*
I think it likely that the concept of Original Sin derived from the philosophical insistence on the absolute/ infinite/ abstract 'Omni' definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - which attempted to fuse Christianity with Greek-Roman Classical Philosophy.
The Fall is described in Genesis in the Bible, but not the concept of Original Sin - this is a philosophical inference, a second-order interpretation.
Simply, Original Sin has it that since the Fall, all men are born in a state of sin - and it is this situation which Christ's Atonement was needed to remedy.
*
I think that once God had been defined philosophically in terms of Omni properties, and also as having created everything (except Himself) from literally nothing (ex nihilo) then the most pressing question for these early intellectual Christians was to explain the function of Christ.
Because a God that could do anything would seem not to need to go through this elaborate, messy and contingent business of Himself being incarnated into mortal life, dying, being resurrected and ascending to Heaven.
I think that Original Sin was intended to explain the function of Christ in the context of a God that could do anything. The idea being that God made everything perfect, but Man exercised his God-given free will to sin in the Fall; and this wrecked creation permanently - requiring a further act of God in Christ's incarnation (with an 'equation' or contrasted equivalence made between Adam and Christ).
But, it has, over the centuries, proved difficult/ impossible to hold-the-line on Original Sin - because the idea of inborn sin implies we are tainted at source, all humans are fundamentally wicked (or else we would not have required a Saviour), and this negative evaluation tends to spread and contaminate everything that humans feel, think and do.
Indeed, belief-in (living-by) Original Sin tends to paralyse the will, because it puts us at odds with God, and it removes any level of self trust, or any confidence in our own evaluations - we cannot (it seems) even evaluate which is a real or valid church - we cannot even get started on our Christian life, because our essence is wrong.
The effect of Original Sin is almost like philosophical relativism - in the sense that in relativism the only core possible belief is that all truths are relative and all other truths are made uncertain; whereas with original sin the only core belief is that we are fundamentally sinners, and all other beliefs are made uncertain by that.
*
The Restored Gospel of Mormonism goes right back to first philosophical principles, and rejects the concept of God as primarily an abstract and philosophical 'omni' deity creating everything from nothing - and replaces it with the primary concept, from the Old Testament, of God as a primarily a person: primarily our Heavenly Father, and we as his children. This relational definition is made primary, and any philosophical definitions must fit within this primary 'metaphor'.
Because God is not Omni, and therefore works within the universe, then it is reasonable to assume that the work of Christ was necessary - it was the only (or best) way that God could achieve his purposes.
God could not just make everything as he wanted, by an instantaneous act of will; rather God must work within time and within the matter and laws of the universe, to help his children whom he loves.
*
So the Fall happened, and had a permanent effect on possibilities and arrangements - but there is no such thing as Original Sin and modern men and women are born as innocent as were Adam and Eve - but born into a different and corrupted world, and a world of birth and death.
On the other hand, the dawn of consciousness, the reality of birth and death and need to overcome the corruptions of the world offer vast possibilities for spiritual development which would have been impossible without the Fall.
Because our God is not an Omni-God who can do anything instantly, means that the universe sets constraints on action - things can only be done in some ways and not other ways. The Atonement of Christ can be seen as necessary, as the only way that God could achieve his hopes for Man.
The complex 'rigmarole' of having the maker and ruler of this world Christ born into this world as an incarnate Man, his life and teachings, his death by crucifixion, his resurrection and ascension - all these can be understood as a necessary mechanism for our spiritual progression towards godhood, as Sons and Daughters of God to become more like God, more like Jesus Christ.
*
My basic point is that the dark and often paralysing concept of Original Sin is only made necessary to explaining the work of Christ by the primacy of an abstract and philosophical Omni concept of God.
But when God is seen as our Father, then Original Sin is seen as firstly unnecessary, and secondly as tending to be pernicious - so it can be and is discarded.
The way is then open for a simple and non-paradoxical understanding of the human condition which has men and women as very mixed but fundamentally good (more-or-less prone to corruption - but not fundamentally and intrinsically sinful); and Christ's work as giving us salvation by (in some way) living the path to eternal resurrected life.
Therefore, without Original Sin, we have all already been-saved by Christ for eternal resurrected life in (some degree of) happiness; so long as we do not choose positively-to-reject that salvation.
For those who accept Christ's salvation; the emphasis of mortal Christian life moves onto exaltation, theosis, sanctification, the process of becoming more god-like - or divinization.
*
So, the contingent decision to assimilate the common sense, personal, and family based ancient Hebrew and Christian narrative into the pre-existing Greek/ Roman abstract philosophical understanding can be seen as having had a profound and lasting effect upon Christianity as originally demonstrated and taught by Christ and the Apostles.
The Mormon Restoration goes back to before this philosophical re-conceptualization and reveals what seems to be a simpler, clearer, more positive, optimistic and motivating understanding of the human condition and of Christ's work in transforming it: I believe it is a better way of understanding the difference that Christ made.
Having said that, it is of course perfectly possible to be a real and good and devout Christian with what I would regard as an inferior conceptual understanding of Christianity - indeed that is and always has been the usual situation; not least because most Christians most of the time pretty much ignore the metaphysics and philosophy of their Christianity - and in practice they fit their abstract understanding into their primary personal relationship with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.
Mormonism simply takes this 'plain man's' Christianity of loving relationships as its official theology - and there is no need for the doctrine of Original Sin, and little benefit from it (some benefits, but little), and considerable possibility of harm from it.
*
But it only makes sense to discard Original Sin if first you discard the Omni concept of God - otherwise you will end-up without any necessary function for Christ, and then Christ becomes an 'optional extra' as in Liberal Christianity - and then, with an optional Christ, the way is open to people, en masse, choosing actively to reject the salvation which comes only by Christ.
Which is the current situation. People who cannot accept Original Sin end up rejecting Christ - but usually unaware that there is a strong and coherent 'third way' that combines full recognition of Christ as our Saviour but without need for Original Sin: which is Mormonism.
*
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query original sin. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query original sin. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday 7 December 2014
Sunday 23 February 2014
Problems with the explanation of Original Sin
*
Original Sin is two things - what actually happened and the various explanations of what it means.
*
IF Original Sin is taken to imply that Men are rotten at the core - then I fear it will be a lethal idea for many people in many situations in this world where the institutional churches certainly are rotten at the core.
Because if Christians cannot trust themselves, but instead regard themselves as fundamentally and intrinsically mastered by pride and helplessly subject to demonic deceptions - and furthermore a world where there is a high probability that any outside help mediated by humans is going to be corrupt - then there is no hope of us making right choices: no hope at all...
*
The situation is strictly hopeiless because we cannot even choose the correct denomination, and within every denomination there are factions - and we cannot choose the right faction either.
there is no hope if Original Sin means we cannot make right choices from within ourselves, because then we cannot even decide who to trust.
And no hope means despair, and despair is a sin.
*
So, if Original Sin is being understood to mean that we are rotten to the core and cannot trust ourselves, then we are simply doomed.
*
(But, alternatively, if we can make good decisions about which person, denomination, religion to trust - then there must be some goodness at our very heart; and a strict/ extreme interpretation of Original Sin cannot be true.)
*
Luckily, that 'strict/ extreme understanding of Original Sin as implying that all humans are necessarily rotten at their very core is not entailed by scripture, but is a secondary matter of explanation and extrapolation.
So Christians don't have-to believe in original Sin.
*
However, it might - plausibly - be argued that without the concept of OS, then Christianity will be too weak and wishful and wavering - but we know from 180 years of the CJCLDS church that this is not necessarily so: Mormonism has conclusively demonstrated that a church and a people can be steady and firm in a Christ-focused faith while not believing in Original Sin.
*
Some fear that it is only Original Sin which implies the absolute need for a Saviour, that if we were not all utterly rotten, we did not really need salvation; and if we dispense with OS we will, sooner or later, dispense with Christ...
But this tow-sided analysis is just too simple.
It is too simple to regard salvation as either/ or - either our doing, or Christ's doing - this either/ or dichotomy is too simple a dichotomy even for ordinary everyday life, such as understanding family disputes!
If we cannot understand a fight between two children if we insist in advance that the reason must be necessarily and inevitably and only either the full responsibility of one child or the other child - but not-ever both; then why should we expect to understand salvation that way?
*
It is ridiculous to apply either/ or to salvation! - although it is a very typical philosophical error to fall into the trap of either/ or - often either zero or infinity - both of which are incomprehensible nonsense.
That kind of thing was built into philosophy from its very origins - and carried over into Christian theology.
*
In sum, Original Sin is not necessarily wrong, and/ because many or most great Christians have believed OS in some fashion - but they were able to be Christian and believe it only because, in practice, OS was not understood to apply absolutely, and because they lived inside a religious society and implicitly accepted the wisdom and goodness of some source of external spiritual guidance.
Modern secular people - adrift in a spiritual and ideological marketplace and with no implicit authority source - cannot really believe in, live by, Original Sin - but in attempting to do so they can destroy Christian faith in themselves and in others: they can induce paralysing despair in themselves and in others.
*
Modern Christians will just have to be more sensible - and less philosophical - about these matters; because the theology of our relationship with God ought to be at least as complex as our ordinary everyday understanding of ordinary everyday human relationships - surely?
*
Original Sin is two things - what actually happened and the various explanations of what it means.
*
IF Original Sin is taken to imply that Men are rotten at the core - then I fear it will be a lethal idea for many people in many situations in this world where the institutional churches certainly are rotten at the core.
Because if Christians cannot trust themselves, but instead regard themselves as fundamentally and intrinsically mastered by pride and helplessly subject to demonic deceptions - and furthermore a world where there is a high probability that any outside help mediated by humans is going to be corrupt - then there is no hope of us making right choices: no hope at all...
*
The situation is strictly hopeiless because we cannot even choose the correct denomination, and within every denomination there are factions - and we cannot choose the right faction either.
there is no hope if Original Sin means we cannot make right choices from within ourselves, because then we cannot even decide who to trust.
And no hope means despair, and despair is a sin.
*
So, if Original Sin is being understood to mean that we are rotten to the core and cannot trust ourselves, then we are simply doomed.
*
(But, alternatively, if we can make good decisions about which person, denomination, religion to trust - then there must be some goodness at our very heart; and a strict/ extreme interpretation of Original Sin cannot be true.)
*
Luckily, that 'strict/ extreme understanding of Original Sin as implying that all humans are necessarily rotten at their very core is not entailed by scripture, but is a secondary matter of explanation and extrapolation.
So Christians don't have-to believe in original Sin.
*
However, it might - plausibly - be argued that without the concept of OS, then Christianity will be too weak and wishful and wavering - but we know from 180 years of the CJCLDS church that this is not necessarily so: Mormonism has conclusively demonstrated that a church and a people can be steady and firm in a Christ-focused faith while not believing in Original Sin.
*
Some fear that it is only Original Sin which implies the absolute need for a Saviour, that if we were not all utterly rotten, we did not really need salvation; and if we dispense with OS we will, sooner or later, dispense with Christ...
But this tow-sided analysis is just too simple.
It is too simple to regard salvation as either/ or - either our doing, or Christ's doing - this either/ or dichotomy is too simple a dichotomy even for ordinary everyday life, such as understanding family disputes!
If we cannot understand a fight between two children if we insist in advance that the reason must be necessarily and inevitably and only either the full responsibility of one child or the other child - but not-ever both; then why should we expect to understand salvation that way?
*
It is ridiculous to apply either/ or to salvation! - although it is a very typical philosophical error to fall into the trap of either/ or - often either zero or infinity - both of which are incomprehensible nonsense.
That kind of thing was built into philosophy from its very origins - and carried over into Christian theology.
*
In sum, Original Sin is not necessarily wrong, and/ because many or most great Christians have believed OS in some fashion - but they were able to be Christian and believe it only because, in practice, OS was not understood to apply absolutely, and because they lived inside a religious society and implicitly accepted the wisdom and goodness of some source of external spiritual guidance.
Modern secular people - adrift in a spiritual and ideological marketplace and with no implicit authority source - cannot really believe in, live by, Original Sin - but in attempting to do so they can destroy Christian faith in themselves and in others: they can induce paralysing despair in themselves and in others.
