Bruce Charlton's Notions

There is not the slightest doubt that the forthcoming Amazon Tolkien TV show will be very, very bad indeed -- but that is actually a Good Thing for those like me who deeply love Tolkien's work, and especially we who value it as a source of spiritual wisdom. 

The Amazon organization are a major, globally-dominant source of ruling-Establishment purposive demonic evil. 

The fact that they are spending more money on ruining-Tolkien than anyone has ever spent on a TV show, demonstrates how important the project of ruining-Tolkien is to the powers-that-should-not-be. 

The biggest danger of this venture was therefore if Amazon had produced a brilliantly-executed, gripping and entertaining show that appealed to the core (actual or potential) Tolkien-fantasy audience - and then insidiously used the drama's emotionality and attention-locking power to get past Tolkienite's Good-value-defenses.

If they had chosen insensibly to soft-sell a covert evil agenda; un-consciously to swap-in the concepts that generate an evil-woke, Establishment-friendly, anti-Christian fake-JRR Tolkien; and thereby aimed to pre-empt, divert or subvert audience appreciation of the real Tolkien and his values.

That was a real danger...

However we need not worry about that anymore! 

Why? Because it is extremely difficult to produce a high quality TV show of the kind that affects people's lives and thinking. Therefore, it can only happen when producing a high quality TV show is the primary aim - to which other objectives (including the encouragement of evil) take a subordinate place. 

Thus; when a TV show, movie, novel or any other art-form (or, indeed any human organization or institution) makes value-inverted leftism its main aim - it will Always be of poor quality. 

Always. 

Hence ineffective at subverting Goodness. 

So; it is obvious to the meanest intelligence that the Amazon Tolkien will be mediocre At Best. 

Phew - we've dodged a bullet! 

As someone who wishes you well and to see you prevail - since you seem to contain most of the real Christains in the RCC; I suggest that you ought to argue positively for what you really believe: that the Tridentine Latin Mass is superior to the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass. 

This does not mean that the vernacular Mass should be forbidden altogether - nor that those who want the Vernacular/ New Order should not be able to have it; but that its inferiority ought to be officially recognized - and the Novus Ordo should be 'tolerated' rather than approved. 

I say this because I have too-often seen supporters of the Latin Mass using the same kind of 'negative' (indeed liberal) arguments used by supporters of 'free speech'.

In other words, Latin Mass advocates too-often try to be value-neutral about the two forms of the Mass.  

They try to avoid stating that either form is superior - and try to to take a line that says both Masses are equivalent, and ought to be 'equally' tolerated. 

Such an argument is wrong; because decades of experience has demonstrated (if it was ever in doubt) that there can be no such thing as value-neutrality: things are either good or bad; and if there are two different forms one must (and will, in practice!) be acknowledged as better than the other. 

So to argue negatively, from a statement of value-neutrality is both inaccurate, and ineffective. 

Therefore, the Tridentine Latin Mass should be supported as explicitly the superior and preferable form. 

Why do atheists preach atheism? Well, I was an atheist for most of my life from about age six to nearly fifty - consciously, explicitly and publicly; so I know this from the inside in a way that many lifelong Christians obviously don't. 

Atheists preach their beliefs because they regard this mortal life as the only real thing, and therefore they want this mortal life to be as pleasurable - and to have as little suffering - as possible. 

Therefore, atheists regard religion as threatening, because (for atheists) religion says that untrue things outside this mortal life are more important than happiness or misery. 

Every motivated atheists has some thing* that he regards as vitally-important to his own happiness and well-being, but which religion would interfere-with or prohibit. 

And that (put simply) is why atheists preach their beliefs and argue against religion. 

*That some thing could be almost anything in principle - but in the modern West is usually political (e.g. one of the leftist 'isms') and/or sexual... Because for many people sex is the second-most-powerful motivator after religion. So when religion is regarded as untrue, and deleted; then some aspect of sex/ sexuality tends, whether explicitly or covertly, to become the dominant motivator. 

Because the reason I bang-on about theology and metaphysics is that I am so desperate for Christian harmony - harmony among Christians of all kinds! 

At present, too many Christians define their Christianity wholly in terms of an unique theology or doctrine; and therefore, naturally, they regard those who differ with them as being Not Christian - and on-the-other-side of the spiritual war.

Conversely, I want Christians to understand that being-a-Christian comes first, and theological explanations second. 

There are untold millions of ways of being-a-Christian - as ought to be apparent from Jesus having made clear that children can be among his best followers. 

Therefore, all Christians need to develop a pre-theological way of understanding their Christianity. 

By offering and explaining a non-orthodox theology and metaphysics - which is explanatorily superior in some ways - I intend to make people realize that there is more than one way of being-a-Christian. And, if more than one - then presumably many... 

Why do I say this is needed? Why shouldn't people just 'get along' without thinking about it? 

