Bruce Charlton's Notions

I was always struck by CS Lewis's hardline attitude to happiness or self-gratification in relation to Christianity - the way he emphasized the problem of mixing-up the 'therapeutic' aspect of belief with the business of what is actually true. 

In the Screwtape Letters and Great Divorce (as well as his more abstractly theological works) Lewis negatively depicted people who fluently excused whatever they wanted to do - what they currently enjoyed doing, or what made them feel better - by making arguments that linked these to Christianity. 

In the Narnia chronicles; this was encapsulated in the phrase stating that Aslan (i.e. Jesus) is Not a Tame Lion. That is to say; Christianity cannot be comfortably domesticated and stay Christian. 

Certainly it is a real problem; but - especially in The Last Battle - Lewis also depicted the opposite problem, which happens when the cruelty and destructiveness of the evil demon Tash is explained as being the actions of Aslan; or later, the oxymoronic false-invention Tashlan, syncretized from both good and evil deities. 

These actual evils - in reality motivated by greed, selfishness and sadism - were effectively propagandized as consistent with the fact that Aslan is Not a Tame Lion 

And therefore the fact that God is not aiming at our immediate self-gratification is twisted into a mask for 'the devil'. 

In other words; on the one hand it is true that, at a superficial level of here-and-now, the goodness of God may be experienced as harsh life-lessons that are, nonetheless, necessary for our ultimate and eternal benefit. 

Yet, on the other hand, to know when this is actually the case, and when evil outcomes are instead a product of evil intent; requires honest discernment as to the motivations. 

So, the experienced and observed miseries and sufferings of this world are not evidence in either direction - they might be necessary and temporary means to a good end; or they might be the end in itself: cruelty, destruction, misery, suffering might be the actual purpose of evil beings. 

The correct answer must come from discernment, and the discernment - while taking-account-of-evidence, cannot derive-from evidence. 

As always, we are driven down to an acknowledgment that all knowledge depends on intuition; an individual act of an individual being. 

And, further, that Christian discernment entails acknowledgement that there is a side of Good (i.e. God) and a side of evil (i.e. the demons). We first need to know this in order to choose one or the other side; and only by choosing a side can be - even in principle - make a discernment as to whether a particular event was motivated by good or evil intent.

For a Christian; to deny that good and evil are separate and opposite sides, amounts to the false-deity of Tashlan - in other words, to base discernment on an assumption of unity, oneness, 'non-dualism' is itself (merely) a type of evil. 

From this analysis we can see that Christianity is related to self-gratification (i.e. the pleasurable, comfortable, desirable) in that God wants us to be deeply and eternally happy; but such a goal entails that we must sometimes be temporarily and superficially miserable. 

To know what is going-on in the here and now we need to depend on divine guidance - which (because God is The Creator, is Good, and is our loving parent/s) we have all been equipped-with. 

We all have potentially available both direct access (i.e. in our stream of thinking) to true inner guidance (because we have within-us something of the divine, being children of God)...

And this inner guidance also enables us to have access indirectly to external guidance - both directly from the Holy Ghost, and indirectly from all other sources of information such as legitimate and wise authority (e.g. of Men and books), true-tradition, and any other cultural product. 

In sum; deep self-gratification is a sure guide to the operations of God and His agents; while superficial self-gratification may be a consequence of the manipulations - or sadism - of evil Men and/or the beings of supernatural evil.

One major strategy of purposive-evil - here and now, in The West and globally - is to oppress people with so much actual and prospective evil that people will give-up and yield, go crazy, or try to fight evil with evil. 

This decades-long strategic plan is one of crushing all that is good by sheer weight of evil discourse, has been made possible by the totalitarian takeover of The System - the web of linked-bureaucracies that control all major institutions including mass media, politics, public administration, law, religion, 'science', education, 'health' etc.  

Spiritually; the strategy is to make us frame the world as (on the one hand) a vast, inexorable, objective, all-embracing organization that orders everything and does everything... And (on the other hand) you or me - standing alone and isolated, friendless and hated, worthless and expendable - stupidly and pathetically thinking-about resisting the inevitable. 

The idea is that we should surrender, fawn, and (in our hearts) beg The System for mercy.  

In return; we shall eagerly believe/ think/ say/ do anything that They currently require of us, and enforce The System on our-selves and each-other... 

And, eventually - after getting ever less-and-less in return for ever more-and-more self-degradation and lying - that we should break, despair, lose hope; and seek permanent oblivion (death-as-annihilation) to escape such a spiritual wasteland and hell. 

A second level of the plan is to channel resistance to evil, such that it is either counter-productive or futile. There are several 'temptations'. 

One temptation is to withdraw from evil, to escape it. While this may be an important, or even, vital temporary tactic; the fact is that evil cannot be escaped in this world - where it is all-pervasive as never before. Further, the attempt to escape may open the mind to evil-inspired fantasies and to dreams.

Furthermore, the desire to escape evil is a double-negative that is not itself good - and is, indeed, prone to being manipulated into evil. 

(To clarify: resistance-to-evil is not itself good. Good can be accomplished only by striving for 'positive' good.)   

The spirit we should instead cultivate is one in which we become aware of our own 'good heart' and rooted in a commitment to love - that is, we may become consciously connected-with, rooted-in, the divine within us which each person has as a consequence of being a son or daughter of God. 

This is quite simple, and experienced as obvious - once we ask the right questions of ourselves and the world; and correctly understand our situation and role. 

Naturally, the powers of evil has many tactics for undermining the confidence of someone who is rooted in a correct understanding of himself and his proper role. His attitudes may be undermined so he loses confidence; or else inflated so that his 'confidence' extends form its true and proper sphere towards prideful and false assertion of self-importance. 

It can be made to sound like an impossible balancing-act to steer between the dangers of inflation and submission - that is, itself, another demonic strategy - to make life seem impossibly difficult, so we may as well 'give-up - Now!'

But - part of having the right attitude is to know that this is a false analogy - we are not steering a course through hazards; but are beings with a divine core self, who are living with the benefit of both inner and outer guidance (intuition and the Holy Ghost).

And who have the inestimable advantage of being able to err and sin and then, as soon as we become aware of the fact, an unbounded capacity to repent and realign with God's creative will.  

