*
My Dear Child,
Now you know that my creative purpose is to raise-up my children to a divine maturity, in hope that they will freely chose to become loving friends with me and with each other, perhaps I can now explain some of the features of your mortal life, and especially its difficulties and suffering?
You are an eternal being, whose original essence goes back to the beginning of everything. This eternal essence is the basis of your fundamental autonomy, your free will, your ability to choose.
Because not everything about you was made, therefore part of you is independent of everything in the universe - including being independent of myself. You can be a first cause, an unmoved mover. To this extent you are unique: different from everybody and everything that ever has been.
On top of this, you have become a child of myself and your Mother in Heaven - we took this primal essence and added to it. We made you like us, self-aware: a personage. You are now a child of God, and this is the basis of your relation to myself, and all other people (past, present and future). To this extent you are intrinsically part of a family.
So you are unique but you are not alone. You do not need to strive to be unique, and you do not need to strive to be part of a web of relationships - these are given facts; they are already a part of your situation and the situation of everybody else.
So, although you are a child, very immature, flawed, weak and so on - nonetheless you are divine, invincible, eternal... and are at present on a path to higher divinity.
You have the potential to become a god of the same kind as myself, that is an 'adult' god, and to choose to enter into a full and adult relationship with me and your Mother in Heaven. That this may happen is our deepest yearning, and we have done everything possible to make it possible.
When I say you have potential to become a god like me, I do not want you to think about this in terms of power, but instead in terms of relationships.
You might imagine becoming a real and loving friend to a King of England or the President of the USA - or an Emperor of the world - they might want you as a friend, and you might be part of their families, you might work with them in collaboration on creative projects... but that does not make you personally a King, President or Emperor. You may be best friends, you may both be Men; but the King remains King, and you remain his subject.
That is how I want you to think about becoming divine, becoming a god, and having an adult friendship with me. It is not a matter of power, but a matter of love.
However your path is long, and intrinsically difficult. You are an infant god - a god, yes - yet an infant. As divine you are great, as a child you are weak - lacking in knowledge and strength, defective in goodness...
There is much you need to learn - and your learning must be practical and experiential, not merely theoretical. This is why life is and must be hard and full of difficulties, why it is a matter of trial and error - mistaking and repenting and trying again.
(There is a sense in which life necessarily resembles warfare, and fighting can only be learned by situations which include actual combat. Soldiering cannot be learned just from lectures at military college, nor only by drills, exercises and simulations exclusively. Real combat experience is essential.)
Furthermore, you must consent to learning at every step, and must continue to choose to continue the process. In this regard, ultimately, you cannot be coerced into learning or specific choosing; although you can of course be influenced - for good or for ill.
So, this is the basic nature of your situation, this is where you find yourself. This - where you are now.
And this is the situation which you previously chose in its general features - although, obviously, you did not choose every specific aspect of your life - and many of these specific aspects are the consequence of other peoples choices- which are equally as real as your own.
You are probably wondering why you have to be told this.
The reason you did not already know all this stuff, is partly the fact that you did already know it, but mortal life on earth is so different from your previous Heavenly life that Heavenly knowledge is inaccessible in a similar way (and for similar reasons) as your dream life is scanty and fragmentary. That is, you may recall a few fragments, but most dreams are apparently forgotten, or cannot be made sense of, essentially because sleeping consciousness is so very different from waking.
Likewise your earlier state of Heavenly consciousness was extremely different from your current state of mortal consciousness. So you need to be reminded, again and again. And indeed life is full of such reminders - but you may have chosen to ignore or reject the reminders up until now.
Life is also full of falsehoods and distractions, and paths leading in wrong directions, which you have often chosen.
You are a mixed creature, life is a mixed business, there is much to learn - thus development is a long processes. But I hope you will agree that life is also real, important, and has an inspiring aim.
You are unique and you are free, and you are also surrounded by family and friends and helpers - some alive, some dead, some advanced in divinity; and I haven't even yet mentioned Jesus Christ! So, no matter what your current situation may be, the odds of ultimate victory are heavily, indeed irresistibly, stacked in your favour - if that is what you choose.
From your loving Father in Heaven
*
Monday 13 April 2015
Sunday 12 April 2015
Letter from your Heavenly Father (Part One)
*
This is a simplified and direct interpretation of the understanding I have of reality, and it is written as a letter from God to 'you', in order to emphasise the qualities which are most important in life and most easily lost in the essay form. It is based upon Letter from a Father by William Arkle
http://www.billarkle.co.uk/prose/letterfromafather.html
*
My Dear Child,
In this letter, and others to follow, I hope to answer some of your questions, and clear up some of your confusions.
You may wonder why I created you, since I do not 'need' anything? Especially since I have the loving companionship of your Mother in Heaven.
I do not of course need anyone else in order to exist - whereas you depend on me for the nature of your existence. (It is true that you and I are both eternal; but before you became my child you were 'merely' - albeit vitally - an un-self-aware essence.)
However, although self-sufficient in terms of my existence; as a God 'of love', mere physical existence is not the point - I live in order to love, and to expand the possibilities and practice of love.
So, I am not only the creator, but also creative - my whole plan is creative; and at the heart of this creative plan is Man, including yourself.
This is not difficult for you to understand, because there is a profound similarity between my situation in ultimate, and yours in microcosm. As I can exist without you, but not you without me; a human parent can exist without any child, but not the child without parent.
And as a parent may create vast, open-ended creative possibilities by having children, and by raising them to autonomous adulthood; so I have done with you and with all of mankind and the angels.
The similarities, indeed go further; because your ideal purpose in having children is very close to my own ideal for you; that is - the ideal of a good human parent is to enjoy every step of his child's development; to provide the love and experiences (including trials) necessary for maturation - and there is the powerful hope that when the child becomes an adult he will choose to become a close and loving friend with his parents.
In other words,a human father hopes (ideally) to raise children to become of the same kind as himself - an adult human - but each as a new, unique individual and autonomous adult. Friendship with children cannot be coerced, each child is different, friendship is necessarily a choice on both sides and unpredictable; but it is certainly hoped-for.
And (although this seldom can happen in mortal life) the best possible outcome would be for parents and children, their spouses and children, to make a loving extended family and engage in creative and cooperative projects of many kinds (including raising generation upon generation).
That is almost exactly what I want from you. I have provided, as best I can, the type of love and experience necessary for your development to become of the same 'kind' as myself - which is what you call 'divine'. My greatest hope is that you will eventually develop from children as you currently are (in comparison with myself) to become divine of the same kind as myself; and will choose to become my friend, and to engage with me in creative and cooperative projects of a scope and nature appropriate to our divine status.
So, this is why I created you, and all the other humans and angels; not because I needed to but because it makes life better - potentially. I say potentially because everything depends on the choice to love and work together, which is not (and cannot be) coerced.
It will greatly, inconsolably, sadden me if you choose to reject this plan and 'go it alone'; but that is always a possibility. So, at every stage of choice I have provided the best possible opt-out - so you may choose to remain a child rather than develop towards divinity; you may choose to reject personal relationships and instead become an abstraction of un-self-aware happiness; you may even choose to reject my offer of friendship and extended familial cooperation and creativity (rejecting even the choice of which family you inhabit) and live alone and independent (this seems like a terrible choice to me, a hellish choice, but you are free to make it because real friendship cannot be coerced.)
I created you from the motivation of love, and with the creative hope that this may lead to more love in an open-ended and expanding range of possibilities - so you can see how my first motivation is love, and my second motivation is creativity.
Thus it was both love and creativity which made the world, the universe, and everything that has form. When you find yourself confused and uncertain about what I am aiming-at or meaning, I hope that it may be helpful for you to remember this about my nature and yearnings: I mean my fundamental attributes of love and creativity.
From your loving Father in Heaven
*
This is a simplified and direct interpretation of the understanding I have of reality, and it is written as a letter from God to 'you', in order to emphasise the qualities which are most important in life and most easily lost in the essay form. It is based upon Letter from a Father by William Arkle
http://www.billarkle.co.uk/prose/letterfromafather.html
My Dear Child,
In this letter, and others to follow, I hope to answer some of your questions, and clear up some of your confusions.
You may wonder why I created you, since I do not 'need' anything? Especially since I have the loving companionship of your Mother in Heaven.
I do not of course need anyone else in order to exist - whereas you depend on me for the nature of your existence. (It is true that you and I are both eternal; but before you became my child you were 'merely' - albeit vitally - an un-self-aware essence.)