Well, my reading of these times is that one of the most important of our tasks in this era is to understand consciously and explicitly. 

We can no longer rely on passive, unconscious tradition - so that even the traditional must be chosen; and therefore we need to be able to answer the question: why? 

There is a price to pay for all this. It is a rule of life that things can only get better in the long term by being sub-optimal in the short-term - so the immediate effect of good policies is almost-always at least somewhat - and sometimes very - adverse in the short-term.

I think we can see all around, here-and-now, that unless people have a true and explicit self-understanding - they cannot (or at least will not) resist the pervasive influences towards evil - and evil includes the fomenting of hostility between Christian denominations, churches, and 'the unaffiliated'.

To avoid such inter-Christian fighting in the long run, and to be motivated strongly-enough to live by this; we need to develop a true understanding of Christianity that unites all real Christians - and distinguishes them from the mass majority of those affiliated with Satan and his servants. 

Every single soul who can be brought to the side of Good, and to live in spiritual harmony with others who follow Christ; can (by the workings of divine providence) make an unboundedly significant difference to the positive prospects of this world. 

And that is why I bang-on about theology and metaphysics.

"Where does evil come from" is a simple question, and an obvious question! 

Christians ought to be able to answer the question, in the same simple and obvious terms it is stated - without recourse to vast, complex and soaring abstractions - and would-be-profound discourse on the nature of 'infinities'! 

And answered without recourse to statements that "Men cannot know", such things - or that they are divine-mysteries... 

Why? Because the question is obvious, reasonable, real, serious; and therefore will (deservedly!) block conversion unless answerable in the same terms it has been asked.  

The basis of the question is that there are obviously evils in this world; and Christians also know that God - the creator of this world - is Good: So where do these evils comes from?

The proper answer - the answer demanded and deserved - should be short, concrete and to the point; or else it is not a real answer 

...and will be recognized by most people as not a real answer. 

If God is supposed to have created everything except Himself (i.e. if God is an Omni-God) and is also supposed be wholly Good (i.e. if the real Christian God was also the Omni-God) - then where does evil come from? 

It's a valid question. And there is no coherent answer: If God is Omni then he cannot be wholly Good, and if wholly Good then he cannot be Omni. 

A Christian God and Omni-qualities are incompatible. 

And this incompatibility has always been obvious to most people in the world; including, I would guess, many Christians.

One attempt at arguing the compatibility of Omni-God and Christianity is to insist that evil and Good are actually, ultimately, the same and indistinguishable aspects of God's will - that both apparent-Good and apparent-evil come from God; and it is only our erring, limited human minds who cannot see this oneness. 

Indeed, taken one at a time - any proposed evil can be reframed as potentially an aspect of Good - in some larger sense.

However, even though individual instances of putative evil can be put-in-doubt, to insist on the oneness, inseparability of Good and evil-as-such is Not to be a Christian. If there is no evil, no 'sin' - if all is an equal expression of oneness - then there is no point to Christianity. 

So that kind of argument does not work. 

If evil is really-real, and God is really Omni - then evil must come from God, evil must be located-in God, ultimately. 

The usual Omni-God answer is that God gave some creatures - including Men - agency, or free will; so that Men can choose to oppose God and creation. 

Okay - but where does that motivation to oppose God and creation come from? 

If every Man was wholly-made by God (as the Omni-God concept insists); then - even if agency-within-omnipotence was granted - where does the motivation to evil come-from? It has to come from God, ultimately, because (with an Omni-God) there is nowhere else for motivation to come-from. 

In more general terms, all evil motivations, indeed the whole possibility-of-evil, would need to be baked-into the created world by the Omni-God - because the Omni-God ultimately created every-thing. 

Evil is best understand as opposition to God and to God's creation... So how can there be opposition to God and creation from some being who is created by God?  

One answer is to regard evil as a kind of insanity: something that doesn't make sense. 

For instance, Satan is described in terms of knowing that he was created-by God, but (for some crazy reason!) hating and resenting this fact; and therefore hating himself - along with the whole of creation.

Okay - but where did such insanity originate - if not the Omni-God Himself? 

How was it possible that one of God's creatures could develop this kind of pathology of insane self-hatred, resentment - pride? The only ultimate answer is that God-made-him-that-way - because, with Omni-God, that is eventually the answer to all questions...

For Omni-Godites; God made Satan that way - for reasons we cannot comprehend, but which God comprehends - therefore, the duty of all good Christians is submission, obedience to God's will... 

...But wait a minute! Uncomprehending submission to God's incomprehensible will... That sounds very much like another religion; but it is not Christianity - it is not the kind of thing that Christ would teach in the Gospels, and of course there is no essential role for agency. 

And this not Christianity; because this argument means that Christians are regarded as incapable of personally recognizing and rejecting evil...