To be perfectly accurate; we have nothing to worry about.  

And if we aren't - deep down, and in our hearts - replete with care-free joy and supreme confidence - then we must be living in a state of error. 

The demons can increase the weight of oppression incrementally, piling problems on, and on - but we can never be crushed by it... unless we thus choose. 

We cannot win at this business of life; but it is a colossal error to suppose that we are supposed to win. 

We are supposed to learn-from living, not to win a prize for it. 

The prize (i.e. eternal, resurrected, Heavenly life) comes after this life and by following Jesus, and not as a consequence of any accomplishment during this life. 

But the magnitude and scope of this prize increases in value whenever we live by love; and whenever we think (or otherwise create) in harmony with divine creation. 

Such choices come-to-us, even if unsought - and we can always do/choose the right thing - so we should face life confidently - that is, with confidence in the primacy of the spirit and the indomitable triumph of the divine. 

The depth of The Problem in current civilization is located at the most basic level of motivations: i.e. primarily in what people want; secondarily in how strongly they want it. 

There is a significant defect in the strength of motivations, which arises ultimately from the wrongness of motivations - we cannot be strongly-motivated over time, by fake or feeble motivators. 

Potentially (and in the past) the strongest innate motivators for Men are 'religious' - and since religion has been excluded (or severely weakened) the remaining motivators are all labile, short-termist and selfish - for example sex (or the desire for any other pleasurable sensation). 

The short-termist and selfish desires of sex are not capable of being synthesized into any kind of coherent strategy for life, or The World; and the un-repented effort to do so has led to the self-contradictory, self-defeating, negations of the evolving (de-volving) sexual revolution - which began in propagating a hedonic free-for-all, and has becoming a bureaucratic, totalitarian minefield . 

In other words; people are trying and failing (over and again) to make a life and a philosophy of life, from the strongest motivators that remain to them after the spirit has been deleted - which are the evanescent (and zero-sum) pleasures of sex, travel, intoxication, status, power, resentment, fear, sadism and spite... fleeting daydreams or nightmares of various kinds. 

But so long as the spiritual dimension is excluded, ignored or downgraded - persistent failure never leads to insight, learning and repentance - so Western man chases will-o-the-wisps with all his energies -- until dragged-down by despair, disease, or death.       

Yet religious motivations are failing as well. They have, in The West, become so enfeebled that a large majority of the most devout church goers (of all types  of church, including Christian) are indistinguishable from the Godless-masses when it comes to supporting the core evil agenda strategies. 

Even when religious people discern the proximate, in-your-face, evils of Western Civ; such people fail to understand that these are the inevitable, baked-in, product of remote but primary ultimate causes that often enjoy their unthinking, habitual, or even passionate, support. 

Thus there is a double-whammy of weak motivations - because the only valid motivators are long-term, cosmic in scope, and coherent. 

The usual response is to 'thrash-around' seeking immediate, socially-approved and momentarily-rewarding motivators from the content of modern culture - all of which are all evil and manipulative in origin; such that they are invariably temporary in effect, and leave people positioned in ever worse - ever more desperate - situations; drowning in tidal despair while grasping-at (ever-smaller and soggier) straws of optimism.

Taking a step back and trying to understand more deeply the ultimate causes of this situation in order to find a strong and valid motivation for our-selves is now an absolute necessity; the alternative to which is spiritual death. 

In such a pervasively and overwhelmingly corrupt culture; this deeper and larger consideration absolutely must be done by individuals; done by each and every human being. 

This seems to be 'asking a lot' of people - who have, through much of history, either followed their instincts, been given-out a spirituality to live-by; or had trusted sources of institutional guidance which they simply needed to obey. 

It may be 'asking a lot' of people to 'go-it-alone' in the quest of true-motivation - it may seem 'unreasonable' to require every single individual to do this for himself...

But consider: Who will benefit? 

The answer is that each individual will benefit from his own efforts; not merely temporarily in this mortal life (by the benefits of discovering and choosing a strong and lasting motivation from-which this mortal life may be created); but also forever.  

And this is something that - exactly because only-we can accomplish it - our loving God has therefore made possible for anyone to accomplish - if only they make the serious attempt. 

How much more incentive do we need?

Christians do themselves, as well their cause, long-term harm by their habitual (addictive?) use of double-negative theology. Indeed there is a very influential branch of theology and Christian practice that has elaborated this into a vast systematic edifice (the negative path, or via negativa) - plus, this is the basis of much 'eastern' religious philosophy in Buddhism, Hinduism (and Sufism).  

I think we can see the collapse of double-negative thinking in the 21st century; because its lack of simplicity and clarity render it incapable of dealing with the protean and pervasive challenges to faith of this era, as emanating from globalist totalitarianism with its linked-bureaucracies of governance and mass media. 

Negative motivations are counter-productive, because when all is illusion then individuals are (in practice) rendered passively obedient to that which is dominant. And, anyway, the number and strength - and fluidity - of deceptions are now too great to be individually discerned, diagnosed and rejected. 

In a world where (for many or most people) it is a case of me-against-the-world: - my Christianity against a world of demonic- materialist ideology - it seems we must be clear in our own minds; if we are not to be confused and bamboozled, and simply worn-down to impotent exhaustion by the relentless and increasing weight of error and evil.

For us, it is a case of motivation, motivation, motivation! 

Thus, we cannot anymore be motivated by such double-negatives as the avoidance of sin - most Christians who imagine this is possible are simply denying their own vast scale of sinning in domains such as dishonesty, resentment, and fear. Avoidance of sin is now effective (hence valid) only when there is a primary positive impulse towards Good. 

But most people's idea of The Good is some notion of altruism/ unselfishness/ helping-others - which is another negative value. In a world based on utilitarian hedonism, where 'other people' live materialistically - 'altruism' reduces to me trying to 'make' people happy, which is impossible; so it ends-up with the negative goal of diminishing suffering. 

(In practice, altruism at the political level entails a small class of super-powerful/ super-privileged/ super-rich individuals pretending to administer the world on behalf of the 'oppressed' by monopolizing and confiscating all resources - supposedly because this globalist-establishment are the 'agents' of 'social justice.)   