However, although self-sufficient in terms of my existence; as a God 'of love', mere physical existence is not the point - I live in order to love, and to expand the possibilities and practice of love.
So, I am not only the creator, but also creative - my whole plan is creative; and at the heart of this creative plan is Man, including yourself.
This is not difficult for you to understand, because there is a profound similarity between my situation in ultimate, and yours in microcosm. As I can exist without you, but not you without me; a human parent can exist without any child, but not the child without parent.
And as a parent may create vast, open-ended creative possibilities by having children, and by raising them to autonomous adulthood; so I have done with you and with all of mankind and the angels.
The similarities, indeed go further; because your ideal purpose in having children is very close to my own ideal for you; that is - the ideal of a good human parent is to enjoy every step of his child's development; to provide the love and experiences (including trials) necessary for maturation - and there is the powerful hope that when the child becomes an adult he will choose to become a close and loving friend with his parents.
In other words,a human father hopes (ideally) to raise children to become of the same kind as himself - an adult human - but each as a new, unique individual and autonomous adult. Friendship with children cannot be coerced, each child is different, friendship is necessarily a choice on both sides and unpredictable; but it is certainly hoped-for.
And (although this seldom can happen in mortal life) the best possible outcome would be for parents and children, their spouses and children, to make a loving extended family and engage in creative and cooperative projects of many kinds (including raising generation upon generation).
That is almost exactly what I want from you. I have provided, as best I can, the type of love and experience necessary for your development to become of the same 'kind' as myself - which is what you call 'divine'. My greatest hope is that you will eventually develop from children as you currently are (in comparison with myself) to become divine of the same kind as myself; and will choose to become my friend, and to engage with me in creative and cooperative projects of a scope and nature appropriate to our divine status.
So, this is why I created you, and all the other humans and angels; not because I needed to but because it makes life better - potentially. I say potentially because everything depends on the choice to love and work together, which is not (and cannot be) coerced.
It will greatly, inconsolably, sadden me if you choose to reject this plan and 'go it alone'; but that is always a possibility. So, at every stage of choice I have provided the best possible opt-out - so you may choose to remain a child rather than develop towards divinity; you may choose to reject personal relationships and instead become an abstraction of un-self-aware happiness; you may even choose to reject my offer of friendship and extended familial cooperation and creativity (rejecting even the choice of which family you inhabit) and live alone and independent (this seems like a terrible choice to me, a hellish choice, but you are free to make it because real friendship cannot be coerced.)
I created you from the motivation of love, and with the creative hope that this may lead to more love in an open-ended and expanding range of possibilities - so you can see how my first motivation is love, and my second motivation is creativity.
Thus it was both love and creativity which made the world, the universe, and everything that has form. When you find yourself confused and uncertain about what I am aiming-at or meaning, I hope that it may be helpful for you to remember this about my nature and yearnings: I mean my fundamental attributes of love and creativity.
From your loving Father in Heaven
*
Matthew's Gospel
*
I have been re-reading the Gospel of Matthew - and, for the first time, felt for myself a sense of its overall structure and methods.
My impression is of a text mainly composed of multiple memories about Christ and of what Christ said and did - probably taken verbatim and little altered. The effect is of multiple 'voices' and the author invisible.
The transitions between sources are not smoothed, the context and interpretation are seldom clarified. My inference is that the author regarded his sources as sacred, and was too modest or scrupulous to add or subtract - but satisfied himself with simply arranging the material in the best chronology he could.
The result is an aphoristic style: powerful, detached - and at times I could not understand the aphorisms, and they seemed to clash - always in situations where the context of the sayings and doings was non-obvious.
Of the synoptic Gospels, the impression was that this was the one in the rawest and least-edited state; with advantages from that of less distortion, and also with a greater-than-usual proneness to error if using the 'proof text' method of reading the Bible a verse at a time.
What comes across with great clarity is the importance of Jesus's strong claim to literal Kingship (i.e. earthly leadership) of the Jews via his adopted father Joseph
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/jesus-was-literally-king-of-jews-by.html
There is throughout an overwhelming sense of Jesus's immense and formidable personal authority - his claim on the throne by descent and fulfilment of prophecies, his greatness as a scholar and debater - superior to all other Rabbis, and the extraordinary events of his death and resurrection with multiple prophecies being fulfilled and multiple signs that some great thing had just happened (including resurrections of other people).
And, as so often, I felt again the importance of John the Baptist - whose spiritual authority seems to have been so great; and therefore whose endorsement of Jesus as the Christ seems to have been yet another vital strand in the interlocking of evidence that here was the Messiah.
*
I have been re-reading the Gospel of Matthew - and, for the first time, felt for myself a sense of its overall structure and methods.
My impression is of a text mainly composed of multiple memories about Christ and of what Christ said and did - probably taken verbatim and little altered. The effect is of multiple 'voices' and the author invisible.
The transitions between sources are not smoothed, the context and interpretation are seldom clarified. My inference is that the author regarded his sources as sacred, and was too modest or scrupulous to add or subtract - but satisfied himself with simply arranging the material in the best chronology he could.
The result is an aphoristic style: powerful, detached - and at times I could not understand the aphorisms, and they seemed to clash - always in situations where the context of the sayings and doings was non-obvious.
Of the synoptic Gospels, the impression was that this was the one in the rawest and least-edited state; with advantages from that of less distortion, and also with a greater-than-usual proneness to error if using the 'proof text' method of reading the Bible a verse at a time.
What comes across with great clarity is the importance of Jesus's strong claim to literal Kingship (i.e. earthly leadership) of the Jews via his adopted father Joseph
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/jesus-was-literally-king-of-jews-by.html
There is throughout an overwhelming sense of Jesus's immense and formidable personal authority - his claim on the throne by descent and fulfilment of prophecies, his greatness as a scholar and debater - superior to all other Rabbis, and the extraordinary events of his death and resurrection with multiple prophecies being fulfilled and multiple signs that some great thing had just happened (including resurrections of other people).
And, as so often, I felt again the importance of John the Baptist - whose spiritual authority seems to have been so great; and therefore whose endorsement of Jesus as the Christ seems to have been yet another vital strand in the interlocking of evidence that here was the Messiah.
*
Saturday 11 April 2015
Love is not a virtue - Love is the primary principle of reality
*
We grossly misapprehend and underestimate Love if we regard it as a virtue akin to Faith, Hope and the 'seven virtues'; we trivialize Love to regard it as an emotion (transient, labile, subjective).
Such views are simply inaccurate; because Love is the primary principle of reality: the structuring principle of the universe as we know it.
What this means is that our God is a God of Love - Love is his primary character, motivation, guiding principle - it is because of God's Love that Men were created.
Love is the reality - and everyone who has ever lived inhabits this universe of Love.
What people happen to feel about things is neither here nor there; all virtues are harmonized by love - and indeed the transcendental Goods of truth, beauty and virtue are harmonized by Love, and only by Love.
*
We grossly misapprehend and underestimate Love if we regard it as a virtue akin to Faith, Hope and the 'seven virtues'; we trivialize Love to regard it as an emotion (transient, labile, subjective).
Such views are simply inaccurate; because Love is the primary principle of reality: the structuring principle of the universe as we know it.
What this means is that our God is a God of Love - Love is his primary character, motivation, guiding principle - it is because of God's Love that Men were created.
Love is the reality - and everyone who has ever lived inhabits this universe of Love.
What people happen to feel about things is neither here nor there; all virtues are harmonized by love - and indeed the transcendental Goods of truth, beauty and virtue are harmonized by Love, and only by Love.
*
An inspired talk on the second coming of Christ from Neil L Andersen
*
I have been working-through the talks given at the LDS general conference last weekend. One in particular I found quite astonishingly powerful - this was Elder Neil L Andersen speaking on the subject of living in the latter days, the end times; and the nature of the second coming of Christ.
I would urge anyone interested to watch this fifteen minute video all-through, and with close attention.
I came away from it energized, en-couraged and hopeful, and grateful to live in a time of God-inspired living prophets.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/thy-kingdom-come?lang=eng
*
I have been working-through the talks given at the LDS general conference last weekend. One in particular I found quite astonishingly powerful - this was Elder Neil L Andersen speaking on the subject of living in the latter days, the end times; and the nature of the second coming of Christ.
I would urge anyone interested to watch this fifteen minute video all-through, and with close attention.
