Perfect love (of God) casteth out fear

It is hard to grasp, or at least hard really to believe, the deep truth that fear is the opposite of love; because it is only true of Christian love of God, specifically, and of 'fear' that is the fear of the future ('angst') specifically.

But, as such, fear accounts for a great deal of the worst kind of misery in life; and love accounts for a special quality that is seen in the most faithful Christians - such as saints.


In my experience, fear can sabotage life when it is going well; and when there is some adversity, fear can make that (perhaps minor) adevrsity into something overwhelmingly significant, debilitating - fear can make adversity into depression.

In worldly terms there is no honest and satisfying answer to worry about the future; and no way in which that worry can be limited.

It is the nature of this mortal life that everything is uncertain, and all kinds of things might happen: and they really might happen. After all, terrible things have happening, and are happening to people all the time; plus, in a theoretical sense terrible things could happen to me (or those I love) at any time. Nobody can definitely reassure us that they will not.

External events may (by human motivations, or from natural disasters) overwhelm us. Our health is potentially fragile, this debility, pain or lesion may never get better, may get worse, may cripple or kill us...


Once fear gets hold; any apparently small life event (and there are always plenty) may become amplified to a grinding, persistent, increasing obsession; and life here and now be ruined by fear of what may happen; because nobody can say for sure that it cannot happen. 

The only solution to this is love of God, and specifically love of the Christian God; who is the creator, who is our Father, and loves each person. The implication is that a God who is creator can order life and a God who is a loving Father can order life such that it will be for the ultimate benefit of each and every person. 

My faith and trust in, love of, such a God is the only solution to free-floating fear; because it is rational. It is rational to assume that whatever happens to us in life will be for some good reason, and that our primary job is to to respond properly to whatever happens, to learn from whatever happens.


Yet this is not fatalism, because for Christians each of us is an 'agent', is a 'Son of God' with 'free will' - that is we all are a temporary-mini-god; so despite that our job is to respond and learn, we are not passive victims of life, we are not merely acted-upon by life.

Instead, our situation is one in which the situations of our own personal lives are a consequence, a product, of God's evolving creation interacting with our own genuine creativity; our capacity to have a personal motivation and to initiate new thoughts and actions.

God is the one source of creation that makes the arena, and each of us are point-sources of creativity within that arena.   


What will happen is not predictable - but whatever does happen, God will be working (behind the scenes) to enable each of us to make the best of it; whether that best is sooner or later, during our mortal life or afterwards.

The confidence that this is true is faith-in, and love-of, God; and when faith and love are perfect - then trust in the future is perfect; and there is no fear.

The greatest saints therefore do not fear, and when we are (temporarily) in that saintly state of faith and love: neither do we.


But with most of us, we have not yet learned what the saints know; therefore our lives include serial, sometimes cumulative, challenges to our faith and love of God.

Something bad happens, or else we begin to be concerned that something bad might happen; and we respond with fear...

And it is by overcoming this fear with faith-in and love-of God - again and again, with different challenges - that we are learning how we need to be if we are to to make our personal choice in favour of the gift that Jesus Christ offers us: resurrected life in Heaven.

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.  

Fear is a sin - I mean existential fear

Fear is a sin, and indeed one of the very worst of sins - a sin that is capable of singlehandedly wrecking the whole of a human life.

I don't mean fear as an emotion - that is just a matter of an evolutionary adaptation to threats... I mean existential fear: that is, fear as a mind-set, fear as a basic stance towards life.

For Christians, to live in a mind-set of fear is to deny the basics - to deny that God the creator is our loving Father. Fear is, indeed, a variant of despair - which is the assumption that God has placed us in a hope-less situation - which would mean that God did not love us or was not the creator of this world.

Fear is so basic, so pervasive, that it is a primary motivator for many people much of the time - whole religions, whole civilisations are built primarily on fear: fear of the gods or God, fear of Life, fear of reality...

Christians have often - and still do - deliberately create fear - and I mean existential fear, the worst kind, the worst kind of sin - as a way of supposedly enforcing faith. This is crazy if it is sincere... certainly it is wicked and counter-productive. When this happens, something has gone terribly wrong - sin has overcome the Christian message, the Gospel has been perverted.

Our lives can become absolutely dominated by fear; and this can even feel like a moral imperative. Morality gets mixed up with fear of hubris, superstitious fear that if we do NOT fear, then the fates will be revenged upon us...

Life, by this account, ought to be a continual submission, a continual propitiation, a continual attempt not to offend the tyrannical and jealous and vengeful forces that are assumed to control things... If we do NOT fear then we will be crushed, to teach us not to presume, teach us not be pride-full... The idea arises that continual and expected and mandatory fear is the core way of avoiding pride. Fear becomes a duty.

The fear-full are prone to inculcate this same existential dread in others - perhaps on the excuse that people need to be afraid or else they will not avoid sin... But this is an appalling thing to do to others - fear can rapidly and permanently get out of control, grow like a cancer in a person or a community - and kill it. Eternally kill it.

Systematically to inculcate existential fear is a double sin - because, unlike personal sins, it is deliberate and avoidable - and this requires repentance even more than fear in oneself. 

Existential fear is NOT Christian, it is a failure of faith...

If we do fear then it must be repented; and I mean must - not because we will be punished by God if we don't repent our fear, but that by fearing we have already rejected God implicitly... we have already rejected the God of love and rejected our relationship with him... We have specifically rejected the fact that he is our loving Father and we are instead insisting that God is a tyrant who requires that we live in continual and systematic terror. 

So fear is a sin, and a terrible sin which can destroy everything: it must be repented. We need to want to be free of fear, we need to aspire to a sublime confidence about life: that is what God wants from us.

The 'problem' of love and Christianity (gnosticism is an unavoidable consequence of organisation)

Love* is the basis of real Christianity; but in practice Christianity is seldom real.

As I said yesterday, if we regard gnosticism as the replacement of love by knowledge, as the focus of Christianity; then this form of pseudo-Christianity has been and is usually dominant.

It is much easier to have a religion of knowledge than of love; and the less spiritual a society becomes - the more that this is the case. With knowledge at the centre; Christianity can become the subject of organisation - hierarchy and specialisation; of education and training, of initiation and ordination.

Churches often exclude, discipline and expelled people for inadequate or incorrect knowledge - but seldom or never for insufficient love; or for the opposite of love such as excessive fear, resentment or pride. Converts and aspirants are tested on their knowledge, not their love.

Christians, especially Christian leaders (and aspiring leaders), may falsely claim to be motivated by love. When asked for proof of love, people either suggest that it is wholly subjective, private and inaccessible - and therefore cannot or should not be judged and evaluated.

Or else (in trying to avoid such 'relativism') they invent 'proxy-measures of love', and thereby ignore the reality of love. Thus, people 'prove' their motivation-by-love, by (for example) doing impressive works of public charity, or performing extreme ascetic feats. In other words, but in a different way; they replace love with... knowledge... again.

What we can see is that any kind of institutional structure requires 'objective measures' and that real love is unsuitable to be such a measure. Therefore, any and every form of organisation is intrinsically gnostic.

(Of course, love and knowledge of love are two different things; a young child may love, but not know that he loves. Love may exist without knowledge. Nonetheless, Christianity can only be discussed if love can be known.)

It is a strange business and very different from the rest of life! For a Christian, love is not just real - but the reallest things of all; not just the proper focus of mortal life, but the actual basis of the creation of everything.