*
Modern Christians will just have to be more sensible - and less philosophical - about these matters; because the theology of our relationship with God ought to be at least as complex as our ordinary everyday understanding of ordinary everyday human relationships - surely?
*
Saturday 11 August 2018
The joy of Mormon theology - Terryl Givens's Wrestling the Angel (2015)
As soon as I began learning about Mormon theology, which began before I became a Christian, I have responded to it with a heartfelt joy. This has been renewed over the past days when I have been listening to an audiobook of Wrestling the Angel: the Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity - by Terryl Givens.
I had already bought the paper book, and read parts of it; but found it rather dense and hard-going compared with Givens's usual style, which I like so much. The audible book medium proves ideal in taking me through the book at a measured pace, and maintaining progress the face of any tendency to lose concentration. My response has been powerful, inspiring, en-couraging.
The experience has triggered yet another renewal of my appreciation, and gratitude, for the Mormon awakening; specifically for the way in which Joseph Smith and subsequent theologians of the CJCLDS have restored the gospel spirit - that underlying and defining spirit of Jesus that we get from the accounts of his life and records of his words.
Not many people (including, according to Givens and other Mormon theologians, not many Mormons) recognise how radical is the Mormon recasting of Christian theology, how total and systematic, how radical (i.e. root level) is the transformation.
The observable, explicit superstructure of Christian teaching, worship, ethics, and the ideal life is very little changed (Mormon church members live very similarly to other devout Christians, although they tend to be more devout in their practice); but the underlying metaphysics is altogether different. And this difference goes right down to the metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of the universe and the origins of man. So the message and person of Jesus is much the same, but the understanding of that message rests upon qualitatively different foundations.
I am not and never have been a Mormon, and it has become very obvious over the past years that outside the Mormon church almost everybody is strongly prejudiced against the idea that Mormon theology could be good, beautiful; and intellectually deeply satisfying; and that this absolutely blocks the possibility of them learning otherwise.
So be it. But I am very grateful for the work of Terryl Givens - and have found listening to Wrestling the Angel to be a wonderful experience. Many of (what I regard as) the stumbling blocks of 'traditional' Christianity are lucidly explained in their developing historical context, and the Mormon reappraisals and recastings (which I find so satisfying, and for which I am so grateful) set out in their more recent context.
To give specific examples; Mormon theology and metaphysics solves what I personally regard as the most important errors of traditional, mainstream Christian emphasis and explanation - such as the omniscience and nature of God, false doctrine of original sin, the nature of human agency, and the basis of sex and sexuality.
I have often observed that the traditional Christian theological explanations have a tendency to gravitate towards an 'Islamic' understanding of God and the human condition on the one hand; or else towards secularism on the other. This is because of the wrongness of the metaphysics and theology that was imposed upon Christianity in (probably) the early centuries, from approximately 100 AD onwards, presumably after - and allowed by - the death of most of the disciples.
From this time the early theologians, including most of the 'Church Fathers', began to place Christianity within an incompatible set of pre-existing (pre-Christian) basic assumptions about philosophy. Details are lacking concerning this era, but these early and influential intellectuals apparently did not work from Christ's message and teachings, to develop a compatible and supporting set of assumptions; but went in the other direction - shoe-horning Christianity into their prior intellectual frameworks.
The idea of Original Sin is a particularly chilling example. Reading Givens and thinking about the problems created by the false understanding of God's 'omniscience' one can see how this really nasty idea (no hint of which is in the Gospels, and barely at all anywhere in the New Testament - except with the eye of prejudice) emerged to explain the need for Christ when God was supposedly omnipotent. Original sin reached an astonishing degree of prominence with Augustine of Hippo: almost becoming the single most important Christian doctrinal-fact. This was later taken even further with Calvin.
The result was Christianity that, at a deep level, became something that in practice (in terms of the relation between Man and God) was about as strongly against the spirit of the Gospels as it was possible to be. In sum, by Original Sin, Christianity was transformed from a religion of hope and joy at the new possibilities of everlasting and divine life that Jesus brought (clearest and least ambiguous in the Fourth, and most authoritative, Gospel); into a religion in which Jesus was our rescuer from a mortal torture chamber, which all Men justly were born-into, and which all Men inhabited due to their essential and ineradicable depravity; both our torment and our depravity being caused by a mystical complicity in a primal act of sin against Jesus's Father.
In contrast to such monstrous error, misrepresentation, and manipulation; Mormon theology shows us how to be Christian without such interpretations being forced upon us by foundational but not-Christian assumptions; and, so far as I know, Mormonism is the only Christian theology which does this. That is a measure of its scope, originality and importance!*
(And if you don't believe-in the reality of that scope and originality, then you simply don't understand it - and not many do. Whether you agree with Mormon theology is a secondary matter. My point is that very few people are in a position to disagree - since they don't know enough to recognise what they are disagreeing with.)
Anyway, if you are interested and intrigued by the above; and if you can sufficiently 'trust a Mormon' that you can make a genuine effort to understand and think-though the Mormon perspective, then Terryl Givens would be the place to start; if not with the all-out scholarship and rigour of Wrestling the Angel, then probably with the shorter and more polemical (yet equally, albeit covertly, scholarly and rigorous) The God Who Weeps (with Fiona Givens, 2012).
It is difficult. So you need both to be interested, reasonably well-disposed, and also to be willing (initially) to adopt a different perspective; until such a point that you have learned enough to grasp the coherence of the 'system'.
But if (like most external commentators) you are studying Mormon theology and metaphysics only to prove 'why it is wrong', and without any expectation of finding good in it; then it is very unlikely that you will ever make the 'paradigm shift' required to understand it in the first place.
*Note added: To clarify, my point is that original sin is a monstrous perversion on Christianity but if original sin is dispensed-with in the context of traditional Christian theology, it is nearly-always associated with apostasy - certainly, that has been the historical pattern and trend. Those churches that (correctly) deleted original sin were also those churches that were en route to apostasy, to becoming non-Christian - such as the Unitarians around 1800, or later 19th century Methodists. Thus original sin seems to be necessary to the integrity of traditional Christian theology; yet it is a false and monstrous doctrine in stark opposition to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel (in particular, but all the Gospels and nearly all of the NT). Therefore, original sin is a reductio ad absurdum of traditional theology: with this theology OS needs to be adopted for the sake of coherence and sustainability, but necessarily leads to absurd conclusions. Mormon theology represents a third way, a wholly different theological system, which both rejects original sin and yet is sustainable (for over 190 years so far) without a decline through apostasy, 'liberalism', or laxness. Original sin therefore represents an argument both for the error of traditional Christian theology and an argument for both the radical different-ness and for the coherence and sustainability of Mormon theology. The same type of argument could be constructed for other issues, such as free-will/ agency, the nature of God, the nature of suffering etc.
I had already bought the paper book, and read parts of it; but found it rather dense and hard-going compared with Givens's usual style, which I like so much. The audible book medium proves ideal in taking me through the book at a measured pace, and maintaining progress the face of any tendency to lose concentration. My response has been powerful, inspiring, en-couraging.
The experience has triggered yet another renewal of my appreciation, and gratitude, for the Mormon awakening; specifically for the way in which Joseph Smith and subsequent theologians of the CJCLDS have restored the gospel spirit - that underlying and defining spirit of Jesus that we get from the accounts of his life and records of his words.
Not many people (including, according to Givens and other Mormon theologians, not many Mormons) recognise how radical is the Mormon recasting of Christian theology, how total and systematic, how radical (i.e. root level) is the transformation.
The observable, explicit superstructure of Christian teaching, worship, ethics, and the ideal life is very little changed (Mormon church members live very similarly to other devout Christians, although they tend to be more devout in their practice); but the underlying metaphysics is altogether different. And this difference goes right down to the metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality, the nature of the universe and the origins of man. So the message and person of Jesus is much the same, but the understanding of that message rests upon qualitatively different foundations.
I am not and never have been a Mormon, and it has become very obvious over the past years that outside the Mormon church almost everybody is strongly prejudiced against the idea that Mormon theology could be good, beautiful; and intellectually deeply satisfying; and that this absolutely blocks the possibility of them learning otherwise.
So be it. But I am very grateful for the work of Terryl Givens - and have found listening to Wrestling the Angel to be a wonderful experience. Many of (what I regard as) the stumbling blocks of 'traditional' Christianity are lucidly explained in their developing historical context, and the Mormon reappraisals and recastings (which I find so satisfying, and for which I am so grateful) set out in their more recent context.
To give specific examples; Mormon theology and metaphysics solves what I personally regard as the most important errors of traditional, mainstream Christian emphasis and explanation - such as the omniscience and nature of God, false doctrine of original sin, the nature of human agency, and the basis of sex and sexuality.
I have often observed that the traditional Christian theological explanations have a tendency to gravitate towards an 'Islamic' understanding of God and the human condition on the one hand; or else towards secularism on the other. This is because of the wrongness of the metaphysics and theology that was imposed upon Christianity in (probably) the early centuries, from approximately 100 AD onwards, presumably after - and allowed by - the death of most of the disciples.
From this time the early theologians, including most of the 'Church Fathers', began to place Christianity within an incompatible set of pre-existing (pre-Christian) basic assumptions about philosophy. Details are lacking concerning this era, but these early and influential intellectuals apparently did not work from Christ's message and teachings, to develop a compatible and supporting set of assumptions; but went in the other direction - shoe-horning Christianity into their prior intellectual frameworks.
The idea of Original Sin is a particularly chilling example. Reading Givens and thinking about the problems created by the false understanding of God's 'omniscience' one can see how this really nasty idea (no hint of which is in the Gospels, and barely at all anywhere in the New Testament - except with the eye of prejudice) emerged to explain the need for Christ when God was supposedly omnipotent. Original sin reached an astonishing degree of prominence with Augustine of Hippo: almost becoming the single most important Christian doctrinal-fact. This was later taken even further with Calvin.
The result was Christianity that, at a deep level, became something that in practice (in terms of the relation between Man and God) was about as strongly against the spirit of the Gospels as it was possible to be. In sum, by Original Sin, Christianity was transformed from a religion of hope and joy at the new possibilities of everlasting and divine life that Jesus brought (clearest and least ambiguous in the Fourth, and most authoritative, Gospel); into a religion in which Jesus was our rescuer from a mortal torture chamber, which all Men justly were born-into, and which all Men inhabited due to their essential and ineradicable depravity; both our torment and our depravity being caused by a mystical complicity in a primal act of sin against Jesus's Father.
In contrast to such monstrous error, misrepresentation, and manipulation; Mormon theology shows us how to be Christian without such interpretations being forced upon us by foundational but not-Christian assumptions; and, so far as I know, Mormonism is the only Christian theology which does this. That is a measure of its scope, originality and importance!*
(And if you don't believe-in the reality of that scope and originality, then you simply don't understand it - and not many do. Whether you agree with Mormon theology is a secondary matter. My point is that very few people are in a position to disagree - since they don't know enough to recognise what they are disagreeing with.)
Anyway, if you are interested and intrigued by the above; and if you can sufficiently 'trust a Mormon' that you can make a genuine effort to understand and think-though the Mormon perspective, then Terryl Givens would be the place to start; if not with the all-out scholarship and rigour of Wrestling the Angel, then probably with the shorter and more polemical (yet equally, albeit covertly, scholarly and rigorous) The God Who Weeps (with Fiona Givens, 2012).
It is difficult. So you need both to be interested, reasonably well-disposed, and also to be willing (initially) to adopt a different perspective; until such a point that you have learned enough to grasp the coherence of the 'system'.
But if (like most external commentators) you are studying Mormon theology and metaphysics only to prove 'why it is wrong', and without any expectation of finding good in it; then it is very unlikely that you will ever make the 'paradigm shift' required to understand it in the first place.