I came away from it energized, en-couraged and hopeful, and grateful to live in a time of God-inspired living prophets.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/thy-kingdom-come?lang=eng
*
Metaphysical consequences of secularism
*
It is the loss of Christianity which is at the root of Western cultural decline, and the essence of decline, and the essence of decline is that peculiar mixture of hedonism and despair, incoherent glorification of emotions and bureaucratic rationalism which is New Leftism or Political Correctness.
But people generally misunderstand the causality in this analytic claim, people generally assume that it is the loss of an authoritative Christian moral framework which is the primary problem. Or that the claim is that self-identified Christians are more virtuous than agnostics or atheists. People assume that the basic problem is that our culture can no longer state what is right and wrong and underpin statements with divine authority - can no longer say do this and don't do that because God says so.
But these are not the essence of what went so deeply wrong when Christianity was lost from Western public discourse.
The essence of the problem is metaphysical. Metaphysics refers to the basic structure of understanding reality. The bottom line about how things are. It is my conviction that differences in metaphysics or changes in metaphysics always come out, and reveal themselves in multiple ways - for example they set the tone or flavour of a religion, the focus of it, the emphasis.
What was lost with the decline of Christianity was a universe, a basic reality, in which good and evil were real and objective, truth and lies were actual, beauty and ugliness... When Christianity was deleted from public discourse, then virtue was no longer seen as being a thing built into the universe, but only a state of people's minds and people's minds as being only a temporary arrangement of stuff - often changing and terminated by death.
This is what I mean by a change in metaphysics. This is far more profound a change than a change in the shopping list of good and bad, modifications or reversals of the Ten Commandments. Because when the modern metaphysics is established then even if there was no change in the Ten Commandments then they have become merely a thing existing - temporarily, and indeed arbitrarily - in the ephemeral minds of men, and utterly disconnected from permanent reality.
So, to call oneself a Christian, sincerely to regard oneself as a Christian, while holding this faith within a context of mainstream modern metaphysics, is not to be a Christian at all, not really. It is just to regard Christianity as a subjective, ephemeral, lifestyle option within a primary metaphysical worldview that renders Christianity trivial.
No matter how much a self-identified Christian may say this or that, or do this or that, it does not matter one way or another unless they have repudiated the mainstream modern public secular metaphysical discourse.
And to do this means to live in a state of internal exile, to be fundamentally misinterpreted and misunderstood, and to be unable to communicate concerning everyday matters of fact and motivation.
Unless the conversation can first be placed on a metaphysical level, then communication is not possible, and if there is a refusal to consider metaphysics, then there can be no communication, but merely misunderstanding of one sort or many sorts.
*
It is the loss of Christianity which is at the root of Western cultural decline, and the essence of decline, and the essence of decline is that peculiar mixture of hedonism and despair, incoherent glorification of emotions and bureaucratic rationalism which is New Leftism or Political Correctness.
But people generally misunderstand the causality in this analytic claim, people generally assume that it is the loss of an authoritative Christian moral framework which is the primary problem. Or that the claim is that self-identified Christians are more virtuous than agnostics or atheists. People assume that the basic problem is that our culture can no longer state what is right and wrong and underpin statements with divine authority - can no longer say do this and don't do that because God says so.
But these are not the essence of what went so deeply wrong when Christianity was lost from Western public discourse.
The essence of the problem is metaphysical. Metaphysics refers to the basic structure of understanding reality. The bottom line about how things are. It is my conviction that differences in metaphysics or changes in metaphysics always come out, and reveal themselves in multiple ways - for example they set the tone or flavour of a religion, the focus of it, the emphasis.
What was lost with the decline of Christianity was a universe, a basic reality, in which good and evil were real and objective, truth and lies were actual, beauty and ugliness... When Christianity was deleted from public discourse, then virtue was no longer seen as being a thing built into the universe, but only a state of people's minds and people's minds as being only a temporary arrangement of stuff - often changing and terminated by death.
This is what I mean by a change in metaphysics. This is far more profound a change than a change in the shopping list of good and bad, modifications or reversals of the Ten Commandments. Because when the modern metaphysics is established then even if there was no change in the Ten Commandments then they have become merely a thing existing - temporarily, and indeed arbitrarily - in the ephemeral minds of men, and utterly disconnected from permanent reality.
So, to call oneself a Christian, sincerely to regard oneself as a Christian, while holding this faith within a context of mainstream modern metaphysics, is not to be a Christian at all, not really. It is just to regard Christianity as a subjective, ephemeral, lifestyle option within a primary metaphysical worldview that renders Christianity trivial.
No matter how much a self-identified Christian may say this or that, or do this or that, it does not matter one way or another unless they have repudiated the mainstream modern public secular metaphysical discourse.
And to do this means to live in a state of internal exile, to be fundamentally misinterpreted and misunderstood, and to be unable to communicate concerning everyday matters of fact and motivation.
Unless the conversation can first be placed on a metaphysical level, then communication is not possible, and if there is a refusal to consider metaphysics, then there can be no communication, but merely misunderstanding of one sort or many sorts.
*
Friday 3 April 2015
On retreat from blogging
*
As usual at this time of year, I will be taking about a week away from daily blogging.
I apologise to regular readers, because I know from experience that even such a short break in blogging will lose readers, apparently permanently.
I cannot promise to make good use of the time - indeed part of it is actually shaking-up what are rather efficient and habitual ways of using time; just to see what happens - to test the system.
One thing I will try to do doing is read in The Gospels in the mornings (at the time when I would usually be blogging) - since I seem recently to have developed a new (or renewed) sense of The Gospels as the proper focal point of scripture for modern Christians (as modern conservative evangelicals have always known, in practice); especially the indirect and story-like elements rather than the explicit abstract principles.
But part of the point is not to over-plan these things, to be receptive to what is happening and to follow good impulses.
See you again soon - I hope.
*
As usual at this time of year, I will be taking about a week away from daily blogging.
I apologise to regular readers, because I know from experience that even such a short break in blogging will lose readers, apparently permanently.
I cannot promise to make good use of the time - indeed part of it is actually shaking-up what are rather efficient and habitual ways of using time; just to see what happens - to test the system.
One thing I will try to do doing is read in The Gospels in the mornings (at the time when I would usually be blogging) - since I seem recently to have developed a new (or renewed) sense of The Gospels as the proper focal point of scripture for modern Christians (as modern conservative evangelicals have always known, in practice); especially the indirect and story-like elements rather than the explicit abstract principles.
But part of the point is not to over-plan these things, to be receptive to what is happening and to follow good impulses.
See you again soon - I hope.
*
Repentance, Kingdom of God, Baptism, Healing
*
Reflections from the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew
The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Repent, be Baptised - and Healing
John the Baptist and then Jesus Christ have the message to repent because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, imminent.
*
The imminence Kingdom of Heaven refers to the fact that soon Man would, for the first time be resurrected and therefore able to inhabit Heaven (a new place and possibility); and therefore it was now time for each Man to repent.
*
So, the imminent resurrection of Christ allow, makes-possible the imminent resurrection of Men; which means that the Kingdom of Heaven will soon be accessible to Men.
Repentance is now necessary because we will each soon have to make a decision to accept or reject the Kingdom of Heaven - accepting Heaven requires repentance; repentance is this acknowledgement of the need for Christ, that Resurrection is made possible by Christ.
*
Why the emphasis on Baptism (John the Baptist)? - because Baptism is washing away sin and emergence from the water as rebirth - rebirth is resurrection.
Baptism is a Repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Baptism ought, therefore, to be by immersion or - at least - by a volume of water washing-over the person, and the person emerging-from the volume of water. Baptism by the - mere - application of water onto the body is an error. Also, Baptism is supposed, ideally (not exclusively) to be done to a person who can appreciate this - not explicitly as theology, but someone who can feel what is happening - can feel the washing and rebirth. For this to be more than just symbolism, the Holy Ghost would need to become operative by this; would need to be welcomed into his heart by the newly-baptised.)
*
John and the Apostles baptised, but Jesus healed.
Healing is a means to the end - Mortal Man is recognized as intrinsically 'sick', and healing by Christ is a miniature resurrection; and restoration of health by Christ is a miniature of our entry into the (imminent) eternal Kingdom of God.
So a spiritual act of Healing by Christ is a picture of rebirth and resurrection, a story of it - it is the same process, the same sequence of events, as Baptism.