The Omni-God answer to any version of the question: "Where does evil come from?" can only either be God - or else, the denial that evil really is evil.

And either or both of these lead either to a God beyond human discernment, a God to whom we must submit without understanding; or else the denial that evil really is different-from Good.  

Both of which are incompatible with Christianity. 

The incompatibility of the Omni-God with Christianity is indeed very easy to see and impossible to deny without redefining Christianity; or else moving to a level of uncomprehended-abstraction piled-upon uncomprehended-abstraction that makes coherent thinking impossible - and seems intended to stun all opposition into silence!

And this is why all honest defenses of a Christian Omni-God always end-up with putting 'incomprehensible mystery' at the very heart of the Christian religion - and the Christian is required simply to accept that. 

Which is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs. Especially not for someone considering conversion to Christianity, or to a Christian who wants a proper answer to an urgent question. 

So if the question is "where does evil come from?" - then what would I personally regard as an answer that is short, concrete and to the point - and true?

My answer is that:

God the creator is indeed wholly Good, however God creates using already-existing Beings - such as Men. It is these already-existing Beings that are the source of evil.

In other words, God's creation includes evil because it is made from beings that were already-evil; in different ways, and to different degrees. 

Or, God is wholly Good, but Men are - and always have been - partly evil. 

Therefore; evil really is evil; and God the creator really is Good - but the Christian God is Not an Omni-God. 

Now - of course! - such an answer raises further questions; and invites expansion. 

So much for this mortal earth; but can we not look-forward to inhabiting a wholly-Good world? What about Heaven the wholly-Good place, for example? 

How can Heaven be really-real and wholly Good - when the beings in God's creation contain evil?

It's another question; and it needs another answer. 

A short answer to this question is: that is where Jesus Christ comes in. 

This world contains evil because men brought evil into it; but for those who follow Jesus Christ, the next world can be wholly Good...

Because after death, and through resurrection, Men can choose to leave all evil behind and take-forward into Heaven only that which is Good.  

Note: Whether or not you regard my short, simple and to-the-point answers as sufficiently correct (given that all possible answers are bound to be incomplete and biased, and especially short answers!) - I hope they at least illustrate the kind-of-answer that is required to this question. And that the above suggested answers may demonstrate, by contrast, the kind-of-answer that is not suitable to the question. 

Further note: Those seriously interested in agency, which itself is the other side of the coin of evil - and in the Omni-God (aka Supergod) in relation to Christianity - should read William James Tychonievich's superb essay, published today. 

There is a lot of talk in my corner of the interweb about the need to build 'alternative institutions' - and that from these we can fight, and eventually beat, the global totalitarian atheist-leftist System. 

The trouble is that this strategy has been tried, pretty thoroughly - and failed. 

In the evangelical Protestant churches (especially in the USA) from the 1960s onward, in response to influential theorists such as Francis Schaeffer, there was a pretty determined attempt to develop churches that provided a range of services - including education from schooling through to colleges and universities. 

Such churches, with such ideals, were the major growth area of Christianity in The West over the past half-century - and the only kind of Christian church capable of attracting and retaining men and young people in significant numbers; and of providing a parallel economy and employment. 

I was a member of this kind of church that grew greatly over forty years, to provide a wide range of activities and children-youth activities through childhood and extending into college - the church also tried to start a school, but was thwarted by the UK educational bureaucracy. 

Indeed, the Mormon church developed many alternative institutions, starting in the middle 19th century - and (in its heartlands) provided a very impressive 'parallel social world' of church-run activities of many kinds - from cradle to grave. 

And, of course, the Roman Catholic church had centuries of experience developing 'alternative' social structures in the West - with religious orders and secular priests providing an apparently autonomous personnel, schools and colleges, social clubs and a multitude of other activities and employments. Almost - it seemed - a parallel world...  

Therefore, the situation was that many Christians of many kinds - right up into the new millennium - really thought they already had a set of alternative institutions. 

The problem is that such alternative institutions became corrupted and converged; and when it came to 2020 and the demonic coup - the evangelicals and Mormons alike eagerly, enthusiastically, obeyed the rules designed to destroy the Christian churches.

Instead of (as people like me had hoped they would) providing a strong communal basis and support for resisting and maybe overcoming anti-Christian pressures from the mainstream...

Instead of this, and after decades/ centuries of hard work in building them; when times got really tough and they were most needed - the alternative institutions turned out Not to be 'alternative' after all! 

Just, after all, different 'flavours' of the same universal institutional convergence onto the global-left-totalitarian agenda. 

So I hold out no optimism for new alternative institutions as a strategy for prosecuting the spiritual war of these times. 

It is easy to say that future alternative institutions will retain their purity and independence in ways that the evangelicals and Mormons failed to do; but the multiple pressures on any institution that must function in the context of a globally-hegemonic secular-left bureaucracy and mass media are greater now than they ever have been. 