*Note added: To clarify, my point is that original sin is a monstrous perversion on Christianity but if original sin is dispensed-with in the context of traditional Christian theology, it is nearly-always associated with apostasy - certainly, that has been the historical pattern and trend. Those churches that (correctly) deleted original sin were also those churches that were en route to apostasy, to becoming non-Christian - such as the Unitarians around 1800, or later 19th century Methodists. Thus original sin seems to be necessary to the integrity of traditional Christian theology; yet it is a false and monstrous doctrine in stark opposition to the teaching of the Fourth Gospel (in particular, but all the Gospels and nearly all of the NT). Therefore, original sin is a reductio ad absurdum of traditional theology: with this theology OS needs to be adopted for the sake of coherence and sustainability, but necessarily leads to absurd conclusions. Mormon theology represents a third way, a wholly different theological system, which both rejects original sin and yet is sustainable (for over 190 years so far) without a decline through apostasy, 'liberalism', or laxness. Original sin therefore represents an argument both for the error of traditional Christian theology and an argument for both the radical different-ness and for the coherence and sustainability of Mormon theology. The same type of argument could be constructed for other issues, such as free-will/ agency, the nature of God, the nature of suffering etc.
Thursday 26 May 2016
William Arkle on Original Sin
Excerpted from A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle (1974)
Chapter 3 - The Self
It must be expected at the preliminary part of our evolution will be full of mistakes concerning values and identities for the reason that we simply do not as yet possess the understanding to cope with the situation.
The result of these mistakes will be some form of pain and suffering and this seems inevitable unless some direct conditioning was supervision is received. This raises the most fundamental point which concerns are autonomy.
Commonsense and intelligence tells as that are real value lies in a separate unique identity, even if this is still only at the stage of potentiality. If the scheme of things was not concerned with this individuality, then the ordering of the human world would be much simpler for we would all be puppets or automatons and do precisely as we were ordered.
If God of the absolute cause did not choose this way, then it is either because our uniqueness is important to him; or because he enjoys our suffering which is the result of our autonomy. The latter proposition cannot be held seriously.
Our intelligence and actually assumes that the attitude we have towards our own physical world, families and children, is not just a chance for fire, but stems from some supreme attitude on the part of our creator. It can be imagined, therefore, that our relationship and value is to our absolute parents something like that of our children to ourselves, but since that occurs at a much higher level, it must be more ideal and detached from space/time considerations.
The process suggested, whereby responsive abilities are built into identity at the absolute level, which can be called the true self, will enable us to understand and accept more easily the concept of sin.
Whether we admit it or not, the sensation of sin affects us all profoundly and if we are to accept the teaching of original sin which the Western churches give out then we are in danger of putting ourselves in a very wrong and a negative position.
The process of learning by mistakes, which in science and engineering is called the process of trial and error, is confused with the notion of sin and wickedness. This presupposes that we are either put into the world as perfect beings who should know better; or we are put into the world by a sadistic God who knows we are in perfect but who punishes us for being so.
In the first case there would seem little point in going through the process if there is nothing to learn. In the second case one is confronted with a dichotomy which is so absurd that it could only be the result of human aberration.
Instead of the teaching of original sin, it might be well to substitute the teaching of original fallibility. The difference between fallibility and sin is that the first is expected to be indicated by suffering imposed by our surroundings, but the second is expected to be indicated by suffering imposed by God.
Obviously the two are liable to be confused and if the second is chosen, the person concerned is it a most difficult and hopeless position, for he is confronted with a divine example on a cosmic scale of his own immature understanding and development. We cling to the idea that God is concerned with us as individuals who are responsible for their own actions; and yet we also cling to the idea that we are not perfect but are in the process of attaining perfection. Yet we cannot bring ourselves to conceive of the fact that we were born with shortcomings instead of sense.
This idea of sin is perhaps applicable to those of us who deliberately repeat actions which we know are wrong, and which we know will harm other people, and which we are in a position to prevent. But if we have reached the stage of knowing and action is wrong it may not be realised how it is harmful to others and even if so, we may not be in a position to prevent it.
If on the other hand we do something harmful and wrong because we know no better and are unable to respond with absolute awareness to the situation, we can hardly be blamed and we would certainly not have opened ourselves to something akin to divine wrath.
The main trouble with the idea of original sin is that it consciously or unconsciously causes us to associate the very core of our being with something rotten, and this is something in turn unavoidably associated with the act of creation on the part of God. Since the core of our being is where our absolute potentialities lie and sense and since this highest and truest part of our nature is the source and mainspring of our effort and 'salvation', the idea of original sin replaces that part of our nature which should be looked for look to for the solution of all our problems, with some negative and evil presence.
If this doctrine is seen from such a point of view, it becomes apparent that instead of influencing us to become humble and repentant and aware of a natural shortcomings. All the teaching of original sin does is to make us bitterly aware of the unjust and hostile attitude of the source of being. Since it is realised now that the unconscious and deeper consciousness of our nature as a profound and overriding effect on all our conscious deliberations; and since it is also discovered that this unconscious part of our nature has a very strong sense of justice, right and wrong, sin and punishment, virtue and reward; one can see that this fundamental conditioning aspect of our awareness is thrown into a hopeless and distorted state by prevalent religious ideas.
Until the idea of sin is replaced by the idea of shortcoming, we will be destroying effectively the very purpose of religious and spiritual effort, which is to become trustful-of and acquainted-with, first of all the divine qualities of God, and secondarily the divine qualities of our own real nature. It is quite obvious why God is described as forgiving our sins before we commit them; it is because he realises only too clearly that we must continually make such mistakes before we can be of any value to him or to ourselves.
It is not God who has suggested to us the idea of original sin and the necessity of being punished for the results of such sin, it is our own superstitious and unintelligent interpretation of the world around us that has led to this state of affairs. It is our own lack of forgiveness and our own inability to feel responsible for our actions and efforts that have led us to this point of view.
Chapter 3 - The Self
It must be expected at the preliminary part of our evolution will be full of mistakes concerning values and identities for the reason that we simply do not as yet possess the understanding to cope with the situation.
The result of these mistakes will be some form of pain and suffering and this seems inevitable unless some direct conditioning was supervision is received. This raises the most fundamental point which concerns are autonomy.
Commonsense and intelligence tells as that are real value lies in a separate unique identity, even if this is still only at the stage of potentiality. If the scheme of things was not concerned with this individuality, then the ordering of the human world would be much simpler for we would all be puppets or automatons and do precisely as we were ordered.
If God of the absolute cause did not choose this way, then it is either because our uniqueness is important to him; or because he enjoys our suffering which is the result of our autonomy. The latter proposition cannot be held seriously.
Our intelligence and actually assumes that the attitude we have towards our own physical world, families and children, is not just a chance for fire, but stems from some supreme attitude on the part of our creator. It can be imagined, therefore, that our relationship and value is to our absolute parents something like that of our children to ourselves, but since that occurs at a much higher level, it must be more ideal and detached from space/time considerations.
The process suggested, whereby responsive abilities are built into identity at the absolute level, which can be called the true self, will enable us to understand and accept more easily the concept of sin.
Whether we admit it or not, the sensation of sin affects us all profoundly and if we are to accept the teaching of original sin which the Western churches give out then we are in danger of putting ourselves in a very wrong and a negative position.
The process of learning by mistakes, which in science and engineering is called the process of trial and error, is confused with the notion of sin and wickedness. This presupposes that we are either put into the world as perfect beings who should know better; or we are put into the world by a sadistic God who knows we are in perfect but who punishes us for being so.
In the first case there would seem little point in going through the process if there is nothing to learn. In the second case one is confronted with a dichotomy which is so absurd that it could only be the result of human aberration.
Instead of the teaching of original sin, it might be well to substitute the teaching of original fallibility. The difference between fallibility and sin is that the first is expected to be indicated by suffering imposed by our surroundings, but the second is expected to be indicated by suffering imposed by God.
Obviously the two are liable to be confused and if the second is chosen, the person concerned is it a most difficult and hopeless position, for he is confronted with a divine example on a cosmic scale of his own immature understanding and development. We cling to the idea that God is concerned with us as individuals who are responsible for their own actions; and yet we also cling to the idea that we are not perfect but are in the process of attaining perfection. Yet we cannot bring ourselves to conceive of the fact that we were born with shortcomings instead of sense.
This idea of sin is perhaps applicable to those of us who deliberately repeat actions which we know are wrong, and which we know will harm other people, and which we are in a position to prevent. But if we have reached the stage of knowing and action is wrong it may not be realised how it is harmful to others and even if so, we may not be in a position to prevent it.
If on the other hand we do something harmful and wrong because we know no better and are unable to respond with absolute awareness to the situation, we can hardly be blamed and we would certainly not have opened ourselves to something akin to divine wrath.
The main trouble with the idea of original sin is that it consciously or unconsciously causes us to associate the very core of our being with something rotten, and this is something in turn unavoidably associated with the act of creation on the part of God. Since the core of our being is where our absolute potentialities lie and sense and since this highest and truest part of our nature is the source and mainspring of our effort and 'salvation', the idea of original sin replaces that part of our nature which should be looked for look to for the solution of all our problems, with some negative and evil presence.
If this doctrine is seen from such a point of view, it becomes apparent that instead of influencing us to become humble and repentant and aware of a natural shortcomings. All the teaching of original sin does is to make us bitterly aware of the unjust and hostile attitude of the source of being. Since it is realised now that the unconscious and deeper consciousness of our nature as a profound and overriding effect on all our conscious deliberations; and since it is also discovered that this unconscious part of our nature has a very strong sense of justice, right and wrong, sin and punishment, virtue and reward; one can see that this fundamental conditioning aspect of our awareness is thrown into a hopeless and distorted state by prevalent religious ideas.
Until the idea of sin is replaced by the idea of shortcoming, we will be destroying effectively the very purpose of religious and spiritual effort, which is to become trustful-of and acquainted-with, first of all the divine qualities of God, and secondarily the divine qualities of our own real nature. It is quite obvious why God is described as forgiving our sins before we commit them; it is because he realises only too clearly that we must continually make such mistakes before we can be of any value to him or to ourselves.
It is not God who has suggested to us the idea of original sin and the necessity of being punished for the results of such sin, it is our own superstitious and unintelligent interpretation of the world around us that has led to this state of affairs. It is our own lack of forgiveness and our own inability to feel responsible for our actions and efforts that have led us to this point of view.
Friday 18 December 2015
In our innermost heart has been set the best of our nature (and not, therefore, original sin)
While we must be wise and take account of our limitations in autonomy;
without the desire to enter into life and gather its experiences we will
fail to live as God intends for us.
We should therefore be wary of being 'too virtuous' by negative avoidance of action, when this prevents us living fully; since not even trying to live is the worst thing we can do.
The idea of original sin may be crippling of our purpose in life, because its sets something rotten in the heart of our being where, to the contrary, our Divine Parents have set the best of our nature - that which is of God.
With the idea of original sin, the mainspring of our life is broken - because we come to believe that the core of our nature is rotten. Yet it is upon this core of our nature which we must draw, if we are to survive this world and enter most fully into life.
Indeed, the suspicion insinuated by the doctrine of original sin destroys not only our sense of self-worth and the energies we need from it; but also denies the validity of any instinctive recognition and understanding of the difference between Good and evil, and the value of God; when we need Him to take-over after our own efforts have proven inadequate, which they often will.
And who can value a God who created us rotten at heart, and who then makes a great play out of saving us from this wretched condition? This cannot be the behaviour of that Loving Father which we know our true God to be.
Original sin is a paradox which, if accepted fully, would destroy the possibility of valid discernment - leaving us helpless in the world: helpless to know good, helpless to know God.
(Paraphrased, edited and expanded from the Chapter entitled 'Sin' in A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle, 1974.)
We should therefore be wary of being 'too virtuous' by negative avoidance of action, when this prevents us living fully; since not even trying to live is the worst thing we can do.
The idea of original sin may be crippling of our purpose in life, because its sets something rotten in the heart of our being where, to the contrary, our Divine Parents have set the best of our nature - that which is of God.
With the idea of original sin, the mainspring of our life is broken - because we come to believe that the core of our nature is rotten. Yet it is upon this core of our nature which we must draw, if we are to survive this world and enter most fully into life.