*
John Baptised, Christ Healed; both were about Repentance and the Kingdom.
To be healed is a repentance, to be restored to health is to be resurrected.
Baptism and Healing were a microcosm of the imminence of Christ's new gift of Man's Resurrection into the Kingdom of Heaven.
*
Reflections from the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew
The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, Repent, be Baptised - and Healing
John the Baptist and then Jesus Christ have the message to repent because the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, imminent.
*
The imminence Kingdom of Heaven refers to the fact that soon Man would, for the first time be resurrected and therefore able to inhabit Heaven (a new place and possibility); and therefore it was now time for each Man to repent.
*
So, the imminent resurrection of Christ allow, makes-possible the imminent resurrection of Men; which means that the Kingdom of Heaven will soon be accessible to Men.
Repentance is now necessary because we will each soon have to make a decision to accept or reject the Kingdom of Heaven - accepting Heaven requires repentance; repentance is this acknowledgement of the need for Christ, that Resurrection is made possible by Christ.
*
Why the emphasis on Baptism (John the Baptist)? - because Baptism is washing away sin and emergence from the water as rebirth - rebirth is resurrection.
Baptism is a Repentance and the Kingdom of Heaven.
(Baptism ought, therefore, to be by immersion or - at least - by a volume of water washing-over the person, and the person emerging-from the volume of water. Baptism by the - mere - application of water onto the body is an error. Also, Baptism is supposed, ideally (not exclusively) to be done to a person who can appreciate this - not explicitly as theology, but someone who can feel what is happening - can feel the washing and rebirth. For this to be more than just symbolism, the Holy Ghost would need to become operative by this; would need to be welcomed into his heart by the newly-baptised.)
*
John and the Apostles baptised, but Jesus healed.
Healing is a means to the end - Mortal Man is recognized as intrinsically 'sick', and healing by Christ is a miniature resurrection; and restoration of health by Christ is a miniature of our entry into the (imminent) eternal Kingdom of God.
So a spiritual act of Healing by Christ is a picture of rebirth and resurrection, a story of it - it is the same process, the same sequence of events, as Baptism.
*
John Baptised, Christ Healed; both were about Repentance and the Kingdom.
To be healed is a repentance, to be restored to health is to be resurrected.
Baptism and Healing were a microcosm of the imminence of Christ's new gift of Man's Resurrection into the Kingdom of Heaven.
*
Atheists - Are you one hundred percent sure that death is one hundred percent extinction?
*
If so - on what basis are you sure that death is total extinction?
We all agree that the body dies - but you apparently believe that the 'soul' also dies (or believe that there is no such thing as a soul in the first place) - You believe that after death there is absolutely no trace of anything of you left at all.
Total and irreversible extinction of the whole self is what you apparently are 100% certain about.
*
Against your certainty is almost-every human that has ever lived in history and throughout the modern world.
Against your certainty is that there is zero evidence of the utter extinction of everything - you don't I presume, imagine that 'science' has 'discovered' that there is no soul?
*
(It could accurately be said that science has not found any detectable soul, but that is irrelevant! You are claiming 100% knowledge! Science hadn't detected the Higgs boson until a couple of years ago - did that non-detection prove with 100 certainty that the Higgs boson did not exist? Of course not! The existence and survival of the soul is a subject on which science is silent. Indeed, insofar as 'science' is built on the assumption and practice of excluding any 'religious' explanation - then it is a subject on which science will always and necessarily be silent.)
*
You apparently are 100% sure (in the teeth of the opposite consensus of mankind and zero evidence) that non-existence of the soul and/or non-survival of the soul after death is the default belief, and that belief in the survival of the soul is explainable as... what?
Wishful Thinking?
But most people in history that believed in the survival of the soul after death (and many alive today) regarded the post-mortem soul as existing in a miserable, horrible state - forever!
They believed in the soul living-on after death of the body as a demented spirit, or ghost, or in some hellish torment or terror, or bound to an endless cycles of reincarnations (mostly horrible, punishing, degrading).
Was that wishful thinking?
*
No; the true default belief is that the soul survives death - and to believe with 100% certainty that death of the body also means utter destruction and annihilation of the soul is an extraordinary assumption!
How can you be so sure about this?
And if - on serious reflection - you are not 100% sure; then you have some serious thinking and investigating to do; because if you are wrong about this (if you are pretending to be 100% sure without any good reason) then you may be lying to yourself (wishful thinking, perhaps?) and deliberately pretending to a false and unjustifiable certainty about something you cannot possibly be certain about.
And if you are completely wrong, presumably there will be consequences of some sort, and it is possible that these consequences (whatever they are) may last for eternity.
*
If so - on what basis are you sure that death is total extinction?
We all agree that the body dies - but you apparently believe that the 'soul' also dies (or believe that there is no such thing as a soul in the first place) - You believe that after death there is absolutely no trace of anything of you left at all.
Total and irreversible extinction of the whole self is what you apparently are 100% certain about.
*
Against your certainty is almost-every human that has ever lived in history and throughout the modern world.
Against your certainty is that there is zero evidence of the utter extinction of everything - you don't I presume, imagine that 'science' has 'discovered' that there is no soul?
*
(It could accurately be said that science has not found any detectable soul, but that is irrelevant! You are claiming 100% knowledge! Science hadn't detected the Higgs boson until a couple of years ago - did that non-detection prove with 100 certainty that the Higgs boson did not exist? Of course not! The existence and survival of the soul is a subject on which science is silent. Indeed, insofar as 'science' is built on the assumption and practice of excluding any 'religious' explanation - then it is a subject on which science will always and necessarily be silent.)
*
You apparently are 100% sure (in the teeth of the opposite consensus of mankind and zero evidence) that non-existence of the soul and/or non-survival of the soul after death is the default belief, and that belief in the survival of the soul is explainable as... what?
Wishful Thinking?
But most people in history that believed in the survival of the soul after death (and many alive today) regarded the post-mortem soul as existing in a miserable, horrible state - forever!
They believed in the soul living-on after death of the body as a demented spirit, or ghost, or in some hellish torment or terror, or bound to an endless cycles of reincarnations (mostly horrible, punishing, degrading).
Was that wishful thinking?
*
No; the true default belief is that the soul survives death - and to believe with 100% certainty that death of the body also means utter destruction and annihilation of the soul is an extraordinary assumption!
How can you be so sure about this?
And if - on serious reflection - you are not 100% sure; then you have some serious thinking and investigating to do; because if you are wrong about this (if you are pretending to be 100% sure without any good reason) then you may be lying to yourself (wishful thinking, perhaps?) and deliberately pretending to a false and unjustifiable certainty about something you cannot possibly be certain about.
And if you are completely wrong, presumably there will be consequences of some sort, and it is possible that these consequences (whatever they are) may last for eternity.
*
Thursday 2 April 2015
Unstructured solitude - where and how can we be free, good and happy?
*
I have an unusually powerful need for unstructured solitude - that is for un-busy, un-hurried, un-distracted time spent alone and without any kind of detailed agenda.
I have been aware of this need since I was thirteen years old, and I have generally been fortunate enough to be able to get what I needed.
Because we are animals; Men require certain circumstances - and unstructured solitude needs some kind of context. What I aim-at is a type of meditation; but the mechanism probably does not look to other people like meditation - because it consists of 'journaling' - that is, hand-writing in a notebook.
Good places for meditative journaling:
While my personal need for unstructured solitude is so great that it is painful for me to be deprived, even for one day; there are problems which, I think, prevent other and less 'driven' people from obtaining what they also likely require (albeit to a lesser extent):
Most profoundly, a false metaphysics, a set of false ideas about 'what matters' - the idea that only active living is important, only social relationships are important; that to be alone and 'doing nothing useful' is selfish, self-indulgent, lazy.
The consequence of these preventive factors is that modern people waste their precious opportunities for unstructured solitude - they waste the time spent in a cafe, on a bus, walking; they waste it on chores, on distractions, or (more rarely) on sheer vacuity of mind (lapsing into 'stand-by' - a state of slack-jawed suspended animation).
If there was real truth in what Socrates said about the unexamined life not being worth living; then each person needs to think about when this 'examining' of our life is supposed to be taking place, if not in unstructured solitude?
*
I have an unusually powerful need for unstructured solitude - that is for un-busy, un-hurried, un-distracted time spent alone and without any kind of detailed agenda.