We cannot (if ever Men could) be motivated by a desire for 'freedom' - because freedom is a negative value that only gains motivating-power for Good, when there is some existing positive motivation towards Good that is being thwarted. 

We cannot, if we intend to accomplish Good, be motivated primarily by obedience to any external authority or institution; because all such are so corrupted that in practice Goodness can only be discerned and practiced by the independent thinking of individual persons, and their autonomy of thinking. 

And that returns us to the primary of personal motivation. 

In other words; it is now imperative for Christian Good both that individuals are motivated to think for themselves and do-so, and that they operate from baseline assumptions that are positively-motivating - which means simple and clear enough to be effective. 

In practice; each must discover these for himself. They are not available off-the-peg and will not be the values that get-inculcated-into the passively obedient or non-conscious, routine-thinker. 

Since the problem is insufficient motivation, we need to begin from whatever positive and good motivations we already have; and follow these motivations through, with honesty and diligence to... wherever they will lead. 

The Big Problem is that so few people seem to have the motivation even to recognize a problem with The World Now. 

This could - in theory - be because the world is now so pervasively and persuasively evil that Modern men are helpless against its temptations... But that would be to assume God has failed to give Men a reasonable chance of salvation...

Alternatively, it may be that Modern men are of innately poorer quality than Men of the past; that a mass of Men (especially in The West) are innately more dominated by evil, more prone to evil - and feebler in their strength of Good motivations than before. 

I regard this 'worse Men' as the most probable explanation for a world full of Men who do not even want to be Good; but who instead legislate and enforce inverted-true values, such that great evil is now called great good - and praised, rewarded and accorded the highest status. 

In other words: I assume that God is as Good as ever, as powerful a creator as ever; but the 'quality' of pre-mortal souls available for incarnation into this mortal life is lower than in the past. A lot of incarnated souls nowadays are less naturally-good/ more heavily disposed-towards evil, compared with the past. 

And therefore (here-and-now) all the major (large/ powerful/ wealthy/ high-status) human institutions of The Hegemonic West (including churches) are net-corrupted; are overall affiliated to the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world. 

Quite likely - you and I are similarly misaligned and enfeebled compared with Men of the past - although I would not be writing, you would not be reading, this - unless there we had at least some motivation to be motivated for Good... 

However... What worked for our ancestors may not work for us: since we are worse, and so is The World. 

We need things to be simpler, clearer and easier than They did; if we are to be able to develop and strengthen our embryonic Good-motivations into something positive by-which we can navigate our path against the current of a hostile evil-world of apparently overwhelming strength and scope. 

Photo credit

I walked past this semi-ruined water-mill today (on one of our favourite walks, around Stocksfield in Northumberland); which always reminds me of JRR Tolkien's stylized illustration (wheel too small for a real mill) from The Hobbit (detail below):

(Another farmer - a Northumbrian shepherd surname Dagg - with probable hobbit ancestry)

I've changed my mind on this topic several times, over the course of this blog. It is an important issue, and one where I think we probably need a coherent answer to avoid spirituality being sabotaged by corrosive doubt.  

The general question has many specific versions. One is to ask where exactly Heaven is located - especially considering that Christians believe in resurrection, so that the vagaries of spirits being everywhere (and nowhere) are denied us. 

Is Heaven (inhabited by the resurrected dead, walking-around...) up in the sky, outer space, a remote planet? All answers seem either evasive or absurd.

Another version is the Underworld (the Dwat), or the world after death (Sheol, Hades), the 'Inner World', the Collective Unconscious - or Collective Consciousness... people talk as if these are locations, or domains - but where? Why can't we detect them?

Then there is Faerie, Elfland - is that under a mound, in or through a forest, across the seas - or maybe on a different plane of existence through-which we must travel? 

It is easy to reduce answers to absurdity; in a modern world where we assume we have explored the whole planet, and that 'scientific instruments' allow us to detect anything that is real. 

I suggest here that, as so often when a question seem unanswerable - this is because we are asking the wrong question. We are assuming that The World is reality, and our knowing of that world is secondary (and optional) thing; an essentially passive matter of recognizing reality. 

In other words, we are assuming that our minds have no significant role in the existence of reality, except to fail to notice it or to distort it - we assume that real reality (Kant's das Ding an sich: the thing-in-itself) is out there and 'solidly real', even when unthought, unperceived, unknown. 

Yet this almost universal habit of thinking about reality is incoherent - therefore wrong (as demonstrated by, amongst others, Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfeld). Instead, a coherent understanding of reality must include the consciousness of the knower.

(Without the knowing-consciousness of a being, there is only meaningless disorder - literal primordial chaos.)

This is Not to say that consciousness simply makes-up any reality it wants, a reality without any reference to anything out-there, because there is nothing out-there (ie. philosophical 'idealism') - it is instead to say there is no knowing, no knowable, without consciousness; so that consciousness and reality cannot be separated.

We may notice that this question "where are other worlds?" was Not regarded as a problem in much of the past in human history. The answer seemed obvious, or else an answer was not requested or required.

And the question was not a problem because people knew other worlds, people once perceived these other worlds for themselves - either on an everyday basis, or (later) in special states of consciousness induced by religious ritual, dreams, trances - or whatever. 

That which is perceived is not regarded as unanswerable. 

Therefore I conclude that the question is a product of changes in human consciousness. 

We ask where other worlds are located because Modern Man no longer spontaneously perceives other-worlds, and has mostly lost the ability to perceive other-worlds. 

In other words; Modern man cannot know the location of 'other worlds' because he has developed a mental block. 

The other-worlds are still 'there', where they always were, but Modern Man is blocked from perceiving them by a change in his consciousness*. 

Indeed, the other-worlds can still be perceived, but only in altered states of consciousness that, to some extent, undo the recent changes of consciousness - and diminish our level of consciousness. 

Inner-worlds no longer impose on Men, that is why they are not perceived. To know inner-worlds for has become for Modern Men a matter of knowing, not perceiving. 

A matter, that is, of direct-knowing.  

We should not strive to 'see through' the blocks, nor to dissolve them away - because they are there for good reasons; instead we can think over and around the blocks.