Indeed, the suspicion insinuated by the doctrine of original sin destroys not only our sense of self-worth and the energies we need from it; but also denies the validity of any instinctive recognition and understanding of the difference between Good and evil, and the value of God; when we need Him to take-over after our own efforts have proven inadequate, which they often will.
And who can value a God who created us rotten at heart, and who then makes a great play out of saving us from this wretched condition? This cannot be the behaviour of that Loving Father which we know our true God to be.
Original sin is a paradox which, if accepted fully, would destroy the possibility of valid discernment - leaving us helpless in the world: helpless to know good, helpless to know God.
(Paraphrased, edited and expanded from the Chapter entitled 'Sin' in A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle, 1974.)
Wednesday 17 November 2010
'Pure abstract altruism': the underlying ideal principle of political correctness
*
[Message for those of you who have been following my recent ruminations on political correctness:
this posting represents the first time where I feel I may have reached to the bottom of the mystery of PC
(perhaps an exclamation mark is warranted here!):
this is the first time I feel that I understand the deep unity which lies behind the surface insanity that is political correctness.
I will try and explicate this (apparent) insight further over the next few days. ]
*
The argument in brief:
Political correctness is a logical extension of a this-worldly (secular) and materialist (not spiritual) perspective of pure abstract altruism - untainted by personal feelings.
In other words, PC aims at the attainment of altruism in this world.
And the altruism aimed at is abstract - not the altruism of individuals.
PC aims at the submission of the (inevitably selfish) individual to abstract systems of pure altruism.
Submission, ideally, even unto the destruction and death of everything that is valued. The test of ultimate sincerity.
*
Altruism is to be attained via abstract systems (usually bureaucratic systems) which are concerned with the allocation of resources or 'goods': things like money, wealth, land, jobs, educational positions, any perceived status symbols.
Altruism is therefore concerned with allocation of goods. It is therefore a matter of altruistic outcomes, and the virtuous result depends on the attainment of altruistic outcomes.
Altruism is intrinsically outcome-orientated.
*
Since PC is primarily focused on altruistic outcomes, it is therefore relatively unconcerned by how these outcomes are attained: systematic lying, force, bribery, subsidy, intimidation all are (in principle) acceptable means to this ultimate end.
(This accounts for the sustained and intrinsic dishonesty of PC.)
*
Because for PC the 'original sin' is selfishness, and all individual acts of altruism are vulnerable to corruption by selfishness - ideally the individual should be altruistically indifferent to his own condition, including his own feelings.
Selfishness is original sin, and all individuals are selfish - the explanation given for inevitable human selfishness is various, but one candidate cause is natural selection.
Therefore, in order to avoid selfishness, policy must not originate from individuals nor must it depend on the decision of individuals - instead altruism should be person-proof: should be a product of objective and abstract procedures.
*
Other features of PC are related to the necessity to generate operational definitions of altruism and the constraints of power politics.
To make an altruism-generating abstract system entails that a 'good' be operationally-defined (eg in terms of income, or wealth, or desirable jobs or other positions).
These goods must be this-worldly and material so that they may be measured, monitored and manipulated.
*
And further, the operational realities of power politics entail that these abstract procedures be applied to groups not individuals - the individual being defined in terms of their group membership.
Group orientation is necessary in practice, albeit not in theory, because power results from group alliances: from 'interest groups' such as classes, sexes, ethnicities, job categories (unions) etc.
*
To clarify further:
Political correctness is a secular ideology based on moral principle.
From a secular perspective, the highest virtue, and perhaps the only virtue, is altruism: helping others at costs to oneself.
Other forms of human cooperation are disvalued - altruistic cooperation is regarded as the primary virtue.
This is contrasted with the opposite vice of selfishness.
But, ideally, altruism must be pure - which means untainted by selfishness, which means untainted by any degree of personal advantage (untainted even by pleasure).
Morality is seen as altruism; the highest morality as disinterested altruism.
*
From an other-worldly religious perspective altruism is a subordinate virtue - there are other more important things than helping others in a material sense - but from a secular perspective altruism frames almost the whole of moral discourse.
*
Most or all forms of naturally-occurring examples of altruism are, in fact, merely indirect forms of self-interest. For example: altruism towards genetic relatives; towards allies; or altruism as an accidental side effect of other forms of selfishness - such as when pets substitute for children.
Some instances of altruism are merely long-termism, while others are genetic self interest coming into conflict with the interests of a specific organism (when an individual risks their life to make more likely the survival of their extended family.).
Even the altruism of Christianity is conceptualized as being corrupted by the desire for other-worldly happiness: so (from a PC perspective) Christians are 'merely' sacrificing themselves to others in order to gain more happiness in the long-term.
*
This marks an important cleavage point between leftist PC and right wing conservatism and reaction. For the secular right, the reality that altruism is tainted with selfishness is accepted - indeed it is embraced as a means to the end of greater functional effectiveness.
For the secular right, selfishness in not exactly good, but (as noted by Adam Smith) is regarded as potentially leading to good under a competitive system of natural selection such as market economics.
This strikes the PC as unacceptably cynical.
*
On the whole, the secular right has no conception of 'original sin' and accepts that human beings are intrinsically selfish, and evolved from selfish ancestors.
The secular right accepts that kin selection means that humans tend to favour their families; that people with common interests will make alliances for their own benefit; that individuals will be prone to corruption by selfishness and short-termism - and it simply tolerates these problems so long as things, on the whole, are working well - or if eradicating the problems cause more problems than they solve.
And this unprincipled, and perhaps self-serving, pragmatism on the political right - the tendency to accept and work with human sin - is why absolutist liberals feel morally-superior to conservatives.
*
This is why the idealistically politically correct feel so virtuous, feels indeed superior to all previous forms of human morality: because the ideal is to be aiming at the good of others without any personal reward whatsoever.
*
Naturally the PC fail to attain this ideal, naturally individuals always
But this merely emphasises that individual selfishness is original sin for the PC - and the implication is that as an ideal individuals ought to be, and need to be, subordinated to impersonal mechanisms for implementing altruism at the social level - regardless of the consequences.
*
In fact, PC is a logical response to the ultimate problem of altruism; the psychological paradox: that if being altruistic makes you happy, then you are being rewarded, therefore you are not really being altruistic but merely self-indulgent.
(In PC) If you enjoy helping others then your altruism is not pure. The others ought to be treated altruistically whatever your feelings on the matter may be.
To be 'pure', altruism therefore should not make you happy, should leave you unmoved at least, and preferably make you miserable.
Only if altruism makes you suffer can you be sure that you are not merely doing it for your selfish motives.
*
But even then, perhaps you might 'enjoy suffering in a good cause' and this enjoyment would in turn contaminate your altruism.
The answer is that - as an individual - you should be made to be altruistic, and made miserable by your altruism, and that this is abstractly good because your own motivations have nothing to do with your behaviour.
Your job, in PC, is therefore to resign yourself to your suffering - not to enjoy it, but not to complain about it, simply to submit to it.
Submission is the key concept.
For the PC individual the ultimate ethical act is to submit to being forced to be altruistic - not because you enjoy it, but because you believe that submission to altruism is the highest value in an ultimate and abstract sense.
*
(The best possible job for a PC individual is therefore to work for a bureaucracy that does altruistic good - and to hate your job - and to do it anyway.)
*
Pure altruism, as such, is a logical consequence of the moral primacy of pure altruism: it is insane, and lacks any test in reality, because it is an abstraction: a human-created abstraction
What is more, PC is the creation of that minority of humans capable of abstract thought, and imposed on the other humans; what is more PC is possible only in a fundamentally secular and materialist society.
Therefore PC stands or falls by the fact of an intellectual ruling elite, and can be imposed widely by this elite only by the technologies of modern mass media communication.
And PC is only possible in a fully materialist and secular society: where this worldly 'goods' and their just (i.e. altruistic) allocation can assume ultimate importance, ideally over-riding all other considerations.
*
Hence it is this idealistic quest for pure abstract altruism, in a secular context, which has caused the suicidal insanity of PC.
*
[Note: I think my idea of pure abstract altruism is probably a more specific version of Thomas Sowell's concept of Cosmic Justice - which I read about several years ago.]
[Message for those of you who have been following my recent ruminations on political correctness:
this posting represents the first time where I feel I may have reached to the bottom of the mystery of PC
(perhaps an exclamation mark is warranted here!):
this is the first time I feel that I understand the deep unity which lies behind the surface insanity that is political correctness.
I will try and explicate this (apparent) insight further over the next few days. ]
*
The argument in brief:
Political correctness is a logical extension of a this-worldly (secular) and materialist (not spiritual) perspective of pure abstract altruism - untainted by personal feelings.
In other words, PC aims at the attainment of altruism in this world.
And the altruism aimed at is abstract - not the altruism of individuals.
PC aims at the submission of the (inevitably selfish) individual to abstract systems of pure altruism.
Submission, ideally, even unto the destruction and death of everything that is valued. The test of ultimate sincerity.
*
Altruism is to be attained via abstract systems (usually bureaucratic systems) which are concerned with the allocation of resources or 'goods': things like money, wealth, land, jobs, educational positions, any perceived status symbols.
Altruism is therefore concerned with allocation of goods. It is therefore a matter of altruistic outcomes, and the virtuous result depends on the attainment of altruistic outcomes.
Altruism is intrinsically outcome-orientated.
*
Since PC is primarily focused on altruistic outcomes, it is therefore relatively unconcerned by how these outcomes are attained: systematic lying, force, bribery, subsidy, intimidation all are (in principle) acceptable means to this ultimate end.
(This accounts for the sustained and intrinsic dishonesty of PC.)
*
Because for PC the 'original sin' is selfishness, and all individual acts of altruism are vulnerable to corruption by selfishness - ideally the individual should be altruistically indifferent to his own condition, including his own feelings.
Selfishness is original sin, and all individuals are selfish - the explanation given for inevitable human selfishness is various, but one candidate cause is natural selection.
Therefore, in order to avoid selfishness, policy must not originate from individuals nor must it depend on the decision of individuals - instead altruism should be person-proof: should be a product of objective and abstract procedures.
*
Other features of PC are related to the necessity to generate operational definitions of altruism and the constraints of power politics.
To make an altruism-generating abstract system entails that a 'good' be operationally-defined (eg in terms of income, or wealth, or desirable jobs or other positions).
These goods must be this-worldly and material so that they may be measured, monitored and manipulated.
*
And further, the operational realities of power politics entail that these abstract procedures be applied to groups not individuals - the individual being defined in terms of their group membership.
Group orientation is necessary in practice, albeit not in theory, because power results from group alliances: from 'interest groups' such as classes, sexes, ethnicities, job categories (unions) etc.
*
To clarify further:
Political correctness is a secular ideology based on moral principle.
From a secular perspective, the highest virtue, and perhaps the only virtue, is altruism: helping others at costs to oneself.
Other forms of human cooperation are disvalued - altruistic cooperation is regarded as the primary virtue.
This is contrasted with the opposite vice of selfishness.
But, ideally, altruism must be pure - which means untainted by selfishness, which means untainted by any degree of personal advantage (untainted even by pleasure).
Morality is seen as altruism; the highest morality as disinterested altruism.
*
From an other-worldly religious perspective altruism is a subordinate virtue - there are other more important things than helping others in a material sense - but from a secular perspective altruism frames almost the whole of moral discourse.
*
Most or all forms of naturally-occurring examples of altruism are, in fact, merely indirect forms of self-interest. For example: altruism towards genetic relatives; towards allies; or altruism as an accidental side effect of other forms of selfishness - such as when pets substitute for children.
Some instances of altruism are merely long-termism, while others are genetic self interest coming into conflict with the interests of a specific organism (when an individual risks their life to make more likely the survival of their extended family.).
Even the altruism of Christianity is conceptualized as being corrupted by the desire for other-worldly happiness: so (from a PC perspective) Christians are 'merely' sacrificing themselves to others in order to gain more happiness in the long-term.
*
This marks an important cleavage point between leftist PC and right wing conservatism and reaction. For the secular right, the reality that altruism is tainted with selfishness is accepted - indeed it is embraced as a means to the end of greater functional effectiveness.
