It strikes me that something which distinguishes these End Times is that there is a convergence between salvation and theosis. Salvation is having chosen to align with God's creation - rejecting Hell and embracing Christ's gift of Heaven. And theosis is the process of becoming more divine in our nature, more god-like, Christ-like (or saint-like, when sainthood is understood in this way).
In principle, in theory, and as a first step it is certainly possible to be saved (to attain salvation) just 'as we are' and without any change in our-selves, our behaviour, our thinking. This is - indeed - the great insight of the Reformation, and the core truth of the Evangelical movement.
But in practice, in the modern world, in these End Times; this is insufficient - or, let's say, it is only momentarily sufficient. At the moment it happens, at the born-again moment, it is true. But in the modern West almost-always, soon-or-later, salvation will be repudiated, will be rejected - unless there is theosis.
My point here is that it seems to be a feature of our time and place that salvation must (almost always; almost immediately) be followed by theosis - and theosis is a process. When these have converged, it means that in practice salvation is the process of theosis.
To put it differently, there used to be a possibility of being saved despite zero spiritual progression; but that possibility has been (all-but) closed-off by the pervasiveness of evil.
In these End Times, that which used to unconscious, passive, automatic; must become conscious and actively, explicitly chosen or else it will be lost.
It is not enough to know: we must know that we know. It is not enough to have-chosen Jesus: we must be-choosing Jesus. It is not enough to have-repented: our daily living must be-repenting.
The forces of unconscious manipulation into evil habits of thinking are so pervasive and powerful; that consciousness is the only strong defence.
So, we must do what we (anyway) ought-to do - this is yet another instance of 'things coming to a point'. Even among self-identified, born-again, sincere Christians there is a sorting and separation. The middle ground disappears and the extremes are easily distinguished.
Choices are stark, black and white - and to deny the reality of starkness is to be corrupted: moderate, grey Christians are possible in theory and have existed in some times and places; but in practice now, grey Christians are not Christians, because there are no grey areas or persons: the 'grey' are simply not-white; hence they just-are aligned with the dark powers against Christianity.
Theosis is now necessary. Yet many traditional methods of theosis are collapsing or already corrupted. This is the most urgent question for Western Christians - how can I personally, here and now, without relying on social institutions (because I must act now, yet the actual institutions are corrupt), make overall progresion in my awareness of being Christian; so that life becomes a moment-by-moment process of conscious knowing, choosing, being.
We are promised a wondrous eternal life of love and participation in God's work of creation. Our life therefore should not be mainly 'negative' - not just a defensive war focused on rejection of evil; but needs to be positive, hope-full, faith-full - based on confidence in Good.
Because how can we recognise evil to reject it, unless we already know Good? And when we do know Good, and our knowledge is explicit; then it is easy to recognise evil.
God is the creator of this world, is our father, and loves us - therefore, our trust in God to do what is ultimately right for us, each personally; is always justified.
Sunday 12 August 2018
Saturday 11 August 2018
The joy of Mormon theology - Terryl Givens's Wrestling the Angel (2015)
As soon as I began learning about Mormon theology, which began before I became a Christian, I have responded to it with a heartfelt joy. This has been renewed over the past days when I have been listening to an audiobook of Wrestling the Angel: the Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity - by Terryl Givens.
I had already bought the paper book, and read parts of it; but found it rather dense and hard-going compared with Givens's usual style, which I like so much. The audible book medium proves ideal in taking me through the book at a measured pace, and maintaining progress the face of any tendency to lose concentration. My response has been powerful, inspiring, en-couraging.
The experience has triggered yet another renewal of my appreciation, and gratitude, for the Mormon awakening; specifically for the way in which Joseph Smith and subsequent theologians of the CJCLDS have restored the gospel spirit - that underlying and defining spirit of Jesus that we get from the accounts of his life and records of his words.
Not many people (including, according to Givens and other Mormon theologians, not many Mormons) recognise how radical is the Mormon recasting of Christian theology, how total and systematic, how radical (i.e. root level) is the transformation.
The observable, explicit superstructure of Christian teaching, worship, ethics, and the ideal life is very little changed (Mormon church members live very similarly to other devout Christians, although they tend to be more devout in their practice); but the underlying metaphysics is altogether different. And this difference goes right down to the metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of the universe and the origins of man. So the message and person of Jesus is much the same, but the understanding of that message rests upon qualitatively different foundations.
I am not and never have been a Mormon, and it has become very obvious over the past years that outside the Mormon church almost everybody is strongly prejudiced against the idea that Mormon theology could be good, beautiful; and intellectually deeply satisfying; and that this absolutely blocks the possibility of them learning otherwise.
So be it. But I am very grateful for the work of Terryl Givens - and have found listening to Wrestling the Angel to be a wonderful experience. Many of (what I regard as) the stumbling blocks of 'traditional' Christianity are lucidly explained in their developing historical context, and the Mormon reappraisals and recastings (which I find so satisfying, and for which I am so grateful) set out in their more recent context.
To give specific examples; Mormon theology and metaphysics solves what I personally regard as the most important errors of traditional, mainstream Christian emphasis and explanation - such as the omniscience and nature of God, false doctrine of original sin, the nature of human agency, and the basis of sex and sexuality.
I have often observed that the traditional Christian theological explanations have a tendency to gravitate towards an 'Islamic' understanding of God and the human condition on the one hand; or else towards secularism on the other. This is because of the wrongness of the metaphysics and theology that was imposed upon Christianity in (probably) the early centuries, from approximately 100 AD onwards, presumably after - and allowed by - the death of most of the disciples.
From this time the early theologians, including most of the 'Church Fathers', began to place Christianity within an incompatible set of pre-existing (pre-Christian) basic assumptions about philosophy. Details are lacking concerning this era, but these early and influential intellectuals apparently did not work from Christ's message and teachings, to develop a compatible and supporting set of assumptions; but went in the other direction - shoe-horning Christianity into their prior intellectual frameworks.
The idea of Original Sin is a particularly chilling example. Reading Givens and thinking about the problems created by the false understanding of God's 'omniscience' one can see how this really nasty idea (no hint of which is in the Gospels, and barely at all anywhere in the New Testament - except with the eye of prejudice) emerged to explain the need for Christ when God was supposedly omnipotent. Original sin reached an astonishing degree of prominence with Augustine of Hippo: almost becoming the single most important Christian doctrinal-fact. This was later taken even further with Calvin.
The result was Christianity that, at a deep level, became something that in practice (in terms of the relation between Man and God) was about as strongly against the spirit of the Gospels as it was possible to be. In sum, by Original Sin, Christianity was transformed from a religion of hope and joy at the new possibilities of everlasting and divine life that Jesus brought (clearest and least ambiguous in the Fourth, and most authoritative, Gospel); into a religion in which Jesus was our rescuer from a mortal torture chamber, which all Men justly were born-into, and which all Men inhabited due to their essential and ineradicable depravity; both our torment and our depravity being caused by a mystical complicity in a primal act of sin against Jesus's Father.
In contrast to such monstrous error, misrepresentation, and manipulation; Mormon theology shows us how to be Christian without such interpretations being forced upon us by foundational but not-Christian assumptions; and, so far as I know, Mormonism is the only Christian theology which does this. That is a measure of its scope, originality and importance!*
(And if you don't believe-in the reality of that scope and originality, then you simply don't understand it - and not many do. Whether you agree with Mormon theology is a secondary matter. My point is that very few people are in a position to disagree - since they don't know enough to recognise what they are disagreeing with.)
Anyway, if you are interested and intrigued by the above; and if you can sufficiently 'trust a Mormon' that you can make a genuine effort to understand and think-though the Mormon perspective, then Terryl Givens would be the place to start; if not with the all-out scholarship and rigour of Wrestling the Angel, then probably with the shorter and more polemical (yet equally, albeit covertly, scholarly and rigorous) The God Who Weeps (with Fiona Givens, 2012).
It is difficult. So you need both to be interested, reasonably well-disposed, and also to be willing (initially) to adopt a different perspective; until such a point that you have learned enough to grasp the coherence of the 'system'.
But if (like most external commentators) you are studying Mormon theology and metaphysics only to prove 'why it is wrong', and without any expectation of finding good in it; then it is very unlikely that you will ever make the 'paradigm shift' required to understand it in the first place.
*Note added: To clarify, my point is that original sin is a monstrous perversion on Christianity but if original sin is dispensed-with in the context of traditional Christian theology, it is nearly-always associated with apostasy - certainly, that has been the historical pattern and trend. Those churches that (correctly) deleted original sin were also those churches that were en route to apostasy, to becoming non-Christian - such as the Unitarians around 1800, or later 19th century Methodists. Thus original sin seems to be necessary to the integrity of traditional Christian theology; yet it is a false and monstrous doctrine in stark opposition to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel (in particular, but all the Gospels and nearly all of the NT). Therefore, original sin is a reductio ad absurdum of traditional theology: with this theology OS needs to be adopted for the sake of coherence and sustainability, but necessarily leads to absurd conclusions. Mormon theology represents a third way, a wholly different theological system, which both rejects original sin and yet is sustainable (for over 190 years so far) without a decline through apostasy, 'liberalism', or laxness. Original sin therefore represents an argument both for the error of traditional Christian theology and an argument for both the radical different-ness and for the coherence and sustainability of Mormon theology. The same type of argument could be constructed for other issues, such as free-will/ agency, the nature of God, the nature of suffering etc.
I had already bought the paper book, and read parts of it; but found it rather dense and hard-going compared with Givens's usual style, which I like so much. The audible book medium proves ideal in taking me through the book at a measured pace, and maintaining progress the face of any tendency to lose concentration. My response has been powerful, inspiring, en-couraging.
The experience has triggered yet another renewal of my appreciation, and gratitude, for the Mormon awakening; specifically for the way in which Joseph Smith and subsequent theologians of the CJCLDS have restored the gospel spirit - that underlying and defining spirit of Jesus that we get from the accounts of his life and records of his words.