In other words: Final Participation.  

Then we will know where are other-worlds...

And the answer is: in this same world... 

Where they have always been. 

(*The reason for this change in consciousness is another matter, dealt with extensively elsewhere in this blog. In a nutshell, the mental block has the positive function of increasing freedom, agency; by removing us from the former state of automatic/ habitual, unavoidable and unconscious subjection to God's created reality. The mental block gives us the freedom positively to choose to align-ourselves with divine creation. In other words the block both imposes and gifts Modern Man's with personal responsibility for his spiritual affiliation.) 

Very pleasing little movie (albeit a bit over-extended) of one of John Dowland's most famous Lute Songs. 

Salvation is a personal decision - the individual person's choice to follow Jesus to resurrected everlasting life. 

But the reason why such a choice is made is for the sake of others; because of what we want to do in the Heavenly state-of-being. 

This doing entails love of others - including God, and 'fellow Men' - and becoming more-divine - that is becoming fully aligned with God's creation and the sub-creation of our fellow resurrected Men.

(The term for this becoming fully aligned with God's creative purposes is Theosis.) 

Thus; while Salvation is individual, Theosis is relational. 

Therefore; the reason-for Salvation is Theosis. 

Anamnesis is a kind of unforgetting - in theology/ philosophy it can means a recollection of suppressed or blocked truth and reality, that is triggered by some kind of 'releasing stimulus'. 

It was an aspect of Gnosticism* - as with the Hymn of the Pearl; an allegory for this mortal life in which the son of a king is sent to earth to retrieve a pearl, but forgets his mission (among the temptations of life) until reminded of it by a letter. 

Supposedly, historically, this was Not intended to mean Jesus; but maybe it did originally - to some extent. 

At any rate it fits my understanding that Jesus (having being incarnated specifically to bring resurrection to Men, did not 'remember' his mission; because, presumably, the time was not right - or the right 'trigger' had not been arranged.

Thus Jesus did not become divine (i.e. attain to his divine creative powers), until his baptism by John; when John recognized who Jesus was, and the spirit of God provided signs to that effect. 

*Gnosticism was mostly wrong, and wrong in several fundamental assumptions; but, of course, everything that catches-on and effects the world has some truth in it - even when that is distorted, partial or inverted. 

Maybe... 

My own favoured token was the Flat Iron; and the reason I gave myself for this choice was the way it could slide smoothly over the board. 

The most popular token among family and friends (about which fights would occur) was the Little Dog; which seems an obvious one, because it was cute.

The other die-cast tokens in my game were the Top Hat, Battleship and Racing Car. 

In retrospect, it is surprising that I did not favour the car or the ship - so maybe there is some occult significance in the iron - but I am not sure what. 

I don't enjoy ironing, and never have; although doing it is indeed one of my current family-household chores. 

(Maybe the childhood choice was some kind of unpleasant self-fulfilling prophecy?...)

So, what was Your favourite Monopoly token as a child - and can you infer whether it represented anything about your character? 

We must die in order to be remade - to be resurrected. 

This is salvation. 

Damnation is the other choice: to reject salvation. 

We must be resurrected to enter that state called Heaven*; because for Heaven to be 'heavenly' - all within it must have-been remade, wholly-good - without disposition to evil. 

Or, to enter Heaven, we must make a permanent commitment to repent and repudiate all sin - all evil, all that opposes divine harmony - and the way that this permanent commitment is made is by resurrection -- in which all that is Good (God-harmonious) in us is retained; while all that is not is left-behind and discarded.

Such a permanent commitment is made from love; and therefore must freely be chosen - cannot be compelled; and can only be made by those capable of love who choose to make love their eternal foundational principle. 

(Only thus can Heaven be a place that is wholly Good (a place without any evil-motivation) and also wholly-free - inhabited by beings with divine powers of creation; who will always and spontaneously use their godly-powers harmoniously with God and other Heavenly beings.)  

The need for death is true for men and women - and for all other beings. 

Which is why this incarnated mortal life on earth is dominated by entropy: because every-"thing" must die, if there is to be a possibility of resurrection. 

In other words: If every being on earth is to have a chance of attaining and choosing Heaven - they all must die, sooner or later. 

Pre-mortal spirit life, although wholly-good, is very imperfect - especially in terms of freedom, of agency. 

The harmony and goodness of pre-mortal life is dependent on the passivity and obedience of spirits; because pre-mortal beings are not innately wholly good (in the way that God is wholly-good, or resurrected beings are wholly good). 

Because pre-mortal spirits are not-wholly-good, the harmony of goodness in pre-mortal life is attained top-down, by the direction and control of God. 

In effect, so far as pre-mortal spirit life goes; God is the wholly-good parents of a mixed bunch of children - some mostly-good, some mostly-evil - none wholly good. It is only by the obedience of these children that goodness prevails. 

But pre-mortal spirits mature, they grow-up, they change... Sooner or later, they get to a point where they must throw-off the passive goodness of obedience to parental authority and control. 

Then these pre-mortal spirits have a choice...

Either the spirits can incarnate on earth - some time afterwards to die, and make the choice of resurrection, or not. 

(This is God's plan - because God wishes to make and inhabit Heaven with resurrected (incarnated everlasting) beings, who have have by their choice of resurrection made an eternal commitment to live in harmony with divine creation.)

Or else those pre-mortal spirits who do not want to die and be resurrected; or who simply do not want to die - and those who reject the divine plan for an harmonious Heaven of free-beings who have chosen to be remade without evil... 

These spirits can escape their previous state of obedience to divine goodness, and enter the sphere of earth while still spirits - and therefore immortal. 

These are the demons. 

(This explains why demons are spirits - not embodied; and why they are immortal. They are spirits because they have refused temporary mortal incarnation, and are immortal because they are spirits, and unaffected by 'entropy'.)

If the pre-mortal spirits choose mortal life on earth, they must choose temporary incarnation and death (as necessary pre-requisites for resurrection); but if they reject this package, then such spirits have rejected even the possibility of Heaven.

This is why all demons are evil, and why demons are worse than incarnated Men - because demons, by their rejection of mortal incarnation, have all chosen to reject the possibility of that death which makes salvation possible. 

