The Goddess aspect of the dyad of God the Creator

I have often discussed God as a dyad - conceptualized as Father and Mother, or God and Goddess - which, for me, goes with my understanding of divine creation as the manifestation of love. In a nutshell, I regard creation as inextricably an aspect of love, and love as a dynamic relationship of beings. 

For me, this is reality, it is a fact; but I cannot claim to have properly taken account of it in my thinking and living. Like most Christians I tend, habitually, to think of God as a Father and as unitary - despite that this does not make coherent sense to me! Such is the nature of mortal life! 

But I currently feel impelled to try and "sort-out" my conceptual assumptions regarding The Goddess, triggered by the stimulus (if not example) of the role of Mary, Mother of Jesus, "Theotokos" - in the history of Christianity; and of her "veneration", the attention paid her - which has been (at times, in some places) the focus of actual Christian practice.  

I do not find any of the conceptualizations of The Goddess to be correct; mainly because I begin as a pluralist and animist - regarding many living "beings" as the ultimate units of reality. 

While almost-all philosophers have-been and are monists, believing reality is ultimately one; and usually believing that reality (including God, if believed-in) is ultimately impersonal, conceptual, abstract (often regarded as "static" and beyond "time"; conceptualized in terms of "properties" (or even negations) rather than an eternal, purposive, conscious, dynamic, living being.  

There has been much talk of The Goddess or Goddesses in recent decades, but I find almost all of this discussion to be retrograde, ineffectual, in error. 

1. Goddess talk is often linked to new forms and subjects of worship; whereas I don't believe that our God desires worship. 

2. Goddess talk is often - and very obviously - derivative-of and serving a left-materialist socio-political agenda (which agenda is primary and the bottom-line belief - and is ultimately evil, because a tool of totalitarianism). 

3. Because of the prevalent (nearly universal) monism; Goddess talk too often leads to an agenda of division - because people cannot even imagine how there came to be two, except by a division of some primal unity...

So, the idea of Goddess gets led-into a false activity of defining and distinguishing Divine Mother from Father, Goddess from God  - which soon becomes prescriptive and this-worldly; rather than descriptive of primal reality.  

Instead I am trying to understand the Goddess thus:

1. As reality, a fact, a fundamental assumption. 

2. God as creator is the consequence of love between two beings, whom we call God and Goddess.

3. Unless there were both, there would not have been creation, unless the relation was love there would have been no creation - so love is the nature, origin, and "driving force" of creation.   

What does this imply about our proper attitude to The Goddess? 

Put simply; I think it includes this: 

The Goddess is real, loves us each, is dyadic co-creator; and if we desire to affiliate with creation, then we do so by loving the Goddess and the God as divine parents of ourselves and of creation.

The Creator Goddess is a different being from the Creator God; as all beings are unique and distinct in their existence, and as all love is between unique beings. We get to know such differences by getting to know the "person". 

As with mortal life, knowing-about is qualitatively different-from and inferior-to actually knowing a person. 

That is one task: getting to know the Goddess - know directly, and for ourselves. 

The decline of the ideal of worship and obedient service

It is striking (to me) how the ideal values of worship and obedient service have declined to feebleness - or else to a legalism of worship and obedient service that disguises a pleasure-seeking/ fear-motivated loyal conformity to societal power. 

Worship-of and obedience-to God are the Old Testament ideal that permeate much of the Bible; including much of the New Testament such as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. 

And this was (in most stable and effective Christian societies) transferred to a monarch (whether temporal and/or spiritual - or both) who would himself be motivated by the same ideal.  

If I think back about thirty and plus years; this broad framework of W and O was still, sometimes and somewhat but in a valued way, working for me - although on in rather specific times and places and occasions. 

What characterized such a situation was a sense of magical enchantment - a positive connection to past, place, instituion, and others present. 

But it was already clear that this ideal had not just lost its appeal to most people, most of the time; who were simply bored by such things. 

And there was indeed a reaction against it; such that an atmosphere of scornful mockery and embarrassment was becoming dominant whenever worship and obedient service was apparent or advocated - or against those who were more that way inclined. 

Also; those who most vehemently advocated that worship and obedience was a good, or essential, basis for the Good Life; were nearly-always being dishonest - they were just using this value-system for their own (and often sordid) self-gratification and benefit. 

 

Of course this decline and inversion is in some (important and valuable) ways a subtraction from life. This is why people like me fought against it. 

Yet it is also a fact of life that needs to be acknowledged; as is the requirement that something is needed to replace it as a source of motivation and enchantment -- if not of social cohesion...

Because it seems increasingly clear that appeals to (or enforcement of) social cohesion nowadays is rooted in negative and evil purposes - for instance when prepping nations and institutions for pursuit of an evil war, or an evil strategy 

In other words appeals to (de facto) worship and obedience, whether in religion or in secular life - the seeking of increased energy and motivation for societal groupings - is used for the purposes of Lawful Evil. 

This seem inevitable when the people involved have themselves and en masse rejected the reality of the Christian God and divine creation. 

How can people be corralled into pursuing a truly Good purpose, when they deny the very reality of Good purpose in the universe?     

And yet and yet... we must have something. 

If not worship and obedience then... something else: because the alternative is despair. 

And then either an obedience based on mere coping and survivalism (chosen slavery), or else here-and-now selfishness and indifference to consequences (psychopathy). 

Surely this is an unavoidable task for everyone? 

And a task where objective external assistance from a societal source cannot be expected - and where whatever "answer" we may find will inevitably be partial, temporary, and perhaps private and personal? 

For me, vital clues are the insight that God most desires of us is Not worship and obedience; but Instead a chosen, committed, and loving "friendship" type of relationship; analogous to that which forms the basis of a shared and harmonious, purposive living; and (sometimes, temporarily, and imaginably) characterizes the best of family life and marriage.    

However, the reassurance we have as Christians is that whatever we actually achieve is less important than knowing what we most need. 

Sincerely-attempting not successfully-accomplishing our ideals, is actually the basis of good-living now, and salvation to come.   

Was the Omni-God concept a consequence of the development of human consciousness?

It is interesting to speculate how the incoherent and mass-apostasy-inducing Omni-God concept arose and came to dominate Christian (and some other) theologies and Priesthoods. 

One God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and created everything from nothing - i.e. the officially mandatory nature of God according to mainstream Christianity; is an idea literally inconceivable to simple people and children. 

And inconceivable to people of the past, and up to the life of Jesus; because I see nothing explicit to suggest that the authors of Old Testament, the Gospels, or Epistles conceptualized God in this way. 

The Omni idea seems to have emerged - off the record - in the generations after the ascension of Jesus and deaths of the Apostles; until we see it behind the Christology schisms and disputes, concerning the divine and/or human nature of Christ; that tore-apart the nascent church in its early centuries. 