Not many people (including, according to Givens and other Mormon theologians, not many Mormons) recognise how radical is the Mormon recasting of Christian theology, how total and systematic, how radical (i.e. root level) is the transformation.
The observable, explicit superstructure of Christian teaching, worship, ethics, and the ideal life is very little changed (Mormon church members live very similarly to other devout Christians, although they tend to be more devout in their practice); but the underlying metaphysics is altogether different. And this difference goes right down to the metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of the universe and the origins of man. So the message and person of Jesus is much the same, but the understanding of that message rests upon qualitatively different foundations.
I am not and never have been a Mormon, and it has become very obvious over the past years that outside the Mormon church almost everybody is strongly prejudiced against the idea that Mormon theology could be good, beautiful; and intellectually deeply satisfying; and that this absolutely blocks the possibility of them learning otherwise.
So be it. But I am very grateful for the work of Terryl Givens - and have found listening to Wrestling the Angel to be a wonderful experience. Many of (what I regard as) the stumbling blocks of 'traditional' Christianity are lucidly explained in their developing historical context, and the Mormon reappraisals and recastings (which I find so satisfying, and for which I am so grateful) set out in their more recent context.
To give specific examples; Mormon theology and metaphysics solves what I personally regard as the most important errors of traditional, mainstream Christian emphasis and explanation - such as the omniscience and nature of God, false doctrine of original sin, the nature of human agency, and the basis of sex and sexuality.
I have often observed that the traditional Christian theological explanations have a tendency to gravitate towards an 'Islamic' understanding of God and the human condition on the one hand; or else towards secularism on the other. This is because of the wrongness of the metaphysics and theology that was imposed upon Christianity in (probably) the early centuries, from approximately 100 AD onwards, presumably after - and allowed by - the death of most of the disciples.
From this time the early theologians, including most of the 'Church Fathers', began to place Christianity within an incompatible set of pre-existing (pre-Christian) basic assumptions about philosophy. Details are lacking concerning this era, but these early and influential intellectuals apparently did not work from Christ's message and teachings, to develop a compatible and supporting set of assumptions; but went in the other direction - shoe-horning Christianity into their prior intellectual frameworks.
The idea of Original Sin is a particularly chilling example. Reading Givens and thinking about the problems created by the false understanding of God's 'omniscience' one can see how this really nasty idea (no hint of which is in the Gospels, and barely at all anywhere in the New Testament - except with the eye of prejudice) emerged to explain the need for Christ when God was supposedly omnipotent. Original sin reached an astonishing degree of prominence with Augustine of Hippo: almost becoming the single most important Christian doctrinal-fact. This was later taken even further with Calvin.
The result was Christianity that, at a deep level, became something that in practice (in terms of the relation between Man and God) was about as strongly against the spirit of the Gospels as it was possible to be. In sum, by Original Sin, Christianity was transformed from a religion of hope and joy at the new possibilities of everlasting and divine life that Jesus brought (clearest and least ambiguous in the Fourth, and most authoritative, Gospel); into a religion in which Jesus was our rescuer from a mortal torture chamber, which all Men justly were born-into, and which all Men inhabited due to their essential and ineradicable depravity; both our torment and our depravity being caused by a mystical complicity in a primal act of sin against Jesus's Father.
In contrast to such monstrous error, misrepresentation, and manipulation; Mormon theology shows us how to be Christian without such interpretations being forced upon us by foundational but not-Christian assumptions; and, so far as I know, Mormonism is the only Christian theology which does this. That is a measure of its scope, originality and importance!*
(And if you don't believe-in the reality of that scope and originality, then you simply don't understand it - and not many do. Whether you agree with Mormon theology is a secondary matter. My point is that very few people are in a position to disagree - since they don't know enough to recognise what they are disagreeing with.)
Anyway, if you are interested and intrigued by the above; and if you can sufficiently 'trust a Mormon' that you can make a genuine effort to understand and think-though the Mormon perspective, then Terryl Givens would be the place to start; if not with the all-out scholarship and rigour of Wrestling the Angel, then probably with the shorter and more polemical (yet equally, albeit covertly, scholarly and rigorous) The God Who Weeps (with Fiona Givens, 2012).
It is difficult. So you need both to be interested, reasonably well-disposed, and also to be willing (initially) to adopt a different perspective; until such a point that you have learned enough to grasp the coherence of the 'system'.
But if (like most external commentators) you are studying Mormon theology and metaphysics only to prove 'why it is wrong', and without any expectation of finding good in it; then it is very unlikely that you will ever make the 'paradigm shift' required to understand it in the first place.
*Note added: To clarify, my point is that original sin is a monstrous perversion on Christianity but if original sin is dispensed-with in the context of traditional Christian theology, it is nearly-always associated with apostasy - certainly, that has been the historical pattern and trend. Those churches that (correctly) deleted original sin were also those churches that were en route to apostasy, to becoming non-Christian - such as the Unitarians around 1800, or later 19th century Methodists. Thus original sin seems to be necessary to the integrity of traditional Christian theology; yet it is a false and monstrous doctrine in stark opposition to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel (in particular, but all the Gospels and nearly all of the NT). Therefore, original sin is a reductio ad absurdum of traditional theology: with this theology OS needs to be adopted for the sake of coherence and sustainability, but necessarily leads to absurd conclusions. Mormon theology represents a third way, a wholly different theological system, which both rejects original sin and yet is sustainable (for over 190 years so far) without a decline through apostasy, 'liberalism', or laxness. Original sin therefore represents an argument both for the error of traditional Christian theology and an argument for both the radical different-ness and for the coherence and sustainability of Mormon theology. The same type of argument could be constructed for other issues, such as free-will/ agency, the nature of God, the nature of suffering etc.
Friday 10 August 2018
Spiritual gifts in this modern era
If you agree with me that this world is, at the highest level of global ruling, mostly-controlled by demonic-aligned (rather than divinely-aligned) forces; and if you also agree that God is both the creator of this world, and also stands towards us in the relation of a loving parent; then you may wonder what provision God has made for those who are aligned with the divine goals?
One thing we might expect is that, against such odds, we would probably be assisted with 'spiritual gifts' of some kind. In 1 Corinthians, Paul lists some of these spiritual gifts as miracles, prophecy, speaking and understanding 'in tongues', healing, conversing with angels...
Such things would seem to be especially useful, especially when traditional sources of knowledge are tainted (corrupt priest, ministers and church bureaucracies - of suspect authority, corrupt translations of scripture, dubious conduct of holy communion, worldly focus and false doctrines... Yet, despite their potential usefulness in our era (and probably for a long time) such spiritual gifts now seem to be very rare or (some would say) actually extinct. And those who seek such spiritual abilities often find it difficult or impossible to attain them.
It may be that we have changed, and the modern consciousness is not able to do what was possible for the ancient mode consciousness. Or, it may be that such gifts are blocked by God; because they are a kind of power, and in a corrupt world there are very few who are worthy of such spiritual power; very few who could be trusted to use such power as miracles for Good rather than selfishly.
Yet the need for spiritual gifts remains... Could it be that we have been looking in the wrong place? That we have been seeking power via spiritual gifts, we have been seeking spectacle, we have been seeking to impress-other people; instead of seeking personal discernment, knowledge, faith, hope, love, courage?
The idea of Direct Christianity suggests that our divine destiny is that human consciousness should move from getting knowledge at secondhand via the senses, and towards getting knowledge directly - by the mind connecting with universal reality.
If so, this would suggest that we ought to be seeking spiritual gifts by direct apprehension; in thought rather than by vision, hearing and the other senses.
This direct knowing would only be possible when we are aligned-with, attuned-to, divine ways of being and thinking; but when we were so aligned, then we would simply know what we needed to know.
So perhaps we really are in an era of great spiritual gifts - if only we could recognise them?
One thing we might expect is that, against such odds, we would probably be assisted with 'spiritual gifts' of some kind. In 1 Corinthians, Paul lists some of these spiritual gifts as miracles, prophecy, speaking and understanding 'in tongues', healing, conversing with angels...
Such things would seem to be especially useful, especially when traditional sources of knowledge are tainted (corrupt priest, ministers and church bureaucracies - of suspect authority, corrupt translations of scripture, dubious conduct of holy communion, worldly focus and false doctrines... Yet, despite their potential usefulness in our era (and probably for a long time) such spiritual gifts now seem to be very rare or (some would say) actually extinct. And those who seek such spiritual abilities often find it difficult or impossible to attain them.
It may be that we have changed, and the modern consciousness is not able to do what was possible for the ancient mode consciousness. Or, it may be that such gifts are blocked by God; because they are a kind of power, and in a corrupt world there are very few who are worthy of such spiritual power; very few who could be trusted to use such power as miracles for Good rather than selfishly.
Yet the need for spiritual gifts remains... Could it be that we have been looking in the wrong place? That we have been seeking power via spiritual gifts, we have been seeking spectacle, we have been seeking to impress-other people; instead of seeking personal discernment, knowledge, faith, hope, love, courage?
The idea of Direct Christianity suggests that our divine destiny is that human consciousness should move from getting knowledge at secondhand via the senses, and towards getting knowledge directly - by the mind connecting with universal reality.
If so, this would suggest that we ought to be seeking spiritual gifts by direct apprehension; in thought rather than by vision, hearing and the other senses.
This direct knowing would only be possible when we are aligned-with, attuned-to, divine ways of being and thinking; but when we were so aligned, then we would simply know what we needed to know.
So perhaps we really are in an era of great spiritual gifts - if only we could recognise them?
Close-harmony jazz - Boswell Sisters
Today's discovery - although they are apparently well-known: wonderful stuff:
Great singing, great musicality, great arrangement - humour and syncopation!