(Note: One who cannot love, cannot be a Christian - the implications of the two great commandments (to love God and neighbour) and the whole of the Fourth Gospel make that fact crystal clear. This formulation is seldom stated, perhaps because many people - unlike Jesus - have tried to make Christianity universal. Whether people actually exist who cannot love is a separate matter - but if they do exist, then they cannot be Christian, and could not have life everlasting - 'could not' simply because they would not follow Jesus through death to resurrection.)   

And yet love is apparently not amenable to detection and measurement... and yet it actually is. Love is knowable, indeed for a Christian love must be knowable; because the alternative is that love is subject to unlimited self-deception and unbounded false assertion.

As so often, all this mystery and problem is a consequence of inappropriate abstraction. Because love is a matter of common sense and common experience - within the family situation.

We may know of another's love, when that is a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter... We know of another's love when we are in a loving situation. Indeed, such known-love is as certain as anything can be, it is (when present) the most powerful motivator in the world - leading to extreme, even ultimate, forms of self-sacrifice and self-abnegation.

But love is not open-endedly scaleable. We can know of love in a loving family situation, and some analogous family-like situation; but can know of love only in such situations.

Love is straightforwardly knowable, and indeed 'measurable', within the family situation; but becomes an insoluble problem - is made an insoluble problem - when we try to make love the focus of an institution, a legal system, a polity...

In this sense gnosticism is an unavoidable consequence of organisation. 


*Love needs to be understood in a 'metaphysical' sense that includes 'creation'. It was Love that both motivated and enabled divine creation; love that enables creation both to have novelty and to cohere; to develop and evolve and remain aligned in purpose; love that enables many beings (each with free will, with 'agency') to participate in the unity of creation - and so on.

The major test of these times is Fear - the temptation is Safety

We are tested every day by the sin of fear. And the temptation - offering a delusory escape from fear - is safety. 

If we compare our post 2020 world with life a few decades ago; it is clear that we are now controlled primarily by the negative sin of fear (with a side-order of spiteful resentment: the stock-in-trade of socialism, feminism, antiracism and the other leftisms). These are negative sins because they are directed-against. 

By contrast to the fear-dominated present, in the past other, and more 'positive' sins - desires-for-something rather than resistance-to-something - were often more dominant: sins such as power/ conquest, (capitalist) greed and (sexual) lust.

 

It is pretty obvious that nowadays the world is 'managed' primarily by the inculcation of fears; and by attempting to trigger those in fear, to 'escape' by means of fake-solutions that promote the totalitarian-demonic agenda.  

Major examples are the birdemic fear - with totalitarian lockdown/ masking/ social-distancing and the (unnecessary, ineffective, harmful) peck offering pseudo-safety. And global warming as the fear - with world economic destruction with totalitarian control (aka. the 'sustainable' Green Economy) as fake-escape. 

(Non-coincidentally; 'economic suicide' is also the major policy-answer to fear of the recent Fire Nation/ Earth Nation.)  

Fear is also the stock-in-trade of the 'secular Right': fear of mass immigration, violent social breakdown, starvation, civil war, mass poisoning and other health threats... 

The temptations, the fake solutions, on the secular Right include personal survivalism (prepping), a type of rigorous healthism/ body-building, organized aggressive political resistance, a Strong Man leader restoring militaristic patriarchy...

The difference between the left and the non-religious Right; is that secular Right fears are based on broadly realistic threats and potentially effective answers; while the mainstream Left fears are manufactured from very little - or nothing at all; and the proffered 'escapes' from fear make matters worse. 

Also, in general, among those who are living in fear and strategizing to escape; the typical leftist advocates passive and Establishment-obedient responses; while the secular Rightist is more likely to respond to his own fear with (at least verbal) aggression and (at least threats of) defiance. 

Yet, discourse concerning the reality or fakery of the fear, and the effectiveness or counter-productiveness of proposed escapes, are themselves part of the problem. 

Because fear is a sin in and of itself, it compounds the sin to try and escape fear by attempting to eliminate that which is feared. 

In a practical sense; it will not work - because yielding to any fear creates vulnerability to other fears; so that all escapes lead into a positive-feedback loop of fear generating fear. 

Since, on the one hand, the supply of fears is unlimited; whereas, on the other hand, mounting any potentially-effective response to even a single fear is time-, effort- and resource-consuming; constrained by multiple personal, societal and technical factors. 

But in a spiritual sense, matters are simple - fear is a sin and must be identified as such; then repented, then itself defeated. 

The one-and-only appropriate and effective response to any and all fears - and a response that has unbounded scope - is to trust in the power and love of God; and to frame the fears of this mortal life in the context of eternal Heaven. 

The proper spiritual response to fear is to eliminate fear - the sinful delusion is to address the supposed cause of the fear. 

(Whether or not we, personally, should engage in an active or passive attempt to remove the specific source of any specific fear; is a secondary, contingent, pragmatic matter - and thus always contentious.) 

This, therefore, is the nature of the test of these times. On a daily basis we will be assaulted by fears, and probably these assaults will have some effect - and we will experience fear. 

We therefore need to identify 'the latest fear' as always an evil - whether it is real or fake. 

And instead of immediately seeking for 'safety' and escape-from-the-fear in some physical activity (regardless of whether that activity is potentially-effective, or not)...

The proper response is that we need to repent fear (any fear) and bring to mind that God is our loving parent and the ongoing-creator of this world - and that those who desire it, may follow Jesus Christ to everlasting resurrection after this mortal life. 

Fear is the recurring test, and love of God is the proper response. 

Only after fear has been thus conquered, may we attempt to address its supposed cause.  

As such; then testing-times may become learning-times; and every repeated and novel demonic assault and delusion, may be converted to an increase in the strength of our Christian orientation. 

Dealing with fear by personal thoughts of faith and love; not via groupism, nor with optimism, pride, or safety-seeking

People always want to know "what to do" - and this need is used to manipulate us.

Because all the standard available notions of "doing good" and improving-the-world are long since captured and put to work for strategic evil...

But, of course, we really do need to know what to do! 

There's always a lot of the sin of fear about; it is infectious and people also have a tendency to seek it (a misplaced sense of "duty" to face the "reality" of "the worst" (in practice, "the worst" as interpreted and presented by the mass media) and overcome it. 

Chronic, existential fear isn't something that can be avoided or eradicated (at least, not for those capable of the experience). 

Yet we do genuinely need to overcome; we need to deal with fear; so we need to consider how to deal with it.

Typical wrong ways of dealing with fear include optimism - adopting a belief that the feared thing cannot or will not happen; or pride - that if it does happen, I personally (and my gang) can overcome it. 

Another wrong way is to seek safety from the feared - to flee it, or defend against it. 

These are bad ways of dealing with fear; because they are negative, they try to use one sin to fight another. 

Thus - optimism is dishonest, pride is this-worldly, safety is impossible in this mortal earthly life... 

Others fight fear by trying to build protective alliances, "groups" - with the implication that fear is something we collectively intend to defeat, sometime in the future, so long as we can persuade or coerce other people to join un in the fight...

But fear needs to be fought immediately - not in the future, and this means fought by each person as-he-now-is, and individually. 

We must take personal responsibility to do what is needed, without delaying for conditions to improve.  

The first faith required is that God would not leave us without the necessary resources. So anybody and everywhere can do what is needed - it's a matter of knowing what. 

Also, the answer will be (must be) for individuals and not dependent on social factors, will be immediate, can be consciously adopted - and is a matter of free action. 