(If demons changed their minds and repented, and wished to prepare for the choice of Heaven; they would need first to incarnate and die. Whether this this is possible or ever actually happens I do not know.) 

So - demons have rejected the passive ('secondhand') good of pre-mortal spirit life under the parental influence of God; and they have also rejected that mortal life on earth which is a necessary stage to prepare for remaking-by-resurrection, and Heaven.   

The ruling principle of creation (that which makes creation cohere) is love; and love is the reason why the dead choose resurrection and heaven.  

The essential reason why demons have rejected mortal incarnation, and why some dead mortal Men reject the offer of resurrection into Heaven and instead choose damnation; is that demons and the damned are either incapable of love, or have rejected love as the basis of life and chosen... something else.    

Differently phrased: Demons are those never-incarnated beings who have rejected living under the domination of entropy (i.e. mortal earthly life); and by doing so rejected God's plan of salvation. 

The damned are those who chose to live and die as mortal incarnate Men on earth, and have become dis-carnated beings (i.e. souls severed from their bodies); and who die and then reject resurrection and Heaven; instead choosing some other fate.

*Note: Why our final God-destined state-of-being is embodied, incarnate - rather than spirits - is a topic I have considered elsewhere.   

Christianity is nearly-always described as a religion of revelation - in other words it needs to be 'revealed' to us, we need to be told about it; told by - for example - written scripture, handing on by tradition, teachings of church authorities etc. 

The contrast is a natural religion that could be reached by each person for himself, by intuition, reasoning, observation etc. based on suggestions from the material that can be found in pretty-much any human culture. 

(The paganism of animistic hunter-gatherers is regarded as an example of natural religion; since it seems to have arisen spontaneously - albeit with local variations - all over the world.) 

When I became a Christian, it was partly by accepting the need for revelation (and by evaluating the strength of validity in various contending revelations) that I got-out from trying to reach Christianity by my own unaided efforts. 

The is no real doubt that mainstream Christianity, in whatever of its denominations or churches, is way too complex to be arrived at except by revelation; but the big question is whether the necessary and sufficient essence is, in principle, attainable without external help... 

And, if not accessible during this mortal life, then potentially core Christianity might be accessible after this mortal life (i.e. after death) but before making the choice to accept or reject resurrection. 

Over the years I have come around to the idea that Christianity is, or can be, a natural religion; and does not require revelation - indeed, what has traditionally been regarded as revelation may more often be an obstacle than assistance nowadays -- especially since the churches are so corrupted by worldliness (corrupted to the point of value-inversion), and their teachings so vast and (to common sense) incoherent or contradictory. 

I think it is largely uncontroversial that theism - specifically the belief in a personal creator God - can be a natural belief. The this world was made, and with some design and purpose, and by a being who is like a person - is a plausible line of reasoning, that often occurs to children. 

And the further idea that this God is relates to each of us like a loving parent, is also one that can occur to anyone who thinks about the subject - by analogy with the human family. 

In short, all the necessary background to Christianity can be arrived-at without being taught - and (because it is true) potentially confirmed by intuitive conviction. 

As for Christianity; I think the core idea is also simple enough, and close enough to the desires of the human heart, that it could be arrived at by almost anyone. 

The fear of death and desire for everlasting life is spontaneous; and that this continued life would be embodied is also natural; and that this life-after-life would be in a better world without death or decay are all plausible day dreams - even for a child. 

So the necessary materials for a Christian yearning are there. As for the mechanism by which this might be achieved - which is by following Jesus Christ, as a sheep follows the Good Shepherd - this is not something that is likely to be a natural or spontaneous conclusion. 

Therefore, natural religion breaks-down at the point where we need to know how to attain resurrected life eternal. 

But, since this following of Jesus through-death to life-everlasting happens after our death, it seems reasonable to assume that it is something made clear to us after death. 

No matter what a person's experience during mortal life, he could be shown the possibility of resurrection after his death and how to attain it. 

Therefore; whether he was born before Jesus's time or lived in a part of the world where Christianity was unknown, or had been taught or reasoned-out some false idea of Christianity - every soul could be given the knowledge of what he need to do to follow Jesus.

Thus, Christianity can be a natural religion. And this fact may turn out to be vital to salvation, as the corruption of the churches continues to spread and advance.  

As I have often written, but not recently, I believe that God is dyadic - consisting of a Heavenly Father and Mother, a man and woman who are (in some sense) incarnate and not spirits. 

This is the Mormon understanding, and reading about Mormon theology was where I first came across it. 

I am not trying to persuade other people that I am right; but I shall here consider why I personally believe this, and what it is that I believe. 

In the first place it is due to what might be termed intuition; in the sense that when I first encountered this idea, my heart seemed to jump and warm; as if I was discovering something true, good and with great possibilities of more-good. 

There was an immediate and positive sense... not so much that this was true, but that I wanted this to be true - this came before my conviction that it was true.  

Following this I read more about Mormon theology, and realized that the dyadic, man-woman nature of our Heavenly parents was just part of an entire metaphysical understanding of creation (including procreation - the creation of beings including people) as something dynamic, interactive, developing, evolutionary, open-ended, and expanding. 

In other words, that creation itself was creative (and therefore creation was not, as I had previously assumed, a done-thing, a closed accomplishment, a finished totality - once-and-for-always.) 

I then began to explore the implications of these ideas for myself; using concepts I got from William Arkle (and his reflections on God's motivations for creation); and Owen Barfield, including Barfield's accounts of the 'polar' philosophy of ST Coleridge. 

I was also building on a longer-term fascination with 'animism' - with the (apparently innate and spontaneous) tendency to regard the world (the universe) as consisting primarily of beings - all of whom were alive, purposive, conscious - albeit in different ways, at different scales and timescales etc.

The motivation for creation, and why God should have created this kind of creation, was something I had found difficult to grasp (none of the usual explanations made much sense to me). But when I conceptualized God as the loving dyad of a man and woman, then it seemed obvious why such a combination would have wanted to create - including others who might eventually become like themselves.   

Furthermore, it did not seem possible that creation had arisen from any state of oneness of self-sufficiency, since this would make creation arbitrary; nor could creation arise from a tendency towards differentiation, because that would lead to meaningless-purposeless chaos. 