And it's real jazz.
Here is some more virtuosity:
And some swing...
Great singing, great musicality, great arrangement - humour and syncopation!
And it's real jazz.
Here is some more virtuosity:
And some swing...
Why we do Not live in Huxley's Brave New World
It has often been noticed that - of the two great dystopian novels of the mid-20th century - modern Western society more closely resembles Aldous Huxley's Brave New World - where the population is bought-off and tranquillised by drugs, sex and distractions; than George Orwell's 1984 where the population is under 24/7 surveillance and violently repressed by secret police.
In a more nuanced fashion, there are elements of both dystopias - for example, the surveillance is now far more comprehensive than Orwell could have imagined; yet that surveillance is actively sought and paid for by the population - which is much more like BNW...
Anyway, there is a major difference between either, or both, the societies envisaged by Orwell and Huxley and our own society; and that is stability.
Most imaginative dystopias have a leadership class that places social stability as the highest value; whereas our dystopian society here-and-now has a global leadership class that - in so far as they are able - inflicts permanent revolution and circumscribed chaos upon the whole world.
This is observable at almost every level; but perhaps most obviously in the highly successful, colossally ambitious strategy of mass migration that has been imposed upon the world for the past couple of decades. This entails unneccessary and deliberately perpetuated wars forced upon some parts of the planet (eg. the Middle East, Africa, Asia), used to create violent and chaotic displaced populations, that are forced upon the Western nations in vast and open-ended numbers.
On the face of it, such de-stabilisation (at least, up to a point) is a much higher and more urgent priority for the global and Western elites than is stability; and this is a error in pretty much all the dystopias I have come-across. Much the same applies to the economy - where the great bulk of elite initiatives (such as those rationalised by feminism, antiracism, diversity, environmentalism, equality etc.) massively (and potentially lethally) damage the economy, science, technology, engineering capability - and in general damage social efficiency and effectiveness.
In Western social life, the sexual revolution has been aggressively supported and driven by the ruling elites, is continuous, and accelerating. The result has been half a decade of confusion, as new possibilities emerge, then become taboo; as groups and identities move in and out of favour; as resentments and entitlements are encouraged... Clearly, stability is not the goal.
The reason for the recurrent dystopian error about stability is simple enough. The dystopias were written by materialists, and non-Christians and they envisage evil as being merely selfish short-termism. Thus their idea of an evil society is one in which there is a selfish-, short-termist elite who run society for their own pleasure, prosperity and power.
Whereas real evil is the opposition to Good, and Good is the objective of God, the creator, and our loving father. So when a society is run by really evil persons (both mortal and supernatural persons), then its long-term goal is not the elite's own selfish interests, but the damnation of the majority.
A really evil elite does not act strategically to sustain the stability of the society which sustains and rewards it; instead, such an elite does whatever best serves the goals of damnation - even when this destroys stability; even when this cumulatively immiserates, disempowers and destroys the elite itself; even when it makes that society un-sustainable.
In a more nuanced fashion, there are elements of both dystopias - for example, the surveillance is now far more comprehensive than Orwell could have imagined; yet that surveillance is actively sought and paid for by the population - which is much more like BNW...
Anyway, there is a major difference between either, or both, the societies envisaged by Orwell and Huxley and our own society; and that is stability.
Most imaginative dystopias have a leadership class that places social stability as the highest value; whereas our dystopian society here-and-now has a global leadership class that - in so far as they are able - inflicts permanent revolution and circumscribed chaos upon the whole world.
This is observable at almost every level; but perhaps most obviously in the highly successful, colossally ambitious strategy of mass migration that has been imposed upon the world for the past couple of decades. This entails unneccessary and deliberately perpetuated wars forced upon some parts of the planet (eg. the Middle East, Africa, Asia), used to create violent and chaotic displaced populations, that are forced upon the Western nations in vast and open-ended numbers.
On the face of it, such de-stabilisation (at least, up to a point) is a much higher and more urgent priority for the global and Western elites than is stability; and this is a error in pretty much all the dystopias I have come-across. Much the same applies to the economy - where the great bulk of elite initiatives (such as those rationalised by feminism, antiracism, diversity, environmentalism, equality etc.) massively (and potentially lethally) damage the economy, science, technology, engineering capability - and in general damage social efficiency and effectiveness.
In Western social life, the sexual revolution has been aggressively supported and driven by the ruling elites, is continuous, and accelerating. The result has been half a decade of confusion, as new possibilities emerge, then become taboo; as groups and identities move in and out of favour; as resentments and entitlements are encouraged... Clearly, stability is not the goal.
The reason for the recurrent dystopian error about stability is simple enough. The dystopias were written by materialists, and non-Christians and they envisage evil as being merely selfish short-termism. Thus their idea of an evil society is one in which there is a selfish-, short-termist elite who run society for their own pleasure, prosperity and power.
Whereas real evil is the opposition to Good, and Good is the objective of God, the creator, and our loving father. So when a society is run by really evil persons (both mortal and supernatural persons), then its long-term goal is not the elite's own selfish interests, but the damnation of the majority.
A really evil elite does not act strategically to sustain the stability of the society which sustains and rewards it; instead, such an elite does whatever best serves the goals of damnation - even when this destroys stability; even when this cumulatively immiserates, disempowers and destroys the elite itself; even when it makes that society un-sustainable.
Thursday 9 August 2018
The need to be twice-born - or, that modern Christian faith must become active and conscious
THE challenge of this time, in this place (the modern West) is that unless our Christian faith is conscious and active; it will not survive.
In the past and in other places, a socially-inculcated, immersive Christianity - just accepted and rejoiced in - was sufficient. Here and now it isn't. Other times and places the Christian could be 'once born' - now he must be twice-born*.
When I became a Christian, declared myself a Christian - I was at first once-born. My Christian faith was a gradual, seamless transition from prior atheism and materialism. It was only after a few months, in response to the challenge of first finding myself in a 'liberal' (ie fake) church and then in a real (in this instance evangelical) church that I was 'born again' and recognised the qualitative break in my perspective on everything that Christianity meant.
(Much credit for this must go to the way that the best protestants emphasise the theme of 'salvation by faith' - it was exactly what I needed at that point.)
It is my belief that our society, England, Albion - The West - was divinely intended to transition between a once-born Christianity (socially implemented and inculcated, passive, unconscious, taking it for granted) to the twice born state. However, the only path from once to twice is via the recognition and inner experience of atheism, doubt, nihilism - and despair.
Ideally, the phase of atheism is a brief transition. But The West, by failing to resist demonic temptation - especially in relation to sex (the second-most powerful human instinct, after religion), but also from pride-resentment and more general this-wordly hedonism, backed by pervasive dishonesty - got stuck in the atheist, materialist, sceptical phase. the phase became 'permanent' - having lasted and increased and accelerated over about nine generations so far - except that it is self-destroying.
So, our starting point is atheism, materialism, nihilism - fuelled by hedonism and reinforced by dishonesty. That is where we are. That is where we start from - and things are still getting worse.
The fact that many individuals are Not in this state (are once-born Christians) - is fortunate for them (until they get corrupted) but we should not be distracted from the essence of our predicament. We cannot return to the once-born situation, because that depends-upon society being organised such that Christianity is natural, spontaneous, instinctive and pretty much just-happens. Insofar as our Christianity relies upon a Christian milieu, upon passive absorption, it will be corrupted, sooner or later.
From where we are, we can only move forward to a deliberate, conscious, chosen Christianity - such as has never existed in the past except among a few individuals.
That is the special challenge of these times - for individual, not for 'society' because society is lost, gone, destroyed. So, we must rely upon individuals, one at a time, finding their own path. Which includes finding for themselves - with invisible divine help, no doubt, once intent is established - but not being fed, the help they need.
The key word is agency. It is not about 'individualism' but about agency - which is 'free will', but free will of the real (and divine) self. It is getting our-selves to the situation of recognising the deepest and most important issues and assumptions, and taking personal responsibility for our choices, our faith, our beliefs, our motivations.
We must first become agents (which is not a spontaneous thing - but an achievement) and then exercise our agency. Of course, people may choose wrongly, but where we are now is that people are not even choosing. They are once-born evil! We need to be twice-born - even if we are already once-born Christians.
It is a huge risk; but that risk is unavoidable in going from once- to twice-born; and that is The risk which is characteristic, definitive, of this time and place.
*The distinction of once- versus twice-born comes from William James's book The Varieties of Religious Experience.
In the past and in other places, a socially-inculcated, immersive Christianity - just accepted and rejoiced in - was sufficient. Here and now it isn't. Other times and places the Christian could be 'once born' - now he must be twice-born*.
When I became a Christian, declared myself a Christian - I was at first once-born. My Christian faith was a gradual, seamless transition from prior atheism and materialism. It was only after a few months, in response to the challenge of first finding myself in a 'liberal' (ie fake) church and then in a real (in this instance evangelical) church that I was 'born again' and recognised the qualitative break in my perspective on everything that Christianity meant.
(Much credit for this must go to the way that the best protestants emphasise the theme of 'salvation by faith' - it was exactly what I needed at that point.)
It is my belief that our society, England, Albion - The West - was divinely intended to transition between a once-born Christianity (socially implemented and inculcated, passive, unconscious, taking it for granted) to the twice born state. However, the only path from once to twice is via the recognition and inner experience of atheism, doubt, nihilism - and despair.
Ideally, the phase of atheism is a brief transition. But The West, by failing to resist demonic temptation - especially in relation to sex (the second-most powerful human instinct, after religion), but also from pride-resentment and more general this-wordly hedonism, backed by pervasive dishonesty - got stuck in the atheist, materialist, sceptical phase. the phase became 'permanent' - having lasted and increased and accelerated over about nine generations so far - except that it is self-destroying.
So, our starting point is atheism, materialism, nihilism - fuelled by hedonism and reinforced by dishonesty. That is where we are. That is where we start from - and things are still getting worse.