And the problems of trying to grow social institutions in a world where left-secular assumptions are ever more pervasive and extreme are also worse than ever. 

And there are fewer Christians who even want these things than ever before - as demonstrated by their mass compliance with the anti-Christian (anti-human) policies advocated by their corrupted leaderships. 

I don't see the prospects for genuinely alternative Christian institutions in 2022 as being any better than they were in the past decades; when this strategy was tried and comprehensively failed. 

Being realistic: quite the contrary. 

The same options as ever remain for Christians institutions whether churches or alternative social groupings of of other kinds: stay pure... but small, weak and outside of the society (if that is indeed allowed - which is increasingly doubtful)...

Or else grow ... but by compromising with 'the world', and at the cost of creeping corruption and self-subversion - tending always towards assimilation with the goals of Systemic Evil, sooner or later.  

It seems to me that most Christians are not, and never have been, sufficiently 'bothered' by the absolute requirement in Christianity that each Man personally must be able really to make the choice for Jesus Christ. 

It is this requirement for agency which (as far as I know) sets Christianity apart from the other religions: Christians must believe-in the reality of free will - and, in practice, that means that Christians will usually need a coherent explanation of how free will is possible. 

The Big Problem is that the standard theology enforced by the Catholic and Protestant churches has no place for human agency. 

By which I mean - all will correctly assert that free will is real and necessary - but none have a coherent explanation of how it is possible. 

All the 'usual' explanations are wrong - make no sense - and many are just dishonest...

('Kicking the can further down the road' type explanations - which just delay the point of explanation, in hope the enquirer will get fed-up and go-away!)

The problem is that if there is (as all mainstream Christian denominations assert) one God, omnipotent, omniscient and who created everything from nothing; then every-thing is God; and the whole of creation is Just God's Puppet. 

There is nothing else for it to be. 

God made every-thing, God gave every-thing all of its characteristics, God made all the laws by which every-thing happens... 

All is accounted-for by God and there is simply No Room For Personal Agency. There is nowhere other than God for personal agency to come-from. 

I do not regard this as a proposition for debate - once one has seen this incoherence, it is as clear a 'fact' as any. 

I realize that there are many, many people who do Not 'see it' - but that is simply an omission or failure on their part. The world is (and always has been) full of people who do not see problems - especially when not-seeing has important advantages. 

But once seen, one knows.

And from then it is a matter of honesty.   

This elimination of the possibility of agency is just a plain and unavoidable consequence of the concept of God that has been accepted and enforced (apparently) since early in the history of the Christian Church.   

Thus we have a truly colossal flaw at the very heart of mainstream Christian theology - moreover one that is very obvious to anyone who takes seriously the need for free agency. 

It has never been solved, never been explained by classical mainstream theology; it can only be obfuscated or made into a mystery - by asserting that both God is Like This and also There is Free Agency - and how it works is a mystery that must be accepted. 

Much hinges on whether a person is happy to accept that the core necessity of Christianity does not make common sense and cannot coherently be explained - but must be accepted as a mystery. 

Apparently there are plenty of Christians who simply see no problem in this state of affairs. And cannot be made to see that it is a problem - despite that it is (perhaps?) the main reason why non-Christians cannot become Christian. 

But once one has seen a vast incoherence at the root of the religion - as commonly expressed; it does not go down well to be told either that it doesn't exist or that one should not worry about it! That does not create a 'good impression'! 

What is the conclusion? 

Well, if you agree that personal agency/ free will is absolutely necessary to Christianity - that people really Must be able to make the choice of Jesus from themselves - then you cannot accept the assumptions of mainstream, classical, traditional Christian theology - whether Eastern or Western Catholic, or Protestant. 

(You may well accept the religions, the denominations, the churches, their practices - but you cannot in honesty accept as necessary and true the assumptions of their theology.) 

Because these systems have no space for agency; they simply Must Be Wrong - and once one has known this for oneself, it does not matter how many hundreds of years they have been wrong, nor how many great theologians have been wrong in this way. 

Then one must either find or devise a coherent explanation for how real personal agency/ free will is possible. 

Find or devise a Christian theology which includes and entails agency*.  

And, as usual; this is a matter of absolute importance and extreme urgency. 

+++

* For instance.