There must (I felt) have been some kind of original 'polarity' - in abstract and physics-like terminology, there would need to be at-least two different kinds of 'force', the interaction of which would be creation. Coleridge (also Barfield and Arkle) saw this in terms of a 'masculine'-tendency for expansion and differentiation; and a 'feminine'-tendency for one-ness and integration.  

But in terms of my (non-abstract) preferred metaphysics of beings and animistic assumptions; 'masculine' and 'feminine' simplifies to just a primordial man and a primordial woman; this would mean two complementary, unlike-but-of-the-same-kind, beings; the love of whom would lead to a desire for creation.  

(In the same kind of way that - in this mortal life - love of man and woman usually leads to a desire for procreation.)

At some point I validated this understanding by means of meditative prayer; by refining and asking a simple question, feeling that this question had 'got-through', and receiving a clear inner response.  

In summary; the above account is something-like the sequence by which I desired, concluded, became-convinced-by, the metaphysical assumption of God as Heavenly parents; by some such mixture of feelings, reasoning, and 'feedback'. 

All this happened a good while ago (about a decade); since when I have been interpreting things on the basis of this framework, and it seems to 'work', so far.

What the real-life, this world, implications are; include a reinforcement of the idea that the family is (and ought to be) the primary social structure; on earth as it is in Heaven; and a clarification of the nature of creation - starting with the primary creation by Heavenly parents and also including the secondary creation of beings (such as men and women) within primary creation. 

This metaphysics has further helped me understand both why and how love is the primary value of Christianity; i.e. because love made possible creation in the first place, and is the proper basis of 'coordinating' the subcreative activities of all the beings of creation.  

And it helped me understand how creation can be open-ended and expansile, without degenerating into chaos; because it is love that makes the difference.

Also, it helped me to understand the nature of evil; and how evil is related either to the incapacity for love or its rejection. Without love, the innate creativity of individual beings is going to be selfish and hostile to that of other beings: non-loving attitudes, thinking, and actions by beings, will tend to destroy the harmony of creation.  

I don't talk much about this understanding, and I often use the generic term 'God'; because it is difficult to explain briefly and clearly that the dyadic God of our Heavenly parents serves as a single and 'coherently unified' source of creation

But God is two, not one, because only a dyad can create, and creation must-be dyadic. 

And the dyadic just-is the one-ness of God the primal creator.  

Note added: It may be said, correctly, that the above does not depend on the Bible; but then neither does the metaphysics of orthodox-classical theology depend on scripture. We can find resonances and consistencies within the Bible - but assumptions such as: strict monotheism - creation ex nihilo (from nothing) by a God outside of creation and Time, the Athanasian Creed descriptions of the Trinity, God's omnipotence and omniscience, original sin... These are ideas that would not be derived-from a reading of scripture - the most that can be said is that someone who already ideas can find Biblical references that can be interpreted as consistent-with these assumptions. They are (apparently) products of philosophically sophisticated theologians who brought these ideas to Christianity from earlier and mostly pagan (Greek and Roman) sources. Also, these kinds of metaphysical assumption are theistic - to do with a personal god - but not specifically Christian. The salvific work of Jesus Christ (principally: making possible resurrected life everlasting in Heaven) was done within already-existing creation, and Christianity is not therefore an explanation of creation-as-such.   

The history of whether people are - or are meant to be - essentially the same, or essentially different, is a matter of metaphysical assumptions and cannot be determined from observations and evidence -- although observations and evidence may be more, or less, consistent with the metaphysics - in different times and places. 

(Men and women, and people of different ages, have always and everywhere been regarded as qualitatively different, at least in this mortal life - until 'officially' the-day-before-yesterday, in a few Western nations...)

From what I can gather of hunter-gatherer spirituality; they regard each person as different and unique; because an unique combination of ancestors (and perhaps animal spirits). 

This is how I feel about people, 'instinctively', spontaneously. Each person that I get to know seems to be unique, with resemblances. There are, for instance, distinct likenesses between my mother, sister, and daughter - such that they are obviously relatives and have an (hereditary, presumably) affinity; but each is a very different person. 

So, from this perspective, everybody is primarily an unique individual - but some people have secondary, more-superficial similarities. 

In this primal set-up; we assume difference; and explain similarity. For example, similarities may be explained in terms of innate attributes (intelligence, personality, size, strength...), heredity, or having had similar experience. 

Traditional religions in agriculturally-based societies posit a very different set-up, however. Such societies tend to regard groups of human beings as having an essentially-identical nature, and from this assumption of sameness they explain differences. 

This goes-with - although not entailed by - the idea that souls are created from nothing at conception - i.e. because souls come into life with no baggage, it is easy to think of souls as starting-out this mortal life identically; only gathering differences throughout life. 

All people may be regarded as essentially the same in origin, or they may be divided into groups such us Us and Them, or castes - aristocrats and peasants, for instance. 

Perhaps more exactly, in agrarian society there is an ideal of sameness. 

For instance; all priests, or all members of a religion, or all citizens of a nation, may have an ideal type toward which they are encouraged to strive; and from which departures are disapproved, and perhaps punished.  

In such religion; it is often stated or implies that Men are created the same, and differences emerge later; and again in the afterlife there is either an identical state for everyone (Sheol, Hades), or else categories of particular people (Valhalla for warriors, saved and damned) within-which there is a single ideal type. 

Traditional Christian Heaven is often depicted and imagined as containing hosts of angels, and of the saved, with little or no differentiation between the individuals - as if ideal Men have returned to a primal and intended sameness. 

In modern society there is an incoherent mess on this issue, as about most things of importance; and I will not attempt to summarize the contradictory nonsense that constitute feminism, or the official views of homosexuality, or the transagenda. 

These are all destructively-motivated power ploys and PSYOPS - not attempts to describe reality. 

In brief, modern society demands total sameness - but the sameness demanded varies according to time and situation. On Tuesday race divisions may be treated as mandatorily homogeneous and primary, but by Thursday it may be about the need for sameness among (biological) men and women - while by Sunday the demand for sameness may related to chosen-identity of men and women.