The fact that many individuals are Not in this state (are once-born Christians) - is fortunate for them (until they get corrupted) but we should not be distracted from the essence of our predicament. We cannot return to the once-born situation, because that depends-upon society being organised such that Christianity is natural, spontaneous, instinctive and pretty much just-happens. Insofar as our Christianity relies upon a Christian milieu, upon passive absorption, it will be corrupted, sooner or later.
From where we are, we can only move forward to a deliberate, conscious, chosen Christianity - such as has never existed in the past except among a few individuals.
That is the special challenge of these times - for individual, not for 'society' because society is lost, gone, destroyed. So, we must rely upon individuals, one at a time, finding their own path. Which includes finding for themselves - with invisible divine help, no doubt, once intent is established - but not being fed, the help they need.
The key word is agency. It is not about 'individualism' but about agency - which is 'free will', but free will of the real (and divine) self. It is getting our-selves to the situation of recognising the deepest and most important issues and assumptions, and taking personal responsibility for our choices, our faith, our beliefs, our motivations.
We must first become agents (which is not a spontaneous thing - but an achievement) and then exercise our agency. Of course, people may choose wrongly, but where we are now is that people are not even choosing. They are once-born evil! We need to be twice-born - even if we are already once-born Christians.
It is a huge risk; but that risk is unavoidable in going from once- to twice-born; and that is The risk which is characteristic, definitive, of this time and place.
*The distinction of once- versus twice-born comes from William James's book The Varieties of Religious Experience.
Wednesday 8 August 2018
Patriotism versus Nationalism
William Wildblood (at Albion Awakening) has written a good piece on the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism; and how its good to be patriotic, but not (usually) a nationalist.
It is patriotism that is the opposite of being a globalist (ie. necessarily a bureaucratic totalitarian).
I can remember George Orwell saying something similar, somewhere - he regarded himself as a patriot, not a nationalist.
For me, nationalism is a first-generation post-religious ideology that is an attempt to provide some basis for social cohesion; but it never lasts beyond that first generation after apostasy. In The West, everywhere, we are now several generations removed from a sufficiently strong national belief in a single religion, which is why nationalism is everywhere small, weak and ineffectual.
Of course, religion is also small, weak and ineffectual - but at least religion has a record of multigenerational success as the basis for national life. However, religion cannot be used as a means to an end (or, not for long) - so if not just collapse, but purposive national suicide is to be avoided, then religion must come first.
The first question is which religion; and the second is whether the nature of that religion needs to be of a new form or the restoration of an old one...
It is patriotism that is the opposite of being a globalist (ie. necessarily a bureaucratic totalitarian).
I can remember George Orwell saying something similar, somewhere - he regarded himself as a patriot, not a nationalist.
For me, nationalism is a first-generation post-religious ideology that is an attempt to provide some basis for social cohesion; but it never lasts beyond that first generation after apostasy. In The West, everywhere, we are now several generations removed from a sufficiently strong national belief in a single religion, which is why nationalism is everywhere small, weak and ineffectual.
Of course, religion is also small, weak and ineffectual - but at least religion has a record of multigenerational success as the basis for national life. However, religion cannot be used as a means to an end (or, not for long) - so if not just collapse, but purposive national suicide is to be avoided, then religion must come first.
The first question is which religion; and the second is whether the nature of that religion needs to be of a new form or the restoration of an old one...
Tuesday 7 August 2018
On the nature and consequences of suppressing conspiracy theorists (such as myself)
The context of recent events is discussed at Albion Awakening; and reason for spiritual hope is located...
What are conspiracy theories and why are they suddenly being suppressed?
Some years ago I wrote a fair bit about the nature of delusions; especially the kind of 'rational delusions' seen in an unusual condition called Delusional Disorder.
I realised that these delusions were just part of the spectrum of normal thinking; and I also realised that when we are engaged in trying to understand social phenomena ('other people') the most important and first step is to decide upon their 'motivations' (more exactly their 'Dispositions, Motivations and Intentions' - DMI; but I shall shorten this to motivations).
Specific, individual human actions have no meaning unless they can be understood as expressions of motivation. If we deny that a person, or organisation, has any motivation; then we cannot make sense of what they do. If we get the motivation wrong, we will misunderstand what they do. And there is no 'objective' way of knowing motivation, because it is in the 'mind' of another.
So, here we have an absolutely vital matter; yet one about which a decision can, in practice, be impossible to agree-upon; because any differences in imputed motivation change the meaning of any particular behaviour - to make a self-validating circularity.
(e.g. Once we have decided a person is hostile, their actions will be interpreted as hostile; and vice versa. Exactly the same action can be seen as hostile or benign, according to imputed motivation. In particular, nothing a person can ever do is a decisive refutation of our already-existing imputed motivation.)
One would have to be insensible not to notice the current massive increase in accusations that somebody or some-organisation is a 'conspiracy theorist' - and this is because a 'conspiracy theorist' is someone who claims that there is an evil motivation behind the behaviour of the powerful global elites. It seems that the assumption of a real and evil global elite is becoming sufficiently common that it needs to be dealt-with.
By contrast, there is (in the mass media, government, and legal system) the inbuilt assumption that either there is no global elite, hence no motivation at all (and world affairs are not directed). Or else it is regarded as evidentially-true that insist that the motivations of the global elite are benign. So, anyone who assumes both that the global elite is 1. a real thing and 2. of evil intent; is regarded as 'a conspiracy theorist', because they are 'factually wrong'; hence either incompetent, insane or evil (or more than one of these).
Conspiracy theorists used to be tolerated but systematically mocked; however in the last year or so, they are also being deplatformed and defunded - on the excuse that they propagate 'false' information. However, as described above, the truth or falsity of information is always secondary to motivation. Facts, as such, cannot be either true or false - there cannot even be 'a fact' nor could one be recognised without a prior conceptual scheme explaining what is and how to recognise a fact. And therefore, it is precisely motivation, and not facts, that is at issue.
My primary point is that this matter cannot be decided by 'evidence' because evidence is precisely dictated by assumptions. the notion that conspiracy theorists are punished for propagating false facts is not true. What is really going-on? In a nutshell; conspiracy theorists are being deplatormed and defunded on the justification that they are evil; and the specific evil of which conspiracy theorists are accused is that they assert the reality of a global elite, and that they further assert this global elite is of evil motivation, overall.
The reality, the existence, of a global elite can neither be proved nor disproved by evidence; the intention of such a group can neither be proved nor disproved by evidence - and either state of affairs is possible.
Yet, for a Christian, our entire understanding of what is happening in public affairs depends upon the basic decision of whether to believe or disbelieve in a global elite of rulers; and - if we do believe in their reality, whether to regard their motivations as essentially aligned with God's wishes, or else against God's motivations.
(For a Christian there are no other possibilities - one is either pro- or contra-God, although there are degrees of both.)
And it is absolutely arbitrary (hence illegitimate) to prejudge this issue by claiming that we ought-to (for example) always assume 'cock-up rather than conspiracy' (always assume that apparent coherence is a delusional misinterpretation of randomness) - since both deliberate conspiracy and unorganised chaos are possible and common in human affairs; there is no good reason to pre-assume one state rather than the other; especially when that assumption will dictate the interpretation and understanding of all subsequent evidence.
As so often, the first and most important move is to clarify the issue, and acknowledge that here is an unavoidable judgement and choice to be made.
Is there a global elite? If not then there can be no understanding of global affairs. If so, is teh conspiracy net-Good or net-evil?
Because the understanding of evidence concerning a global elite is utterly shaped by this prior decision regarding motivation - and yet no understanding at all is possible until after the assumption has been made.
Note: The identity and motivation of a global elite conspiracy is also disputed. Materialist atheist conspiracy theorists regard the global elite as human, and working towards human goals such as wealth, power, sex and the sadistic infliction of suffering. But Christian conspiracy theorists may regard the ultimate and strategic evil elite as supernatural, that is demonic; and their goals as being mainly about causing human damnation.
I realised that these delusions were just part of the spectrum of normal thinking; and I also realised that when we are engaged in trying to understand social phenomena ('other people') the most important and first step is to decide upon their 'motivations' (more exactly their 'Dispositions, Motivations and Intentions' - DMI; but I shall shorten this to motivations).
Specific, individual human actions have no meaning unless they can be understood as expressions of motivation. If we deny that a person, or organisation, has any motivation; then we cannot make sense of what they do. If we get the motivation wrong, we will misunderstand what they do. And there is no 'objective' way of knowing motivation, because it is in the 'mind' of another.
So, here we have an absolutely vital matter; yet one about which a decision can, in practice, be impossible to agree-upon; because any differences in imputed motivation change the meaning of any particular behaviour - to make a self-validating circularity.
(e.g. Once we have decided a person is hostile, their actions will be interpreted as hostile; and vice versa. Exactly the same action can be seen as hostile or benign, according to imputed motivation. In particular, nothing a person can ever do is a decisive refutation of our already-existing imputed motivation.)
One would have to be insensible not to notice the current massive increase in accusations that somebody or some-organisation is a 'conspiracy theorist' - and this is because a 'conspiracy theorist' is someone who claims that there is an evil motivation behind the behaviour of the powerful global elites. It seems that the assumption of a real and evil global elite is becoming sufficiently common that it needs to be dealt-with.
By contrast, there is (in the mass media, government, and legal system) the inbuilt assumption that either there is no global elite, hence no motivation at all (and world affairs are not directed). Or else it is regarded as evidentially-true that insist that the motivations of the global elite are benign. So, anyone who assumes both that the global elite is 1. a real thing and 2. of evil intent; is regarded as 'a conspiracy theorist', because they are 'factually wrong'; hence either incompetent, insane or evil (or more than one of these).