For the secular right, selfishness in not exactly good, but (as noted by Adam Smith) is regarded as potentially leading to good under a competitive system of natural selection such as market economics.
This strikes the PC as unacceptably cynical.
*
On the whole, the secular right has no conception of 'original sin' and accepts that human beings are intrinsically selfish, and evolved from selfish ancestors.
The secular right accepts that kin selection means that humans tend to favour their families; that people with common interests will make alliances for their own benefit; that individuals will be prone to corruption by selfishness and short-termism - and it simply tolerates these problems so long as things, on the whole, are working well - or if eradicating the problems cause more problems than they solve.
And this unprincipled, and perhaps self-serving, pragmatism on the political right - the tendency to accept and work with human sin - is why absolutist liberals feel morally-superior to conservatives.
*
This is why the idealistically politically correct feel so virtuous, feels indeed superior to all previous forms of human morality: because the ideal is to be aiming at the good of others without any personal reward whatsoever.
*
Naturally the PC fail to attain this ideal, naturally individuals always
But this merely emphasises that individual selfishness is original sin for the PC - and the implication is that as an ideal individuals ought to be, and need to be, subordinated to impersonal mechanisms for implementing altruism at the social level - regardless of the consequences.
*
In fact, PC is a logical response to the ultimate problem of altruism; the psychological paradox: that if being altruistic makes you happy, then you are being rewarded, therefore you are not really being altruistic but merely self-indulgent.
(In PC) If you enjoy helping others then your altruism is not pure. The others ought to be treated altruistically whatever your feelings on the matter may be.
To be 'pure', altruism therefore should not make you happy, should leave you unmoved at least, and preferably make you miserable.
Only if altruism makes you suffer can you be sure that you are not merely doing it for your selfish motives.
*
But even then, perhaps you might 'enjoy suffering in a good cause' and this enjoyment would in turn contaminate your altruism.
The answer is that - as an individual - you should be made to be altruistic, and made miserable by your altruism, and that this is abstractly good because your own motivations have nothing to do with your behaviour.
Your job, in PC, is therefore to resign yourself to your suffering - not to enjoy it, but not to complain about it, simply to submit to it.
Submission is the key concept.
For the PC individual the ultimate ethical act is to submit to being forced to be altruistic - not because you enjoy it, but because you believe that submission to altruism is the highest value in an ultimate and abstract sense.
*
(The best possible job for a PC individual is therefore to work for a bureaucracy that does altruistic good - and to hate your job - and to do it anyway.)
*
Pure altruism, as such, is a logical consequence of the moral primacy of pure altruism: it is insane, and lacks any test in reality, because it is an abstraction: a human-created abstraction
What is more, PC is the creation of that minority of humans capable of abstract thought, and imposed on the other humans; what is more PC is possible only in a fundamentally secular and materialist society.
Therefore PC stands or falls by the fact of an intellectual ruling elite, and can be imposed widely by this elite only by the technologies of modern mass media communication.
And PC is only possible in a fully materialist and secular society: where this worldly 'goods' and their just (i.e. altruistic) allocation can assume ultimate importance, ideally over-riding all other considerations.
*
Hence it is this idealistic quest for pure abstract altruism, in a secular context, which has caused the suicidal insanity of PC.
*
[Note: I think my idea of pure abstract altruism is probably a more specific version of Thomas Sowell's concept of Cosmic Justice - which I read about several years ago.]
Thursday 12 April 2012
If it is so easy to become a Christian, why is it so hard to stay a Christian?
*
Why is it so hard?
We would expect it to be hard to remain a Christian due to original sin - due to the selfish pridefulness of humans. Yet the business seems even harder than that.
It seems that events conspire to turn us away from God.
*
And that is the answer: events do conspire, there is personal purposive evil in the universe.
Belief in the reality of fallen angels, the devil and demons - personal and purposive evil - is a necessary part of Christianity - and is indeed an aspect of natural law (i.e. the innate and spontaneous human understanding of reality).
If we omit this belief - and the temptations to ignore, deny or delete the devil from theology have never been stronger - then we do not sufficiently understand the world, we underestimate the difficulties of life, of salvation.
*
And this matters, it matters a great deal. The original sin of humans can, of course, be stretched to explain evil; but will probably prove inadequate to explain evil adequately for us to navigate life to salvation.
Especially in the world as it is now where so much conspires to turn us away from God.
*
(This is sin, to be turned away from God, and towards the world and ourselves. Sin is not like breaking the law, it is about this orientation. Christ was free from sin not because he didn't break any religious laws, but because he was always turned towards his Father and resisted all attempts to turn him away.)
*
To live in a world of endemic, pervasive, expanding sin - and yet not to acknowledge the reality of, and guard against the activities of, personal, purposive evil is not sophisticated nor is it a higher form of Christianity - it is to deny clear and explicit Christian teaching, and passively to aid the plans of the enemy.
*
Why is it so hard?
We would expect it to be hard to remain a Christian due to original sin - due to the selfish pridefulness of humans. Yet the business seems even harder than that.
It seems that events conspire to turn us away from God.
*
And that is the answer: events do conspire, there is personal purposive evil in the universe.
Belief in the reality of fallen angels, the devil and demons - personal and purposive evil - is a necessary part of Christianity - and is indeed an aspect of natural law (i.e. the innate and spontaneous human understanding of reality).
If we omit this belief - and the temptations to ignore, deny or delete the devil from theology have never been stronger - then we do not sufficiently understand the world, we underestimate the difficulties of life, of salvation.
*
And this matters, it matters a great deal. The original sin of humans can, of course, be stretched to explain evil; but will probably prove inadequate to explain evil adequately for us to navigate life to salvation.
Especially in the world as it is now where so much conspires to turn us away from God.
*
(This is sin, to be turned away from God, and towards the world and ourselves. Sin is not like breaking the law, it is about this orientation. Christ was free from sin not because he didn't break any religious laws, but because he was always turned towards his Father and resisted all attempts to turn him away.)
*
To live in a world of endemic, pervasive, expanding sin - and yet not to acknowledge the reality of, and guard against the activities of, personal, purposive evil is not sophisticated nor is it a higher form of Christianity - it is to deny clear and explicit Christian teaching, and passively to aid the plans of the enemy.
*
Wednesday 7 November 2012
What keeps us alive?
*
Two things.
1. Kept alive by the will of God. Essentially because we have something yet to do - repent, accept forgiveness, love, praise, serve...
2. Because we cling to life.
Possible because we have been equipped with free will, so we may defy God and refuse to die when we are called. For a while.
(This is, of course, a profound sin.)
*
So, part of the increase of human 'lifespan' we observe today in the West is due to reducing the contigent causes of premature death; but part is also due to the refusal to die when called, clinging to a-bit-more-life at any cost and at any price.
And we can, I think, observe that this artificially-extended lifespan is a Faustian bargain - a false hope, a trick, a depraved state.
*
Death is a terrible thing, due to original sin and the process of synergystic accumulation of sin which was set into play by the original sin.
Thus death was not part of the original plan (or hope) but is a terrible punishment.
Death is un-natural, in an ultimate sense, but must be accepted as just and inevitable in this world, because death is a consequence of what we are.
*
Yet death is now the way to eternal life - and the only way to eternal life.
We therefore must suffer the terrible and unnatural punishment; but on the other side of death we are promised an infinite gift.
Justice and mercy.
*
Death may be premature; but there is a proper time for death; which we know when it comes - except we blind ourselves.
Death cannot be defeated, nor can it be eluded; but death can be deferred.
However the price of refusing the call, when it comes, is immediately to fall into an appalling and increasing state of corruption, from which deteriorating state the likelihood of repentance dwindles and dwindles.
*
Two things.
1. Kept alive by the will of God. Essentially because we have something yet to do - repent, accept forgiveness, love, praise, serve...
2. Because we cling to life.
Possible because we have been equipped with free will, so we may defy God and refuse to die when we are called. For a while.
(This is, of course, a profound sin.)
*
So, part of the increase of human 'lifespan' we observe today in the West is due to reducing the contigent causes of premature death; but part is also due to the refusal to die when called, clinging to a-bit-more-life at any cost and at any price.
And we can, I think, observe that this artificially-extended lifespan is a Faustian bargain - a false hope, a trick, a depraved state.
*
Death is a terrible thing, due to original sin and the process of synergystic accumulation of sin which was set into play by the original sin.
Thus death was not part of the original plan (or hope) but is a terrible punishment.
Death is un-natural, in an ultimate sense, but must be accepted as just and inevitable in this world, because death is a consequence of what we are.
*
Yet death is now the way to eternal life - and the only way to eternal life.
We therefore must suffer the terrible and unnatural punishment; but on the other side of death we are promised an infinite gift.
Justice and mercy.
*
Death may be premature; but there is a proper time for death; which we know when it comes - except we blind ourselves.
Death cannot be defeated, nor can it be eluded; but death can be deferred.
However the price of refusing the call, when it comes, is immediately to fall into an appalling and increasing state of corruption, from which deteriorating state the likelihood of repentance dwindles and dwindles.
*
Friday 19 November 2010
Liberal PC feels like a higher morality than the secular right
*
One reason that elite intellectual liberal political correctness is immune to the secular right is that PC feels like a higher morality.
Therefore the most idealist and purely-motivated secular intellectuals will gravitate to political correctness.
*
Both the secular right and PC left agree that human happiness is the highest value, and both link this to an abstract process.
The secular right links happiness to evolutionary processes such as market economies, and in general competition and natural selection.
The PC left links happiness to altruistic (often egalitarian, but sometimes reversed-spontaneous) distributions of goods.
*
The secular right bases its reasoning on human nature and spontaneous tendencies, and tries to harness these for the general good by using abstract processes.
The general good is equated with the most efficient performance of social functions such as economic production (especially this), military defence, civil peace and so on.
The efficient ideal is to get the most and best quality of function for the least input of resources, and thereby to enable perpetual growth in all desirable functions.
In practice, the secular right regards the best outcome as that which emerges-from the operation of the best process.
*
The PC left bases its reasoning on ideal human nature (how humans might, possibly, perhaps be - or at least not-certainly-not-be) and on desirable outcomes not processes - in principle, any process is permissible if it leads to the desired outcome.
The best process is that which leads-to (not emerges-from) the best outcome.
*
The crux of the moral difference between secular right and PC left relates to original sin.
The PC left sees original sin as that innate human selfishness and individuality which resists altruistic distributions of goods.
The secular right denies the existence of original sin; it takes humans as they are, and tries to work with them.
The secular right individual either feels no guilt about his own motivations and behaviours (his selfishness, nepotism, lust, pride etc.) or else strives not to feel guilt - and argues-against his tendency to feel guilt.
The PC left individual feels guilt at their own failure to embrace altruistic distributions: for example that they spend money on themselves rather than giving it to anyone poorer, that they favour their own family over unknown strangers.
The PC idealist - recognizing the incorrigibility of his sinfulness, and needing to exculpate his guilt - therefore seeks to be coerced by the state, so that he - and everyone else - will not be able to act selfishly.
*
The secular right individual typically espouses some kind of utilitarianism - and affects to seek the greatest good of the greatest number; or perhaps (in a nationalist version) the greatest good of the greatest number in his country, or perhaps (in the ethnic version) the greatest good of the greatest number of his race or ethnicity.
Yet this is not really rational - except as a camouflage for what is actually individual self-interest. If forced to choose between his own certain and immediate and long term good on the one hand - and on the other hand what is inevitably a conjectural and uncertain good for many or most other people - then it makes sense to be selfish.
But either he does not care about being selfish (being a psychopath) or else tries not to think about this.
*
The secular left individual also affects to espouse a type of utilitarianism, but is mainly focused on the intrinsic sins of selfish individuals.
He can see no real hope for a society of competing selfish individuals - and so seeks to disempower individuals and curtail their freedom to be selfish. Hence the PC advocate favours coercive impersonal mechanisms for imposing altruism on inevitably selfish humans.