The answer is therefore going to be neither hard nor abstract - and shall be within anyone's grasp who chooses it. 

Since we know that the answer must be possible to happen individually, immediately, and therefore directly. 

It's pretty well-known among Christians that we should fight fear with love and faith (a loving kind of faith, faith in the ultimate power of love).

But people get hung-up on exactly what such action means in practice, here-and-now...

For instance; faith is usually weak, and often weak because external in source, self-contradicting, and neither grasped nor inwardly endorsed. 

Faith will not overcome fear unless is real and strong to us personally, which means experientially. 

And of course Christian faith needs to be in God the creator, known as personal, parental, and good (not, therefore, faith another kind of God with other characteristics) 

Love is the basis of divine creation; and love cannot be dictated - therefore to be effective for good, love must be genuine. 

We can only make a positive difference for that which we really love. 

And as for action - the false assumption of our materialist civilization is that action must be physical to be effective; whereas if action is to be individual and immediate - then such action needs to be known as spiritual not physical; and thinking recognized as (potentially) an action that affects divine creation. 

So it is possible for any person to do positive good for whatever and whoever he really loves, and almost instantly; by thinking upon the subject on the above lines. 

But the needful will probably only click, and happen, pretty briefly...

Because the conditions necessary are rather delicate. And what it is that happens is known primarily by direct apprehension; rather than indirectly via images, words, concepts and the like...

Description and communication come after the needful has happened, and will be approximate at best - that should be expected, and not regarded as a weakness or refutation of what has happened. 

All of which also needs a kind of faith in the way that "things work" in divine creation  - by love and spiritually - also, faith that God will take notice and incorporate what brief yet significant good we may accomplish in such ways. 

 

Fear for others (getting rid of it)

If you are like me, you don't much (or, not for long) fear for yourself - but for those you love: essentially family.

Yet, fear is an evil; so we ought not to indulge this fear either - but should cast it out. But how?

The best idea I've come across is to focus on the knowledge that - because God the creator is our loving Father - he can and does ensure that all of us are able (at all times) to follow our divine destiny - and to prepare to follow Jesus through the transformation of death, and to life eternal in Heaven.

All means all; God never leaves anyone bereft (insofar as creating the world makes that possible) including those we love, and fear-about - so we should Not fear.

But this is a thing that each can and must only do for himself or herself - in this respect we are 'on our own' in an ultimate sense. We cannot - ultimately - protect those we love; so fear is futile.

That does not, however, mean that we are each on-our-own and unaided. As well as God in his continual work of creation, and the continual presence of the Holy Ghost (whom I believe to be the universal spirit of Jesus Christ) - love is a reality in creation.

(Love is, indeed, that which makes possible creation.)

I understand this to mean that real love (of specific persons) is a real factor in life, death and resurrection; in the sense that it is always there for those who choose to be aware of it. Those whom we love are therefore potentially able to know and benefit-from our love; they can know that they are loved by us at all times and places; in all situations.

And this is the best possible thing that we can do for them.

I find this reflection is often effective in casting-out my fear for those I love.

False opposites in political correctness: e.g. Love, Hate, Fear, Pity, Disgust

*

This is only one aspect of a general abuse of language, but it is striking how the Liberal/ politically correct impute to their enemies attitudes which are false opposites of the attitudes of the Left.

*

For example, there are various groups, often 'victim groups' for which the PC express Love and Admiration.

They impute to their enemies what they regard as the opposite of Love and Admiration, which they claim is is Fear and Hatred - hence the imputed label of 'x'-phobia' used to characterize the non-PC.

However, although some victim groups are indeed feared, and others are perhaps hated - the true attitude may more accurately be characterized as Pity and Disgust.

*

In effect, Leftism conflates Fear and Disgust.

Yet Fear and Disgust are, according to a lot of research, distinct emotions, with different biological functions, instantiated in different parts of the brain.

And of course they feel different - we might fear a savage dog, but be disgusted by that dog's excrement. 

*

So if a group evokes disgust, this is a very different matter from evoking fear.

But - for the group under discussion, it is much 'cooler' and more self-gratifying to suppose that you are feared than to admit that others find you disgusting.

People often, indeed usually, fear high status groups - but if they are disgusted by a group, then they regard that group as being of intrinsically lower status.

A person might even want to join a group that they hate (if the group has high status and if they got the chance); but would almost-never want to join a group which evokes their disgust - unless as a deliberate act of humility (a Saintly act, perhaps).

*

Furthermore, Disgust is distinct from Hatred.

In general the attitude towards entities which evoke disgust is to keep one's distance - it is akin to a fear of infection or contamination.

Disgust - if carried through - may lead to destruction of that which evokes disgust; as one might exterminate plague rats to remove the threat of infection.

The Nazi attitude toward Jews seem to have been one of disgust, indeed disgust, specifically, was carefully cultivated by Nazi propaganda.

*

What prevents the destruction of that which Disgusts is pity.

If humans are threatened by something that disgusts them; then they may try to destroy that threat.

But if not threatened, they may instead pity.

But usually people don't like to be pitied - they want to be admired. And if they can't be admired they prefer to be feared than pitied.

(Yet, in reality, we are all piteous creatures; and it is pride which makes us resent the pity of others.)

*

So a group which actually evokes Pity and Disgust may deny this is true, and claim that they are instead Feared and Hated - yet, it may be pity which defends that group from the consequences of disgust.

Disgust coupled with Fear may be a deadly combination.

*

Hatred is more complex and variable in its manifestation - it is more like a belief that others have evil intentions; and this may or may not be true.

It is rational to hate that which is motivated to harm you. 

In a sense, then, hatred is potentially a virtuous human emotion - although, of course, one which may lead to evil.

For Christians it seems that hatred is necessary (e.g. 'hate the sin, love the sinner'), or at least allowed; while resentment (refusal to forgive) is completely forbidden - so resentment-free hatred might be a valid and virtuous state.

*

This, then, is another false antithesis of the Left: the Left claim to Love, and impute Hatred to their enemies.

The Left (therefore?) regard Hatred as a sin, indeed the cardinal sin - and advocate that people should never allow themselves to experience hatred.

*

(What actually happens if Hatred is suppressed is that it may be replaced by Disgust. And Disgust leads to the desire to avoid contamination, to cleanse that which is disgust-evoking. When they will not allow themselves to Hate their enemies views but Love the enemy himself; then Leftists may begin to feel disgust for their enemies as entities: to regard them as noxious vermin. And people may actively seek-out and exterminate that which disgusts them - especially if they fear 'contamination' by the disgust-evoking group.)

*

But the opposite of Love is not hatred but Pride.

This Leftist error of assuming the opposite of Love is Hate therefore does the further harm of disguising the cardinal sin of Pride; and Pride becomes - for the Left - a virtue.

Think about it: the greatest Christian sin is remade into a Leftist virtue. 

*

So these false antitheses have a way of ramifying, and causing damage in all kinds of places.

As Charles Williams used to have it (I paraphrase):  

Precision, Precision - always and everywhere. The devil is imprecise.

*

An Anti-Christian world without religion

One of the most persistent, most false, notions is that New Leftism (political correctness, SJWs, Wokeness) is the modern mainstream religion.

Well, it is not; it is an Anti-Christian anti-religion of mere opposition; and this can be seen all around us. The unprecedented insane/ evil reaction to a fake-nothing birdemic and the way that their own enslavement is encouraged and supported by the mass public shows the difference between a God-denying society - and the past, when all societies had a religion.