Conspiracy theorists used to be tolerated but systematically mocked; however in the last year or so, they are also being deplatformed and defunded - on the excuse that they propagate 'false' information. However, as described above, the truth or falsity of information is always secondary to motivation. Facts, as such, cannot be either true or false - there cannot even be 'a fact' nor could one be recognised without a prior conceptual scheme explaining what is and how to recognise a fact. And therefore, it is precisely motivation, and not facts, that is at issue.
My primary point is that this matter cannot be decided by 'evidence' because evidence is precisely dictated by assumptions. the notion that conspiracy theorists are punished for propagating false facts is not true. What is really going-on? In a nutshell; conspiracy theorists are being deplatormed and defunded on the justification that they are evil; and the specific evil of which conspiracy theorists are accused is that they assert the reality of a global elite, and that they further assert this global elite is of evil motivation, overall.
The reality, the existence, of a global elite can neither be proved nor disproved by evidence; the intention of such a group can neither be proved nor disproved by evidence - and either state of affairs is possible.
Yet, for a Christian, our entire understanding of what is happening in public affairs depends upon the basic decision of whether to believe or disbelieve in a global elite of rulers; and - if we do believe in their reality, whether to regard their motivations as essentially aligned with God's wishes, or else against God's motivations.
(For a Christian there are no other possibilities - one is either pro- or contra-God, although there are degrees of both.)
And it is absolutely arbitrary (hence illegitimate) to prejudge this issue by claiming that we ought-to (for example) always assume 'cock-up rather than conspiracy' (always assume that apparent coherence is a delusional misinterpretation of randomness) - since both deliberate conspiracy and unorganised chaos are possible and common in human affairs; there is no good reason to pre-assume one state rather than the other; especially when that assumption will dictate the interpretation and understanding of all subsequent evidence.
As so often, the first and most important move is to clarify the issue, and acknowledge that here is an unavoidable judgement and choice to be made.
Is there a global elite? If not then there can be no understanding of global affairs. If so, is teh conspiracy net-Good or net-evil?
Because the understanding of evidence concerning a global elite is utterly shaped by this prior decision regarding motivation - and yet no understanding at all is possible until after the assumption has been made.
Note: The identity and motivation of a global elite conspiracy is also disputed. Materialist atheist conspiracy theorists regard the global elite as human, and working towards human goals such as wealth, power, sex and the sadistic infliction of suffering. But Christian conspiracy theorists may regard the ultimate and strategic evil elite as supernatural, that is demonic; and their goals as being mainly about causing human damnation.
Monday 6 August 2018
How come over-promoted mediocre middle managers are such vicious tyrants? - Because they are 'just following orders'
We live in an age when the over-promoted, mediocre middle manager rules most of the West: four quick examples are the Prime Minister of the UK, The Chancellor of Germany, The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the phenomenon is general in all major institutions, organisations and corporations in all the major social systems: politics, government, the mass media, business, science, education, health, religion, law, the police, the military, the arts... you name it.
That such passive, petty, incompetent, unprincipled, ludicrous grey men and women rise to the top of a bureaucratic society ruled by committees and voting is no surprise; but their viciousness and tyranny is perhaps unexpected from individuals who lack the most basic personal qualities of a natural leader.
For instance, they are passive, reactive and have no long-term inner motivation - being slaves of expediency; they utterly lack personal courage and the capacity to dominate Men - being personally submissive, unimpressive, unadmirable, and unable to hold firm in the face of opposition; they have negative charisma; and they lack judgement - being unable to make a significant decision for themselves, but always sheltering behind 'implementing' the outcome of 'process'.
The answer lies in the simple fact of who is pulling the strings of the managerial puppet, whose is the hidden-hand thrust up inside and working the managerial puppet; who is the real power, who is giving the orders: in sum, the answer lies in the identity of those who promoted these mediocre, passive, instruction-implementing individuals to their present sham status.
What is a middle manager good at? A good middle manager is good at following instructions from his superiors... and that's it.
When we observe everywhere middle managers in leadership positions, and when - despite their submissiveness, passivity and mediocrity - they act with rigidity, aggression and spite in pursuit of the agenda of political correctness - what this tells us is that they are simply following the orders of their real Masters.
What it tells us is that the organisations, institutions and corporations that are headed-up by mediocre middle managers are actually being run by persons outside the organisation. This is why all modern groups are converging onto Leftist socio-political activity. They are all the tools of hidden puppet-masters.
A middle manager fears his or her boss, more than anything; indeed it's the only thing he fears. Because it is the boss who put him where he is; and it is the boss who will take him out if disobeyed. Thus the peculiar, indeed ridiculous, combination of feebleness and aggression, of submissiveness and inflexibility, of ingratiating niceness and venomous spitefulness.
We live in a world where the real power is hidden and where the official wielders of power are fakes; and the middle managerial takeover ought to be regarded as solid evidence of this fact.
That such passive, petty, incompetent, unprincipled, ludicrous grey men and women rise to the top of a bureaucratic society ruled by committees and voting is no surprise; but their viciousness and tyranny is perhaps unexpected from individuals who lack the most basic personal qualities of a natural leader.
For instance, they are passive, reactive and have no long-term inner motivation - being slaves of expediency; they utterly lack personal courage and the capacity to dominate Men - being personally submissive, unimpressive, unadmirable, and unable to hold firm in the face of opposition; they have negative charisma; and they lack judgement - being unable to make a significant decision for themselves, but always sheltering behind 'implementing' the outcome of 'process'.
The answer lies in the simple fact of who is pulling the strings of the managerial puppet, whose is the hidden-hand thrust up inside and working the managerial puppet; who is the real power, who is giving the orders: in sum, the answer lies in the identity of those who promoted these mediocre, passive, instruction-implementing individuals to their present sham status.
What is a middle manager good at? A good middle manager is good at following instructions from his superiors... and that's it.
When we observe everywhere middle managers in leadership positions, and when - despite their submissiveness, passivity and mediocrity - they act with rigidity, aggression and spite in pursuit of the agenda of political correctness - what this tells us is that they are simply following the orders of their real Masters.
What it tells us is that the organisations, institutions and corporations that are headed-up by mediocre middle managers are actually being run by persons outside the organisation. This is why all modern groups are converging onto Leftist socio-political activity. They are all the tools of hidden puppet-masters.
A middle manager fears his or her boss, more than anything; indeed it's the only thing he fears. Because it is the boss who put him where he is; and it is the boss who will take him out if disobeyed. Thus the peculiar, indeed ridiculous, combination of feebleness and aggression, of submissiveness and inflexibility, of ingratiating niceness and venomous spitefulness.
We live in a world where the real power is hidden and where the official wielders of power are fakes; and the middle managerial takeover ought to be regarded as solid evidence of this fact.
The definition of superstition...
From the comments, by William James Tychonievich
The definition of superstition:
Acting according to beliefs which you do not admit to yourself that you believe.
The definition of superstition:
Acting according to beliefs which you do not admit to yourself that you believe.
CS Lewis on the inevitable end of institutions, nations, civilisation, worlds... but not people
Edited from a post at Albion Awakening...
...It is a strange thing to contemplate the fact that not only will I, personally, witness the end of all my cherished institutions (indeed, I have already seen the all-but end of them over the past forty years), but also I will witness the end of England, of Western Civilisation, of the planet earth - even the death of our sun.
This is simply because I am immortal and they are not - nor are they intended to immortal; they are temporary expedients, created and sustained for purposes; and when these purposes are fulfilled or failed, every-thing will wind-down and end...
...We ought not to become frenzied about the probable collapse - because fear and urgency are counter-productive; we understand very little of what is going on and almost nothing of the scope and depth of divine interventions behind the scenes.
What will happen I don't know, and nor does anybody else. But I am ever more sure that what we must do is on the positive side.
Anything - any-thing at all - we can do to epitomise and sustain a life of love and creativity; is of unboundedly-greater value than anything we might, potentially, perhaps achieve by our interventions in the mass world of power, economics, politics and generalised socio-political expedience.
Read the whole thing...
...It is a strange thing to contemplate the fact that not only will I, personally, witness the end of all my cherished institutions (indeed, I have already seen the all-but end of them over the past forty years), but also I will witness the end of England, of Western Civilisation, of the planet earth - even the death of our sun.
This is simply because I am immortal and they are not - nor are they intended to immortal; they are temporary expedients, created and sustained for purposes; and when these purposes are fulfilled or failed, every-thing will wind-down and end...
...We ought not to become frenzied about the probable collapse - because fear and urgency are counter-productive; we understand very little of what is going on and almost nothing of the scope and depth of divine interventions behind the scenes.
What will happen I don't know, and nor does anybody else. But I am ever more sure that what we must do is on the positive side.
Anything - any-thing at all - we can do to epitomise and sustain a life of love and creativity; is of unboundedly-greater value than anything we might, potentially, perhaps achieve by our interventions in the mass world of power, economics, politics and generalised socio-political expedience.
Read the whole thing...
Sunday 5 August 2018
The so-called Leap of faith re-explained for atheists
Firstly - the thing about the 'leap of faith' is that everyone in the world, past and present; religious and atheist; has already made this: the difference between individuals is mostly is whether or not they are aware of the fact of having done so, whether they have done so freely or passively.
Most people are unconscious of ever having made the leap of faith, because most people simply absorb their assumptions from others, without recognising that they are assumptions. Most people regard their basic assumptions as simple facts derived from evidence - but basic assumptions, unlike facts, cannot be contradicted by evidence - because the basic assumptions themselves dictate what counts as evidence; what counts as 'a fact'.
(Evidence is not self-evident; facts do not float around the universe - universally accessible, immediately identifiable as fact, and understood identically and perfectly by everybody... Both depend on prior and basic assumptions concerning the nature of reality.)
What is the leap of faith? Well, it refers to the basic assumptions that make a frame for life and living, for understanding, meaning, purpose and everything else.