Note: It is a secondary issue - but it may be regarded as important to have some reasonable explanation as to why so many people have been so wrong for so long - how it is that they apparently could not see this 'fatal flaw' in mainstream Christian theology. I believe the answer is to do with the development of human consciousness; and that Men of the past thought and experienced differently from us. In particular, they did not experience themselves as distinct individuals but instead (to a significant extent) as secondary-to, derived-from, the group to which they belonged. For Men of the past, mostly, group identity came first; and much of their knowledge came unconsciously, passively, absorbed from the group as tradition. In such a world, obedience and loyalty to the group/ church were primary -  and regarded as sufficient for salvation. Such questions as the necessity and consequences of individual free will were much less obvious, and were often neither spontaneous nor urgent. Indeed, Men of the past did not experience - and in that sense did not possess - personal agency to the same extent that modern alienated Man does (whether we like it or not!). This difference in consciousness is why it was possible, and probably inevitable, that the idea arose and was accepted that a Man could not relate directly to God, but must be mediated by a group: i.e. by the church of which he was a member. Salvation was then seen and experienced in group-terms. Modern Men are different from this (and by God's destiny); so we now perceive and experience differently; and we cannot honestly pretend otherwise. 

I may be a bit strange this way; but there are few subjects that excite me as much as thinking! 

I have come to regard thinking as an-end-in-itself; indeed probably the highest activity of which we are capable. 

Of course, I am immediately compelled to clarify that I certainly do Not mean all kinds of thinking have thus supreme value; nor even most kinds of thinking... 

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is possible that many people may never experience the kind of thinking that I am talking about - not least because to experience this highest kind of thinking one must simultaneously recognize its supreme value. One must regard this thinking as intrinsically valid and intrinsically valuable. 

And that recognition is very far from the case!

Indeed, for most people, thinking is just a means to an end - and that end is 'action'. 

Most people would say that thinking but not doing is just a waste of time; and empty activity. Good thinking is that which leads to good outcomes in the perceptible world...

Most people nowadays would say that unless something is changed in the material, objective, external world - then thinking is a free-spinning-cog: futile, just wasteful of energy and effort. 

This seems like simple common sense to the modern, mainstream mind - its ideology and assumptions. To suppose that thinking had intrinsic value or validity is for such Men a kind of delusion; sheer insanity. 

For other people; thinking is a kind of illusion; and indeed a wicked illusion. 

Thinking is regarded as an aspect of maya: in other words, thinking is one of those snares or nets that keep us trapped in a world of appearance and suffering instead of the blissful reality that lies behind maya. 

Many of the influential 'gurus' of Eastern and New Age spirituality emphasize that we should aim to eliminate thinking, instead our striving should be towards not-thinking-being. 

We should strive for non-thinking awareness; because (they understand) thinking is what leads to our (false) sense of separation from the world; and the illusion of separateness leads to suffering. If thinking can be eliminated, so can suffering. 

For those who regard reality as One, and assume we began as unconscious spirit aspects of that One; our task as going beyond the body and back to pure spirit - and also going beyond thinking to pure being-awareness.  

Yet I have the solid conviction that thinking is of primary importance; and that our destiny lies in the direction of 'more and better thinking' - rather than no-thinking, or material-action. 

For many years this was an un-conscious and inarticulate conviction - and it only began to reach awareness and clarity by reading the work of Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield. I found both of these authors very difficult to 'get' and spent years tackling them before the penny dropped. 

But the penny  dropped when reading Steiner's Truth and Knowledge followed immediately by re-reading the later part of Philosophy of Freedom. I then returned to Barfield and was immediately clear what I had been missing. 

The excitement of this perspective is now latent - and can be awakened or re-awakened by coming across the same view in these or other authors. For instance, yesterday I was listening (on Rudolf Steiner Audio) to a lecture from early 1914; the opening words of which triggered that joyful lifting of the heart (emphasis added).  

Man experiences within himself what we may call thought, and in thought he can feel himself directly active, able to exercise his activity. 

When we observe anything external, e.g. a rose or a stone, and picture it to ourselves, someone may rightly say: “You can never know how much of the stone or the rose you have really got hold of when you imagine it. You see the rose, its external red colour, its form, and how it is divided into single petals; you see the stone with its colour, with its several corners, but you must always say to yourself that hidden within it there may be something else which does not appear to you externally. You do not know how much of the rose or of the stone your mental picture of it embraces.” 

But when someone has a thought, then it is he himself who makes the thought. One might say that he is within every fiber of his thought, a complete participator in its activity. 

He knows: “Everything that is in the thought I have thought into it, and what I have not thought into it cannot be within it. I survey the thought. Nobody can say, when I set a thought before my mind, that there may still be something more in the thought, as there may be in the rose and in the stone, for I have myself engendered the thought and am present in it, and so I know what is in it.” 

In truth, thought is most completely our possession. 

If we can find the relation of thought to the Cosmos, to the Universe, we shall find the relation to the Cosmos of what is most completely ours. This can assure us that we have here a fruitful standpoint from which to observe the relation of man to the universe.

For me, this expresses in a nutshell a deep and vital truth. Thinking is potentially our most complete and valid form of knowing. Therefore, the big question becomes: How this knowing is related to 'reality' - to divine creation? 