Such disputes were (and are) inevitable when Jesus was assumed to have been incarnated into the creation of an Omni-God, since the Omni definition of God excludes the possibility of Jesus being a second creator-deity; and indeed removes any possible reason or purpose for a further manifestation of deity. 

(If God is supposed to be able to do everything, know everything, be everywhere etc - then there is no necessity for Jesus Christ to be incarnated, live, die, be resurrected, ascend to Heaven etc. The Omni-God can - by definition - do everything that is doable, so Jesus is superfluous.) 

Yet if Jesus Christ is not a truly divine creator God; then Jesus is "just" a teacher, prophet etc - and we either assume Jesus was a false teacher and revert to Judaism; or assume Jesus was a valid teacher as with Islam. 

But if Jesus is not divine, he is not unique; and there is no reason to build a religion around following him. 

So how and why did such a strange and destructive idea emerge? 

My best guess of how, is that the Omni-God was synthesized from the ancient Hebrew idea of a single dominating personal God to whom all other Gods were inferior and subservient; and to whom all worship and obedience was due. 

This "monotheism" was combined with Greek philosophical ideas - and religious ideas - probably from  elite and initiatory mystery religions; such as Neo-Platonists and Gnostics); of a universal but impersonal abstract-deity that was everything (pantheism), was the ultimate cause of everything, was perfect hence time-less etc.

(Much like some Hindu and Buddhist philosophical concepts of deity.) 

 

But why did the Omni idea happen at all? 

My understanding is that this was part of the development of human consciousness; and the increasing inner sense of separation of the individual from the group. 

Before the Omni-God concept; human consciousness was naturally, spontaneously, and largely un-consciously very much immersed in the group consciousness - and this group consciousness included the realms of spirits and the divine. 

Because people experienced relationships with so many other Beings (such as animals, trees, landscape, the dead, angels, demons, and gods); there was no subjective "problem" of creation as being incoherent.

There was no need to "explain" how it was that the universe held-together and had purpose - because this coherence was simply a matter of experience. Men knew that things cohered. 

This was, and still is, how young children experience reality even nowadays; and perhaps some tribal peoples as well. 

In other words, in ancient times there was no felt-problem of incoherence that the Omni concept was needed to solve. 

There was no need or reason to explain why all the different aspects of reality held-together and had an overall purpose. 

And no reason to explain why there were real values - a real and universal morality... Since such things were obvious.  

It was when Man's consciousness began (and continued) to become ever more self-aware and separated from the group consciousness; and from awareness of the dead, spirits of many kinds, and the divine - that Men sought an explicit explanation of the "unity" of all things...

That intellectuals came-up with the Omni-God explanation. 

This does not explain why the early Christian church seized upon the Omni-God concept and made it mandatory, despite all the problems it has caused ever since. 

But I think that ultimately such reasons are social rather than philosophical: to do with the church as an institution, rather than Christianity as a theoretical construct.  

The Omni-God concept is popular in all the major monotheisms, I think because it is interpreted to make the specific religion both universal and mandatory; it is used to insert the religion and its church into the ultimate creation and operation of absolutely every-thing. 

Omni-God removes choice from religion; and religion becomes a matter of acknowledging one truth for everything...

Or else the act of rejecting that church and religion gets conceptualized as rejecting... absolutely everything, and all possibility of anything.

So, with Omni-God; not be be a member of the church and religion is therefore conceptualized as a wholly irrational and incoherent act - an embrace of absolute nothingness.  

If it is broadly correct that the Omni-God emerged after Jesus and in the early centuries AD; driven from-within by changes in Mens' consciousness; then we can also see that a genuine, living, motivating belief in Omni-God has become impossible in the modern era.

Shoals of people have left the Christian church, and/or had their faith reduced to the feebleness of a lifestyle-choice, by the insistence of Christian theology on the Omni-God combined with the gross incoherence of the concept - which incoherence has now become spontaneously obvious even to those of low intelligence. 

(The two obvious problems about a Christianity rooted in the Omni-God concept and a Good God; are an inability to explain genuine evil and extreme and undeserved suffering and death; and also an inability to explain human agency or "freedom".)  

In replying to a basic question of "who was Jesus?": mystery-word-spells about Jesus being simultaneously wholly-Man and wholly-God seem like meaningless or devious abstractions; when materialism is built-into the modern perspective. 

In replying to what did Jesus do?": kick-the-can pseudo-explanations about Jesus being necessary to save Mankind from the blame attached to an "original sin" leading to a "fall" that occurred in prehistory; make no sense (and seem grossly unjust)...

When Man's consciousness has become so spontaneously separated from the group/ spirit/ divine that the choices and events of putative ancient ancestors is experienced as utterly irrelevant to me-here-now.

If the Omni-God was not original to Christianity but instead the contingent artefact of a particular stage in Man's historical consciousness and the rhetorical requirements of the ancient church...

And since the O-G concept currently stands in the path of any possibility of explaining (clearly and simply) the nature of Jesus and what he did...

Then Christians really need to go back and re-examine and reject this Omni-God dogma... 

And then we need to replace the obsolete and harmful Omni-God with a conceptualization of God that makes explanatory-sense to us each, here, and now; and which clearly and simply explains the necessity of Jesus Christ for those who desire salvation.  

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. 

Mercy versus Justice, and Mary the Mother of Jesus

I am still reading Geoffrey Ashe's The Virgin - his dense, fascinating, and very stimulating book about the historical development and meaning of the Catholic veneration of Mary, Mother of Jesus. 

(Ashe was himself a Roman Catholic, and deeply involved with Marian societies - especially the Carmelite Friars' shrine to Mary at Aylesford in Kent.)  

This passage was one I found very striking. Ashe is describing the theology of Saint Germanus, who was Patriarch of Constantinople in the early 700s. 

Mary, Germanus maintains, does not simply put requests to the Deity on matters they could agree about; she actively and successfully opposes him. "You turn away the just threat and the sentence of damnation, because you love the Christians... Therefore the Christian people trustfully turn to you, refuge of sinners." 

The universe is split at the summit. God stands for Justice, and since we are all sinners more or less, most of us have little to hope for at his hands. 

Mary stands for Mercy, and it is only because of her influence at court, not because of love or goodwill on God's part, that Heaven is within reach for more than a handful of human beings...

The Byzantine Virgin seems the only friend close to the throne and the only rescuer from utter awestruck despair...

The Greek church agreed that Mary was indispensable to salvation. An edict issued from Constantinople in 724 condemns anyone who withholds worship from her... 

She is no longer the gentle Lady to whom Christians may turn for help. She is the unique being... to whom they must turn or be in peril of losing their souls forever.    

[From before 1233] the norm of Marian miracles in hardening. The people concerned are apt to be commonplace and sometimes repellent. 