Why is it a 'leap' and why is 'faith' required? It is a leap because basic assumptions cannot be derived-from anything more solid than themselves - we need to jump over, or past, or through 'the facts' to reach these assumptions. And it is faith because it rests on something that could be called intuition when it is based on inner sureness, and revelation when it is felt to be given by something external and greater. Perhaps the ideal is that the basic assumptions are mutually reinforced by revelation and intuition.
The word 'leap' also suggests the way that this must be an instant and whole mental move - which also means that that which is known by faith must be simple enough to be grasped and comprehended entire.
Often this requires a preliminary period of critical reflection and clarification to sort-out just what-it-is that we are trying to know as true or false. We must ask the right question before we can get a coherent and correct answer.
What this, in turn, tells us is that a single leap of faith is usually inadequate; especially for a typical mainstream, materialist atheist - who has unconsciously absorbed such a collection of dis-beliefs as to make any single belief incoherent. This is the faith of Modern Man - and typically he cannot tell when, where, how or why he adopted it.
For example, it is quite normal for modern people to disbelieve in the world as having been created, in a creator or any other kind of God, in the soul, in any kind of persistent existence before or after biological life - to disbelieve that reality has any purpose or meaning, and to assert believe that human relationships have no continued reality beyond the lifespan of their participants. Most would regard all human choices and decisions as either random (hence meaningless) or else merely the determined consequences of previous events (hence meaningless) - hence Modern Man does not believe that he has the free agency even to choose his own basic assumptions!.
In other words, typical Modern Men have, unconsciously and uncritically - and indeed generally while denying that any leap or faith has been involved - begin in a situation of so many negations that, if they were to take their own beliefs seriously and consistently, they would be reduced to a state of paralysed and silent despair at the utter futility of everything.
Silent because there could be no meaning in communication, since other beings don't exist, or if even they do exist then communication cannot be possible, and even if communication were possible it could not (in a random/ determined universe) have any meaning.
An essential first step for a leap of faith into meaning and purpose would seem to be to acknowledge that one's assumptions are indeed the consequence of faith, and not of 'evidence'; and to determine to make this leap for oneself, in consciousness and freedom - rather than unwittingly and passively.
Most people are unconscious of ever having made the leap of faith, because most people simply absorb their assumptions from others, without recognising that they are assumptions. Most people regard their basic assumptions as simple facts derived from evidence - but basic assumptions, unlike facts, cannot be contradicted by evidence - because the basic assumptions themselves dictate what counts as evidence; what counts as 'a fact'.
(Evidence is not self-evident; facts do not float around the universe - universally accessible, immediately identifiable as fact, and understood identically and perfectly by everybody... Both depend on prior and basic assumptions concerning the nature of reality.)
What is the leap of faith? Well, it refers to the basic assumptions that make a frame for life and living, for understanding, meaning, purpose and everything else.
Why is it a 'leap' and why is 'faith' required? It is a leap because basic assumptions cannot be derived-from anything more solid than themselves - we need to jump over, or past, or through 'the facts' to reach these assumptions. And it is faith because it rests on something that could be called intuition when it is based on inner sureness, and revelation when it is felt to be given by something external and greater. Perhaps the ideal is that the basic assumptions are mutually reinforced by revelation and intuition.
The word 'leap' also suggests the way that this must be an instant and whole mental move - which also means that that which is known by faith must be simple enough to be grasped and comprehended entire.
Often this requires a preliminary period of critical reflection and clarification to sort-out just what-it-is that we are trying to know as true or false. We must ask the right question before we can get a coherent and correct answer.
What this, in turn, tells us is that a single leap of faith is usually inadequate; especially for a typical mainstream, materialist atheist - who has unconsciously absorbed such a collection of dis-beliefs as to make any single belief incoherent. This is the faith of Modern Man - and typically he cannot tell when, where, how or why he adopted it.
For example, it is quite normal for modern people to disbelieve in the world as having been created, in a creator or any other kind of God, in the soul, in any kind of persistent existence before or after biological life - to disbelieve that reality has any purpose or meaning, and to assert believe that human relationships have no continued reality beyond the lifespan of their participants. Most would regard all human choices and decisions as either random (hence meaningless) or else merely the determined consequences of previous events (hence meaningless) - hence Modern Man does not believe that he has the free agency even to choose his own basic assumptions!.
In other words, typical Modern Men have, unconsciously and uncritically - and indeed generally while denying that any leap or faith has been involved - begin in a situation of so many negations that, if they were to take their own beliefs seriously and consistently, they would be reduced to a state of paralysed and silent despair at the utter futility of everything.
Silent because there could be no meaning in communication, since other beings don't exist, or if even they do exist then communication cannot be possible, and even if communication were possible it could not (in a random/ determined universe) have any meaning.
An essential first step for a leap of faith into meaning and purpose would seem to be to acknowledge that one's assumptions are indeed the consequence of faith, and not of 'evidence'; and to determine to make this leap for oneself, in consciousness and freedom - rather than unwittingly and passively.
Inklings depictions of an Inklings meeting
Excerpted from a new post at the The Notion Club Papers blog...
...There is no direct transcript of an actual Inklings evening, featuring the actual people who attended. The nearest to this are a few, paragraph length, summary entries in Warnie Lewis's diary - a selection from which is published in Brothers and Friends: the diaries of Major Warren Hamilton Lewis edited by Marjorie Lamp Mead (1988).
The best known word-by-word depiction of an Inklings meeting is a chapter in Humphrey Carpenter's group biography The Inklings (1978); which is not an actual meeting, but one that he creatively reconstructed by sampling and synthesizing from multiple writings of the Inklings, together with hints from Warnie's diary. This features the Lewis brothers, JRR Tolkien, Havard and Charles Williams – and these seem to have been the core Inklings of the 1939-45 war years. The only survivor - Havard - endorsed Carpenter’s account as providing the genuine flavour, although probably more intellectually concentrated than a typical real meeting.
JRR Tolkien's The Notion Club Papers (an unfinished and posthumously published novel to be found in Christopher Tolkien's edited The History of Middle Earth, Volume 9, Sauron Defeated, 1992) comprises a highly Inklings-style meeting of a club that was based explicitly upon The Inklings and written to be read at Inklings meeting during 1945-6; but with different, fictionalized and composite participants. This probably captures the spirit of an Inklings meeting more closely than any other source.
CS Lewis also left a short depiction of an Inkling's-esque meeting which can be found in an unfinished fragment of a story named The Dark Tower, and which was posthumously edited and published by Walter Hooper in 1977. The tone of discussion – its mixture of humour and seriousness - is similar to that of the Notion Club.
Owen Barfield was an infrequent, but very keen, Inklings participant - and arguably the Inklings evolutionarily-arose from the Barfield-Jack Lewis conversations and written debates of the 1920s. Barfield published a novel entitled Worlds Apart (1963) which describes a weekend length conversation of a very Inklings-like character - including characters based on Barfield and Jack Lewis...
Read the whole thing here.
...There is no direct transcript of an actual Inklings evening, featuring the actual people who attended. The nearest to this are a few, paragraph length, summary entries in Warnie Lewis's diary - a selection from which is published in Brothers and Friends: the diaries of Major Warren Hamilton Lewis edited by Marjorie Lamp Mead (1988).
The best known word-by-word depiction of an Inklings meeting is a chapter in Humphrey Carpenter's group biography The Inklings (1978); which is not an actual meeting, but one that he creatively reconstructed by sampling and synthesizing from multiple writings of the Inklings, together with hints from Warnie's diary. This features the Lewis brothers, JRR Tolkien, Havard and Charles Williams – and these seem to have been the core Inklings of the 1939-45 war years. The only survivor - Havard - endorsed Carpenter’s account as providing the genuine flavour, although probably more intellectually concentrated than a typical real meeting.
JRR Tolkien's The Notion Club Papers (an unfinished and posthumously published novel to be found in Christopher Tolkien's edited The History of Middle Earth, Volume 9, Sauron Defeated, 1992) comprises a highly Inklings-style meeting of a club that was based explicitly upon The Inklings and written to be read at Inklings meeting during 1945-6; but with different, fictionalized and composite participants. This probably captures the spirit of an Inklings meeting more closely than any other source.
CS Lewis also left a short depiction of an Inkling's-esque meeting which can be found in an unfinished fragment of a story named The Dark Tower, and which was posthumously edited and published by Walter Hooper in 1977. The tone of discussion – its mixture of humour and seriousness - is similar to that of the Notion Club.
Owen Barfield was an infrequent, but very keen, Inklings participant - and arguably the Inklings evolutionarily-arose from the Barfield-Jack Lewis conversations and written debates of the 1920s. Barfield published a novel entitled Worlds Apart (1963) which describes a weekend length conversation of a very Inklings-like character - including characters based on Barfield and Jack Lewis...
Read the whole thing here.
Saturday 4 August 2018
How can you understand women from a Christian perspective?
One of the most disgusting spectacles on the internet is the self-styled right-wing manosphere writers (whose macho-posturing is nearly-always contradicted by their chickenhawk pseudonymity), who purport to write from a Christian perspective; but who argue using only secular, materialist utilitarian reasoning and evidence - and then thinly-coat their conclusions with a supposedly-Christian veneer.
(The intent is apparently to retain the male extra-marital sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of the sexual revolution; but in a situation where women are held subordinate - hedonistic materialism for the men and patriarchal religion for the women.)
Given the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-Christian, posturing, prideful and self-serving midden that is the manosphere, on the one hand; and on the other the dishonest, incoherent, demonic evil that is mainstream socio-politics... how should Christians then proceed in understanding women from a genuinely Christian perspective?
The answer is obviously to begin with the Christian understanding of sex and sexuality; to begin with 'what God wants and intends' from the fact of there being men and women. Only later may the materialist and pragmatic socio-political conclusions be derived.