I have been aware of this need since I was thirteen years old, and I have generally been fortunate enough to be able to get what I needed.
Because we are animals; Men require certain circumstances - and unstructured solitude needs some kind of context. What I aim-at is a type of meditation; but the mechanism probably does not look to other people like meditation - because it consists of 'journaling' - that is, hand-writing in a notebook.
Good places for meditative journaling:
- Cafes
- Libraries
- Something like a shed, workshop, or part-covered, semi-outdoor niche
- Public transport - especially a train
- Walking - carrying a notebook
While my personal need for unstructured solitude is so great that it is painful for me to be deprived, even for one day; there are problems which, I think, prevent other and less 'driven' people from obtaining what they also likely require (albeit to a lesser extent):
- Distraction by intrusive surroundings - especially from other people who may be un-ignorably gossiping, or behaving in a threatening manner.
- The need for distraction - especially the addictive use of external stimulation. People reach for a newspaper, fill their heads with music from headphones, use social media etc.
- Boredom - as a consequence of habitual passivity of mind. Sooner or later boredom will afflict everybody - but for some people boredom kicks-in, in just a few seconds.
- Busyness - the pressure of time, a fully organized life, planning of everything and the notion that everything should be planned.
Most profoundly, a false metaphysics, a set of false ideas about 'what matters' - the idea that only active living is important, only social relationships are important; that to be alone and 'doing nothing useful' is selfish, self-indulgent, lazy.
The consequence of these preventive factors is that modern people waste their precious opportunities for unstructured solitude - they waste the time spent in a cafe, on a bus, walking; they waste it on chores, on distractions, or (more rarely) on sheer vacuity of mind (lapsing into 'stand-by' - a state of slack-jawed suspended animation).
If there was real truth in what Socrates said about the unexamined life not being worth living; then each person needs to think about when this 'examining' of our life is supposed to be taking place, if not in unstructured solitude?
*
Wednesday 1 April 2015
The evilness of evil (in a pluralist universe)
*
The reason that mainstream theologians have persisted for 2000 years with monism (and an Omni- concept of God) despite the insoluble and fundamental problems these cause for Christianity is that they want to be able to say that God is necessarily good - i.e. that the goodness of God is built-into reality, part of the existence of the universe; and therefore that to oppose God is to be irrational (i.e. they want to be able to state that evil is simply irrational).
(Note: this doesn't actually work, because it makes evil into a kind of insanity rather than a deliberate choice of evil. For instance, Satan could not rationally choose to rebel against God and reject salvation, and because he is a high angel who would know for certain the terrible consequences of rebellion; this framework makes Satan into a kind of lunatic or demented creature, rather than truly-evil).
Pluralism would regard this as a mistaken purpose in theology since it makes a universe where choice is meaningless and Man is a puppet. Such a universe is incompatible with Christianity.
(i.e. Incompatible in a common sense way. But obviously if theology is allowed to get-away-with recourse to paradox and mysticism then anything is possible - and paradox and mysticism have duly been built-into mainstream intellectual Christianity since not long after the death of the Apostles - e.g. in describing the nature of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the operations of free will.)
*
As I understand it, pluralism starts with assumptions and a situation that 'just is' and cannot be (or does not need to be) explained further - and the main assumption is the God is God - He is just there.
(And, for Mormons, so is Mother in Heaven 'just there' - because reality is dyadic, male and female are two complementary and irreducible parts that together make unity. ^See note below)
God is inside the already existing universe of reality (matter or 'stuff') which is also 'just there' and has certain properties which are understood by us as the laws of nature including the principles of beauty and morality.
We Men (and other intelligences) were also 'just there' but as some kind of essence that lacked self-awareness.
*
God (and, for Mormons, Mother in Heaven) then made us into self-aware 'children of God' so that now we are all related to God and to each other - relationships (or one enormously large family with multiple sub-families) is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Therefore, 'good' is to choose to live in accordance with these relationships, as established by God; evil is to reject these relationships and aim to live as solitary and self-sufficient gods. (This is pride.)
*
So evil is a choice. It is not necessarily irrational, it is not necessarily dishonest - except that it seems always to involve a denial of the true situation and of our debt to God - but evil can be a hatred and rejection of the divine families in which we find ourselves - perhaps a hatred of God for forcing us to become self-conscious (and therefore liable to suffer) and to having saddled us with unasked-for responsibilities to our divine parents and siblings.
I think it is at least conceivable that a person might simply choose to reject self consciousness, and/or family ties and aspire to live utterly alone. By the mercy of God this state could be made into an unselfconscious bliss; but this state too might be rejected and the person would then live in 'hell' of utter and self-imposed eternal and self-aware solitude.
The evil of this 'hell' comes from rejecting divine relationships but clinging to selfhood; rejecting gratitude and responsibility towards God but clinging to God-given powers.
*
The primary moral decision in the history of reality was therefore that God (and Mother in Heaven) unilaterally decided to 'make' us into self-conscious personages, to make us into His children. His motive for this was love and our own benefit, just as the motive of earthly parents for 'making' children should be love and the children's own benefit - nonetheless it was unilateral, and is irreversible.
Consequently, because God is loving; I think it must have been the case that God made provision for us to opt-out of this situation in which we find ourselves, and to return to primordial unawareness and unpersonhood.
This is why I believe God has made provision for 'Nirvana' i.e. what feels-like loss of self/ personhood, and reabsorption into the blissful state of His goodness.
This is not an actual stripping away of our status as Sons and Daughters of God - that is irreversible - but it does allow a non-evil choice to reject the basic situation in which we find ourselves - to reject self-awareness, incarnation, intelligence, power and everything else.
To 'return' to original un-consciousness.
*
But these are all choices: suboptimal, sad - but self-chosen and self-inflicted. They are simply a consequence of the reality of agency/ free will.
The evilness of evil is really about the gratuitous spitefulness of trying to wreck the self-consciousness and divine family relationships which other people want and have chosen; of trying to persuade other people to inhabit 'hell' as some kind of eternal consolation for the misery of one's own choice of hell.
*
^The other explanation for God in a pluralist universe is an infinite regress - i.e. that God the Father and Heavenly Mother are children of previous Gods, are children of previous Gods, and so on forever. But this amounts to the same thing as saying 'just there' - it is merely substituting a process which is 'just there' for entities which are 'just there'.
The reason that mainstream theologians have persisted for 2000 years with monism (and an Omni- concept of God) despite the insoluble and fundamental problems these cause for Christianity is that they want to be able to say that God is necessarily good - i.e. that the goodness of God is built-into reality, part of the existence of the universe; and therefore that to oppose God is to be irrational (i.e. they want to be able to state that evil is simply irrational).
(Note: this doesn't actually work, because it makes evil into a kind of insanity rather than a deliberate choice of evil. For instance, Satan could not rationally choose to rebel against God and reject salvation, and because he is a high angel who would know for certain the terrible consequences of rebellion; this framework makes Satan into a kind of lunatic or demented creature, rather than truly-evil).
Pluralism would regard this as a mistaken purpose in theology since it makes a universe where choice is meaningless and Man is a puppet. Such a universe is incompatible with Christianity.
(i.e. Incompatible in a common sense way. But obviously if theology is allowed to get-away-with recourse to paradox and mysticism then anything is possible - and paradox and mysticism have duly been built-into mainstream intellectual Christianity since not long after the death of the Apostles - e.g. in describing the nature of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the operations of free will.)
*
As I understand it, pluralism starts with assumptions and a situation that 'just is' and cannot be (or does not need to be) explained further - and the main assumption is the God is God - He is just there.
(And, for Mormons, so is Mother in Heaven 'just there' - because reality is dyadic, male and female are two complementary and irreducible parts that together make unity. ^See note below)
God is inside the already existing universe of reality (matter or 'stuff') which is also 'just there' and has certain properties which are understood by us as the laws of nature including the principles of beauty and morality.
We Men (and other intelligences) were also 'just there' but as some kind of essence that lacked self-awareness.
*
God (and, for Mormons, Mother in Heaven) then made us into self-aware 'children of God' so that now we are all related to God and to each other - relationships (or one enormously large family with multiple sub-families) is the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.
Therefore, 'good' is to choose to live in accordance with these relationships, as established by God; evil is to reject these relationships and aim to live as solitary and self-sufficient gods. (This is pride.)