The sole redeeming feature they have in common, "redeeming" quite literally, is their love for the Virgin. This protects them against the consequences of wrongdoing. Her devotees seem able to get away with anything....

It is unfair to treat this mythology as a license to sin; by saving misguided mortals the Virgin enables them to repent. 

But the moral is not always conspicuous... 

The medieval popular Virgin represented the all-too-human, the irregular, the exceptional. She was superior to the system and could break through every rule. Humanity had her on its side in its perpetual protest against divine law and human ordinance. 

For her, every case was a special case. She could draw "her" sinner up out of hell itself, giving him another chance.

Such considerations stimulated various thoughts. One is that - however theologically alien and contradictory the role of Mary in Catholic devotion; the effect of Marian devotion has often been exemplary from what I regard as a strictly Christian perspective (as well as this-worldly-expedient - in terms of sustaining and strengthening the churches). 

I understand the above descriptions to represent a spiritual correction to the not-Christian (i.e. not Jesus-derived) emphasis on Justice that has so often overtaken Christian churches of almost every kind. 

When Jesus is made into a divine ruler of the universe, he has often been attributed with the characteristics of an idealized human ruler in some particular society - hence the de facto primacy of justice, defined legalistically - despite this being multiply-contradicted in the Gospels. 

Furthermore, the tortured theology of Original Sin (which was only required because early theologians made it mandatory to conceptualize and define God as Omni) - led to the weird double-negative explanation of Jesus's work; as having been accomplished by a vicarious sacrifice (torture and death) demanded by Divine Justice to compensate for sin. 

Against this historical backdrop of systemic misrepresentation of the fundamental nature of Jesus Christ's work and the paths to salvation by love of Jesus; Mary seems to have emerged, with the consequence of  re-creating the truth of Jesus's salvation by personal love.

With the difference that the necessary love is displaced from Jesus, to his mother (but his mother having been re-conceptualized to possess the salvific attributes of Jesus). 

But I don't doubt that this displaced or indirect love was none the less effective in attaining salvation for Marian adherents ; so long as the motives were true. 

The simple heart of Christianity - i.e. resurrected eternal heavenly life to those who follow Jesus - has always been open to the kind of "license to sin" misrepresentation Ashe describes in the second excerpt above. 

This is a kind of parody of Christianity, along the lines of: I can do what I like, be as selfish and gratification-seeking as I like... yet Mary will save me if I love her... 

Such is the exactly the same type of criticism made of Jesus's teaching during his life, by those whose real concern was social order and sustaining the power of their church...

Popular with those who do not really believe that All Men are sinners including themselves; and that no Man good enough for Heaven without first passing through death and resurrection*.

(Or who may regard following Jesus as less a matter of love than of following rules.)

 

The parody is untrue, because it ignores that motivation is primary, and that the love really must come first. 

Salvation is not attained by using love as an excuse to enable the primary motivation of doing evil. That is to put this-worldly gratification first. 

But, on the other hand, salvation really is - not for those who successfully past some test of following some laws; but salvation is for all those who love and desire to follow Jesus more than anything else.

Or, in this instance... love and desire to follow Mary more than anything else - so long as Mary is conceptualized in the way she has been by some ancient (and some modern) Catholic Christians, as described in Ashe's book. 

*I suppose I should state that I regard it as theologically incoherent from a Christian perspective to claim that Mary was conceived and existed without sin, and was assumed into Heaven without going through death and resurrection. The necessity and work of Jesus - and the requirement that we are all  incarnated into mortal life - only makes sense when it is understood that death and resurrection was and is the only way to "fit us for Heaven". Nonetheless (fortunately for all of us!) theological coherence is not a requisite for salvation! 

Taize "worship" - the dark side of Liberal Christianity

Artist's impression of a Liberal Christian priest about to perform the "Taizing" ritual

Various "Liberal Christian" churches around here are openly advertising so-called Taize services*.

I have become convinced that Taize is a crudely-obscurationist French translation of Tazer; and that this apparently innocuous form of "worship" must involve ritualistic electrocution.

Covert surveillance is required, but success in this aim has not yet been achieved.

Not many things illustrate the degree of demonic influence on present-day churches more vividly than that such (presumably?) sado-masochistic practices should so blatantly be performed in consecrated ground, under cover of quasi-liturgy.  

*Why openly advertised? This will surely be an example of the Law by which demons must operate by consent and be invited-into the soul - To be spiritually-effective; sin must announce its intention. 

Western politicos, military and mass media have now talked-up deliberate gamma-ray-emitting environmental contamination into An OK Thing to do

Beginning with the Fire Nation conflict, and now in the Middle East, it has become An OK Thing for Western Forces deliberately to try and contaminate the environment with gamma/ alpha/ beta-emitting substances. 

There have already (seemingly) been Western-forces launching multiple and sustained missile (and other military) attacks on (what is supposed to be) Europe's largest electricity-generating power station that uses gamma-ray-emitting materials. 

(Compare this with the Green "outrage" over the 1986 power station accident in the same part of the world.) 

There was also reported the massive usage of artillery mucky missiles - which inevitably polluted the very nation that the West was using as a proxy against the FN (as would the power station attacks have done, if they succeeded). 

There were and are evidenced claims of Western proxies (with Western help) developing mucky mines; devices explicitly-designed to cause lasting mutation-inducing pollution over a wide area.    

And just now there are triumphant claims of having destroyed research and development facilities in Zoroastria; which, if true, would inevitably mean extreme and lasting environmental damage from spread of these substances. 

My point is not so much about what has actually been done (which is unclear); but how this discourse has normalized the idea of deliberately causing, strategic, lasting and dangerous contamination and pollution -- and of a kind that has for, the previous 80 years, been regarded as the ultimate environmental horror that humanity ought to avoid.  

We have already reached a point where people do Not Even Notice that this is the intent and consequence of multiple and repeated (and planned) - West-initiated - actions. 

The nature-harming implications apparently do not even occur to the mass of Concerned (self-identified Responsible) people who affect passionate environmentalism, pseudo-worship of Gaia, who support Green parties and policies... 

This kind of stuff is beyond ridicule: a Bizarro Inverted World where people are terrified-of, and try to eliminate "Carbon" (Trade Mark: The Gas of Life); yet cool and approving about spreading gamma/ alpha/beta-emitters across and into our planet, on a whim; from military expediency - indeed, simply because it make A Good Headline. 

NOTE: All the above is hard to explain on the basis of politics based on a primary desire for money and power. But it is easily understandable on the basis that Western geopoliticsis dominated by those who serve the agenda of Sorathic demons - in other words; those who seek maximal destruction of divine creation as their ultimate goal.  

Since Google's 2K search engine was far superior to any so-called AI; then why are people in 2025 so awed and submissive about AI?

