodox Christianity decided to assert that each soul is created-from-nothing was, I believe, a very unfortunate decision. It is impossible to know how many people through history have rejected Jesus Christ because they were thereby compelled (by the churches) to reject their intuition of pre-mortal existence - but it must have been A Lot of people.

Especially unfortunate as there are many scriptural references that plausibly refer to pre-mortal existence - especially the Gospel discussion of whether John the Baptist was, or was not, another "incarnation" of one of the ancient Hebrew prophets (e.g. John 1: 21-5).

At present, the only widely known option with respect to pre-mortal life is reincarnation; but there is another possibility that seemed to go unnoticed until Joseph Smith the Mormon prophet; which is that we all existed eternally before this mortal incarnation, but as not-embodied, not-incarnate, spirit beings. This is indeed my own intuition with respect to myself. 

(i.e. The phases of life, according to Mormonism, go roughly as follows: eternal pre-mortal spirit life; temporary mortal incarnation on earth; resurrected incarnate eternal life, of some kind - whether Paradisal or Heavenly in various degrees, or Hellish**.)  

But I see no Christian grounds for excluding the possibility of reincarnations preceding this mortal life. I just don't feel this is true for me.

I wish that more people knew of, and had seriously considered, the Mormon idea of eternal, pre-mortal, spirit existence because, well... I think the idea has "a lot going for it!" 

In other words, I think it is true that I lived a a spirit before this incarnation - so the idea is true at least for people like myself: those whose intuitive sense, direct knowledge, or memory rejects both creation from nothing, and (multiple) prior incarnations - but is convinced of prior existence. 

However, looking forwards from this mortal life, I think that a Christian will - almost by definition - not desire further reincarnation, nor a return to spirit existence; but the Christian will instead desire to attain resurrection to eternal Heavenly life. 

Of course, in principle, a Christian might feel he was not ready for resurrection, and therefore needed further reincarnations to prepare for the final choice of resurrection. 

However; I think that resurrection is not the kind of thing that can be delayed in such a fashion; because from here-and-now (now that Jesus Christ has made this possible) future reincarnation actually involves rejecting the chance and possibility of resurrection after we end this mortal life - which doesn't seem to me like something a Christian would want to do...     

But that's just me!

* Mainstream Orthodox Christians find themselves in the difficult position of having to argue that our soul is immortal going forwards, but not going backwards. Such Christians must argue that it does not make sense to suppose our souls can be annihilated into nothingness after death; but that is does make sense to suppose that the soul emerged from nothingness before birth. I say this is difficult to argue - it is not of course impossible! Yet such arguments very rapidly become extremely complex and abstract, and thereby (for most people) are not compelling.

**This is the orthodox Mormon understanding. My own is broadly similar in terms of phases, but somewhat different in terms of detail in that I believe reincarnation is a pre-mortal possibility; and that resurrection to eternal incarnation is only for those who choose Heaven, so that other (not-Heaven) choices will to remain post-mortal spirits.

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. 

Are all religions fundamentally the same?

When you get something false (because it is false) asserted as often as that "all religions are fundamentally the same" - it is usually because of an unexamined, perhaps unnoticed, assumption. 

Disagreement arises among those who do not share this assumption - yet the root of the disagreement is too seldom unearthed in the heat of argument. 

I think that people started saying all religions were (at root) "the same" when people started focusing (almost exclusively) on this-worldly aspects of religion and began ignoring (or simply not thinking about) what happens to us after death. 

In essence: The disagreement over whether religions are "the same" hinges around whether we assume a religion is defined by what it says and does about this mortal human life on earth; or whether we assume a religion is rooted in what it says about the life of our soul/ spirit after we have died. 

For atheists (and therefore the mainstream of public discourse in the modern world), of course, death is The End; so it is unsurprising that their comparisons of religions focus entirely on the psychology and social behaviour of various kinds of religious people. 

Since there are many broad similarities in the behaviour of people of various religions, then - by these assumptions - it seems reasonable to assert that all religions are fundamentally the same, and that differences are superficial and contingent. 