But whence derives the assumed virtue of these impersonal systems? Why would not coercive mechanisms force people to be evil, instead of good?
Either he denies this problem (being psychotic) or else tries not to think about this.
*
Confronted by a choice between embracing selfish psychopathy and altruistic psychoticism - the most idealistic secular intellectuals will surely continue to embrace the bleak martyrdom of PC.
*
One reason that elite intellectual liberal political correctness is immune to the secular right is that PC feels like a higher morality.
Therefore the most idealist and purely-motivated secular intellectuals will gravitate to political correctness.
*
Both the secular right and PC left agree that human happiness is the highest value, and both link this to an abstract process.
The secular right links happiness to evolutionary processes such as market economies, and in general competition and natural selection.
The PC left links happiness to altruistic (often egalitarian, but sometimes reversed-spontaneous) distributions of goods.
*
The secular right bases its reasoning on human nature and spontaneous tendencies, and tries to harness these for the general good by using abstract processes.
The general good is equated with the most efficient performance of social functions such as economic production (especially this), military defence, civil peace and so on.
The efficient ideal is to get the most and best quality of function for the least input of resources, and thereby to enable perpetual growth in all desirable functions.
In practice, the secular right regards the best outcome as that which emerges-from the operation of the best process.
*
The PC left bases its reasoning on ideal human nature (how humans might, possibly, perhaps be - or at least not-certainly-not-be) and on desirable outcomes not processes - in principle, any process is permissible if it leads to the desired outcome.
The best process is that which leads-to (not emerges-from) the best outcome.
*
The crux of the moral difference between secular right and PC left relates to original sin.
The PC left sees original sin as that innate human selfishness and individuality which resists altruistic distributions of goods.
The secular right denies the existence of original sin; it takes humans as they are, and tries to work with them.
The secular right individual either feels no guilt about his own motivations and behaviours (his selfishness, nepotism, lust, pride etc.) or else strives not to feel guilt - and argues-against his tendency to feel guilt.
The PC left individual feels guilt at their own failure to embrace altruistic distributions: for example that they spend money on themselves rather than giving it to anyone poorer, that they favour their own family over unknown strangers.
The PC idealist - recognizing the incorrigibility of his sinfulness, and needing to exculpate his guilt - therefore seeks to be coerced by the state, so that he - and everyone else - will not be able to act selfishly.
*
The secular right individual typically espouses some kind of utilitarianism - and affects to seek the greatest good of the greatest number; or perhaps (in a nationalist version) the greatest good of the greatest number in his country, or perhaps (in the ethnic version) the greatest good of the greatest number of his race or ethnicity.
Yet this is not really rational - except as a camouflage for what is actually individual self-interest. If forced to choose between his own certain and immediate and long term good on the one hand - and on the other hand what is inevitably a conjectural and uncertain good for many or most other people - then it makes sense to be selfish.
But either he does not care about being selfish (being a psychopath) or else tries not to think about this.
*
The secular left individual also affects to espouse a type of utilitarianism, but is mainly focused on the intrinsic sins of selfish individuals.
He can see no real hope for a society of competing selfish individuals - and so seeks to disempower individuals and curtail their freedom to be selfish. Hence the PC advocate favours coercive impersonal mechanisms for imposing altruism on inevitably selfish humans.
But whence derives the assumed virtue of these impersonal systems? Why would not coercive mechanisms force people to be evil, instead of good?
Either he denies this problem (being psychotic) or else tries not to think about this.
*
Confronted by a choice between embracing selfish psychopathy and altruistic psychoticism - the most idealistic secular intellectuals will surely continue to embrace the bleak martyrdom of PC.
*
Tuesday 3 December 2013
Mormonism and children
*
One of the most striking aspects of Mormonism is the very positive attitude towards children - this comes through in official teachings by LDS church leaders, in publicity and evangelical material, in scripture, in LDS magazines and newspapers, and in the social statistics of Mormon behaviour.
The positive attitude towards children seems to be underpinned by two striking sections of the Book of Mormon - the delightful account of the risen Christ blessing the children in the book of 3 Nephi:
21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
One of the most striking aspects of Mormonism is the very positive attitude towards children - this comes through in official teachings by LDS church leaders, in publicity and evangelical material, in scripture, in LDS magazines and newspapers, and in the social statistics of Mormon behaviour.
The positive attitude towards children seems to be underpinned by two striking sections of the Book of Mormon - the delightful account of the risen Christ blessing the children in the book of 3 Nephi:
21 And when he had said these words, he wept, and the multitude bare record of it, and he took their little children, one by one, and blessed them, and prayed unto the Father for them.
24 And
as they looked to behold they cast their eyes towards heaven, and they
saw the heavens open, and they saw angels descending out of heaven as it
were in the midst of fire; and they came down and encircled those little ones about, and they were encircled about with fire; and the angels did minister unto them.
...and the discussion of baptism in the book of Moroni, where it is very strongly asserted that the baptism of children is not just unnecessary, but an abomination:
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. ...
15 For
awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of
baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. ...
17 And I am filled with charity,
which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me;
wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all
alike and partakers of salvation....
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
*
However, the Book of Mormon was apparently not much used in teaching doctrine, and did not itself exert much of an influence upon Mormon doctrine, until relatively recently - so it is more likely that these passages are consistent-with Mormon practice, than that they are the origin of practice.
*
The characteristic, luminously positive attitude towards young children seems to be related to the Mormons having a different, and much more positive, interpretation of The Fall than do Mainstream Christians - and consequently their denial of the Mainstream Christian doctrine of Original Sin.
For Mormons, it seems that the concept of Original Sin is (to a significant extent) a denial of the power of Christ's atonement - and has the viscerally unacceptable consequence of damning unbaptized children (or, at least, that is how The Fall and Original Sin has been interpreted in much of Christian history - when at times children seem to have been regarded as something much like demons).
At any rate, the consequence for Mormons seems to be an attitude of great reverence towards innocent children, and a sense that they can be - by their example - the teachers of adults.
*
This fits with the idea of the family as potentially the most perfect Christian environment for adults; and contrasts sharply with other Christian traditions which see the ascetic, celibate monastic, nun or priest - or the subtle and profound theologian - as the greatest Christian exemplar.
(The Mormon ideal is, in fact, the most advanced actual form of the Via Positiva - the Way of Affirmation - among Christians.)
All of which fits seamlessly into Christ's positive attitudes and teachings with respect to children as displayed in the Gospels - which seems like something new, and something distinctive to Christianity; and an essential part of the sweetness of the pure faith.
*
Tuesday 22 August 2023
Is death an unjustifiable violation?
JRR Tolkien quoting - with agreement - Simone de Beauvoir:
[De Beauvoir]: "There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the whole world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation."
[JRR Tolkien]: Well, you may agree with the words or not, but those are the key spring of The Lord of the Rings.
On the one hand, death is universal and thus, apparently, natural; on the other hand, death is also experienced as profoundly un-natural, accidental, a violation.
Traditional Christian theology has attempted to deal with this using the concept of Original Sin; but I find this unsatisfactory - both for having been (I would have thought obviously) inserted post-Jesus and therefore not genuinely Christian; and also because Original Sin theory fails to do what it claims, which is to explain the prevalence of evil among Men without implicating God.
Instead; my understanding of death is that it is experienced as both natural and unnatural because of our situation in mortal incarnation - which I regard as (for Christians) situated between a potentially deathless pre-mortal spirit existence; and the post-mortal incarnated state of resurrection.
This mortal life of ours is temporary, a phase not an end-state - but our basic expectations deriving from pre-mortal spirit life are that we 'ought to be' eternal and deathless. Furthermore, since the life and work of Jesus Christ, Christians have hope of an eternal and deathless state to follow this mortal life.
Yet, the actuality of this mortal life and its inevitable termination - is unnatural. It is also not under our control; since other factors (primarily God, but also Men and other Beings and happening) influence how and when we die.
We cannot, therefore, take death for granted. Death comes, and will be a time of transformation. It is a severing of soul from body, as the body dies - and (because we are incarnate Beings) the body's death changes us, removing part of our-selves - and what remains after death is naturally-speaking incomplete.
In other words; the spirit after death - which has been variously conceptualized throughout history - is significantly like a different person, and (it has been believed) is often severely diminished in its coherence, identity, agency etc.
I think we sense exactly this (mostly implicitly), when we consider death. It probably lies behind the yearnings for 'peace' after mortal-death, which are so often the wish of non-Christians (including many self-identified Christians who do not want the resurrection that Christ actually offered).
...Anyone who felt sure that death will certainly annihilation would not be concerned to ask for peace; anyone who was confident that death was naturally a peaceful state would not feel compelled to pray for peace.
There is a fear (clearly expressed by Hamlet in his famous "To be, or not to be" soliloquy) that after our death we will experience a state of inescapable nightmare; and that this may be the 'default' condition - unless... something else happens, or we take some particular actions or make choices.
Thus, from our perspective here-and-now in mortal life; death is indeed the threat of a violation that seems unjustifiable; unless made-sense-of by resurrection - or some other desired outcome. And that death seems to be non-optional makes matters worse.
Original sin was and is an attempt to make sense of this, but since it does not work then we need something else - and the explanation ought to be a clear and graspable kind of truth (as indeed it surely would be, given the nature of our God).
Thursday 12 June 2014
How can imagination provide objective truth and judgement? The metaphysics of the heart
*
For imagination generally, and spiritual or meditative experience in particular, to provide real, objective, valid knowledge and guidance - there needs to be some explanation of why.
Where, in particular, does this knowledge and guidance come from; why should this be 'within' us, and and why should it be valid?
*
My answer is that it comes from the Heart, and (to put matters bluntly and simplistically) The Heart is made of two things - our eternal selves and a piece of God.
Since these are eternal and God is divine, they may, in principle, provide valid and true guidance.
Ideally these two things should be in perfect harmony, in practice the essential self may dissociate itself from God and go against God - and we call that pride - or some people call it original sin, because it is structural.
*
I have been writing for some time on the importance of The Heart in discernment - for example:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=%22the+heart%22
I think I can now say a bit more about how the Heart may be conceptualized - and just 'what it is' that we consult when we look within ourselves for guidance.
*
First, it seems clear that The Heart is within us - this is not a matter of tuning-into some external guidance.
So, what could be within us that is capable of guiding us?
I put forward a metaphysical schema which seems to me to account for things and lead to acceptable inferences:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-basic-components-of-reality-back.html
*
This scheme has it that within each person is an unique individual essence (what I called an eternal flame of agency); and also a divine flame - it could be expressed as a piece of God-within-us.
I propose that these two eternal essences are what is consulted when we look within ourselves to make a discernment of The Heart.
The objective validity of the knowledge and judgement of The Heart comes from the fact that these are eternal in origin.
*
But these are two things. Theosis, the becoming divine (Sons of God) which is the great task of each one of us, is about our essential selves and God coming into harmony, into communion, into perfect accord; but the problem is that we can (and often do) distinguish our 'selves' from God, and increase that distinction (instead of diminishing it) by following the discernment of the self and not that of God-within-us.
The fact that this distinction is possible could be termed original sin, because it is built-in - our temptation to do act of separation could also be original sin because it is gratifying in the short term.
The subjective feeling of 'pride' is the name for this gratification - our pride is at being able to discern what God wants, and then NOT doing it - pride is the gratification of defying our creator.
*
Anyway, this is what seems to be meant by The Heart - these eternal things within us: the essential pre-mortal self, and a piece, shard, fragment or little flame of and from God.
Something of the sort explains why The Heart can be our guide - indeed should be our guide; and also explains why it can all go terribly wrong: when we consult our Heart but choose to obey the discernment of our Self even when, or especially when, the Self is in defiance of God-within-us.
*
For imagination generally, and spiritual or meditative experience in particular, to provide real, objective, valid knowledge and guidance - there needs to be some explanation of why.
Where, in particular, does this knowledge and guidance come from; why should this be 'within' us, and and why should it be valid?
*
My answer is that it comes from the Heart, and (to put matters bluntly and simplistically) The Heart is made of two things - our eternal selves and a piece of God.