Since Google's 2K search engine was far superior to any so-called AI; then why are people in 2025 so awed and submissive about AI?

It's an interesting question. 

There was certainly a vast degree of hype about The Internet in the 1990s, as well as many serious and thoughtful attempts to predict its consequences (which were spectacularly wrong in almost every instance!); and people who used search engines recognized that Google was a qualitative improvement on what had existed before (I recall that Altavista was the best engine just before Google emerged in 1997). 

And indeed the Google search engine rapidly became a superb tool; far superior to anything that has existed since around 2010. Google has almost completely destroyed its own search value, and nothing significantly superior has emerged - or, probably, nothing superior has been allowed to emerge.

But there was never anything like the quasi-worship and sheer mental derangement that is at present rampant on the subject of AI; where people I would have (until recently) regarded as sensible and decent, are spouting incoherent-impossible nonsense about what AI can/ should/ will be used for, and apparently being taken seriously.

Worst of all - they are looking forward to it! This reminds me of the 2020 totalitarian globalist who said that in his future we will "own nothing - and be happy" - but even worse: this time we shall instead (or as well) "be ruled, monitored and controlled by robot computers - and be happy".    

I take this as strong and solid evidence of the astonishing degree of spiritual corruption to which people in general have sunk. Not just the rulers, who have led and managed the avalanche of nihilism; but the masses as well. 

Common sense has gone. Simple two-step reasoning has gone. And the reason is that almost everybody, including almost all self-identified religious or spiritual people, has adopted the pervasive assumptions of inhabiting a purpose-less, meaning-less world from-which we are alienated, and with which we engage only materially. 

Inside people there is, apparently... nothing - a void; continuously filled up from externally by the media and institutions and superficial "cause and effect" interactions of "social life". 

And it turns-out that is makes no significant difference whether this inner void is filled by political ideology or church doctrine and guidance - these are all substantially converged, and it all comes to the same in the end.  

Of course there is not really a void inside us, but an eternal self; which is a part of God's living creation. 

But we have chosen to deny, disbelieve and ignore this in favour of mechanism, passivity, and ultimate, existential irresponsibility.   

That's why people are so very impressed by the real-world-useless, destructive, literally soul-destroying toy-master that is called AI. 

AI-dolatry - by which Men "worship the works of their own hands"

In private correspondence I came-up with the term AI-dolatry which William James Tychonievich has seized upon and elaborated thus: 

Idolatry is exactly what it is: taking something we ourselves have made -- human-created software mindlessly plagiarizing and imitating human-created content -- and treating it as some font of wisdom. 

When [a fellow Christian blogger] wrote that he was "pretty spooked" [by the apparent quality of "AI"-produced content], I couldn't help but think of that comment of Nietzsche's about painting a scary face and then being scared by it. 

He has since expanded upon the analysis: Read the whole thing... 

Perhaps a womanly and procreative aspect of God is necessary for a solid belief in eternal life?

I am re-reading Geoffrey Ashe's fascinating study The Virgin (1976), which is focused on Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ (Ashe was a Roman Catholic) - but takes in the broader perspective of goddesses throughout history, in a non-hostile - indeed sympathetic - fashion. 

He makes the stimulating suggestion that a Goddess was primal in ancient spirituality, because she was the assumed basis of the procreative hence creative; and that some form of female deity is needed for Men really to believe in a life beyond life. 

The idea is that a supreme male deity cannot sustain belief in a full life beyond life. So that when the ruling Goddess goes; the afterlife becomes very partial, ghostly, and all-but irrelevant. 

Male deities could never bestow life of their own nature as the Mother had done. Zeus and his colleagues were immortal, but they did not transmit that quality to their human subjects... 

Through most civilized and semi-civilized lands... death ceased to be a passage to a future life... the dead were no longer pictured as significantly existing. They were reduced to feeble, bloodless shades in a gloomy underworld. For the Greeks this was Hades...

With the fading of the Eternal-Womanly, with her cutting-down or anathematisation, [for the vast majority, with extremely few exceptions] death had become the end with no prospect of rebirth. 

Israel's shift was similar... The Old Testament has no doctrine of survival or return... the dead become shades. They do down to an underworld called Sheol, The Grave.

The sole Israelite immortality is collective... God's chosen community...  

I think it likely that Ashe is "on to something" here. 

In the book; Ashe is preparing the ground for an attempted explanation of the rise of Mary the mother of Jesus as a more and more important focus of Christian faith - recognizing that this phenomenon cannot be accounted for by Scripture, or by the practices of the earlier generations of Christians. 

With Mariolatry (Ashe says) we seem to be dealing with some kind of deep and direct apprehension of spiritual reality, probably coming from grassroots, bottom-up, the "masses". Christian leaders and theologians seem merely to have been trying to explain and validate theoretically something that already was beginning to become important in practice. 

From my own experience; I find it striking that Mormonism included a very strong element of the "Eternal-Womanly" with its dyadic deity composed of Father and Mother in Heaven. 

And - perhaps in consequence? - the "Mormon culture of salvation" was (at least until fairly recently) probably the most vividly lived and believed-in form of Christian afterlife among the major Christian churches. 

The spiritually unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature of one-sidedly masculine, Christianity is something I find very striking. I mean the monochrome hardness, negativity, heartlessness, legalism and this-worldliness of Mary-rejecting forms of Protestantism is something I feel is very evident. It is one reason why England ceased to be "Merrie" with the reformation.

But there is something of this in all of Christianity. 

(And this defect has not-at-all been ameliorated, let alone cured, by the dominant trend towards secular materialism in all the Christian churches, which comes-in on the back of leftist ideology. Spiritual problems can only be made worse by "liberalization" - which is actually and always covert apostasy.) 

Insisting upon the non-sexual nature of God does not work either - this is just an attempt to escape contradictions absences and by raising abstractions; which has the effect of confusing people - and thereby impairing motivations.

Furthermore, the idea and ideals of ultimate transcendence of sexuality point away from Christianity (rooted in Jesus, the divine incarnate mortal Man) and towards Oneness spirituality, where (eventually) every-thing merges with everything else - in a timeless stasis.   

The problem is that it does not really make deep theoretical and theological sense to insert Mary alongside the (masculine) Trinity; and she is therefore always accorded an ultimately secondary and intercessionary" role in creation - no matter how central is her position in everyday worship (eg. devotion to the Rosary, or Marian icons). 

But even worthwhile degrees of habitual lifestyle and provision of psychological comfort are insufficient motivations in a world so dominated by evil-affiliated institutions. 

In our unavoidably self-conscious era; these inner contradictions about Mary have become nigh-lethal to strong Christian faith - as is evident all around us.

 

This is why I regard Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Mariolatry as "on the right lines" but ultimately insufficient and unsatisfactory. 

And, as Ashe described , this requisite kind of development can only come from directly apprehended knowledge - it is not already existent. 