*
So evil is a choice. It is not necessarily irrational, it is not necessarily dishonest - except that it seems always to involve a denial of the true situation and of our debt to God - but evil can be a hatred and rejection of the divine families in which we find ourselves - perhaps a hatred of God for forcing us to become self-conscious (and therefore liable to suffer) and to having saddled us with unasked-for responsibilities to our divine parents and siblings.
I think it is at least conceivable that a person might simply choose to reject self consciousness, and/or family ties and aspire to live utterly alone. By the mercy of God this state could be made into an unselfconscious bliss; but this state too might be rejected and the person would then live in 'hell' of utter and self-imposed eternal and self-aware solitude.
The evil of this 'hell' comes from rejecting divine relationships but clinging to selfhood; rejecting gratitude and responsibility towards God but clinging to God-given powers.
*
The primary moral decision in the history of reality was therefore that God (and Mother in Heaven) unilaterally decided to 'make' us into self-conscious personages, to make us into His children. His motive for this was love and our own benefit, just as the motive of earthly parents for 'making' children should be love and the children's own benefit - nonetheless it was unilateral, and is irreversible.
Consequently, because God is loving; I think it must have been the case that God made provision for us to opt-out of this situation in which we find ourselves, and to return to primordial unawareness and unpersonhood.
This is why I believe God has made provision for 'Nirvana' i.e. what feels-like loss of self/ personhood, and reabsorption into the blissful state of His goodness.
This is not an actual stripping away of our status as Sons and Daughters of God - that is irreversible - but it does allow a non-evil choice to reject the basic situation in which we find ourselves - to reject self-awareness, incarnation, intelligence, power and everything else.
To 'return' to original un-consciousness.
*
But these are all choices: suboptimal, sad - but self-chosen and self-inflicted. They are simply a consequence of the reality of agency/ free will.
The evilness of evil is really about the gratuitous spitefulness of trying to wreck the self-consciousness and divine family relationships which other people want and have chosen; of trying to persuade other people to inhabit 'hell' as some kind of eternal consolation for the misery of one's own choice of hell.
Tuesday 31 March 2015
Lloyd Alexander biographical documentary
*
A fascinating, and highly-recommended hour-long biographical film about Lloyd Alexander has been posted on YouTube recently -
I have a special affection for Alexander's Prydain Chronicles series, which I have read multiple times, including aloud as a bedtime book - and Alexander comes across through the text as an exceptionally likeable author.
I found-out about these books from Lin Carter mentioning them positively in A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings, and was delighted when the first three volumes (only) came-out in an inexpensive UK paperback - the final two volumes were only published considerably later. They have a special, earnest charm and good-humour about them which I find to be a wholesome tonic.
Alexander had a remarkable and unique face; and it seems that the face contained the truth about his nature: he was an absolutely driven author, a misfit and maverick in the world, he suffered badly from depression, he was kindly, idealistic and much loved. It is all written there.
I have a special affection for Alexander's Prydain Chronicles series, which I have read multiple times, including aloud as a bedtime book - and Alexander comes across through the text as an exceptionally likeable author.
I found-out about these books from Lin Carter mentioning them positively in A Look Behind The Lord of the Rings, and was delighted when the first three volumes (only) came-out in an inexpensive UK paperback - the final two volumes were only published considerably later. They have a special, earnest charm and good-humour about them which I find to be a wholesome tonic.
I knew nothing about Alexander until I read an intriguing interview in a book about fantasy authors; then, - after he died in 2007 - I found a TV programme recording a delightful visit to his home -
Alexander had a remarkable and unique face; and it seems that the face contained the truth about his nature: he was an absolutely driven author, a misfit and maverick in the world, he suffered badly from depression, he was kindly, idealistic and much loved. It is all written there.
I write for Britain's most PC newspaper
*
OK, regular readers can have a good laugh at the fact I have today published a piece in The Guardian, which is famously the home of political correctness in British newspaper journalism.
It would not be dignified for me to try and explain myself; the fact that I am not getting paid probably makes matters worse rather than better...
The main reason was that I was asked to write 400 words in favour of lectures (one of my hobby horses), and as an ex freelance journalist, I became fascinated by the challenge of saying what I wanted to say, briefly and in an engaging manner.
Could I still do it, I wondered? Before I knew it, I had done it - so, yes.
Below is pasted the version I submitted - and to see how the sub-editors improved it, go to:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/mar/31/are-lectures-the-best-way-to-teach-students
*
I am reluctant to discuss lecturing, since on this particular topic it is futile since I am in too small a minority. The fact is that real lectures are always greatly appreciated by students who want to learn. But what are called 'lectures' nowadays are a travesty.
...Vast, stuffy venues that seat hundreds; students sitting in the dark and unable to see the speaker; a disembodied voice droning into a microphone; the lecturer reading-out endless powerpoint slides which have already been posted online; the scanty audience passive instead of actively making their own notes - distracted by themselves and others intermittently browsing the internet and social networking; and the whole thing being recorded as if to emphasize to students that they don't really need to be there and they don't really need to pay attention...
...well these atrocities are what people currently call lectures, and they are indefensible.
However, so are the so-called alternatives to lectures! Mere gimmicks and novelties - designed to get praise and awards for teaching 'innovation'. (A bicycle with triangular wheels is an innovation - the proper question is whether it is fit for purpose.)
But when lectures are taken seriously, and conducted in the proper way, they are the best pragmatic way of teaching knowledge to people who want to know.
Good lectures are possible and achievable - I experienced many of them at my medical school. But good lectures are not easy, nor are they as cheap as some 'alternatives'. Good lectures require all-round effort from people who appoint teaching staff and design lecture theatres; from those who construct courses, and those who create the educational ethos.
And (hardest of all) good lectures require here-and-now concentration during the actual teaching period - effort from both lecturer and audience alike. A good lecture is hard work!
Because a good lecture is a one-off performance. Like the theatre rather than the cinema, everybody present contributes to the success or failure, everybody is 'involved'. But when it 'works', a good lecture is an experience that may be remembered forever.
So real lecturing is irreplaceable in the same way that live theatre or musical performance is irreplaceable - real human beings, actually-present and in psychological contact; seeing and hearing each other in real-time; working together on something they both value.
It is sad that so few modern students will ever experience anything of this kind.
*
OK, regular readers can have a good laugh at the fact I have today published a piece in The Guardian, which is famously the home of political correctness in British newspaper journalism.
It would not be dignified for me to try and explain myself; the fact that I am not getting paid probably makes matters worse rather than better...
The main reason was that I was asked to write 400 words in favour of lectures (one of my hobby horses), and as an ex freelance journalist, I became fascinated by the challenge of saying what I wanted to say, briefly and in an engaging manner.
Could I still do it, I wondered? Before I knew it, I had done it - so, yes.
Below is pasted the version I submitted - and to see how the sub-editors improved it, go to:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2015/mar/31/are-lectures-the-best-way-to-teach-students
*
I am reluctant to discuss lecturing, since on this particular topic it is futile since I am in too small a minority. The fact is that real lectures are always greatly appreciated by students who want to learn. But what are called 'lectures' nowadays are a travesty.
...Vast, stuffy venues that seat hundreds; students sitting in the dark and unable to see the speaker; a disembodied voice droning into a microphone; the lecturer reading-out endless powerpoint slides which have already been posted online; the scanty audience passive instead of actively making their own notes - distracted by themselves and others intermittently browsing the internet and social networking; and the whole thing being recorded as if to emphasize to students that they don't really need to be there and they don't really need to pay attention...
...well these atrocities are what people currently call lectures, and they are indefensible.
However, so are the so-called alternatives to lectures! Mere gimmicks and novelties - designed to get praise and awards for teaching 'innovation'. (A bicycle with triangular wheels is an innovation - the proper question is whether it is fit for purpose.)
But when lectures are taken seriously, and conducted in the proper way, they are the best pragmatic way of teaching knowledge to people who want to know.
Good lectures are possible and achievable - I experienced many of them at my medical school. But good lectures are not easy, nor are they as cheap as some 'alternatives'. Good lectures require all-round effort from people who appoint teaching staff and design lecture theatres; from those who construct courses, and those who create the educational ethos.
And (hardest of all) good lectures require here-and-now concentration during the actual teaching period - effort from both lecturer and audience alike. A good lecture is hard work!
Because a good lecture is a one-off performance. Like the theatre rather than the cinema, everybody present contributes to the success or failure, everybody is 'involved'. But when it 'works', a good lecture is an experience that may be remembered forever.