All people are subject to fear and despair; but when someone has a religion - almost any religion - but for us it must be Christianity (of some kind), so long as it is coherent - fear and despair has limits.

Religion provides a negative-feedback against fear and despair by its larger coherent perspective, its transcendental and supernatural perspective. This is what we lack, and what our culture fights against acknowledging.

Lacking any religion, hating Christianity; we cannot even begin a discussion about how fearful, how despairing people ought to be given the scope and nature of the threat and the unpredictabilities of life.

For our Godless emotivist ('utilitarian') morality: it is All About Feelings, and feelings are 'the bottom line'.

Whoever/ Whatever can (and does) best manipulate feelings - whoever/ whatever is able to create the most-powerful feelings - is master of Modernity.

And that is The Establishment - with its instruments of the mass media, the educational system, and the linked-bureaucracies of officialdom. 

Fear is so powerful a motivator, that (for us, here, in The West) it can be defeated only by genuine Faith. And the Faith of most Western Christians is very-clearly too-feeble for the job.

In a nutshell (and please pay attention!) Christian Faith works by Hope and Love - Hope for Everlasting Resurrected Life in Heaven which comes from the work of Jesus, and is anyone's gift who chooses consciously to accept that gift...

And knowing (from personal, direct, intuitive experience) the reality of God's Love for each of us, and our Love for the person of God-the-creator.

As the mass of people clearly exemplify here and now, Love of people is not really possible without love of and by God.

Without Love of God; people of The West have-become monsters of selfish short-termism, justified by their fear.


With Love of our Loving God, we can know that God's creation (here, now, for me personally) is for our experience and learning - that learning being directed at following Jesus to Heaven ('salvation'), and the eternal life we shall experience in Heaven (theosis).

With this, we get control of fear - fear is dissolved by our Love, sustained by the Hope, derived from Faith.

If not then fear will remain your master; and will lead on to despair.

Fear as Sin, Sin as death (revisited)

It is very difficult, sometimes, to avoid being gripped by fear - and by 'fear' I do not mean that acute emotion which leads to adaptive behaviours such as 'fight or flight'; but that chronic existential fear (or 'angst') which gets hold of the emotions, distorts thinking, and Will Not Let Go. 

It is important to recognize that such fear is a sin. 

It is a sin because it is is a consequence of lack of faith (i.e. lack of trust, lack of confidence...) in the goodness, love and creative power of God; and the salvation of Jesus Christ.

And sin itself is - in its deepest meaning - death (including that which conduces Men to choose death). That is, death as understood as the severance of the (eternal) soul from the (dead) body; with consequent loss of our agency, our consciousness of our-selves - so that we would become witless, demented, discarnate 'ghosts'. When Jesus offered the possibility of saving Men from 'sin' - it was this condition from which he was saving Men.  

 

There are always causes for fear; and fear may (it seems) strike anyone. I have read many accounts of World War One pilots, that make clear that the most courageous people one can imagine - men who have risked death, three times a day for months on end, in single combat with superior enemy forces - can, and eventually will experience, paralyzing fear. 

And such fear of death can be so extreme and unbearable, as itself to lead to either deliberate, or semi-deliberate, seeking of death - death to 'put an end to' (as it seems) the fear of death.

But even in what is apparently the safest and most secure individual lives - perhaps especially in such lives - there may be an intense dread of losing safety and security. 

Thus, fear is part of the human condition. 

If so, if sin is unavoidable - how can it be sin? And how can sin be overcome if it is part of the human condition?  

Well - sin is part of the human condition; and sin cannot be overcome fully and finally in this mortal life on earth... 

But this inevitability of failure does not matter in the ultimate scheme of things, since this mortal life on earth is intended as a time of learning and preparation, a time of tests and opportunities - the benefits of which learning may be 'enjoyed' through eternity (in resurrected Heavenly life), as well as providing glimpses and hope for that eternity.  

The inevitability of fear is, in a sense, liberating! Because it diminishes the delusory hope of avoiding fear, and puts the emphasis on what we do when we fear. 

In sum: fear cannot be avoided, it will always come back again - and again; but fear can be dealt with when it does return. 

Fear can be dealt with every time it returns, no matter how many times it returns - and it is this dealing-with fear that is what does us good...

And does us good, not here in this mortal life on earth; but good ultimately and eternally. 

This way of understanding sin (which, in my case, derives-from a close reading of the Fourth Gospel) is liberating, and hope-full; since it is attainable by anyone; even (perhaps especially) those most prone to fear. 

Each experience of fear is an occasion for recognizing that it arises only from the weakness of our faith; and repenting that fact. That is: recognizing that our existential angst about 'the future', about what might or will happen - is a sin arising from the mortal inadequacy of that confidence and hope which ought to come from our belief in God and following of Jesus. 

It is such 'knowing and affirming what is right' that constitutes repentance. 

Such a perspective (albeit temporarily achieved) may provide some here-and-now relief (albeit temporary) from the fear that afflicts us. It may stop such fear from getting worse, rather than (as otherwise usually happens) feeding upon itself. 

But even if no relief is obtained, even when we cannot 'make ourselves' feel the love of God and Jesus we know we ought to feel; the very act of repentance is valuable - permanently valuable. 

It is this knowing what is right, and wanting-to-want what is right, that is most important.

The moral message of the movie - Harry Potter Deathly Hallows part 2

*

I have been to see the newly released Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2.

I can pronounce it an excellent movie - in particular the middle section from the death of Snape, which packed as powerful an emotional punch as any movie I have seen.

At any rate I was reduced to a blubbing wreck by it for a continuous period of some 20 minutes; which hasn't happened to me with many films, and none before quite so much as this one.

*

As I had predicted, this last part of the series continued to delete almost all of the the deepest moral and spiritual theme of the books - which, as I discussed recently, are concerned with the soul:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/07/soul-in-harry-potter-and-deathly.html

*

However, this leaves open the question of what is the deepest moral message of the movie, and by implication of the whole series of movies. What was it that moved me so?

The deepest theme of the movies, in my opinion, is the validity and importance of steadfast, unrequited, disinterested, sacrificial Love.

*

This theme gets a double emphasis from the stories of two major characters of Harry and Snape.

Harry is motivated explicitly and throughout by love for his dead parents, who died when he was a small baby, and of whom he has (initially) no memories. Ultimately, this love leads him to allow himself to be killed by Voldemort. He allows himself to be sacrificed for love.

Snape, we discover towards the end of the last book, was motivated covertly and throughout by love for Harry's dead mother Lily; a love which was unrequited (except, partially, during their childhood) - and for which he endures much fear, horror, hazard and suffering until he is finally killed by Voldemort. His whole life, since the death of Lily, has indeed been a sacrifice, a martyrdom, for love.

*

Harry and Snape's greatest love is for the dead, indeed the focus of their love overlaps; and this love is not actively reciprocal.

Since Harry's parents are dead and 'therefore', so far as he is aware until near the end, the love is unilateral; Snape's love was explicitly unilateral since Lily repudiated him. Yet both Harry and Snape both voluntarily acquiesce to death for this love.

What can this mean?

*

In a modern, worldly secular morality, unrequited love, love for the dead, suffering unto death, martyrdom are all behaviours generally regarded either pathetic, stupid or pathological.

Harry and Snape would therefore be regarded (from a modern and this-wordly perspective) as losers, creeps or nutters.

Yet, clearly this is not the case in the world of the movies (and even less so for the books): which implies that Harry and Snape's love is not worldly, but transcendental.