To emphasize: what is required is not something that can honestly be derived from existing Scripture, theology or history.

Furthermore it needs to arise bottom-up; which means from individuals, not institutions.  

If modern Men are to grasp and retain the needful structuring-focus on resurrected eternal life; if we are to live-by knowledge of Heaven; then we will need explicitly to discover and embrace what will be new truths of eternal verities concerning women in relation to creation and salvation. 

"Masculinity" and "femininity" versus the actual person of Mother in Heaven

While I assume that God is Dyadic (a Heavenly Father and Mother) - this is something I have not really grasped, not does it correspond much with daily experience. 

Partly this may be because we Christians are intended to relate primarily to Jesus, rather than the primary creator; but partly it is because I tend to get "hung-up" on inaccurate and unhelpful assumptions relating to principles, rather than persons. 

An example of an unhelpful/ misleading conceptualization would be that of Coleridge's "polarity" between "two contrary forces, the one of which tends to expand infinitely ["masculine], while the other strives to apprehend or find itself in this infinity [feminine]". 

One such assumption is that habit of thinking of male and female in terms of being specific exemplifications of those abstractions: "masculinity" and "femininity"... Abstractions that are somehow floating unattached beyond time and space, and sort-of imposing-themselves-upon Beings (as it were to make them men, or women)...! 

Really; things must be otherwise. 

Our Heavenly Parents are those two Beings who (in actuality, not by any prior necessity) first committed to eternal love; and on that basis began divine creation. 

It is their two natures, originating as two Beings, that ramify through all of creation since.  

Thus male and female both structure and power creation; but in this personal way - derived from actual living, conscious, developing Beings; and not therefore in terms of abstract metaphysical forces or fields or tendencies. 

As (always?) with metaphysical realities, it is not possible to derive the metaphysics from empirical specifics (such as actual men and women) - nor is it possible to derive any particular empirical specifics from the metaphysical assumptions. 

If the universe truly is derived from a dyadic God; then that universe includes everything that exists, has existed, or could exist - and this reality (this Primary Creation) in which we dwell; includes not just divine creation, but also entropy/death and purposive evil. 

What this seems to mean - among many other things! - is that our experience of Mother in Heaven ought not to be pre-conceptualized in terms of an ideal earthly-mortal Mother, nor any other archetypal female conceptualization. 

Of course, if that is what we have decided in advance that we will find, then that is what we will find - and any female archetype really is there; but only as a selective, hence distorted, part of the reality. 

This stricture applies both to Goddess conceptualizations; and to the Blessed Virgin Mary - whom I regard as ultimately a selective and distorted representation of the reality of the actual person of Mother in Heaven.

(Albeit the veneration/worship of the Mary, Mother of Jesus has - in some times and places - been very valuable as such; and IMO far preferable overall to an exclusively "masculine" conceptualization of God.)

I think the difficulties of you and I experiencing the person of Mother in Heaven are therefore partly due to the nature of God the Creator - who is not personal in this world, in the way that Jesus Christ is personal; partly it is due to the ultimately-dyadic nature of God (and the consequent difficulty of disambiguating Father and Mother, who are necessarily participating-in each-other); and partly due to our usually false expectations concerning what She is like.   

So, what is She like? 

The best answer is: She is like who-She-is. 

...Which can be known - as here on earth - by personal experience, by getting-to-know a person. 

But She is not to be known in terms of exemplifying a list of supposed-female attributes, nor can any list of attributes validly communicate her reality.

Cosmic significance and "will power"

There is a recurrent spiritual problem in relation to what might be termed will-power. A vast amount of spirituality has been, and is, about study, training, practice, knowledge, technique... all manner of relatively arduous things that need to be acquired as a matter of habit. 

In sum: the spiritual path is seen as one that requires will-power... with the proviso that in some traditions the will-power is supposed to come from the divine; and this divine-will merely be "channelled" by an individual human being. 

(This may be paradoxical in practice; as a self-less, ego-less person is somehow supposed to overcome other temptations and idleness; and instead strive continuously at years of arduous spiritual exercises - which are themselves dedicated to expunging his personal will!) 

 

It seems natural and inevitable - and is indeed true! - that our spiritual cosmic significance will have effects on material this-worldly affairs. In other words, insofar as we have spiritual experience, and attain spiritual learning; this will benefit "the world". 

But! This effect of the spiritual on the material, the effect of the cosmic on the earthly, does not happen in accordance with our personal will!

A Big Mistake (it seems to me) - and one that recurs often - is that spiritual people explicitly strive to change the world in accordance with their spiritual insights. What specifically they do varies greatly; but the general point is that the individual spiritual person tries to change the world in accordance with a pre-decided goal. 

Attainment of this goal then becomes an index against-which spiritual power is calibrated.

Another way into this matter is via "power". Most people want power in some sense, for some reason; but it is pretty foolish to supposes that it would be a good idea if a person's spiritual power was equated with his ability to achieve (pre-decided, explicit) worldly plans. 

On the flip-side, it is equally absurd to adopt a view that spiritual power can lead to absolutely anything in this world, including catastrophic outcomes for those we most love and value. 

Yet the question of what counts as spiritually-catastrophic, rather than materially-catastrophic, is a necessary one to consider. After all; the powers of spiritual evil dominate this world, especially in The West; and these demons may engineer materially bad outcomes for spiritually good-motivated actions; just as they often engineer worldly success, status, wealth and influence for those who serve demonic interests. 

My conclusion is rather one of understanding than of advice. 

We (and especially men) inhabit and intellectual environment that grossly overvalues a caricatured Nietzschian version of will-power; we tend to hero-worship and wish to emulate examples of people who set ambitious (worldly) goals, and go on to achieve then - by sustained and long-term endeavour against temptation and difficulties.   

But a closer examination of these persons will reveal that almost all or then are pervasively corrupted, and spiritually malign - such that it seems their efforts have in fact been in an opposite direction to good.  

Spiritually good persons are rare indeed, but they seem quite different; and much more concerned with learning and experiencing and developing creatively; than with imposing their will upon other people and the world. 

Power corrupts. Worship of power corrupts also

The insight that "power corrupts" (with or without the addendum "and absolute power corrupts absolutely") was an insight that emerged only from the end of the nineteenth century - as Tom Shippey notes in his analysis of the subject in JRR Tolkien: author of the century. 

In ancient and medieval times, power was not regarded as corrupting, but instead was thought to reveal the nature of its wielder. Power did not of itself corrupt a good Man. 

Yet by the middle 20th century the idea that power of itself actually makes all people worse (even when they started out good) was a truism - evidenced all around us, and around the world.  

My understanding of this phenomenon of corrupting power; would include that it was related to the emerged of the characteristic modern consciousness; a consciousness that is alienated - cut-off from God, the world of spirits and the group-mind of Men. 