Overlaps and contradictions between mandatory beliefs are ignored, because the requirement is for obedience to arbitrary whim. More more obviously arbitrary and dishonest the requirement for obedience; the more deeply corrupting such obedience will be - which is the purpose behind it.   

What is important is that - at each momentary demand to regard X and Y as the same - there be total-obedience to the asserted opinion. 

I regard the fundamental truth to be that we are all different in origin and as far back as we existed (which is eternally), and sameness is something either imposed or achieved. 

In traditional society sameness was mostly imposed; and in modern society likewise, with respect to those areas in which the rulers wish the masses to be the-same: eg in terms of obedience to Litmus Test issues.

The situation is that difference ought to be taken for granted, because it is innate; yet at the same time both traditional and modern societies depend on treating groups as de facto identical. So there is an innate tension.   

The modern idea of wanting to be, and displaying, personal difference; is a consequence of society imposing sameness on what are in fact fundamentally-unique individuals - and this desire typically emerges at adolescence, when the child is psychologically detaching from parental control. 

The adolescent therefore feels this innate tension between actual individuality and imposed uniformity most keenly. 

In traditional societies the adult role is more of an externally-imposed 'stereotype' then childhood; and innate individuality rebels against this artificial uniformity. Adolescence is a short phase during which the child is channeled into one or another of the 'uniform' and finite adult roles, as demanded by society. 

Modern ideology pretends to support individuality against this channeling, but actually demands uniformity on key (destructive) issues. The stereotypical roles have been subverted, demonized, and indeed eliminated. 

The consequence is a psychological state of perpetual adolescence - with all the contradictions that implies. The adolescent cannot grow-up, and doesn't want to.   

So we get the result that all means of large-scale and and coordinated societal organization tend to - indeed must, operationally-speaking - treat individuals as groups, as categories, as all-the-same. But underneath this is the experienced fact that - when we get to know people - they are all essentially different!

People then feel that they need to assert individuality; and (since these are social-functions) the asserted individuality gets channeled into a finite range of fixed categories...

Leading to the absurdity of standardized patterns of 'rebellion', standard 'rebellious' fashions and behaviours - yet all being claimed as 'self'-expression!

*

I find that I continually need to remind myself that we are all unique individuals, and that therefore - in an ultimate and spiritual sense - we each will have an unique destiny in a world created by God, our loving parents - who regard us each as uniquely as all good parents do of their children. 

A good parent does not want all his or her children to end-up as identical; but for each to fulfill his or her own specific destiny. 

A good family is not held-together by externally imposed uniformity; but by he mutual love of its members, all pointing towards the same loving future in harmony with God's creation. 

We begin and (after resurrection) end as real, unique, individuals; and Heavenly harmony is an achieved product of love - not a state of of imposed uniformity. 

Of course, the defects and practicalities of life on earth mean that this ideal is not attainable on a large scale, or permanently. 

Nonetheless, the ultimate reality of individuality is worth remembering, and that harmonious cooperation of individuals is something striven-for not spontaneous... 

But that the harmony of love is a higher, and happier and more creative, form of cooperation that the imposition of sameness.

We can thus experience Heaven on earth - but not permanently nor continuously. But that experience can (and should) motivate us towards inhabiting Heaven after death.      

I spent most of my 'professional life' as a theoretical scientist within the field of biomedicine; and what I sought (the lack of which motivated me) was a clear and simple understanding of whatever I sought to know; because only when an understanding was clear and simple was something truly understood - such that the explanation could be communicated, evaluated, or used within science. 

In practice; genuine understanding can only be reached when the situation has been made sufficiently simple to be clear; graspable in a single act of comprehension and not by some chain of reasoning. 

That way, when we are wrong, the fact can be discovered. Clear and simple error soon reveals itself. But for someone whose false-'understanding' is complex and cloudy... well, he can never be brought to a point when he realizes his mistake.

Anything short of this meant that I did not really understand, but was just taking-on-trust; and if I communicated something I did not understand I was just 'parroting' it. 

That's how nearly everything in the public realm - including the discourse of Christian churches - strikes me: like the sound of parrots quoting parrots. 

Participants in Christian discourse sometimes believe that this parroting is what a Christian ought to do - as a sign of reverence and trust. People quote-and-believe those who they have been told are authorities, using words they have been told are profound - and so forth. 

I am prepared to accept that parroting was an acceptable path, in the past; when traditions remained true. Indeed - mere-obedience to (not-understood) church authority was a 'safe path' to salvation in some times and places. 

This kind of behaviour rooted in un-comprehending (maybe un-conscious) institutional-obedience was one common way of good living; at times and places when 'the authorities', in particular the Churches, were overall well-motivated and God-seeking. 

But nowadays, when 'Christian'-churches are only truly serious about pushing the evil agendas of totalitarian globalists -- well, deference to any major Western institution (up to and including any major Christian church) is to choose obedient service to a master who has taken the side of Satan in the spiritual war of this world. 

Nowadays, we must know for-our-selves if we are to know at all. 

Sometimes people claim to understand what they are saying - but all this means is that they have a low bar for that claim of 'understanding'! 

Often, it is simply that people have stunned-themselves with deference to authority such as they cannot really pay necessary attention to what is being asserted. 

Or that they bewildered themselves with abstractions - so they cannot keep track of coherence. 

Or they may have terminated the process of learning by declaration of 'mystery' - yet without becoming clear what they mean by mystery - and that such primary assumptions are necessarily foundational, not expedient. 

Well, each ought to lead his life in accordance with his primary convictions... 

On the other hand, for Christians dishonesty is a sin, and dishonesty with oneself is one of the most dangerous of sins (a sin that surely leads to other sins, without a tendency for self-correction) - as we see all around us.

And at the root of such dishonesty often lies a false claim of understanding. 

Serhei's excellent and thought-stimulating guest-post yesterday brings into focus that there is an important sense in which Modern Men get what they want in this mortal life. So that the spiritual (indeed physical) state of 'slavery' cannot be enforced on a population without consent, but instead people must be induced to desire slavery - and indeed to demand it. 

Yet we need to recall also that the primary purpose of living this mortal life is educational; God provides us with the experiences we most need to attain and prepare for resurrected eternal life. The slavery of Modern Man is a spiritual evil. 