The implicit validity of Harry and Snape's love is implicitly pointing-offstage at some transcendental, presumably divine, source of validation - whereby disinterested and sacrificial love is worthy and admirable.

*

Also, implicitly, is lurking the idea that Harry's and Snape's whole lives are made not just purposeful but also meaningful (that is to say their lives are redeemed) by their love (this unrequited love); and therefore that the love of specific persons can be a proxy for the love of God (since how else could their love be a saving love?).

The redemptive nature of sacrificial love is particularly obvious in the case of Snape who is a mostly-wicked man redeemed by only two virtues - Courage in pursuit of Love: but these virtues are enough.

*

So, even the Harry Potter movies - which have substantially deleted the deepest (and Christian) stratum of the Harry Potter books - are predicated on a vision of human life and behaviour in terms of unconditional love -- a perspective that is (to say the least) unfashionable; and would indeed be regarded by mainstream modern morality as at best incomprehensible, more likely pitiful, and at worst frankly deluded.

*

Note: In the movies especially, the workings of disinterested sacrificial love are much more obvious and focused for Snape than for Harry (Harry has several other motives for his self-sacrifice, many of them straightforward and mainstream; such as helping his friends, appeasing Voldemort, trying to prevent suffering etc.) - and I suspect that this clarity and singleness of motivation accounts for much of the widespread fascination with the character of Snape.

*

If you don't want freedom, you don't want creation; and you don't want Heaven; but...

Freedom is of-thinking - freedom is "pure" thinking from one's true (and divine) self - and recognizing that such thinking is not private and subjective, but a part of reality. 

Yet such freedom is not wanted by most people most of the time; not even among self-identified Christians (who might, on principle, be supposed to value freedom more than most). 

Thus, people will not allow their own thinking to be free -- we block and constrain our thinking, and subordinate it to external influences, and desire the same (even more so) for the thinking of others -- and we do this for reasons that seem Good and have partial validity.  

Yet the consequences of undervaluing our freedom and the freedom of others may be serious, eternally; because unfreedom means the rejection of Heaven. 

One who does not desire freedom may desire a Paradise of peace, pleasure, and without suffering; but he does not desire Heaven. Because heaven is a domain of creation , and creation entails freedom. 

Thus one who does not give a core valuation to freedom will reject Heaven, will reject Jesus Christ's offer of resurrection and salvation.  

It is a matter of common observation of our-selves and others that people often set a very low priority on freedom, regard other things as more important: we may prefer pleasure, freedom from suffering, security, or continuation of some sin - resentment, lust, pride etc. 

Indeed that we often fear and resist freedom in ourselves - and do so even more so in other Beings (we fear the freedom of people, animals, plants, the mineral world...). 

And such caution about freedom is rational, sensible, truth-based! Because it is only in Heaven, where mutual love of all Beings is the fundamental and continuous principle, that freedom can or should be unconstrained. It is only in Heaven where freedom necessarily leads to creation.

Freedom plus Love equals Creation...  But, on the other hand; freedom without Love is selfish desire. 

It is therefore rational to fear the freedom of those who do not love us. 

It is rational for those who desire to be Good; to fear their own freedom - since they know that (in this mortal life)    love does not always or fully rule their motivations. 

In sum: Freedom is thinking (thus living) from-oneself; but that is insufficient in a world of other Beings, it does not take account of other Beings except insofar as they gratify us. 

Thus, freedom without love is demonic - and regards the rest of creation as ripe for subordination to its own gratification.  

Yet indifference to freedom is potentially demonic too: especially indifference to the freedom of others - and the idea that "the rest of the world" might be/ out to be subordinated to our own untrammeled freedom to think/ say/ do... whatever we want. 

[This, indeed seems, to be a recurrent demonic temptation - to couple individual freedom with personal gratification without reference to love. The 'offer' is of a situation in which the individual is presented with a absolute-freedom fantasy of doing whatever he wills, whenever he wills it. As for other people/ beings... well in one version everyone is supposed to get this freedom, and we get the prospect of an eternal war of each against all; in another version (popular in recent decades) our personal freedom is sustained and implemented by the reciprocal subordination of others to our will - presented as being 'for their own good' - or, 'for the good of the planet'.] 

The situation is that only those who genuinely value freedom as a core and indispensable basis of life, will want Heaven - because heaven (unlike Paradise, Nirvana, or Hell) is a place of creation - and creation entails freedom. 

Yet, this absolute, non-negotiable ideal of freedom also requires a full acknowledgement that freedom is only Good when it is absolutely subordinated to love; and in this mortal life, love is not absolute, therefore freedom will not be subordinated to love either fully or always. 

There is no paradox or conflict here; there is no place for compromise or a 'middle way' - it is a simple reality rooted in the difference between mortal life and heaven, and a recognition that what is not just possible but absolute in Heaven; is only partly possible and never absolute here on earth.

The Christian will desire and value freedom without reservation in Heaven; while recognizing that here on earth there are inevitable and necessary constraints that mean we require discernment; and that the path of Good will usually tend to be expedient, temporary, and involving compromises. 

For this to happen; I submit that Christians must know freedom while in this mortal life; freedom in thinking. And to know this, we need to seek it consciously and explicitly; because the powers arrayed against freedom in thinking are so formidable.

Yet, at the same time, Christians need to discern and be selective about the consequences of this necessary freedom; because love is greater than freedom. In this mortal life, our free thinking may lead us away from love - it may undervalue other persons/ Beings; freedom of thinking may become negative, may be merely freedom-from instead of a positive manifestation of our innate partially-divine nature.

And double-negation (freedom-from) is a spiritual disaster when adopted as a positive life-program; since it so effectively masks a strategy of active evil.  

Love first, creation, freedom... All are needed, and all are indivisible; because related aspects of the same divine motivation - but love must come first. 

Why should we 'love one another'? (The Fourth Gospel)

There is a tendency to regard the injunction that Christians should Love One Another as something like a Law, imposed upon Man - with the main significance being that if you break the Law, then you will be 'sent' to Hell*.

Certainly that seems to be the way that this is used against Christians: non-Christians and anti-Christians are forever accusing Christians of insufficient love towards all-other-people.

Yet the appearance of the phrase Love One Another within the Fourth Gospel shows that that meaning can't be the one intended as primary.

Here is the context:

John 13:31 Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him. 32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him. 33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. 34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. 36 Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards.

Jesus is talking with his disciples about his own glorification - his ascension to Heaven. The new commandment to love one another is about what they need to do to follow Jesus to Heaven.

Love between Men seems to be a part of the 'process' by which Men can follow Jesus through death to life everlasting; presumably mutual love between the disciples it is a part of life everlasting.

To my mind, from its context; 'love one another' seems to be primarily (not exclusively) about life beyond death. The way I see it is that it is love for Jesus that enables Men to follow him through death; and love of 'one another' that makes this more than a solitary glorification. It is about the loving family of glorified men, following Jesus together.

It is not an injunction for everybody to love everybody, but a specific injunction for the disciples to love each other. We assume that 'love one another' applies to all followers of Jesus: that is to all disciples - but there seems nothing to suggest it goes beyond that circle.

And its importance is rooted in the life to come: which means that 'love one another is not about 'getting to Heaven' so much as what happens when we get there. Following Jesus is not a matter of escaping something we fear as it is a matter of joining something we want.

Love one another is therefore not really a passport to heaven (even less a get-out-of-Hell card); but a fundamental insight into the nature of life everlasting, which is being offered by Jesus. Because love is the basis and matrix of the New Life - it is what hold-together God's creation.