Modern Men are existentially detached from The World in ways that were not possible in the remote past. 

In ancient times, a power-wielder was innately embedded in a social and spiritual world, such that to a significant degree he could not help but express the values and will of this broader world and its perspective. In other words; ancient Man was not a detached being, therefore responsibility for his power was always somewhat dispersed, and power was (spontaneously, unconsciously) wielded in a "groupish" way.  

(Exceptions are usually due to pathology, to some form of insanity.) 

Only in more modern times, and gradually, has power been able to interact untrammelled with the self-centred and selfish nature of a power-wielder. The corruption of power operates as a kind of feedback loop, within the alienated self. 

A further development has been the way in which power became embedded in bureaucracy, in The System - so that it is seldom very clear to what extent a leader actually has power. 

People typically are only given power when they are regarded as being the kind of person who will "do what they are told"; and those who do not obey, are rapidly got-rid-of So that many apparently powerful people feel themselves to be, and indeed seem to be, almost helpless in the face of constraints of a systemic nature. 

If, as many people say, the US President is "the most powerful person in the world"; then the world has recently seen a situation in which the US President was known and acknowledged to be mentally incapable of wielding power; and yet things carried on much the same. 

This suggests that when an individual is said by official sources to be wielding power and making decisions; then it is probable that this is untrue: it is an expedient illusion propagated to the public; perhaps in order to conceal who, or what, it is that is really making the decisions and deciding the strategy. 

This may be done for various reasons, including evasion of responsibility, or making effective resistance to power more difficult. 

But another reason for pretending some person has power, is that an image of the powerful individual tends to induce a worship of power in many people. 

George Orwell was very sensitive, perhaps over sensitive, to this. Writing in the 1930s and 40s - he saw this worship of power as a common attribute of the intelligentsia - of academics, functionaries, authors, artists, commentaries, journalists etc. 

Orwell's usual target was the radical left, including its literary lions such as GB Shaw or WH Auden. Such might, for example, delight in imagining details of the retribution to be wrought "when the revolution comes". Including the supposition of an attitude of calm, unyielding, masterful objectivity with which "necessary measures" are inflicted. 

But he saw analogous worship among figures of the right, including (for instance) Nietzsche, political theorist James Burnham, and the Roman Catholic converts such as Hilaire Belloc - who Orwell believed admired their Church mainly because of its potential or actual power. 

Among intellectuals, power worship is evident in the brutal relish (even sadism) with which such persons describe, or fantasize about, the forcible exercise of power - the overmastering imposition of will. 

There is, indeed, an almost-sexual gratification evident in this kind of vicarious triumphalism - a quality of self-stimulation in the writing, which (when noticed) becomes often embarrassing, and disgusting. 

The power worship that Orwell described almost a century ago is, of course, still endemic among intellectuals across the board of political and religious affiliation; and in much greater volume due to the expansion of the mass and social media. 

Power worshipping fantasy is easy to find, and hard to avoid among intellectuals; apparently because it soon becomes habit-forming, addictive, seemingly a compulsion; and few are immune to it. 

Although there is plenty of the naked and raw power worship of the "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" type; this impulse may be somewhat concealed by euphemism and pseudo-therapeutic affectation. As when the cruel exercise of power is enjoyed, but self-excused by the pretence it is done "for their own good", or "the greater good". 

Power is an unavoidable reality of this world; as Tolkien recognized. We cannot opt-out of the subject.  

As usual with sins, the sin of power worship occurs at the level of motivation - and I mean real motivation, not manufactured rationalizations. 

We must judge motivations; yet motivations must be inferred - they cannot be proven from "evidence, or by "logic". 

The dominance of power worship in oneself, or another person, is therefore a matter that each must discern and judge for himself, as honestly as he is capable of doing. 

And few of us are spontaneously true witnesses to our own motivations - it takes an effort. 

For most Christians, officially, Omni-God is mandatory - free will/ agency... not really

The problem for traditional, orthodox mainstream Christian Churches is that they make a very Big Thing about the creator deity being Omni-God - but when it comes to the free will of Men... Well, freedom is accorded much, much less significance. 

On the one hand; Omni-God is absolutely mandatory - the church member must swear to that concept. 

On the other hand; each Man's freedom... well, it is supposed to be present and effective. Christians are supposed to be able to choose our values, commitments, behaviours - either because we get divinely evaluated on them, or else simply because these decisions have consequences related to salvation. 

However; both in theory and in practice, freedom may be (more, or less) dispensed-with by this type of Christianity. At the very least least, Man's freedom gets so hedged-about with so many caveats, that when it comes to the crunch - e.g. when it comes to a conflict between Man's Freedom and God's Omni-status... well, agency means little or nothing. 

Omni-God Must Be - but Man's Freedom is something rather difficult, something we are allowed to doubt and debate... 

In the crunch, Omni-God prevails and freedom is imprisoned, and perhaps forgotten. 

Looking at a couple of Protestant documents: The Thirty-Nine Articles of 1571 are (in theory, if not in practice) the confession of the Church of England, and all the other churches in the Anglican communion - third largest in the world. This has as its first item of faith, the Omni-God:

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible.

The Westminster Confession of Faith from 1646 is the basis for several nonconformist groups, including the Presbyterians. This is more explicit, and hard-line, in its Omni-Goddism than the 39 Articles; and requires affirmation of a conception of the God that would (of itself) probably satisfy the most ardent pure-monotheist: 

There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal most just and terrible in His judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; He is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth. In His sight all things are open and manifest; His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to Him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands. To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.

Having established the absolute requirement of belief in an Omni-God - what do these documents say of Man's freedom?  

39 Articles: The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Westminster: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. When God converts a sinner and translates Him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that, by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.

We see that, in contrast to the much-emphasized and freedom of God elsewhere described in these documents; in this earthly mortal life, Man is characterized mainly by un-freedom. 

Man is describing here as lacking the freedom in the divine sense - that freedom which is necessary for creation, and indeed (I would say) for love. 

In these confessions; Man cannot will good, but can only will a kind of double negation of rejecting evil, or will acquiescing to the good that is done-for-us and given-us by God the Father and Jesus Christ. 

What I see; is how far from the situation described in the Gospels, especially the Fourth Gospel (John) Christianity had developed by the time of these confessions. How close Christianity had come to the pure monotheism of Judaism or Islam; by which Man's freedom is (so it seems to me) almost solely related to the choice of obedience and submission to God's will, law, and commandments. 

Even this minimal version of human agency as obedience is, by my understanding, impossible when God is truly Omni. 

When God is everything necessary, Man's existence and "choices" mean nothing of real value.

When God is absolute and infinite in knowledge, power, and presence; this eliminates any need, space, or place for Man's agency to exist - so it gets ignored.