So real lecturing is irreplaceable in the same way that live theatre or musical performance is irreplaceable - real human beings, actually-present and in psychological contact; seeing and hearing each other in real-time; working together on something they both value.
It is sad that so few modern students will ever experience anything of this kind.
*
Don't rise to Leftist provocation
*
There is nothing that our secular Left culture likes more than for Christian reactionaries to expend their lives fulminating against it.
This indeed is a message always implicit but often also explicit in every triumph of the West - in policy, economics, law, and (above all) the sexual revolution:
"Suck on that you Christian bigots!"
"How do you like that you hate-filled conservatives?"
"What have you got to say about that? - Fascists!"
Much of TV, movies, novels, newspapers and magazines, fine art, comedy, social networking, government and NGO propaganda... has this exact same message: a slap or a punch in the face; a knife driven into the targeted religion, and twisted.
Then they sit back, rub their hands, and gleefully watch us waste our finite mortal time in impotent, futile, raging - until the time comes for another dagger prod.
*
There is nothing that our secular Left culture likes more than for Christian reactionaries to expend their lives fulminating against it.
This indeed is a message always implicit but often also explicit in every triumph of the West - in policy, economics, law, and (above all) the sexual revolution:
"Suck on that you Christian bigots!"
"How do you like that you hate-filled conservatives?"
"What have you got to say about that? - Fascists!"
Much of TV, movies, novels, newspapers and magazines, fine art, comedy, social networking, government and NGO propaganda... has this exact same message: a slap or a punch in the face; a knife driven into the targeted religion, and twisted.
Then they sit back, rub their hands, and gleefully watch us waste our finite mortal time in impotent, futile, raging - until the time comes for another dagger prod.
*
Despair and salvation to Nirvana
*
When suffering exists with hope, we yearn for Heaven.
But when suffering leads to despair; then we yearn for release, permanent escape from suffering; escape into un-self-conscious being, reabsorption into the impersonal divine; bliss, Nirvana.
Cultures of despair reject the personhood of God - relationships are seen as a perpetuation of suffering. The Goal is detachment - especially from relationships.
Modernity suffers deeply and despairs deeply; modern Men yearn for Nirvana yet disbelieve it; because modernity starts-from a rejection of the personhood of God, and despair is a consequence of this rejection.
Despairing modern man can only imagine as real a temporary escape from self-hood into distraction or obliterative intoxication; or a permanent escape into extinction.
There are no other alternatives - neither hope of Heaven nor release into Nirvana.
*
When suffering exists with hope, we yearn for Heaven.
But when suffering leads to despair; then we yearn for release, permanent escape from suffering; escape into un-self-conscious being, reabsorption into the impersonal divine; bliss, Nirvana.
Cultures of despair reject the personhood of God - relationships are seen as a perpetuation of suffering. The Goal is detachment - especially from relationships.
Modernity suffers deeply and despairs deeply; modern Men yearn for Nirvana yet disbelieve it; because modernity starts-from a rejection of the personhood of God, and despair is a consequence of this rejection.
Despairing modern man can only imagine as real a temporary escape from self-hood into distraction or obliterative intoxication; or a permanent escape into extinction.
There are no other alternatives - neither hope of Heaven nor release into Nirvana.
*
Shepherd and Lamb
*
Jesus Christ is the Shepherd, master of the flock - and we his lambs.
And Christ is the Lamb - lovely and knowable.
The Lamb of God grows from innocent, joyous dependence to unresisting sacrifice.
The Lion is God the Father - and without Christ He is a thing terrible, awesome, un-knowable, feared.
The Lion would naturally kill the Lamb; and indeed the Lamb is killed.
The Lamb rises glorious and lies down with the Lion.
The Lamb evokes our love, compassion, care - but a mortal Lamb cannot save us. The Lamb must be reborn, and rule with the Lion.
The Lamb becomes Shepherd...
It is only by our love for the reborn Lamb that we may have a proper and necessary relation with the Lion.
*
Jesus Christ is the Shepherd, master of the flock - and we his lambs.
And Christ is the Lamb - lovely and knowable.
The Lamb of God grows from innocent, joyous dependence to unresisting sacrifice.
The Lion is God the Father - and without Christ He is a thing terrible, awesome, un-knowable, feared.
The Lion would naturally kill the Lamb; and indeed the Lamb is killed.
The Lamb rises glorious and lies down with the Lion.
The Lamb evokes our love, compassion, care - but a mortal Lamb cannot save us. The Lamb must be reborn, and rule with the Lion.
The Lamb becomes Shepherd...
It is only by our love for the reborn Lamb that we may have a proper and necessary relation with the Lion.
*
Mortal incarnate life is about TWO things: Salvation and Theosis (The primary focus of God's plan was *not* you and I.)
*
The purpose and function of mortal incarnate life is not reducible to one thing - mortal incarnate life is not reducible to salvation unless salvation is given a dual meaning, in which case the duality of purpose is being covertly (and often insensibly) smuggled-in.
All Men live and die - that experience is common to all Men and to Jesus Christ - and that is the 'mechanism' of salvation. All that humans need to do is accept Christ's offer and gift of salvation (although that acceptance may not be as easy as it sounds given the corruptions of a long life in this world; and certainly acceptance of Christ's work cannot be assumed to be universal.)
But most Men are incarnated and die either in the womb or at or soon after birth; and more die while innocent babes or young children. These all experience the essential experience which is necessary for salvation.
*
The basic experience of mortal life is that our pre-mortal eternal souls are clothed in a body, then die and become separated from that body - but not only the 'physical' body. Our souls also experience dwelling within a personality, a specific set of dispositions, abilities, motivations etc. You could summarize this by saying our souls dwell inside a mind, and the characteristics of that mind - and the mind is not the soul.
This 'personality' or mind is also part of the body (that is it depends on the body - especially the brain) and the soul also separates from the mind at death.
So, during mortal life the soul and personality/ body are in a state of necessary disharmony (this is what some Christians call original sin) but after resurrection the soul is perfectly in harmony with the body/ personality.
*
Spiritual progression is linear and sequential, like Time. The primary aim of mortal incarnate life is salvation - which is first the experience of the soul dwelling in a state of disharmony with a personality/ body and then dying to be resurrected to the condition of a soul dwelling in harmony with personality/ body (unless the soul refuses the resurrection to harmony - unless the soul refuses to let go of the conflicted aspects of the body/ personality).
The aim of resurrection into harmony can only be achieved via the experience of mortal incarnate life and death, and via the work of Jesus Christ who underwent these experiences.
*
All this is salvation - but theosis refers to the degree of progress towards divine-nature achieved during mortal incarnate life; and this depends upon length of life and circumstances and opportunities of life - as well as upon choices, will, and other personal factors.
A long life (i.e. to maturity, to include more primary experiences such as marriage and children, creative work, friendships, self-sacrifice etc) offers more possibilities of theosis - of a higher degree of advancement, and more possibilities of corruption.
The value of a long life may be remedial in some instances (a chance for those who most need it; pre-mortal spirits who are significantly deficient), or to enable a more advanced level of spirituality (a chance for those best able to make the most of opportunities). Or mixtures.
*
Most of religious discourse which purports to be about salvation is really about theosis - it is about that small minority of humans who have lived a long life.
We should never forget that God's plan will very probably have been focused primarily on the majority of Men who never made it out of the womb, or early childhood. The plan was mostly about them; and only secondarily about us, about you and I - part of that tiny minority of long-lived Men whose business ought to be theosis.
(Although, tragically, many of us who live in the secular West explicitly state that we fully intend to reject salvation - and actively aim to persuade others to do likewise. But, fortunately, this madness has not afflicted the mass of men in history and does not afflict the majority alive today.)
*
The purpose and function of mortal incarnate life is not reducible to one thing - mortal incarnate life is not reducible to salvation unless salvation is given a dual meaning, in which case the duality of purpose is being covertly (and often insensibly) smuggled-in.
All Men live and die - that experience is common to all Men and to Jesus Christ - and that is the 'mechanism' of salvation. All that humans need to do is accept Christ's offer and gift of salvation (although that acceptance may not be as easy as it sounds given the corruptions of a long life in this world; and certainly acceptance of Christ's work cannot be assumed to be universal.)
But most Men are incarnated and die either in the womb or at or soon after birth; and more die while innocent babes or young children. These all experience the essential experience which is necessary for salvation.