Love is analogous to the 'unified field' that supposedly makes the universe cohere and develop; but love is about relationships between persons: that is the ultimate metaphysical reality.


*Note: The Fourth Gospel doesn't use the word Hell, nor say much about the horrors of the life after death without Christ; nor a place of torment - even to his accusers whom Jesus characterises as children of Satan; but focuses almost-wholly on the 'benefits' of Life Everlasting, or 'Heaven'. The overall message is of a New Possibility, a possibility that must be chosen.

Ultimately; there is no Duty to love God (an uncomfortable but necessary truth)

The developments of human consciousness over the past two thousand years have exposed what are often experienced as some uncomfortable truths about the Christian's ultimate relationship to God. 

At the time of Christ, Men did not experiences themselves as fully differentiated individuals - life was (to a significant, often large) extent; experienced as a group-member. 

And society was organized in the same way - men were classified by nation, tribe, caste, occupation, family-membership etc. -- and these relationships were mandatory and governed by duties on both sides. Duty was, indeed, a foundational virtue in such societies. 

The existentialist feeling, first articulated specifically in the early 21st century by Heidegger, of experiencing oneself as having been "thrown" into this world - without consent; seems to have been almost-entirely absent. Men came to consciousness already belonging "in" the world, in their situation; and accepting the duties thereof.

Duty was necessary (or, at least, expedient) because in a society thus organized; those who shirked their duties were coercively transferring responsibilities onto other Men's shoulders. 

The undutiful were parasitizing on the group - and thereby benefitting (perhaps thriving) at the expense of the dutiful. 

This leeching behaviour could not be allowed to expand beyond some small size, or else the group would inevitably be destroyed.  

In such societies the Christian religion, like other religions, was often treated as a matter of group membership. 

In Anglo Saxon or Viking England, when the King became Christian, it was felt to be natural and inevitable that all his subjects underwent mass baptism - and believed. Just as the warrior or peasant was bound to his Lord by bonds of mandatory duty, a duty which he would often embrace as his primary ethic; so he experienced the same kind of relationship with God.   

But over the past centuries, Men's minds have changed. Modern Man's consciousness Just Is extremely different. 

Men can, and often do, differentiate themselves from whatever group of which they find themselves members - or choose some other group with which to affiliate. Furthermore (especially in The West, but to some degree everywhere); there is little or no sense of duty in such relationships; and little reciprocity felt on either side. 

This decline of inner-duty has - in practice - had many deleterious effects; and will probably contribute to the destruction of Western civilization. Yet (as the other side of the same coin) these Western societies only exist and used-to thrive; as a consequence of the same changes in human consciousness away-from the group and towards individuality, that are now destroying them. 

But - to understand this ancient mind-set requires that - although we now know that duty and love can be separated (and indeed Just Are separated); for these Men of the past, the two quite naturally went together. 

This happened then in much the same way as it does even nowadays for (most) young children in close families: the young child conflates love of parents with duty to parents.

And the mother and father does the same with each child. Thus a loving mother of a baby would say it is her duty to feed and care for the child - but also she wants to do so; and, so long as love is constant, does not need to be coerced by a sense of duty. 

A loving mother would be annoyed and insulted if her care for her baby was assumed to be motivated by fear of laws, or a sense of duty to The State. 

In other words: love transcends duty. 

(And this is the core of the lesson for Christians.)

Love renders duty unnecessary - and indeed reveals duty to be an alien intrusion. 

And therein lies the rub! In practice; some mothers do not love their babies; and then her proper care may be imposed from externally - made a matter of enforced duty. 

And even the most loving of mothers - someone who has (insofar as this is possible) made as strong a commitment to love their child as she is capable of making - may find that there are times and situations when that love wavers; and then a sense of duty may be needed to 'step-in' temprarily until love resumes. 

Yet to place duty as the primary motivator for child-care instead of love - on the basis that in this mortal life love cannot always be relied-upon; is at best (and even when genuinely motivated for children's best interests - which is apparently very seldom to judge by the high rates of child neglect, abuse and exploitation in institutions) a social expedient. 

An expedient needed in this mortal life where sin contends with virtue - but far from ideal. 

Certainly duty is not the ideal basis for the best child care. We can easily imagine - and probably have experienced - a much better basis: namely love.

And this is why Christians should not - nowadays - discuss God in terms of duty. To the modern consciousness, this gives an utterly false picture of the desired nature of the relationship between God and each Man. 

This relationship between God and Man is ideally one of mutual love. 

On the side of God it is already one of constant and eternal love; and it is for each Man to choose whether or not he desires to return that love, to make love mutual. 

But, the tough truth is that love cannot be coerced; it must be given, over and again, moment-by-moment - and lower values such as duty, obligation, or avoidance of guilt, or expediency - should not be the basis of that love. 

And Christians should not urge them either - because that is to devalue our relationship with God. 

The same choice comes to all modern adolescents. After natural development (aided by social corruption) takes them to a point of detachment from parents, often a degree of hostility; the adolescents or young adults must choose whether or not to love their mothers and fathers. 

While dutiful behaviour can be externally imposed, to some degree, on adolescents and adults; and while they can can be psychologically manipulated by playing-upon negative feelings of duty, guilt etc; we readily recognize that this is ultimately counter-productive. 

Unless love is freely given from a positive impulse, from the depths of oneself, and by choice - it is just some kind of expediency - and not Christian. 

 And yet, at the same time, we recognize that in this mortal world of change, decay, death and evil; we cannot rely on love to be continuously active. We cannot be sure to hold-to eternal commitments in this mortal life.

We may be fooled by cunning evil-propaganda, warped by social pressures that we are too weak to withstand, become diseased, or broken by life... Many adverse possibilities may supervene. 

We can decide what we want here-and-now; but only make eternal commitments in and for the life to come after death. 

It was part of the gift of Jesus Christ to make this possible. He made it possible for us to choose the ideal of love, and by resurrection to enter a situation where all is regulated by love; because love is eternally mutual among all who dwell therein; and that love is unopposed by sin, by death, or by expediency. 

For such reasons, it seems to me that modern Christians should clarify their own understanding of this existential reality of the gratuitousness of love; and also grasp that while love may be our ideal in this mortal world...

Love can be (but can only be) full and everlasting in the resurrected life beyond death: in Heaven. 

And that is a world that has transcended duty. 

Nuts and bolts of how to deal with fear by love through faith

For Christians; living in fear is wrong, and sinful when accepted or embraced; but how we deal with fear is important - since some apparently-effective ways of dealing with fear are also sinful (such as prideful anger fuelled by resentment).

Yes, this is not a complex problem, it does not require abstraction, difficult analysis, nor any kind of theological 'balancing act' - the proper answers are simple, and clear as nuts and bolts. 

Jesus's idea was that people should follow him because of love, not from fear. Jesus deserves to be followed when we desire what he offers (resurrected life everlasting), and because we regard him as the Good Shepherd; because we love Him and have faith in his love for us. 

This does entail that we believe Jesus has the unique/ supernatural/ cosmic power to 'deliver' what he offers, but we ought not to follow Jesus because of our awe and fear of His power. 

That would be a wrong, negative, sinful - hence a self-defeating motivation; because Heaven has no place for such motivations. 

Therefore, when we fear (and who can avoid fear in this mortal life?) we need to recognize it as wrong, repent it; and fight-our-fears by reflection on what Jesus offers and the always-presence of Jesus in this world and our lives (as the Holy Ghost). 