For orthodox, mainstream, traditional Christian Churches; the Omni-God is absolute, compulsory, officially-required, built-in. 

Human free agency - by contrast - is treated like an optional extra, a mere embellishment or decoration on the rock of faith; nice but (when the chips are down) not-really-necessary.   

Therefore; if a Christian believes in the reality and vital importance of his own free agency to salvation and theosis - to living this earthly mortal life...

Then, in order to be honest and coherent both; such a Christian ought to set-aside the Omni-God concept, or at least relegate Omni-God to subordinate status. 

And instead seek an understanding of God that acknowledges - and clearly and coherently explains - the nature, origin, truth, and goodness of each Man's freedom. 

Note: I leave it to the members of the two largest Christian communions - Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - to do the same exercise for the confessional documents of their own institutions. 

Why does mainstream-orthodox-traditional Christian theology underestimate Jesus?

My position is that Jesus brought us the new possibility of resurrection to eternal life in Heaven - a Heaven that (unlike this mortal world) is a place of beings motivated by freely-chosen love; and therefore a situation free from entropy/death and evil. 

Heaven is therefore a Second Creation. 

And Heaven is a place where Men are wholly Sons of God, therefore not just observers or enjoyers; but active participants in divine creation. 

Before Jesus this was not possible. Jesus's life, death and resurrection was necessary for this to happen.

And this is why Christianity is unique, and itself necessary for those who desire for themselves resurrected life in Heaven.

(It follows that Christianity is Not necessary for those who desire something else than resurrection and Heaven.) 

**

So why does mainstream, orthodox, traditional Christian theology fail to acknowledge this? 

I think there are two main reasons. 

One is the commitment to making Jesus's Jewishness into something theologically necessary. The other is the commitment to defining God monotheistically and as omnipotent. 

When theologians are committed to Jesus's necessary Hebrew ancestry (including that he was the Jew's prophesied Messiah, the rightful King of the Jews on earth); then they are compelled to integrate the Old Testament with the Gospels (including the Fourth Gospel "John" which ought to be regarded as primary).

Compelled, therefore, to emphasize the continuity with Jewish monotheism, and a specifically racial (and this-worldly) account of Jesus's work and achievement (because the Messiah was the rightful King of Jews in this-world). 

If Jesus is seen as part of an ancient and tribal process of a monotheistic God; then this apparently pushed some early Christianity theologians (whose view became dominant, then mandatory) to abolish Time from Christianity - which led them to elide, ultimately deny, the difference before and after Jesus.

(Because when Time is regarded as ultimately, divinely, unreal - then all Time is one, and there is no before or after: that sequential view of history is just an illusion from the mortal perspective.) 

Instead of being something newly possible, Heaven became regarded something more like a return - resumption of a paridisal state of blissful contemplation, worship, and joyful gratification.

The difference between Paradise and Heaven is that Paradise is essentially static. 

Paradise may be cyclically conceived (like the cycle of fights and feats in Valhalla), or a state of suspended-Time - with the abolition of Time. 

But in Paradise nothing essential changes: Paradise is not going anywhere - it Just Is. 

Whereas Heaven is properly understood as a transformation of this mortal life -- to become a life for all rooted wholly in love, having eliminated entropy/death and evil - such that love and all creation become everlasting, while remaining dynamic and growing. 

Heaven is a continuation - in a new form - of divine creation (or rather divine create-ing). 

Thus the term Second Creation for the work of Jesus... 

Thus Heaven is open-ended, dynamic, and changes creatively - eternally.  

Jesus can only bring something wholly new insofar as Jesus is a divine being distinct from God the primary creator. 

If there must be One God, and Jesus is divine; then Jesus is merely a part of God (as with the paradoxical-mystical mainstream conceptions of the Holy Trinity) - and since the One God has always been, and was primary creator: then Jesus is nothing new. 

If God is an Omni-God - omniscient, omnipotent, omni-present, impassible etc - then Time must abolished, and God must live outwith Time - therefore Jesus is nothing new, because there is nothing new. 

From the above it can be seen that (unnecessary, mistaken) decisions about metaphysical assumptions - presumably introduced by some early Christian, and probably Jewish, theologians; had the effect of rendering Jesus Christ theologically dispensable. 

(Whatever bald assertions to the contrary are so strenuously, but incoherently, asserted!)

This; because whatever Jesus did was also regarded as done by God the primary creator; and Jesus could not be separated from God the primary creator - therefore Jesus the mortal Man was inessential.

Indeed, because Time is ultimately illusory, whatever Jesus did was actually already-done before Jesus was conceived and born!

Consequently, through these and other stream of thinking that converged theologically; Jesus's work and transformative achievement was blurred, distorted and diminished; and this was done (I infer) in order to fit with Hebrew and monotheistic theological assumptions: assumptions that soon became theological dogmas.   

The god of fear, who demands sacrifice, propitiation, worship, obedience - actually Implies a Good and Loving Creator God

There is that within human beings which believes-in a god of fear - a god who, in some sense "rules" the human world, and who demands sacrifice, propitiation, worship and absolute obedience... 

I mean that god who is a characteristic underpinning and default of much monotheism, including that of many Christians (of many kinds) throughout history. 

Because this is indeed a god of fear; people are afraid to give up their habitual attitude of sacrifice, propitiation, worship, obedience. 

Such fear as The ruling passion is very evident when interacting with many Christians - whatever lip-service they pay to God being our loving Father. 

Such Christians do not really trust God, because they are afraid of God; and they are afraid of God because their mental image of God - their understanding of God - is of an all powerful, all-knowing, yet incomprehensible and ultimately alien entity.  

As I said, this image of a god of fear seems natural and instinctive to humans - but, despite nearly 2000 years of confusion and conflation - this image is not the Christian Creator God as revealed by Jesus Christ. 

The God revealed by Jesus does Not demand sacrifice, propitiation, worship, or obedience; but instead "love" - or rather, Christ's God does not "demand" love, but is the God for those who recognize His love, and who love Him, and Fellow Men.

Such is the revelation - yet we need not depend on revelation to know the Good and Loving Christian God - because this loving creator God is implied by reality. 

For there to be creation, there must be love. (If you really think about it...!) Only a loving God would create. 

And we (you and me, as individuals) could only know this, if that loving God loved us (you and me, as individuals). 

To put it the other way around - the god of fear is a real god - which is why he is universally recognized and responded to. But he is not the creator God; he is not the primary god. 

The primary god (call him "God") must be the creator, and the creator must be loving, else he would not create - and must love us as individuals, else we could not know anything. 

The god of fear is a secondary god; one who hates creation, who uses creation for self-gratification instead of love, who inverts creation against itself.  

Therefore the reality of that god of fear implies the god of love as primary creator. 