*
The basic experience of mortal life is that our pre-mortal eternal souls are clothed in a body, then die and become separated from that body - but not only the 'physical' body. Our souls also experience dwelling within a personality, a specific set of dispositions, abilities, motivations etc. You could summarize this by saying our souls dwell inside a mind, and the characteristics of that mind - and the mind is not the soul.
This 'personality' or mind is also part of the body (that is it depends on the body - especially the brain) and the soul also separates from the mind at death.
So, during mortal life the soul and personality/ body are in a state of necessary disharmony (this is what some Christians call original sin) but after resurrection the soul is perfectly in harmony with the body/ personality.
*
Spiritual progression is linear and sequential, like Time. The primary aim of mortal incarnate life is salvation - which is first the experience of the soul dwelling in a state of disharmony with a personality/ body and then dying to be resurrected to the condition of a soul dwelling in harmony with personality/ body (unless the soul refuses the resurrection to harmony - unless the soul refuses to let go of the conflicted aspects of the body/ personality).
The aim of resurrection into harmony can only be achieved via the experience of mortal incarnate life and death, and via the work of Jesus Christ who underwent these experiences.
*
All this is salvation - but theosis refers to the degree of progress towards divine-nature achieved during mortal incarnate life; and this depends upon length of life and circumstances and opportunities of life - as well as upon choices, will, and other personal factors.
A long life (i.e. to maturity, to include more primary experiences such as marriage and children, creative work, friendships, self-sacrifice etc) offers more possibilities of theosis - of a higher degree of advancement, and more possibilities of corruption.
The value of a long life may be remedial in some instances (a chance for those who most need it; pre-mortal spirits who are significantly deficient), or to enable a more advanced level of spirituality (a chance for those best able to make the most of opportunities). Or mixtures.
*
Most of religious discourse which purports to be about salvation is really about theosis - it is about that small minority of humans who have lived a long life.
We should never forget that God's plan will very probably have been focused primarily on the majority of Men who never made it out of the womb, or early childhood. The plan was mostly about them; and only secondarily about us, about you and I - part of that tiny minority of long-lived Men whose business ought to be theosis.
(Although, tragically, many of us who live in the secular West explicitly state that we fully intend to reject salvation - and actively aim to persuade others to do likewise. But, fortunately, this madness has not afflicted the mass of men in history and does not afflict the majority alive today.)
*
Monday 30 March 2015
William Blake's Marriage of Heaven and Hell
*
Blake was a mystic - was divinely inspired - had direct access to and received evidence of reality.
Mystics provide us with what might be termed objective evidence; but most mystics are just as prone to misunderstand, misinterpret, and falsely-systematize objective evidence evidence as are you and I.
Blake was also a Man, of knowledge incomplete and fallible, and (perhaps more than usually) prone to hatred and resentment.
So, we can benefit greatly from the inspired wisdom of Blake - but need also to recognize that Blake's own understanding of Blake's own wisdom was rather poor - which is why so much of his writing is essentially meaningless (and hardly even attempts to be meaningful).
But if we consider The Marriage of Heaven and Hell from " Without Contraries is no progression" up to the end of the Proverbs of Hell "Enough! or Too much!"; then we are confronted with as profound and as concentrated a catalogue of truth as human hand has penned.
(With the exception of the Apostles.)
http://www.bartleby.com/235/253.html
Our task is to regard this as divinely-inspired evidence; but to edit-out Blake's own false interpretations and systematizations of this evidence.
And this is what we must do with all (true) mystical insight - whether from the Prophets and Saints; or from other modern Christian (or at least self-identified Christian) mystics like Pascal, Traherne, Swedenborg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Rudolf Steiner and William Arkle.
*
Blake was a mystic - was divinely inspired - had direct access to and received evidence of reality.
Mystics provide us with what might be termed objective evidence; but most mystics are just as prone to misunderstand, misinterpret, and falsely-systematize objective evidence evidence as are you and I.
Blake was also a Man, of knowledge incomplete and fallible, and (perhaps more than usually) prone to hatred and resentment.
So, we can benefit greatly from the inspired wisdom of Blake - but need also to recognize that Blake's own understanding of Blake's own wisdom was rather poor - which is why so much of his writing is essentially meaningless (and hardly even attempts to be meaningful).
But if we consider The Marriage of Heaven and Hell from " Without Contraries is no progression" up to the end of the Proverbs of Hell "Enough! or Too much!"; then we are confronted with as profound and as concentrated a catalogue of truth as human hand has penned.
(With the exception of the Apostles.)
http://www.bartleby.com/235/253.html
Our task is to regard this as divinely-inspired evidence; but to edit-out Blake's own false interpretations and systematizations of this evidence.
And this is what we must do with all (true) mystical insight - whether from the Prophets and Saints; or from other modern Christian (or at least self-identified Christian) mystics like Pascal, Traherne, Swedenborg, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Rudolf Steiner and William Arkle.
*
There should be no division between religion and the state - 'theocracy' is a good thing
*
There cannot and should-not be any division or distinction between religion and the state.
Unless the state is to be evil; it must-be and ought-to-be permeated by religion; at every level and in both its largest principles and its smallest particulars.
There is no pre-specified political (or religious) mechanism by which this desirable state of affairs should-be established - indeed no mechanism could, even in principle, achieve this.
But any approach towards the goal of complete harmony in all aspects of life, under the guidance of true religion, should never be allowed to be blocked by such nonsensical and anti-Christian principles as the supposed desirability of separation of church and state, or a belief in the intrinsic wickedness of 'theocracy'.
*
There cannot and should-not be any division or distinction between religion and the state.
Unless the state is to be evil; it must-be and ought-to-be permeated by religion; at every level and in both its largest principles and its smallest particulars.
There is no pre-specified political (or religious) mechanism by which this desirable state of affairs should-be established - indeed no mechanism could, even in principle, achieve this.
But any approach towards the goal of complete harmony in all aspects of life, under the guidance of true religion, should never be allowed to be blocked by such nonsensical and anti-Christian principles as the supposed desirability of separation of church and state, or a belief in the intrinsic wickedness of 'theocracy'.
*
It is not un-loving to judge people as having evil intentions - indeed such judgements are absolutely required
*
Christians sometimes feel or say that they ought to suppose other people have 'good intentions', and that this attitude is entailed by being loving, as we are required to be.
But this is a mistake. Christians simply need to judge the intentions of others as accurately as possible, and then act accordingly.
When a person is judged as having evil intentions, then this may need to be said explicitly; and such a person should be treated as such.
*
The Christian injunction to love, and not to hate - comes-in in the sense that a person's evil intentions should not be taken as a justification for hating them; because such emotions as hatred, resentment, grudge-bearing, vengefulness are un-Christian.
Of course, most people cannot help but feel hatred, resentment, cannot help bearing grudges, cannot stop a desire for revenge. However, such feelings should be acknowledged to be wrong, should be repented, and should not be justified.
*
As Christians, we must acknowledge that we ought to be able (were we perfect in our obedience) to love even those who are motivated by evil - as did Christ.
But that does not-at-all mean we should always assume good intentions, nor that we should always give people 'the benefit of the doubt'. To do that would be dishonest (a sin) as well as simply foolish.
Christians are not supposed to be self-deluding dupes, deranged by wishful-thinking - but to be clear-eyed realists.
*
Christians sometimes feel or say that they ought to suppose other people have 'good intentions', and that this attitude is entailed by being loving, as we are required to be.
But this is a mistake. Christians simply need to judge the intentions of others as accurately as possible, and then act accordingly.
When a person is judged as having evil intentions, then this may need to be said explicitly; and such a person should be treated as such.
*
The Christian injunction to love, and not to hate - comes-in in the sense that a person's evil intentions should not be taken as a justification for hating them; because such emotions as hatred, resentment, grudge-bearing, vengefulness are un-Christian.
Of course, most people cannot help but feel hatred, resentment, cannot help bearing grudges, cannot stop a desire for revenge. However, such feelings should be acknowledged to be wrong, should be repented, and should not be justified.
*
As Christians, we must acknowledge that we ought to be able (were we perfect in our obedience) to love even those who are motivated by evil - as did Christ.
But that does not-at-all mean we should always assume good intentions, nor that we should always give people 'the benefit of the doubt'. To do that would be dishonest (a sin) as well as simply foolish.
Christians are not supposed to be self-deluding dupes, deranged by wishful-thinking - but to be clear-eyed realists.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)