The other group who assert religions are fundamentally the same are those Westerners who advocate The Perennial Philosophy: some "oneness" spirituality that draws upon mystical (often "Eastern") religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism or the like; and upon the tradition of Neo-Platonism or Gnosticism (for example) either with a pagan or Christian vocabulary. 

Such people do believe in existence beyond death; but this existence is impersonal. Survival is without ego, without personality; perhaps pure passive contemplation, perhaps by assimilation into The One (from which all originated). Oneness spirituality regards this mortal life as secondary, temporary, superficial; indeed an illusion ("maya") - the only real-reality is in the permanence and changeless stillness of oneness.  

Therefore, from the Perennialist/ Oneness perspective; all specific religions are this-worldly, ego-focused, and delusional: therefore all religions are fundamentally The Same - i.e. wrong!

But if instead we assume (as I personally do) that the fundamental nature of a religion is defined by its account of what happens after this mortal life: that is after death - then we get a very different understanding. 

If the main thing about a religion is supposed to relate to this mortal life and world; then we may well conclude that the similarities are more important than the differences; and that all religions are - near enough - "the same". 

But if instead we focus on the nature of life after death - as I believe that we should - then we discover that there are many, qualitatively distinct and mutually incompatible differences between religions - and differences between any religion and other types of world-view and ideology. 

For instance; if we expect or desire to reincarnate after death there are several very different models of how reincarnation works (re-cycling of souls, spiritual evolution, operations of karma etc).

If one of these reincarnations happens to our soul, then the others don't happen! And therefore the religions are different.

Like wise with other possible outcomes. If like the ancient Greeks or Hebrews, every soul is assumed to become a demented ghost dwelling forever in an underworld; then this post-death outcome is absolutely distinct-from and incompatible-with  the Christian belief in resurrection of the body to eternal Heavenly life.  

In sum; all religions came be regarded as very broadly "the same" if we focus wholly on our bodies, on human psychology and sociology, during this mortal life on earth; but there are many distinct religions (and non-religions) if, instead, we define a religion primarily by its assertions concerning the nature or absence of existence of the soul or spirit after death.  

From "obedient love" to "chosen love" (pre-mortal to post-mortal life)

My understanding is that we originated in terms of divine creation as spirit-Beings, living in a situation of "obedient love" with respect to God. 

In that sense we began as "angels" - perfectly-Good servants and messengers of God, but without agency (i.e. "free will").

This was our spiritual childhood, because we loved by means of obedience. We found our-selves living "in" God's love, but un-consciously; therefore passively and spontaneously we accepted love as the basis for life (and creation). 

As consciousness developed (some Beings developed faster than others, and probably some did not develop to this point) we became agents capable of choice. Capable of choosing to accept or reject our then-current state. 

We became capable of choosing to reject the state of living "in" love. 

Then some pre-mortal spirits (i.e. the demons - and perhaps the Devil first of all) chose to reject and oppose God and divine creation. The rejecters remain as pre-mortal spirits, but have chosen disobedience to God and opposition to divine creation. 

Thus evil entered creation.   

Others chose the next step in development; which is to incarnate as a mortal Beings - after which temporary phase there is the opportunity actively to choose to live eternally "in" love; as resurrected incarnate Beings in the state of Heaven. 

Thus; we begin as spirits unconsciously living in a child-like state of obedient love; then (due to Jesus Christ's work) those of us who chose the temporary path of mortal incarnation will have the opportunity consciously to opt-into living eternally in a mature-adult state of chosen love.  

The pre-mortal state is one of living wholly in-love, but it is not Heaven; nor is it conscious, nor active. 

Heaven is a wholly-Good state inhabited by those who have-been mortal incarnates, and who then have consciously chosen to live eternally in-love.  

 

The point of this post is to emphasize that we have not known Heaven. Heaven lies in our future (if we make that choice) but not in our past. 