But this argument that the god of fear implies that the God of Love is creator is not a logical entailment; it is an argument about persons. 

To accept my argument entails that we already, personally, value love above all. If we do not already value love as primary, as our highest aspiration; then we can just as easily accept the inversions of the god of fear. 

So, you can see how much of being a Christian hinges upon the fact that god is Not incomprehensible*. 

Knowing about God is not the same as knowing God - just as knowing-about some human being is not the same as knowing-him. 

Or, properly expressed, how vital it is to being-Christian that we each know God! - and know God as we might know other people such as close family or a deep friend - experiential knowing of an individual. 

Unless we know God we cannot love God; and this means we must be capable of such love. 

And if we do know God: when we are-knowing God, we know His love for us, and ours for Him - and then we will Not fear Him.  

(Although; in this mortal life we cannot always be in this state of knowing, nor even most of the time - and then we must be faithful to our memory of knowing. Thus the need for faith.) 

*Note added: To clarify. If God is allowed (by metaphysical assumption) to be incomprehensible, and if it is allowed for us to assume that God had no personal motivation for creation (because God is assumed to be an entity "without passions" an entity that therefore cannot be motivated); then the reality of a god of fear doesn't imply a primary loving creator God. In other words, if the creator god is assumed to be incomprehensible in His motivations, then we cannot exclude that the god of fear is the primary god. This is why those Christians whose faith is shaped by a core belief in god's incomprehensibility, posit a god whose characteristics seem to be essentially the same as those of god as understood and described by the pure monotheisms.  

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

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

Bruce Charlton comment (edited by me): 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a case of God or Nothing. 

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

Me, now: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

My God is bigger than your God?

It strikes me that - through history - there have always been a lot of people who want their God to be the biggest and strongest (and indeed meanest!) - because that is the kind of God that they want to worship. Such people love to brag about the power of their God, and what it can do. 

Indeed, the desire to worship is often (apparently) itself a manifestation of this desire. 

Worship is sometimes about boasting of membership of strongest gang, of wanting (for obvious reasons) to be on the winning side - eventually, if not now. 

So powerful is this desire that it has led to grossly absurd contradictions:

As when people assert that their God is so totally powerful that it is above all human considerations and does not need anybody or anything else for any reason... 

But why such a God would have the slightest need, or desire-for, or interest-in being-worshipped - it is utterly unclear...

This matter of what God wants depends on God's presumed nature; on what kind of a God it is... or what kind of a person. 

For Christians in particular, it seems strange (except for centuries of propaganda and habit!) to suppose that a parent-God, whose children we are, would desire worship.

Especially given that any human being who wanted the world (indeed the universe!) to be organized around his own worship, would probably be a despicable monster. 

And especially given that Jesus Christ did not (to put it mildly!) behave in that way, did not demand worship - at least not in the usually-accepted records of his life. 

For me, once the matter had been raised to consciousness (by reading William Arkle) it became obvious that God does not want to be worshipped, and never has - although God is (like any loving parents) tolerant of the follies of his young children... at least when these follies are innocent or inevitable.

If not worship, then what? Well, ultimately (and to simplify), I suppose God wants much as many human beings (God's children) want - in those moments they are at their best and most thoughtful...

That is: God wants love, creativity in living (that is, each individual bringing some of his own uniqueness to creation); a life of strongly loving mutual relationships among family and friends; in a world without death and evil. 

And for that to happen; God wants those Beings who want the same, to become immortal and Good (by resurrection) and dwell in Heaven. 

And worship simply doesn't come into it. 

The West in 2024 is Not like a city under siege - it's much worse than that...

Back in 2011; I published a pessimistic little book about "political correctness" (i.e. mainstream totalitarian leftism) called Thought Prison; and at one point I compared the nations of The West to a city under siege in which the rulers of the city loathed the ordinary people; and therefore always took the side of the invaders. 

These rulers covertly aimed at the destruction of the city; opened the doors to the besiegers, gave them privileged status in the city; and confiscated shelter, food and clothing from the natives of the city to support the invaders. 

But, in 2011, I was way too optimistic!

Our situation in 2024 is much worse than the besieged city analogy; because I assumed in 2011 that the natives of the city would - at least - notice and understand what was going-on... 

But they don't see, and they don't get-it! 

The ordinary citizens of 2024 don't even recognize that their rulers - All The Rulers (all who actually or even potentially have power) - despise and hate them, and want them dead and gone! 

This failure of recognition is because the citizens hate and despise themselves - and for good reason, since their value-system is short-termist and merely hedonic: the ethics of the barnyard - peace, convenience, comfort, entertainment... 

An ideal for animals, not for Men. 

And it is a fact of history that such a materialistic value-system never has, and never shall, inspire men to courage and coherent action. 

This was recognized by George Orwell in 1941 comparing the sensible, materialistic HG Wells with Adolf Hitler: 

What has Wells to set against the ‘screaming little defective in Berlin’? The usual rigmarole about a World State, plus the Sankey Declaration, which is an attempted definition of fundamental human rights, of anti-totalitarian tendency... 

What is the use of pointing out that a World State is desirable? What matters is that not one of the five great military powers would think of submitting to such a thing. All sensible men for decades past have been substantially in agreement with what Mr. Wells says; but the sensible men have no power and, in too many cases, no disposition to sacrifice themselves. 

Hitler is a criminal lunatic, and Hitler has an army of millions of men, aeroplanes in thousands, tanks in tens of thousands. For his sake a great nation has been willing to overwork itself for six years and then to fight for two years more, whereas for the common-sense, essentially hedonistic world-view which Mr. Wells puts forward, hardly a human creature is willing to shed a pint of blood... 

Similarly, why are the Russians fighting like tigers against the German invasion? In part, perhaps, for some half-remembered ideal of Utopian Socialism, but chiefly in defence of Holy Russia (the ‘sacred soil of the Fatherland’, etc. etc.), which Stalin has revived in an only slightly altered from. 

The energy that actually shapes the world springs from emotions — racial pride, leader-worship, religious belief, love of war — which liberal intellectuals mechanically write off as anachronisms, and which they have usually destroyed so completely in themselves as to have lost all power of action.

Our situation now is even worse than 1941: much worse; since the West has been gutted even of the "emotions" so that the masses are utterly demotivated.

(Self-destructive - because blind and ignorant - toddler tantrums don't work as a motivation; not when The System is structured against you.) 

Meanwhile; the globalist totalitarian leadership class (the modern HG Wellses and their multi-billionaire sugar-daddies) have lost all residual positive desire or pretence genuinely to create peace, convenience, comfort, prosperity...

And instead glory in the sadism of engineered destruction - while deceiving the masses (and their own loyal middle management class of intellectual-workers) with a fantasy, fake, virtual world of sound-bites, pseudo-narratives, media-fuelled distractions, and moralized chaos.