If thinking turns-out to be in a direct relationship with reality - and not merely having some kind of indirect, 'translated', representational or linguistic 'communication' with reality - then this is of the greatest possible significance. 

We begin to see (as Steiner goes on to articulate later in this lecture) that the distinction between this 'primary' thinking, and the kind of 'secondary' thinking which most people do most of the time (and some people do all of the time) - is related to language.

Most thinking is in words, it is language - therefore secondary; therefore either a means to an end, or perhaps illusion. 

(This is the level of all public discourse and most private conversation: language responding to language - and nothing more. Our secondary thinking is no better than this.) 

But some thinking may be primary, and not in words or any other symbolism; but thinking 'in' the primary creative essence of reality. 

This kind of primary thinking is indeed itself reality. 

Thus we can come to know reality.

You see why I regard thinking (of the right sort - primary thinking) an end in itself?

Ramer is a Tolkien alter ego in the unfinished novel from The Notion Club Papers. 

This seems like a key question for Christians - maybe The key question; and it lies behind discussions as to the nature of 'The Church' (in which 'The' has several incompatible, meanings). 

My thought experiment is to imagine (a situation that must have been, and indeed still be, common) of someone who has never heard of Jesus, the Bible or any church...

Or someone in the spiritually-equivalent (and nowadays mainstream) situation where everything he has heard about Jesus/ the Bible or any particular church Is False - False and indeed deliberately distorted to the point of inversion.

I mean that as of 2022; the standard and most available 'knowledge' concerning God, Jesus and Christianity is designed to lead people Not to salvation - but instead to fear, resentment, nihilism, despair, affiliation with Satan's agenda - and Hell. 

(This is very probably worse than the situation of ancient pagans before 30 AD; who had no explicit knowledge of Christ - but it is equivalent in the sense that true knowledge from external sources is all-but unavailable for most people in the world.). 

In such circumstances - can a person achieve salvation? 

My answer entails taking a step backwards to the nature of God. It would need to be possible for this imaginary Christianly-isolated person - who lives either without knowledge, or with false knowledge of God - to know and understand the nature of God without being told.

Starting from that which is natural and spontaneous and possible to anyone; a person that might become Christian would need to be able to know from his own experience that God was the creator and loved him - and all Men. Know that God was our divine parent/s - and had for His children dwelling in His creation - a perfected parental love. 

That, therefore, this God could be trusted in the way a child trusts a loving Mother and/or Father who also makes the world he lives in. 

I believe this is a sufficiently simple and natural belief that could be built-in to Men, and then occur to anyone, and be confirmed by direct knowledge.   

From this, if Christianity were to be possible to the uninstructed; it would need to be possible for every person to know Jesus 'already' - so that Jesus could be recognized, loved and followed after biological death, when resurrection was offered. 

We need already to be able to recognize Jesus... and I have already said we need built-in knowledge of other kinds - and this points at a pre-mortal existence, before we were incarnated into this mortal world. 

If pre-mortal life is regarded as real, then there is in principle no difficulty in recognizing and knowing Jesus specifically and personally, when encountered (without being told about it) - because this knowledge could be carried over from pre-mortal life. 

An analogy is the instincts found in animals - when the necessary attitudes, motivations, behaviours emerge spontaneously when a suitable situation happens. Men may also have an 'instinct' to recognize Jesus.  

Another way of knowing about Jesus without being told is the guidance of the Holy Ghost. We might be 'told', at the right time, who Jesus was - and that this is Him.  

Having recognized Jesus, we would then need to decide whether or not to follow him; and that decision would depend on whether we loved and trusted him, and whether we wanted to go where he wanted to lead us: Heaven.  

The above sketch shows that I think it is both necessary and plausible that the kind of God Christians believe-in would and could provide what is required such that every individual Man would be able to follow Jesus to salvation.

And that this would not (in principle) depend on any external and valid source of information, or any particular lifestyle, or institution. It could be available to all.  

And that Men could be Christian and follow Jesus in any kind of society - including the actually existing world in which nearly all Christian knowledge is deliberately distorted, falsified and indeed inverted. 

The alternative would seem to be a God who did not care enough to provide what all His children needed, or who lacked the creative power to provide directly and individually what each of his children needed. 

From this much follows; indeed - I would say that all necessary questions can satisfactorily be answered, and guidance derived - given a correct understanding of God's nature. 

For me this is The Key - and the Basis for all that follows. 

And it is a thing known personally, directly, individually. 

(Metaphysical, abstract, theories serve to explain why this Key-Basic knowledge is indeed valid - and to enable the primary insight to be tested against experience and observations.)

I have been engaged in a discussion in comments at the Orthosphere during which I was invited/ challenged to describe my metaphysical beliefs - expressions of those primary assumptions regarding the ultimate nature of reality; upon which all other discourse depends. 