Here, there are differences among Christians. Traditionally, the official theology of most Christian churches has been that sexuality, sex, marriage and procreation are merely a temporary feature of our mortal lives; all of which either cease, or else cease to be important, after death (for instance marriage until 'death do us part').
This has not always been the view of actual Christians, for instance among the 'laity'; who have often regarded sexuality, sex, and marriage to be at least potentially continued in Heaven.
This has been given a metaphysical basis in Mormon theology, which regards men and women as distinct from the beginning, a complementary dyad - the ultimate 'unit' of a Man. Only the dyad is capable of the highest exaltation to fully divine creativity, which is the chosen, irreversible, eternal marriage of a man and woman, as separate beings bound by love to make a complete god.
My point is that a real Christian needs to - indeed ought to - first reach a personal understanding, as best he can; by faith (that is by personal revelation, through prayer and meditation, by the fullest intuitive knowledge) - of why from the divine perspective there are men and women both; why there is marriage and what is its ultimate nature and importance; and what sex is ultimately for.
From this solid ground, we may then be able decide the secondary issues of what are the mortal, this-worldly, my-personal-life (and perhaps cultural) implications of this Gods-eye-view understanding.
Given the way in which the sexual revolution has been the major, most powerful, most successful instrument of demonic strategy over the past fifty-plus years; this is something we all absolutely need to do.
(The intent is apparently to retain the male extra-marital sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility of the sexual revolution; but in a situation where women are held subordinate - hedonistic materialism for the men and patriarchal religion for the women.)
Given the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-Christian, posturing, prideful and self-serving midden that is the manosphere, on the one hand; and on the other the dishonest, incoherent, demonic evil that is mainstream socio-politics... how should Christians then proceed in understanding women from a genuinely Christian perspective?
The answer is obviously to begin with the Christian understanding of sex and sexuality; to begin with 'what God wants and intends' from the fact of there being men and women. Only later may the materialist and pragmatic socio-political conclusions be derived.
Here, there are differences among Christians. Traditionally, the official theology of most Christian churches has been that sexuality, sex, marriage and procreation are merely a temporary feature of our mortal lives; all of which either cease, or else cease to be important, after death (for instance marriage until 'death do us part').
This has not always been the view of actual Christians, for instance among the 'laity'; who have often regarded sexuality, sex, and marriage to be at least potentially continued in Heaven.
This has been given a metaphysical basis in Mormon theology, which regards men and women as distinct from the beginning, a complementary dyad - the ultimate 'unit' of a Man. Only the dyad is capable of the highest exaltation to fully divine creativity, which is the chosen, irreversible, eternal marriage of a man and woman, as separate beings bound by love to make a complete god.
My point is that a real Christian needs to - indeed ought to - first reach a personal understanding, as best he can; by faith (that is by personal revelation, through prayer and meditation, by the fullest intuitive knowledge) - of why from the divine perspective there are men and women both; why there is marriage and what is its ultimate nature and importance; and what sex is ultimately for.
From this solid ground, we may then be able decide the secondary issues of what are the mortal, this-worldly, my-personal-life (and perhaps cultural) implications of this Gods-eye-view understanding.
Given the way in which the sexual revolution has been the major, most powerful, most successful instrument of demonic strategy over the past fifty-plus years; this is something we all absolutely need to do.
Boromir versus Faramir, prophecy and The Fellowship
Boromir and Faramir by Magali Villeneuve
How Providence shaped, and failed to shape, the membership of the Fellowship of the Ring - and the consequences; at The Notion Club Papers blog.
Friday 3 August 2018
Why do modern people assume and believe that death is annihilation?
When CS Lewis was a young adult he had been far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness, and he even resented the fact that he had been created without his own permission.
One advantage of the anti-Christian materialism that he clung to was its limited danger of pain. No disaster can be infinite if death ends all. And if this life becomes too painful, one can always commit suicide for an early escape.
In contrast, the horrible thing about Christianity is that it offers no such escape. It assures each many that he is going to live forever.
The Christian universe has no door marked exit.
Perhaps a man's temper or his jealousy are getting worse so slowly that in seventy years they are not very noticeable. But in a million years they would be hell itself; "in fact if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be'."
Edited from CS Lewis: Mere Christian by Kathryn Ann Linskoog, 1773. Page 101.
This passage reveals how important it is to modern materialist ethics that death is regarded as annihilation, exit, escape.
The bland assurance that 'I have a right to do what I like' is only possible when death annihilates the individual.
To guard this inversion - mainstream culture has manufactured and sustained an habitual, unthinking trope that anyone who (like nearly all humans through history and still today) believes that there is something (the soul or spirit) which survives death, is engaged in 'wishful thinking'.
So powerful is that 'wishful thinking' reflex that modern Man has ceased to examine the potentially 'horrible' consequences of survival beyond death as such (and without salvation); consequences that used to be almost universally recognised.
So, it may be seen that the death-as-annihilation assumption underpins the mainstream relativistic morality of hedonism; especially in the realm of sex and sexuality.
Of course, regarding death as annihilation also renders futile all attempts to make meaning, purpose of relationships - this leads to despair (typically unconscious, and observable by the mass personal self-hatred illustrated by chosen childlessness, and the mass national self-hatred of the planned incremental self-destruction of the West.
In sum, the assumption that death is annihilation underpins both the hedonism and the despair of modern culture. Yet the assumption is far more effective at escaping pain than enabling happiness; in the sense that genuinely to contemplate all life as utterly ended by annihilation is a numbing, demotivating thing.
Distraction by surface pleasure remains possible, but not underlying happiness; short-termist self-interest remains possible, but not altruistic, long-term motivation. The modern condition in a nutshell...
Small wonder that this assumption is so aggressively defended.
One advantage of the anti-Christian materialism that he clung to was its limited danger of pain. No disaster can be infinite if death ends all. And if this life becomes too painful, one can always commit suicide for an early escape.
In contrast, the horrible thing about Christianity is that it offers no such escape. It assures each many that he is going to live forever.
The Christian universe has no door marked exit.
Perhaps a man's temper or his jealousy are getting worse so slowly that in seventy years they are not very noticeable. But in a million years they would be hell itself; "in fact if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be'."
Edited from CS Lewis: Mere Christian by Kathryn Ann Linskoog, 1773. Page 101.
This passage reveals how important it is to modern materialist ethics that death is regarded as annihilation, exit, escape.
The bland assurance that 'I have a right to do what I like' is only possible when death annihilates the individual.
To guard this inversion - mainstream culture has manufactured and sustained an habitual, unthinking trope that anyone who (like nearly all humans through history and still today) believes that there is something (the soul or spirit) which survives death, is engaged in 'wishful thinking'.
So powerful is that 'wishful thinking' reflex that modern Man has ceased to examine the potentially 'horrible' consequences of survival beyond death as such (and without salvation); consequences that used to be almost universally recognised.
So, it may be seen that the death-as-annihilation assumption underpins the mainstream relativistic morality of hedonism; especially in the realm of sex and sexuality.
Of course, regarding death as annihilation also renders futile all attempts to make meaning, purpose of relationships - this leads to despair (typically unconscious, and observable by the mass personal self-hatred illustrated by chosen childlessness, and the mass national self-hatred of the planned incremental self-destruction of the West.
In sum, the assumption that death is annihilation underpins both the hedonism and the despair of modern culture. Yet the assumption is far more effective at escaping pain than enabling happiness; in the sense that genuinely to contemplate all life as utterly ended by annihilation is a numbing, demotivating thing.
Distraction by surface pleasure remains possible, but not underlying happiness; short-termist self-interest remains possible, but not altruistic, long-term motivation. The modern condition in a nutshell...
Small wonder that this assumption is so aggressively defended.
Thursday 2 August 2018
Pope and Magisterium jump shark today
The Pope and senior bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have announced that the death penalty is now illegitimate and this is going to be enshrined in the Catechism.
This is a truly huge decision, a vast change, the implications are incalculable... So why? Read the linked announcement above. That tells us why.
Because... well... in a nutshell because they don't understand justice, they don't mention the basic Christian theory of legitimate punishment which is simply that the person should deserve the punishment. They just don't have a clue.
Except it is not really having no clue, as not caring enough to inform themselves, because to them Christian Justice is irrelevant.
The decision to abolish Capital Punishment is not made for any reason of justice, let alone theology; and indeed there is not even a pretence that it is. It is made simply because the Pope and Magisterium are neither Roman Catholics not Christians.
The decision was made because... well... the leaders of the RCC just want to align themselves with the leadership of current mainstream secular elite opinion; the power brokers of the mass media, the heads of the global bureaucracies, the Western politicians and international lawyers... That's it; end of story; nothing further needs to be said on the point. Closer alignment with the global cabal of evil is both necessary, and a sufficient reason.
Anyway, all this will be very helpful to serious Roman Catholic Christians, because it will clarify the situation they are already-in; and that must be better than living in a delusional state, a fool's paradise.
As CS Lewis said in That Hideous Strength, and as I keep repeating: things are coming to a point in these End Times; and the discernment of good and evil is becoming easier.
The two sides in the spiritual war are segregating, becoming more distinct.
As evil establishes its dominance more fully; so it reveals itself for what it is - because Good is now so relatively-small and weak, that evil perceives no need for secrecy or subtlety.
The sides have formed, the middle ground has gone, the default position is to drift into passive evil, pretending not to notice or saying that evil is inevitable. But everybody really has noticed, and everybody really knows that evil is not inevitable.
You, me, everybody has therefore, implicitly or explicitly, already picked their side; because those to whom we are loyal and obedient, those whose work we do, have already picked their side.
Un-consciousness is now evil, passive evil (because God will ensure that all are sufficiently conscious - if not now, then before it is too late). .
Not to make this decision your own is also to pick your side.
This is a truly huge decision, a vast change, the implications are incalculable... So why? Read the linked announcement above. That tells us why.