This is because - 1. Modern Men are meant - by our stage in development - consciously to choose freedom and personal responsibility - not unconscious, automatic obedience; and also 2. the failure to choose freedom is compounded since the masses have chosen subjection to evil Masters.  

In exploring this matter; I shall use a specific example of the birdemic-peck; and whether an individual chooses to believe and obey the official narrative; on the assumption that the birdemic-peck is an evil-motivated strategy of the demon-controlled Global Establishment.

Suppose I choose to reject the birdemic-peck, disbelieve it, not to cooperate with the wishes of the Establishment? What then? 

For the consequences to be spiritually-good; there must be a positive, spiritual, and 'Christian-compatible' motivations for rejecting the birdemic peck: good outcomes require good motives. 

(By 'Christian-compatible' - I mean such motivations as a commitment to truth, to real values and morality, or to genuine beauty.)

And then there must also be a conscious awareness that this mortal life is indeed for our spiritual teaching; and acknowledgement that (overall, sooner-or-later) we will encounter life-situations (life-lessons) from-which we are intended to learn. 

Therefore, when a personal issue, a choice, emerges in our life; it needs to be recognized with seriousness, a recognition that our choices matter - and not just for our happiness now and soon, but also as affecting our situation and divine creation and forever. 

Life is cumulative, nothing is undone, we don't leave-behind past decisions - these are incorporated into what comes after...

Yet sub-optimal or bad choices can be turned to good, and right choices can be turned to evil. 

For instance; if a keen submission to the birdemic-peck plan is later repented, and a choice made to reject the agenda of global evil and instead to work in alliance with divine creation... Then this learning-from-experience will set a positive tone for whatever comes after.  

But if, in contrast, someone rejects the birdemic-peck propaganda but for the wrong reasons - such as a fear of damage to psychological or physical health - then this will constitute a commitment to another of the agendas of evil; and subsequent life will become increasingly health-fear dominated, and move in a selfish and hedonic direction... Perhaps towards intractable hypochondria; joining the mainstream-approved pattern of clinging to lifespan, and despair at the inevitability of death.     

One who chooses to submit to the birdemic-peck thereby accepts the "package" - the motivations and plans - of which it is a part (which is why this is one of the Litmus Test issues); which is explicitly (as well as implicitly) an agenda for de facto enslavement.

Thus slavery is chosen. 

But the significance of this slavery is primarily spiritual. It is in essence not a matter of you being subjugated to surveillance, confinement and micro-control of lifestyle. That is a means to the underlying spiritual goal of having you live in perpetual fear and resentment, self-hatred and despair...

A condition in which biological death is seen as annihilation of your-self...

Or else a continued half-life may be offered (and maybe sometimes actually given, under conditions) to those who consent to it; as an enslaved, ghostly spirit of evil perhaps; a 'computer download', or a life energized or extended by means of the predatory/ parasitic exploitation of human energies and vitality. 

In sum; physical slavery is chosen because it is a means to the end of spiritual enslavement - consent to a process of incremental value-corruption leading to self-damnation.

(Because all damnation is chosen.) 

The truth is that Christianity (properly understood!) says that this mortal life is of vital importance - and this importance derives-from the destination of personal, resurrected eternal life. 

But the idea that this temporary and sin-ridden mortal life is unimportant apparently entered Christianity very early; and I believe it came along with the idea that salvation is only available by means of each Christian adhering to stringent behavioural criteria (e.g. and especially, membership of and obedience to the requirements of The True Church). 

I regard this kind of (de facto) anti-Christian Pharisee-ism as ultimately a consequence of some early decisions to make (the one true) Church an essential mediator between each Man and Salvation; without which damnation was the default. 

It never was metaphysically essential for Christians to be obedient Church-obeyers; but there was a practical reason why churches became regarded as essential - which was that human individuality was much less in the early years (probably at least 3/4 of the years) of Christian history. 

Since individual Christians were essentially communal and social beings; in practice they had-to be Christians via churches.

But now, humans are individuals (like it or not) and it is not just possible but unavoidable that we each take personal responsibility for our faith, and behaviours. We can no longer obey external authority (such as churches) spontaneously and unconsciously; and we should not try to do so - precisely because we now Can take personal responsibility.

(*In particular, it is overdue that Christians ceased to spend their lives circling around-and-around a perpetual and unassuageable worry about their own salvation, sometimes returning to this theme every time they pray, like a hamsters trapped a wheel - or, worse, like being chained to a never-stopping treadmill of pleading, propitiation and rumination on the same theme. Read again the Fourth Gospel - is there the slightest indication that Jesus wanted us to live this way?) 

I am confident that the original teaching of Jesus Christ was that anyone who truly desires resurrected eternal life in Heaven can have it, after our physical death; through the simple means of following The Good Shepherd who will guide us to that destination; and - at that time - doing whatever is required of us to follow Him. 

This means that salvation is Not A Problem for those who want it, and 'believe-on' Jesus as The Way to achieve it. 

The difficult thing may be getting people to want it, or to believe the claims of Jesus as The Way - although the Truth about Jesus should become apparent after death, to anyone who really wants resurrection. 

When salvation ceases to be our primary concern; then we can and should focus on living well this mortal life; which (in a nutshell) means learning from the teachings, the life-lessons, that God the Creator will provide for each of us during the time He sustains this life. 

In other words; the importance of this mortal life is learning from it; and such lessons are important only because they have relevance to us (personally) for eternity. 

...After all, mortal life-lessons are not very important for someone whose individuality is extinguished by death - such as atheists on the one hand, and on the other those who believe the individuality is dissolved into 'the divine' after death. 

Far from Christians regarding this mortal life as un-important; Christians are just about the only people who regard this life as genuinely important: as vitally important, everlastingly important; and important to both the individual and all the other 'inhabitants' of Heaven.   

(*Note added - see above)

Over at the Notion Club Papers; I have written a post about the problem of having read, and re-read, some thing we liked so much that we wish to continue inhabiting its 'world'. There are several possible responses to this craving for 'more of the same' - I discuss the potential of literary scholarship and criticism, philosophy, and fanfiction.