We are never alone, nor bereft of help. 

The Good Shepherd will lead us to salvation; if only we follow Him; and to follow Him requires no more than this belief in His motives, and His capability. 

Therefore we can fight fear with strengthened faith; and our faith can be strengthened by something as simple and clear as a parable. 

The value-inversion of Fear into Virtue

Returning from my short period of permitted outdoor exercise; came to mind the following song from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Gondoliers.  

"In Enterprise of Martial Kind" Song - Duke of Plaza-Toro with Duchess, Casilda and Luiz

DUKE - First verse

In enterprise of martial kind,
When there was any fighting,
He led his regiment from behind--
He found it less exciting.
But when away his regiment ran,
His place was at the fore, O--
That celebrated,
Cultivated,
Underrated
Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

ALL

In the first and foremost flight, ha, ha!
You always found that knight, ha, ha!
That celebrated,
Cultivated,
Underrated
Nobleman,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

DUKE - Second verse

When, to evade Destruction's hand,
To hide they all proceeded,
No soldier in that gallant band
Hid half as well as he did.
He lay concealed throughout the war,
And so preserved his gore, O!
That unaffected,
Undetected,
Well-connected
Warrior,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

ALL

In every doughty deed, ha, ha!
He always took the lead, ha, ha!
That unaffected,
Undetected,
Well-connected
Warrior,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

DUKE - Third verse

When told that they would all be shot
Unless they left the service,
That hero hesitated not,
So marvellous his nerve is.
He sent his resignation in,
The first of all his corps, O!
That very knowing,
Overflowing,
Easy-going
Paladin,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!

ALL

To men of grosser clay, ha, ha!
He always showed the way, ha, ha!
That very knowing,
Overflowing,
Easy-going
Paladin,
The Duke of Plaza-Toro!


WS Gilbert is second only to Shakespeare as a source of wordly aphorisms - here is an example of why.

The second verse seems to describe the attitude of the general public of the world at this time (to evade Destruction's hand, To hide they all proceeded... He lay concealed throughout the war, And so preserved his gore); the third verse more specifically brings to mind the leadership of the major Christian churches (He sent his resignation in, The first of all his corps, O!)

As Ghandi wisely said: The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but it is really fear." As 1 John says - fear is the opposite of Christian love: "Perfect love casteth out fear".


To be in a state of fear is to be in a state of sin.

To be rid of the damning effect of sin it must be acknowledged as a sin, and repented. That may seem like not-much-to-ask; but it does require faith in Jesus.

What instead I perceive rampant is unacknowledged and denied - instead rationalised - fear; I see unrepented - but instead self-justified, advocated and amplified - fear.

Consequently, we see value inversion and the widespread, aggressive promotion of fear as a virtue! The public are being encouraged to celebrate their lack of courage - e.g. by joining-in propitiatory rituals of submission to secular authorities.


Since fear is indeed a sin; we should not be surprised that it feeds upon itself, and leads to other sins - and (because unacknowledged and unrepented) has a generally corrupting effect.

You can see it in people's faces, in their eyes (windows to the soul); and you can apparently see this at a glance, almost instantly - the division of the population into a large majority following the fear-embracing sinful strategies of Satan; and the small minority on the side of God, creation and the primacy of love.

You can see, hear or read in a few moments which side people have taken in this spiritual war.

Goodness - including truth and all values - are not given-by God, but arise from love-of-God

What follows is an attempt to explain that we are profoundly mistaken when we try to picture God's creation as an objective and unavoidable reality - because that is excluding the foundational role of love. Our picture of ultimate reality, needs to have love as the basis. This has many implications, including an inescapable role for each individual person. 

Matthew 22: 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I find this a very striking story (it also appears in the Gospel of Luke); because it seems to contain something profound - on the basis that it is not immediately apparent why all the "law and prophets" could depend on love of God and neighbour. 

How can law depend on love? They seem so unlike. 

And yet here it is stated, and the statement carries for me an innate authority, that love must come first - which I interpret to mean that without love there can be no "law". 

If therefore love must come first and as foundation; this has profound metaphysical implications. And some of these implications run counter to a great deal of Christian doctrine and practice. 

What I believe this means is that Goodness - including truth and all values - are not given by God, but arise from love-of-God.* 

Love is the basis for goodness, truth and all values. 

There can be no goodness/ truth/ values without love-of-God. 

If there is not first love-of-God, then divine creation and its purposes and methods are not evident. 

There is then no basis for persuading people that we inhabit a divine creation. 

Without the basis of love-of-God; other pictures of reality - such as the mainstream materialist-scientistic-atheist picture of reality as mostly-unalive, purposeless, meaningless, accidental - cannot be refuted. 

Gods creation - goodness, truth, values... These are coherent only for those who first love God and neighbour; and who themselves choose to affiliate with God: to join themselves with God in the work of creating. 

This is not enough to define Christianity - which also requires the essential intervention of Jesus Christ; but does form an essential basis.  

*I think that love of neighbour is intended to indicate that this love is not a matter of just our-selves and God only; but implies our endorsement that divine creation intentionally includes many other Beings, as well as our-selves. 

Note added: One consequence of the above is that arguments for the reality of God that take the general form of the Book of Job are futile! I mean, people cannot be persuaded of the reality of God by pointing at entities of power, magnificence, terror - nor at qualities such as beauty, goodness, moral-values - as if these were objectively present in the world. They are not. For beauty or morality to be real entails that we already acknowledge the reality of God - otherwise these are just arbitrary classifications. 

Of course; this analysis kicks-the-can on to how can, do, or should, people come to love God? Perhaps this is partly a matter of innate character or disposition (e.g. some people are more loving than others); but it is also a matter of what we choose to want-to-want; of where we place our priorities and ultimate hopes.  

And it is also a matter of how we conceptualize - or experience - God. IMO the God of the Old Testament (and of monotheism generally) is not loveable - but is instead fear-inducing; or else just too abstractly-defined (in terms of "attributes" like omnipotence and omniscience) to be genuinely personal - and only the personal is genuinely love-able. 

Then again, the loveable God must also be believable! But believability is largely a matter of fundamental assumptions. When these metaphysical foundations entail an unloveable God (e.g. because un-understandable, or "jealous" and tyrannical) - then naturally a Good and Personal God will seem too good to be true. 

For instance my God - Heavenly Parents who think of humans their divine children; children whom they hope will choose to develop their own natures in the direction of becoming more conscious, more divine, more actively-creative - may seem no more than a consoling delusion unless the metaphysical basis of reality is regarded as (roughly) animistic pluralism. 

The stumbling block of loving God above all else

*
The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.

Mark 12:29-30

This was a stumbling block to me as a child at a Christian school. Not only did I not love God more than my family, I did not want to love God more than my family - and I felt it was wrong to love God more than my family. I can distinctly remember thinking this during a prayer when I was about six years old, and mentally denying the doctrine.

Even now, I think it is quite wrong to highlight this teaching, and try and compel young children to assent to this doctrine of loving God more than anything - because many of the best of children will usually interpret the command as that they are supposed to feel more love for God than for their parent, grandparents or siblings - and in practise this could only be achieved by loving their family less.

Furthermore, the doctrine - in the mind of a child - can easily become one of terror rather than love: fear of reprisals from God from failing to love him enough.

*

Indeed, this first and greatest commandment is a subtle teaching - and not one to be taken in isolation. It is perhaps a thing which needs to be true indirectly and implicitly; rather than made a matter of explicit and specific assent.