Since these are eternal and God is divine, they may, in principle, provide valid and true guidance.
Ideally these two things should be in perfect harmony, in practice the essential self may dissociate itself from God and go against God - and we call that pride - or some people call it original sin, because it is structural.
*
I have been writing for some time on the importance of The Heart in discernment - for example:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=%22the+heart%22
I think I can now say a bit more about how the Heart may be conceptualized - and just 'what it is' that we consult when we look within ourselves for guidance.
*
First, it seems clear that The Heart is within us - this is not a matter of tuning-into some external guidance.
So, what could be within us that is capable of guiding us?
I put forward a metaphysical schema which seems to me to account for things and lead to acceptable inferences:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-basic-components-of-reality-back.html
*
This scheme has it that within each person is an unique individual essence (what I called an eternal flame of agency); and also a divine flame - it could be expressed as a piece of God-within-us.
I propose that these two eternal essences are what is consulted when we look within ourselves to make a discernment of The Heart.
The objective validity of the knowledge and judgement of The Heart comes from the fact that these are eternal in origin.
*
But these are two things. Theosis, the becoming divine (Sons of God) which is the great task of each one of us, is about our essential selves and God coming into harmony, into communion, into perfect accord; but the problem is that we can (and often do) distinguish our 'selves' from God, and increase that distinction (instead of diminishing it) by following the discernment of the self and not that of God-within-us.
The fact that this distinction is possible could be termed original sin, because it is built-in - our temptation to do act of separation could also be original sin because it is gratifying in the short term.
The subjective feeling of 'pride' is the name for this gratification - our pride is at being able to discern what God wants, and then NOT doing it - pride is the gratification of defying our creator.
*
Anyway, this is what seems to be meant by The Heart - these eternal things within us: the essential pre-mortal self, and a piece, shard, fragment or little flame of and from God.
Something of the sort explains why The Heart can be our guide - indeed should be our guide; and also explains why it can all go terribly wrong: when we consult our Heart but choose to obey the discernment of our Self even when, or especially when, the Self is in defiance of God-within-us.
*
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Everything matters or nothing matters: Original sin versus nihilism
*
There are two basic human possibilities, in confronting existence - either everything matters, or nothing matters.
Both are unbearable.
*
If everything is significant then nothing is forgotten, we are never alone, souls are eternal, reality is endless, awareness is total.
If everything matters then either everything which is, is good (despite appearances); or everything which is, is evil - tainted with evil: by sin, by original sin.
*
If everything which is is good, then we must (merely!) recognize the fact that life as it is, has been and will become, is perfect (or the best possible) - including ourselves. All change is illusory.
(But then why am I so miserable, so appalled? - says human judgment. In practice, the inference is that everything which is, is good - except human judgment, which must - for some unimaginable reason - be deluded.)
*
If, on the other hand, everything which is, is evil; all is (at least) tainted by sin; then if even just one person, one being, somewhere in the world is suffering (now, or will suffer in the future) then life is invalidated, poisoned.
If we do not recognize the fact, this is because we are tainted with evil ourselves.
We are (at least partly) evil creatures, trying to live in an evil-tainted world - forever without end.
The weight of sin is vast and unbearable.
*
Either way, good or evil, there is no escape.
We must live with this awareness forever.
And this is hell - or more precisely Hades/ Sheol - the afterworld of eternally witless, gibbering, semi-demented ghosts.
Little wonder that modern humanity tries to escape into the opposite.
*
Humanity tries to escape from the infinite weight of eternal and universal significance... into nihilism.
Whatever happens is temporary, all evaluations are contingent, life is neither good nor evil overall because these have no real meaning. We live for a while (apparently - but in reality who knows?) - then life is following by... nothing.
For the nihilist: No matter how bad things may seem, at least we can, we will, escape them by death.
*
Yet nihilism does not stop at that.
Nihilism does not allow us to escape a bad life by death, nor does it wrench us from a good life by death.
Because if nothing ultimately matters; then actually nothing matters.
Everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen is insignificant despite appearances, despite the evaluations of human judgment (delusion, merely).
As an instance of awareness, each of us is utterly alone - we know of no other reality: neither things nor people.
Even if there are, or were, or might be, things or people: then nothing lasts.
Even if anything lasted for a while, all moments are (almost instantly) lost in time and space.
*
Moments may (momentarily) seem eternal and of infinite significance (the world in a grain of sand) but of course in a world where nothing matters we know always that this (or any other positive statement) is nonsense - it means nothing. And we strive not to know this, but always fail: brought down by the relentless weight of accumulating knowledge of insignificance.
*
The human condition is simple (necessarily so), and there are few alternatives, and all were articulated and recorded by the early literate civilizations - especially by the Greeks and Jews.
We have not moved-on from this - indeed we have moved backwards such that modern man has lost awareness of the human condition.
Affecting to disdain the simplicity of the human condition, modern man pretends that incoherence is complexity!
*
How come? How is it that our civilization is so very backward and unintelligent compared with all previous civilizations on record?
The reason is that we are not a pagan society, nor are we a primary monotheistic society: we are a post-Christian society.
As post-Christians (in rejecting Christianity including the assumptions by which we used to know Christianity), moderns perceive, moderns know, less than nothing about the human condition.
Moderns recognize none of the great simplicities, we think we know things which we do not know, and that which modernity thinks it knows (anyway) makes no sense.
*
Why are moderns so dumb: so very, very - so incorrigibly dumb?
Yet moderns think they are sooo smart?
In a word: frag-men-tation.
Ultra-specialization (reality reduced to meaninglessly- disconnected fragments) plus distraction (short attention span: really short).
And by a group utterly annihilated (reduced to nothingness by) fragmentation, I mean the intellectual elite.
I mean those people (managers, politicians, media people, 'religious leaders', propagandists of all stripe: teachers) who invented, made-universal and live-by the sound-bite.
*
Result? Moderns are nihilists whose cognition is so fragmented and dispersed that they cannot even recognize their own nihilism!
*
There are two basic human possibilities, in confronting existence - either everything matters, or nothing matters.
Both are unbearable.
*
If everything is significant then nothing is forgotten, we are never alone, souls are eternal, reality is endless, awareness is total.
If everything matters then either everything which is, is good (despite appearances); or everything which is, is evil - tainted with evil: by sin, by original sin.
*
If everything which is is good, then we must (merely!) recognize the fact that life as it is, has been and will become, is perfect (or the best possible) - including ourselves. All change is illusory.
(But then why am I so miserable, so appalled? - says human judgment. In practice, the inference is that everything which is, is good - except human judgment, which must - for some unimaginable reason - be deluded.)
*
If, on the other hand, everything which is, is evil; all is (at least) tainted by sin; then if even just one person, one being, somewhere in the world is suffering (now, or will suffer in the future) then life is invalidated, poisoned.
If we do not recognize the fact, this is because we are tainted with evil ourselves.
We are (at least partly) evil creatures, trying to live in an evil-tainted world - forever without end.
The weight of sin is vast and unbearable.
*
Either way, good or evil, there is no escape.
We must live with this awareness forever.
And this is hell - or more precisely Hades/ Sheol - the afterworld of eternally witless, gibbering, semi-demented ghosts.
Little wonder that modern humanity tries to escape into the opposite.
*
Humanity tries to escape from the infinite weight of eternal and universal significance... into nihilism.
Whatever happens is temporary, all evaluations are contingent, life is neither good nor evil overall because these have no real meaning. We live for a while (apparently - but in reality who knows?) - then life is following by... nothing.
For the nihilist: No matter how bad things may seem, at least we can, we will, escape them by death.
*
Yet nihilism does not stop at that.
Nihilism does not allow us to escape a bad life by death, nor does it wrench us from a good life by death.
Because if nothing ultimately matters; then actually nothing matters.
Everything that has happened, is happening, or will happen is insignificant despite appearances, despite the evaluations of human judgment (delusion, merely).
As an instance of awareness, each of us is utterly alone - we know of no other reality: neither things nor people.
Even if there are, or were, or might be, things or people: then nothing lasts.
Even if anything lasted for a while, all moments are (almost instantly) lost in time and space.
*
Moments may (momentarily) seem eternal and of infinite significance (the world in a grain of sand) but of course in a world where nothing matters we know always that this (or any other positive statement) is nonsense - it means nothing. And we strive not to know this, but always fail: brought down by the relentless weight of accumulating knowledge of insignificance.
*
The human condition is simple (necessarily so), and there are few alternatives, and all were articulated and recorded by the early literate civilizations - especially by the Greeks and Jews.
We have not moved-on from this - indeed we have moved backwards such that modern man has lost awareness of the human condition.
Affecting to disdain the simplicity of the human condition, modern man pretends that incoherence is complexity!
*
How come? How is it that our civilization is so very backward and unintelligent compared with all previous civilizations on record?
The reason is that we are not a pagan society, nor are we a primary monotheistic society: we are a post-Christian society.
As post-Christians (in rejecting Christianity including the assumptions by which we used to know Christianity), moderns perceive, moderns know, less than nothing about the human condition.
Moderns recognize none of the great simplicities, we think we know things which we do not know, and that which modernity thinks it knows (anyway) makes no sense.
*
Why are moderns so dumb: so very, very - so incorrigibly dumb?
Yet moderns think they are sooo smart?
In a word: frag-men-tation.
Ultra-specialization (reality reduced to meaninglessly- disconnected fragments) plus distraction (short attention span: really short).
And by a group utterly annihilated (reduced to nothingness by) fragmentation, I mean the intellectual elite.
I mean those people (managers, politicians, media people, 'religious leaders', propagandists of all stripe: teachers) who invented, made-universal and live-by the sound-bite.
*
Result? Moderns are nihilists whose cognition is so fragmented and dispersed that they cannot even recognize their own nihilism!
*
Friday 25 January 2019
Why did God allow the world to become as it is? Or, this world IS fit-for-purpose - from William Arkle
The following is excerpted (and lightly edited, for clarity) from pages 238-9 in the Conclusion of A Geography of Consciousness by William Arkle, 1974:
**
I find it difficult to accept that God allowed the situation of our world to become what it is without a reason.
While God would not deliberately push us into a condition in the world where we forget the higher part of our nature, and so commit behaviour which is not good; it is possible that He deliberately allowed us to wander in that direction, of our own accord, for a very definite reason. This reason being to increase our ties with earth and increase our resistance to Heaven, so that we eventually become more centred in the midst of God's creation, rather than at the top end of it.
While we must know the heights of Divine Heaven as well as the depths of the earth, we must also remember that God is 'outside' both Heaven and earth. In this way, it may be that the Treasure He seeks, that we His children are meant to find, lies in the centre or heart of manifestation; and really is signified by the expression of a personification of our nature.
Perhaps the Divine power and glory of the enlightened soul is made to understand a further dimension of value in the uncomfortable and limited restriction of the earthly personality? Perhaps the value God seeks in us is not our perfect unalloyed Divine Being Bliss; but the humble and imperfect yearnings and sentiments that our soul feels in the crippling form of the human situation?
The compression and pain of our earthly situation breeds a simple love that does not feed on pleasure, not even Divine pleasure; instead it feeds on a 'craggy' determination, often beyond the hope of any reward in the form of happiness or joy - to improve the lot of those it loves.
To my understanding this creates a love between persons, and the souls of these persons, which teaches them something about the nature of love which would not be learned in the experience of liberated divine bliss, or by devotion to perfection as we understand it.
The highest teachings we have ever received on earth seem to me to say:
'Do not take any notice of miracles or powers: God can make these happen any time. Instead, seek to understand the nature of the love that brought you forth. This love is not interested in power or glory or even perfect behaviour; but has something to do with the response that only you can make, because there is none other like you'.
**
For most of its history, the Christian religion has taught that every Man is flawed by original sin (so that he is rotten at heart) and this world is fallen from an original perfection.
'Therefore' (assuming this was correct) we would naturally expect the world to be a terrible place; and we would not be surprised if each person's mortal life was a complete waste of time - and that it would have therefore been better never to have been born in order to avoid the suffering.
However, Jesus did not say this - and there is no compelling reason for a Christian to believe it; indeed the original-sin/ fallen-world assumption does not make metaphysical sense.