Because... well... in a nutshell because they don't understand justice, they don't mention the basic Christian theory of legitimate punishment which is simply that the person should deserve the punishment. They just don't have a clue.
Except it is not really having no clue, as not caring enough to inform themselves, because to them Christian Justice is irrelevant.
The decision to abolish Capital Punishment is not made for any reason of justice, let alone theology; and indeed there is not even a pretence that it is. It is made simply because the Pope and Magisterium are neither Roman Catholics not Christians.
The decision was made because... well... the leaders of the RCC just want to align themselves with the leadership of current mainstream secular elite opinion; the power brokers of the mass media, the heads of the global bureaucracies, the Western politicians and international lawyers... That's it; end of story; nothing further needs to be said on the point. Closer alignment with the global cabal of evil is both necessary, and a sufficient reason.
Anyway, all this will be very helpful to serious Roman Catholic Christians, because it will clarify the situation they are already-in; and that must be better than living in a delusional state, a fool's paradise.
As CS Lewis said in That Hideous Strength, and as I keep repeating: things are coming to a point in these End Times; and the discernment of good and evil is becoming easier.
The two sides in the spiritual war are segregating, becoming more distinct.
As evil establishes its dominance more fully; so it reveals itself for what it is - because Good is now so relatively-small and weak, that evil perceives no need for secrecy or subtlety.
The sides have formed, the middle ground has gone, the default position is to drift into passive evil, pretending not to notice or saying that evil is inevitable. But everybody really has noticed, and everybody really knows that evil is not inevitable.
You, me, everybody has therefore, implicitly or explicitly, already picked their side; because those to whom we are loyal and obedient, those whose work we do, have already picked their side.
Un-consciousness is now evil, passive evil (because God will ensure that all are sufficiently conscious - if not now, then before it is too late). .
Not to make this decision your own is also to pick your side.
Understanding the Global Conspiracy: Screwtape proposes a toast by CS Lewis (1959)
By my evaluation The Screwtape Letters (1942) is one of CS Lewis's very best books; and the follow up 'essay' Screwtape Proposes a Toast (1959) isn't as good in a literary sense; however, it is very important and ought not to be missed.
In particular, Toast is very astute in understanding the modern (post World War II) demonic strategy - or, to put it differently, Toast tells us what the Global Conspiracy is conspiring to achieve.
I have often said that 'the conspiracy theorists' are broadly correct in diagnosing that an evil cabal lies behind the strategic direction of the modern world. Where they are wrong is that the cabal is ultimately demonic, not human; and consequently its aims are spiritual not material.
In particular, most conspiracy theorists focus on the idea that human suffering and death are being engineered by a cabal of selfish, greedy and perverted humans. But the reality is that behind these humans (who do indeed exist) and controlling them, and dictating the long term direction of evil, there are supernatural evil beings whose purpose is human damnation - not human suffering and death.
The most obvious way that this shows itself is that it is very easy for powerful people to cause suffering and death; and if that was their ultimate goal, then there would be a great deal more human suffering and death everywhere there has been over the past several decades. In fact, the human population has grown by about four billion since WWII, infant mortality has reduced, everywhere, life expectancy has increased everywhere, and there are large areas of the planet that have not suffered war for many decades, or longer.
Clearly, the powers of evil either aren't aiming ultimately at suffering and death... or else they aren't really evil, or aren't really powerful; which I reject on these grounds. What they are aiming at, and what they have done very, very effectively; is clearly laid out in Screwtape Proposes a Toast.
The powers of evil are corrupting, not killing humanity; they are perverting not causing here and now suffering; they are working by pleasure, confusion and distraction rather than pain and focused fear.
The forces of evil have learned from the Second World War, which - in spiritual terms - significantly backfired against evil in the West and triggered a powerful spiritual and Christian revival - of which The Screwtape Letters was itself a product and a trigger.
To get clearer about this - read Toast...
In particular, Toast is very astute in understanding the modern (post World War II) demonic strategy - or, to put it differently, Toast tells us what the Global Conspiracy is conspiring to achieve.
I have often said that 'the conspiracy theorists' are broadly correct in diagnosing that an evil cabal lies behind the strategic direction of the modern world. Where they are wrong is that the cabal is ultimately demonic, not human; and consequently its aims are spiritual not material.
In particular, most conspiracy theorists focus on the idea that human suffering and death are being engineered by a cabal of selfish, greedy and perverted humans. But the reality is that behind these humans (who do indeed exist) and controlling them, and dictating the long term direction of evil, there are supernatural evil beings whose purpose is human damnation - not human suffering and death.
The most obvious way that this shows itself is that it is very easy for powerful people to cause suffering and death; and if that was their ultimate goal, then there would be a great deal more human suffering and death everywhere there has been over the past several decades. In fact, the human population has grown by about four billion since WWII, infant mortality has reduced, everywhere, life expectancy has increased everywhere, and there are large areas of the planet that have not suffered war for many decades, or longer.
Clearly, the powers of evil either aren't aiming ultimately at suffering and death... or else they aren't really evil, or aren't really powerful; which I reject on these grounds. What they are aiming at, and what they have done very, very effectively; is clearly laid out in Screwtape Proposes a Toast.
The powers of evil are corrupting, not killing humanity; they are perverting not causing here and now suffering; they are working by pleasure, confusion and distraction rather than pain and focused fear.
The forces of evil have learned from the Second World War, which - in spiritual terms - significantly backfired against evil in the West and triggered a powerful spiritual and Christian revival - of which The Screwtape Letters was itself a product and a trigger.
To get clearer about this - read Toast...
Wednesday 1 August 2018
Review of The Da Vinci Code movie (2006)
No spoilers!
I haven't read the book, but a couple of weeks ago I watched the Da Vinvi Code movie and found it surprisingly enjoyable.
It is - of course - 100% hokum, but sometimes that is what I want; and it kept my attention and interest throughout (not easy to do). So I went on to watch the follow-up Angels and Demons (2009), and enjoyed it just as much.
I had heard all sorts of bad things, indeed nothing-but bad things, about the Da Vinci Code; but the basic plot idea is a solid one (and it is reused in the follow-up): an academic chap who is an expert in decoding symbols follows a 'treasure hunt' trail of clues against the clock - because only by solving the clues in sequence can the trail be followed - each clue leads onto the next.
There is a lot about religion, and specifically Christianity; and initially both films seem to be very anti-Catholic. But in the end it turns out that the RCC has goodies as well as baddies, and that a lot of the damning perspectives come from unreliable witnesses - evil characters. So the anti-Christian, debunking perspectives of the first part of the movie are, to a considerable extent, contradicted and undone by its later parts.
Something similar applies to Angels and Demons - many of the plot twists favour the Vatican perspective.
The DVC reminded me of some thirty years ago, when I was 'targeted' for conversion by Opus Dei. I had a colleague/ friend who was a member lived in one of their houses - and one (Sunday?) evening I got a phonecall, inviting me around; on arrival, to my surprise, I was shown to a little cinema and left alone to watch a movie about the founder and purposes of OD. It seemed a rather clumsy and inept gesture - although the propaganda film was fairly interesting. [Erroneous passage deleted.]
The appeal of OD seemed to be due to a combination of philosophical coherence with evangelical energy backed-up by a military organisation and attitude; a modern medievalism, technocratic monasticism...
My impression of British OD (as I recall) was very un-sinister and indeed un-glamorous - their HQ was dark and cramped, and with a school-dinners/ cooked-cabbage kind of atmosphere. All very different from the glamorous-opulent-powerful depiction of the Da Vinci Code.
Anyway, having heard nothing but Bad Things about the DVC - including its movie; I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining and stimulating it turned-out to be. I shall continue on to watch the third movie of the series, which was released recently.
I haven't read the book, but a couple of weeks ago I watched the Da Vinvi Code movie and found it surprisingly enjoyable.
It is - of course - 100% hokum, but sometimes that is what I want; and it kept my attention and interest throughout (not easy to do). So I went on to watch the follow-up Angels and Demons (2009), and enjoyed it just as much.
I had heard all sorts of bad things, indeed nothing-but bad things, about the Da Vinci Code; but the basic plot idea is a solid one (and it is reused in the follow-up): an academic chap who is an expert in decoding symbols follows a 'treasure hunt' trail of clues against the clock - because only by solving the clues in sequence can the trail be followed - each clue leads onto the next.
There is a lot about religion, and specifically Christianity; and initially both films seem to be very anti-Catholic. But in the end it turns out that the RCC has goodies as well as baddies, and that a lot of the damning perspectives come from unreliable witnesses - evil characters. So the anti-Christian, debunking perspectives of the first part of the movie are, to a considerable extent, contradicted and undone by its later parts.
Something similar applies to Angels and Demons - many of the plot twists favour the Vatican perspective.
The DVC reminded me of some thirty years ago, when I was 'targeted' for conversion by Opus Dei. I had a colleague/ friend who was a member lived in one of their houses - and one (Sunday?) evening I got a phonecall, inviting me around; on arrival, to my surprise, I was shown to a little cinema and left alone to watch a movie about the founder and purposes of OD. It seemed a rather clumsy and inept gesture - although the propaganda film was fairly interesting. [Erroneous passage deleted.]
The appeal of OD seemed to be due to a combination of philosophical coherence with evangelical energy backed-up by a military organisation and attitude; a modern medievalism, technocratic monasticism...
My impression of British OD (as I recall) was very un-sinister and indeed un-glamorous - their HQ was dark and cramped, and with a school-dinners/ cooked-cabbage kind of atmosphere. All very different from the glamorous-opulent-powerful depiction of the Da Vinci Code.
Anyway, having heard nothing but Bad Things about the DVC - including its movie; I was pleasantly surprised by how entertaining and stimulating it turned-out to be. I shall continue on to watch the third movie of the series, which was released recently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)