How to live with a positive, light-hearted, fearless, and serious attitude - as modelled and taught by Jesus

If this mortal life is everything, and is terminated by death and the destruction of ourselves eternally; then this mortal life is worth nothing beyond our current feelings. Because if only this lifespan matters, then significance reduces to here-and-now satisfaction merely; and a "delusory" happiness of intoxication or disease is as-good-as "real life" - because only our now-feelings matter.    

But if real life lies after death, beyond death; and when this life after death includes the annihilation of our self, our distinctive nature and consciousness - then our personal mortal life is a waste of time, and (rationally) we should try to die as soon as possible. 

If this mortal life is a kind of examination leading either to eternal reward or eternal punishment; then this mortal life is by-design a miserable trial of existence, essentially negative - which implies a hostile or indifferent God (and is is reasonable to expect such a God to provide an eternal reward?) 

So; if these world pictures eliminate positive meaning from this mortal life. So; what would it take for this mortal life to be meaningful, to have positive goals? 

We need to be concerned about this life and world - not indifferent. There must be something positive to gain from life. And this life must potentially make a difference - not just in the moment or over a finite lifespan, but lastingly - indeed forever. 

Life after death needs to be everlasting and our life, a life where we remain our-selves; and when we carry forward into eternity the benefits of whatever positive experiences and lessons we have learned in this mortal life. And this post-mortal life needs to be our choice - we can have it if we want it. 

How would this expectation of this kind of post-mortal life (call it Heavenly Resurrected Life) affect this mortal life? - because it surely would affect this mortal life to live in expectation of Resurrection to heaven and knowing that our positive learning from experience would enhance our lives eternally... 

I think this would lead to a positive and ultimately light-hearted attitude to the experiences of this mortal life: our current experience potentially matters forever, but it is not everything. 

We can embark upon this mortal life in a spirit of Trial and Error, Learning and Repentance. 

But what trails are worthwhile, and which errors are valuable (when repented) rather than corrupting and destructive?

The answer lies in motivation. When we are following our good motivations, with goals intended to yield positive experiences of potentially eternal value; then errors and bad outcomes are OK. 

After all, there is no safe path through life - because it always ends in death; and often in decline, degeneration, disease. Especially in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus seems to advocate and model a serious but positive, and never fearful, attitude to this mortal life. 

The point is that an attitude of confident expectation of resurrected Heavenly life should (logically, if sincere) lead us to be bold and care-free in tackling our own life with a spiritually ambitious attitude. 

If we take our risks, make our mistakes, experience adverse consequences from the right motivations; then we will be able to recognize and repent our sins, and learn what needs to be learned from whatever happens (pleasant, boring, or horrible)... 

Then we are leading life in the same kind of fearless, positive, serious attitude that seems to have been most characteristic of Jesus, and his teachings; and is underpinned and sustained by his promises. 

Note added: I get frustrated when the debate about an Afterlife is confined to the broad categories of survival of something beyond death - or not. Because it makes a Huge difference what "something" of our mortal selves is posited to survive death, in what conditions it survives, what the surviving entity does after death - and what implications this something-survival has for mortal life. Modern people are often uninterested by the question of afterlife, because of their implicit understanding of what this afterlife would entail and what it would imply. In other words; there is an unexamined but inbuilt assumption that an afterlife would either make no meaningful difference to this life, or would reduce or abolish the significance of this life. And that is indeed true for some conceptualizations of afterlife. But not true (I believe) for the Christian afterlife - at least not as I understand the Christian afterlife (also as described in the Fourth Gospel) - although I am quite prepared to admit that many or most self-styled "Christian" concepts of afterlife are indeed futile or negative, for one reason or another. The main question is whether we passively accept one or other of the standard "Christian" understandings (as expounded by one or another of the modern churches); or whether we actively seek a Christian understanding from and for our-selves. My point in the above post is that the IV Gospel understanding of Christian afterlife is one that gives a positive meaning to this mortal life -- Indeed, I believe it is the one and only concept of the human condition among all the religions, philosophies, and ideologies that does explain and sustain a positive mortal life.