In contrast; Arkle assumes (as, surely, all Christians ought to assume - but often forget) that a creator God who loves each person as a son or daughter would (surely!) design this world such as to provide what each son or daughter most needs.
God would not create a situation in which mortal life was worthless and then insert each of his beloved sons and daughters into this situation, to suffer inevitably and with only a chance of an acceptable outcome.
That is not the act of a loving creator-father; ergo it is Not True.
Before saying what is true, we need to clarify that 'What each son and daughter needs' must be understood to include the context that we are each eternal beings who lived before, and will continue to live after, this mortal life.
So what matters most is what is needed for the life to come, the Life Everlasting in the Kingdom of Heaven, reachable only via death.
Thus it is reasonable to describe mortal life as an experience for learning. And when we find this world to be one that is hostile to 'Divine Being Bliss' and to human 'perfection', this tells us that these things are Not what God most wants from us or for us.
By looking at the actual experiences of our specific life, we can 'reverse-engineer' what God wants us to learn from them - at any rate, it is our task to learn as best we can throughout our lives, from our lives. And a life of learning from experiences will have a very different character from a life of blissful perfection.
Furthermore, each of us is a distinct individual (there is none exactly like us); and we must presume that this was not due to God's inability or against His wishes.
Apparently, it is from the experiences of each person's own specific life from which we are each supposed to learn; and we are presumably each expected to 'respond' to earthly mortal life in a way that only we each can respond.
In conclusion, a well-lived Christian life would be expected to be unique; but broadly to have something of the character of "a simple love that... feeds on a 'craggy' determination, often beyond the hope of any reward in the form of happiness or joy - to improve the lot of those it loves."
Life is not full of troubles because we are crippled by original sin in a fallen world; but because the world is fit for its purpose of providing the kind of experiences we most need to learn from - aiming at the best possible life beyond death of the mortal body.
**
I find it difficult to accept that God allowed the situation of our world to become what it is without a reason.
While God would not deliberately push us into a condition in the world where we forget the higher part of our nature, and so commit behaviour which is not good; it is possible that He deliberately allowed us to wander in that direction, of our own accord, for a very definite reason. This reason being to increase our ties with earth and increase our resistance to Heaven, so that we eventually become more centred in the midst of God's creation, rather than at the top end of it.
While we must know the heights of Divine Heaven as well as the depths of the earth, we must also remember that God is 'outside' both Heaven and earth. In this way, it may be that the Treasure He seeks, that we His children are meant to find, lies in the centre or heart of manifestation; and really is signified by the expression of a personification of our nature.
Perhaps the Divine power and glory of the enlightened soul is made to understand a further dimension of value in the uncomfortable and limited restriction of the earthly personality? Perhaps the value God seeks in us is not our perfect unalloyed Divine Being Bliss; but the humble and imperfect yearnings and sentiments that our soul feels in the crippling form of the human situation?
The compression and pain of our earthly situation breeds a simple love that does not feed on pleasure, not even Divine pleasure; instead it feeds on a 'craggy' determination, often beyond the hope of any reward in the form of happiness or joy - to improve the lot of those it loves.
To my understanding this creates a love between persons, and the souls of these persons, which teaches them something about the nature of love which would not be learned in the experience of liberated divine bliss, or by devotion to perfection as we understand it.
The highest teachings we have ever received on earth seem to me to say:
'Do not take any notice of miracles or powers: God can make these happen any time. Instead, seek to understand the nature of the love that brought you forth. This love is not interested in power or glory or even perfect behaviour; but has something to do with the response that only you can make, because there is none other like you'.
**
For most of its history, the Christian religion has taught that every Man is flawed by original sin (so that he is rotten at heart) and this world is fallen from an original perfection.
'Therefore' (assuming this was correct) we would naturally expect the world to be a terrible place; and we would not be surprised if each person's mortal life was a complete waste of time - and that it would have therefore been better never to have been born in order to avoid the suffering.
However, Jesus did not say this - and there is no compelling reason for a Christian to believe it; indeed the original-sin/ fallen-world assumption does not make metaphysical sense.
In contrast; Arkle assumes (as, surely, all Christians ought to assume - but often forget) that a creator God who loves each person as a son or daughter would (surely!) design this world such as to provide what each son or daughter most needs.
God would not create a situation in which mortal life was worthless and then insert each of his beloved sons and daughters into this situation, to suffer inevitably and with only a chance of an acceptable outcome.
That is not the act of a loving creator-father; ergo it is Not True.
Before saying what is true, we need to clarify that 'What each son and daughter needs' must be understood to include the context that we are each eternal beings who lived before, and will continue to live after, this mortal life.
So what matters most is what is needed for the life to come, the Life Everlasting in the Kingdom of Heaven, reachable only via death.
Thus it is reasonable to describe mortal life as an experience for learning. And when we find this world to be one that is hostile to 'Divine Being Bliss' and to human 'perfection', this tells us that these things are Not what God most wants from us or for us.
By looking at the actual experiences of our specific life, we can 'reverse-engineer' what God wants us to learn from them - at any rate, it is our task to learn as best we can throughout our lives, from our lives. And a life of learning from experiences will have a very different character from a life of blissful perfection.
Furthermore, each of us is a distinct individual (there is none exactly like us); and we must presume that this was not due to God's inability or against His wishes.
Apparently, it is from the experiences of each person's own specific life from which we are each supposed to learn; and we are presumably each expected to 'respond' to earthly mortal life in a way that only we each can respond.
In conclusion, a well-lived Christian life would be expected to be unique; but broadly to have something of the character of "a simple love that... feeds on a 'craggy' determination, often beyond the hope of any reward in the form of happiness or joy - to improve the lot of those it loves."
Life is not full of troubles because we are crippled by original sin in a fallen world; but because the world is fit for its purpose of providing the kind of experiences we most need to learn from - aiming at the best possible life beyond death of the mortal body.
Sunday 26 January 2014
Mormonism and the old Christian problems of what happens to unbaptized children and virtuous pagans
*
From very early in the history of Christianity and right through the middle ages, two of the biggest problems for loving Christians were:
1. What happens to unbaptized children? Do they go to Hell?
and
2. What happened to the pagans who lived before Christ - do they necessarily go to Hell?
*
Both of these are linked, and both were a problem because it was assumed that there was no possibility of salvation outwith the sacraments administered by the church, and no possibility of salvation without knowledge of Christ.
This inference has always been resisted by many Christians, since it would imply that God was more cruel, less merciful than ordinary human beings.
But the reason we know about all this, is that the problem was felt particularly acutely among Christian intellectuals who greatly valued - indeed venerated - the Classical learning of the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans - especially the Emperor Trajan who was variously asserted to be in Heaven.
*
It seems evident that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith also felt these problems acutely, and (by his revelations and by logic) inferred that the problem was an artificial one produced by:
1. The false understanding of original sin.
2. The false assertion that there was no salvation outwith the church (specifics depending upon which particular denomination was doing the asserting).
3. A false understanding of the role of sacraments such as baptism and holy communion.
*
The different take of Mormonism can be seen from two striking passages in the Book of Mormon (taken from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng ).
Alma 39:
15 And now, my son, I would say somewhat unto you concerning the acoming of Christ. Behold, I say unto you, that it is he that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world; yea, he cometh to declare glad tidings of salvation unto his people.
This passage is a key one in understanding the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism. The idea that it was as easy for people before the coming of Christ to attain salvation as for people after the coming of Christ.
That pre-Christians knew enough for salvation; and that therefore (from the perspective of salvation) the problem of the virtuous pagan disappears.
(This is assuming that there is no such thing as original sin as conceptualized by the medieval church - for which see below.)
*
This becomes more apparent in what seems to be the most vehemently argued of any section of the Book of Mormon - Chapter 8 of the Book of Moroni:
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should adisputations rise among you.
From very early in the history of Christianity and right through the middle ages, two of the biggest problems for loving Christians were:
1. What happens to unbaptized children? Do they go to Hell?
and
2. What happened to the pagans who lived before Christ - do they necessarily go to Hell?
*
Both of these are linked, and both were a problem because it was assumed that there was no possibility of salvation outwith the sacraments administered by the church, and no possibility of salvation without knowledge of Christ.
This inference has always been resisted by many Christians, since it would imply that God was more cruel, less merciful than ordinary human beings.
But the reason we know about all this, is that the problem was felt particularly acutely among Christian intellectuals who greatly valued - indeed venerated - the Classical learning of the ancient Greeks and pre-Christian Romans - especially the Emperor Trajan who was variously asserted to be in Heaven.
*
It seems evident that the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith also felt these problems acutely, and (by his revelations and by logic) inferred that the problem was an artificial one produced by:
1. The false understanding of original sin.
2. The false assertion that there was no salvation outwith the church (specifics depending upon which particular denomination was doing the asserting).
3. A false understanding of the role of sacraments such as baptism and holy communion.
*
The different take of Mormonism can be seen from two striking passages in the Book of Mormon (taken from http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng ).
Alma 39:
15 And now, my son, I would say somewhat unto you concerning the acoming of Christ. Behold, I say unto you, that it is he that surely shall come to take away the sins of the world; yea, he cometh to declare glad tidings of salvation unto his people.
16 And
now, my son, this was the ministry unto which ye were called, to
declare these glad tidings unto this people, to prepare their minds; or
rather that salvation might come unto them, that they may prepare the
minds of their achildren to hear the word at the time of his coming.
17 And
now I will ease your mind somewhat on this subject. Behold, you marvel
why these things should be known so long beforehand. Behold, I say unto
you, is not a soul at this time as precious unto God as a soul will be
at the time of his coming?
18 Is it not as necessary that the plan of redemption should be amade known unto this people as well as unto their children?
19 Is it not as easy at this time for the Lord to asend his angel to declare these glad tidings unto us as unto our children, or as after the time of his coming?
This passage is a key one in understanding the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism. The idea that it was as easy for people before the coming of Christ to attain salvation as for people after the coming of Christ.
That pre-Christians knew enough for salvation; and that therefore (from the perspective of salvation) the problem of the virtuous pagan disappears.
(This is assuming that there is no such thing as original sin as conceptualized by the medieval church - for which see below.)
*
This becomes more apparent in what seems to be the most vehemently argued of any section of the Book of Mormon - Chapter 8 of the Book of Moroni:
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should adisputations rise among you.
5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
6 And
now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross
error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have
written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the aword of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
8 aListen
to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I
came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to
repentance; the bwhole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little cchildren are dwhole, for they are not capable of committing esin; wherefore the curse of fAdam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of gcircumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn amockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are aaccountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little bchildren, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little achildren need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the bremission of sins.
12 But little achildren are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a brespecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold
I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need
baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for
he hath neither afaith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For
awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of
baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo
be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner,
for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with
boldness, having aauthority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for bperfect clove dcasteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with acharity,
which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me;
wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all
alike and bpartakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is aunchangeable from ball eternity to all eternity.
19 Little achildren
cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure
mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his bmercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the aatonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, ahell, and an bendless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the cjudgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are aalive in Christ, and also all they that are without the blaw. For the power of credemption cometh on all them that have dno law;
wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no
condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in adead works.
*
For Mormons, the powerful moral intuition that it would be a vile injustice for young children to be condemned to eternal Hell because they were not baptized is, in effect, taken as a reductio ad absurdum of traditional Christian theology - especially the most prevalent 'mainstream' understanding of original sin, which was/is that OS implies a default destiny of Hell for all humans.
*
So what happens to the theological status of the sacraments? As so often in Mormon theology, qualitative distinctions are made quantitative - and matters of salvation become matters of theosis/ sanctification or spiritual progression.
For Mormons, baptism is not a matter of salvation; rather it is a necessary step in spiritual progression, and a matter of the provision of objective, supernatural help and assistance in progression.
Likewise the sacrament of the Eucharist/ Holy Communion/ Lord's Supper is transformed into an objectively-valuable and supernaturally-administered help and assistance in the main business of life: which is resisting corruption and moving closer to God.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)