This is, in the context of blog comments, not really possible. But on reflection, I think that near the basis of my thinking is the understanding of 'creation' as consisting of Beings and the Relationships...

(Beings are alive entities, conscious, and capable of relationships.) 

And the further assumption that Beings are not all that is; because there is also what might be termed negative chaos - which is unformed, unorganized, un-ordered stuff that is neither understandable nor describable.   

I have chosen this group as my metaphysical assumptions because I regard them as a description of what Men spontaneously and naturally believe in our early childhood (and the earliest human societies): that God-given, built-in knowledge. 

In other words, I regard 'animism' (so-called, and in some way) as true. We began believing animism - but passively, unconsciously, without having choice; and our destiny is to return to animism - but this time by active conscious choice.  

Christianity came after animism; but instead of being conceptualized in animistic terms; Christianity has nearly-always been explained by abstractions. 

This abstractly-explained Christianity is an error, and therefore would best be discarded and superseded - and replaced with Romantic Christianity. 

Note: The opposite of this metaphysics about Beings is what I term 'abstraction' - a term that includes all descriptions that ignore or exclude the fact of creation being made-of Beings. Nearly all of traditional and classical philosophy and theology (as well as all of modern mainstream discourse, in all social functions and institutions) falls-into this category of abstraction. Abstraction is fundamentally wrong in all instances - but abstraction may provide those more (or less) useful models of reality by which law, science, technology, medicine etc. are administered. 

At least from the 20th century onwards; I find the results of 'spiritual techniques' to be so unimpressive as to suggest that they are at best useless and more likely spiritually-harmful. 

By spiritual techniques I mean the use of all types of external assistance from symbolism and ritual, through prayer and meditation (of many kinds) - to reading, group work (of many kinds), vigils, magic, music, fasting, pilgrimage and the power of place... everything you can think of.

People are always claiming that one, other or all such things are helpful and yet - just look at the results! And look where we are now? 

It strikes me that this apparently counter-productive effect of almost any 'method' of spirituality may have a very simple explanation; which is that all such techniques are external, when what is needed is internal.  

The more external spiritual assistance we seek, or come to rely upon - of whatever possible type; the weaker and more-passive becomes our inner spiritual strength. 

Any yet it is this inner spirituality which is needed now above all. 

If not, then what? 

If I am saying that any and all external methods or techniques are harmful - then what is left for us to do? 

I suppose the answer lies within us: That all which is both good and also strengthening over the longer term needs to come from within our-selves and/or be discerned and chosen by our-selves (with a sense of fullest responsibility and in light of the ideals of salvation and theosis); aiming at our resurrection to Heaven, and that of those we love; and to learn the spiritual lessons of our own mortal life. 

And everything else is a - more-or-less harmful - distraction. 

The introduction to a talk Virtual reality and the paranormal, given by Rudolf-Steiner-expert Stanley Messenger in the 1990s, provides a concise account of how it is that Men are so vulnerable to manipulation by the evil-intending fakery of the Virtuality imposed upon us by officialdom and the mass media. 

The point is that when we are born we do not know the world - we only experience 'impressions'; but soon after we begin to add (from ourself) the conceptual basis that we need to understand and to know. 

Because we are each different, distinct (ultimately in soul, also in our genetics and bodily composition) - each thenceforth has a different reality. But our society-environment encourages (demands!) that we assume that there is one perceived reality, universal. So we are already - even as children - living on a false basis: i.e. that the world is the same for everybody. 

We ought to awaken to the realization that we are co-creators of reality - yet people almost never do so; and instead double-down on the belief that there is one reality - and that reality is imposed upon us from externally. 

Because of this error (or self-lie) we are open to be manipulated by external power - almost without limit; since a sufficiently powerful pervasive, incentivized external power can compel upon us false conceptions by-which the sensory impressions get interpreted and understood. 

The way-out is to understand what is happening; and that we intrinsically co-create our reality - and therefore that when the reality imposed upon us is evil, we absolutely need to choose a different reality. 

In different words; we need to understand and reject the evil concepts we have absorbed from evil motivated externals; and to replace these with God-orinetated concepts to which we have acces from our own partly-divine natures and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

Then we will understand and know 'the world' by co-creating in a way that is aligned with God's intentions - instead of the Satanic motivation that we (as of 2022) absorb from our environment whenever we remain un-conscious and passive. 

I've just finished re-reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which I have read many times before. It really is a superb novel - especially for a Christian. 

The other six preceding Harry Potter novels are all good, in different ways - but there are many people who would find the Deathly Hallows a powerful, even transformative, experience - but would would find it unenjoyable to hack through the earlier (more child-orientated) HP novels to reach it. 

If so - do not be put off! You could do as I did and read plot summaries (or, if you prefer, watch movies) of the earlier books and then begin straight-in on the Deathly Hallows - or else (as I did) read summaries of the first five and start with book six (Half-Blood Prince) - which is the first fully adult novel and narratively-continuous-with Deathly Hallows.   