For many or most people, including children, the love of God can not - in this mortal life - be as direct and straightforward a matter as love of actual people. Attempting to force the issue, by trying to think about God as much as possible, praying as much as possible, repeating words about loving God as much as possible are all strategies that can easily 'backfire'.

Yet, of course, this is essential to Christian life. So what is the answer?

1. To regard the first commandment as a part of theosis or spiritual progress, something towards which we strive throughout life; rather than a basic essential requirement for all Christians.

2. To regard God our Heavenly Father as a person, as our actual Father, whose primary and always-present characteristic is love. This makes Him easier to love and may reduce the chance of mistakenly regarding Him as a tyrant.

3. To focus on our love for the person of Jesus Christ, rather than God the Father - this is stated to be sufficient according to scripture. It is, of course, the mainstream strategy of 'evangelical' Christians - who focus almost exclusively on the New Testament, especially the Gospels. This is reasonable, since Christ is the essential focus of Christianity - while God the Father is not.

So, it seems not absolutely necessary for any one of us to attend to God the Father in daily life; His vital role is to explain the nature and mission of Jesus Christ.

*

Furthermore, love is not best considered as a feeling, it is not necessarily something at the forefront of consciousness. For many people, their deepest love is something which structures their life, rather than being at the front of our conscious deliberations for most of the time. Some (I am one of them) are very expressive of love - but this is not a necessity; and some very loving cultures and families and marriages do not go in for statements, hugs or tears.

*

My understanding of the absolute necessity of loving God above all else is metaphysical rather than psychological - that without this, all other loves (including the love of Jesus) lose their meaning and function.

The supremacy of our love for God is that it makes all other loves possible - it makes other loves a matter of eternal significance.

*

Taking sides: For, or against, divine creation? From love, or not?

Our creator is a loving God, and the divine creation is "built" with love; so to be on the side* of Good is to live from love. 

A person motivated by love, thinks and does things for other people (and other beings), because of love. 

This means that the Good person will often do something that sacrifices his own immediate pleasure, or causes himself to experience some degree of immediate suffering, or sub-optimality of feelings. 

This kind of thing is inevitable, when love motivates.  

Those who operate from other motivations that are not love, those on the side not-supporting or actively-against divine creation; see all this very differently. 

For them; love looks pathetic, pitiful, despicable. 

A life led, acts done, from love; look instead like foolishness, like being a dupe; love looks like weakness, subordination of my will to another's, service of somebody else's agenda, voluntary slavery... 

Those who are not taking the side of Good, i.e. not living by love - generally regard those who do thus live, as pathetic and despicable. 

But if love really is the real motivation for behaviour; then everything is different...

All that is done from love - no matter how small a thing that may seem - is an enhancement of divine creation. 

And that which is done from any-reason-not-love, will tend to diminish divine creation. 

Therefore, as examples: 

Things done to serve an agenda of "altruism" will diminish divine creation; same with things done for "my" power and/or wealth or that of others.

And things done for comfort, convenience or pleasure of myself or of others; shall likewise diminish creation.

(that is: Anything other-than love diminishes...)

And things done from resentment, fear or despair (and the like) are actually an attack on divine creation.   

+++

*"The side" references which of the two sides in the spiritual way of this world is chosen: either the side affiliated with God the creator; or else the side that is not thus affiliated. There are many ways of not being on the side of divine creation.

Note: almost all writing on the subject of relationships between the sexes, analysis and purported advice (all the "Manosphere" stuff, including that purportedly "Christian") is done from the perspective that love is not really real, not present, or is secondary in importance. Such speaking and writing is inevitably on the other side from God and divine creation. 

Faith, Hope and Charity - the antidote to fear (and the necessary basis for the destined development of Consciousness).

To take the next divinely destined step in the development of Man's conscious being (i.e. Primary Thinking) is extremely difficult. It can't be done by starting from where we are and then trying hard, doing exercises, concentrating, analysing, working at it... Primary Thinking is not a technique.

The reason is because what is needed is the Thinking of the Real Self - and we, here and now, are not 'located' in our real self; but instead in a variety of false selves. Changing this is difficult. How do we locate the real self? How does a false self (which is where we are, now) find the real self - allow its thinking to take-over...

What block us? The answer is (put simply) fear.


Fear is the problem: endemic, existential fear - why? Because (to progress as God wishes us) we must choose reality - choose to set aside fake knowledge. Yet we are locked into unreality and fake knowledge by our materialism, our worldliness, our fear of what will happen if we abandon them...

If we continue to focus on this world - on how this world makes us feel (happy, sad, pleasure, pain, suffering etc) as an end in itself - then we are trapped, because this is a false perspective. By adhering to it - by trying to optimise our responses to the experience of personal mortal life in this world - we are trapped in a vicious cycle.

So why do we continue doing it? Fear. Fear that if we fail to focus on how we feel and the material facts-of-life, then we will feel unbearable and our lives will fall to pieces. This seems very reasonable - everything about this world tells us that it is necessary to focus on such matters - and makes us deeply, existentially afraid not to focus on such matters...

What can possibly overcome such a reasonable, sensible, evidential, existential fear?  


Faith, Hope and Charity (Charity being Christian Love) must come first - and without FHC there will be so significant progress or advance or raising of consciousness.

How can this be? - How does it work?

Faith is trust in God, and the God that we can trust is a God that is wholly good, and loves us as a child (Charity).

Faith is the maximum extreme of an ideal of the child's trust of his parents - it is the ground of a young child's existence that his parents want the best possible for him - over the long run. But God, unlike our mortal parents, is the creator - so our trust in God is also a trust in creation; a trust that the world is set-up for our personal ultimate benefit in the kind of way an ideal parent might set up the home as a place of experiencing and learning.

We need also to know that the point of this life (our mortal life) is Not only this mortal life; but our mortal life is one of experiences from-which we can learn: learn for the benefit of our eternal life (after death).


Mortal life is extremely important, indeed vital for our ultimate goal because we must become incarnate and die in order to be resurrected into that everlasting and Heavenly life that Jesus promises. 

But the importance of our experiences during mortal life are related to what we most need to learn. The experiences of mortal life are not an end-in-themselves; the experiences of our mortal lives are real and important because they have eternal significance.

It is Faith which gives us this perspective, the faith is made possible and reasonable by God's Charity/ Love for each of us an an unique individual in God's creation - and that leads to the validity of Hope.


Hope is what enables us to overcome fear - and Hope is reasonable, valid, believable; because we know that this world and our specific life has been set-up by God for our own personal ultimate benefit... 

(As well as the benefit of our brothers and sisters among God's children; the analogy with ideal earthly parents is exact - they want the best for each individual child; and for all of their children.)

Hope is what allows us to see beyond the pleasures, pains, happiness, sadness and sufferings of our mortal lives.

Hope is what overcomes fear. 


We can escape our false selves, and escape the trap of our low-level and false consciousness, only by transcending fear so that we can know reality; and we can transcend fear only by knowing reality - by FHC...

By knowing in our hearts that there really-is something beyond and more-significant-than the subjective experiences of this world.

We need to know that our experiences in this mortal life are 'in God's hand' and for our ultimate personal benefit - that our life really-is that detailed and personal and specific.

On such a basis (and only on such) we can drop our worldly-materialist-fear-based 'defences' and 'do' Primary Thinking' - we can allow ourselves to think from our real selves; because we are confident that this is what we should do, and can do.