Christians who appreciate fantasy fiction should set-aside most of whatever they have heard about Harry Potter or JK Rowling, and at least have a look through Deathly Hallows. 

It might be one the great experiences of your reading life, as it was for me - as it was for Jerram Barrs. 

I don't think there is just one answer. 

Some of Them want to destroy it by shrinking down to a much smaller (and with many fewer people)  - but fully controlled - civilization; dedicated very completely to the service of its leaders' gratification. This will never happen - for many reasons - but is a strong motivator for 'the billionaire class' who have proximate control of things at present. 

Some of Them want to destroy civilization because there is still considerable Good in it. They focus their vast power and influence for destruction at anything old, traditional, beautiful, true or moral; and at marriage and the family - as the deepest and most motivating human sources of potential Good.   

Some of Them - especially the actual demons, rather than the demon-serving humans - want to destroy civilization because They want to destroy everything: all that is created. And by destroying civilization they will unleash mass starvation, violence and (real) plague. Demons greatly enjoy this, and being disembodied spirits, do not themselves suffer.  

But why now - given that there has been potential to destroy civilization for several generations at least? 

The answer is simple - before civilization was destroyed the powers of purposive evil needed to win over the mass of mankind to their side.

They needed people to want to destroy civilization for this to have the soul-damning outcomes they desire. 

If civilization had been destroyed before Satan has won over the mass of Mankind; then increased this-worldly suffering would (probably) have led to mass conversions to Christianity. 

In the past, as civilization and its worldly possibilities collapsed, this would potentially have led to an increased concern with the reality of the world to come; and the possibility of resurrection into Heaven would have become more and more appealing. 

Therefore, mass apostasy, and the triumph of de-spiritualized materialism, atheism, the inversion of values; and the desire for biological death to be annihilation - needed to be in-place before the end was unleashed. 

So that is why the end of civilization is happening now. 

The only way to escape being thought-controlled is for each person to get to the most fundamental level of understanding; where each recognizes the possible understandings; and each chooses his basic understanding of the nature of reality.

If someone can reach this level - he will realize that there is a reality; and/ but that reality needs to be chosen personally. 

Once we have done this, we can be proofed against manipulation by those who seek to impose an unreal 'reality'. 

Reality is real; choice is real - our personally-experienced reality is therefore unavoidably a consequence of our personal choices.

We choose our reality - but that chosen reality may be true or fake; real or unreal; based on deep conviction or passively gone-along-with.   

Manipulation is only possible when we have chosen that reality which is imposed upon us, rather than that reality which really is - because we know it. 

The fundamental level of understanding includes such matters as whether reality is ultimately chaos, or else directed, purposive. Deity or not; god or not - the nature of god and the possibility of having personal relationship with god. The question of how we, personally, can know reality. The question of time - and whether it is an ultimate reality or illusion. The question of whether we are free agents capable of acting from-ourselves, or whether we are wholly-determined by externalities...

But the above are abstract and linguistic descriptions of what needs to be a primary and direct experience of the fundamental issues.

For example - the nature of god. A Christian will need to realize not only that there 'must be' god - but needs to experience god. He needs not merely to have-learned the 'necessary' attributes of god - but actually to know god in the same way a loving child may know his loving parents. 

A mother's love is not known by having been told, nor is it inferred from analysis of her actions; it is known directly; and it is this knowing that leads to faith. Faith in mother - or god. 

That is faith for a Christian - it is confidence in god because god is known, god's personal love is known-from-personal-experience (not learned, reasoned or inferred).    

A Christian with faith is one who has gone to the deepest level at which he realizes the reality and nature of god; and has decided (chosen) to live by that reality. 

He knows he might have rejected that reality, and by default would have done so - he knows that he positively needed to choose it. 

He also knows (from the way they speak and act) that many people never reach that level of direct and personal understanding.

He also knows that he cannot convince anyone else of this personal knowledge - because to convince someone else who lacks that experience would be to achieve the opposite of it!

Such a Christian knows that what matters ultimately is absolutely and necessarily personal to himself, and that it is also absolutely objectively true. It is a matter of completely personal responsibility. 

Because controlled-thought is the default situation. It is the inevitable outcome of passivity and shallowness. We all already-have the habit of being-thought-controlled, until that habit is broken - as described above. And controlled-thinking has converged - so that the thought-controlled have become (and are-becoming more and more) alike. It has thus become easy to identify the thought-controlled.

Only from the deepest level of experience, knowledge, faith - can we become immune to thought-control. 

Only those who are proof against thought-control, and who know real-reality can avoid the toils of evil-motivated and faked reality. 

Only thus can anyone escape demonic manipulation into damnation.