Bruce Charlton's Notions

After mortal life we die and become spirit-beings - and it is these post-mortal spirits who may choose to become resurrected. 

What is life like as a post-mortal spirit? What will you and I be like at the time when we are confronted by the chance and choice of resurrected eternal life? 

The condition of post-mortal souls seems to have been accessible and known in ancient times; and in the years before Christ; the ancient Greeks left us with descriptions of Hades, while the ancient Hebrews described much the same condition as Sheol.  

The condition of such spirit life can be described in terms of a state of 'dementia' or 'delirium'; but is perhaps most easily comprehended in terms of dreaming sleep. 

During dreaming sleep; our spirit is cut-off from the body, and from the environment. That is, in general; we lose sensations of what is going-on inside us, and in the world around us. 

Our spiritual self mostly breaks free from the body - but in sleep the spirit does not wholly break-free, because the spirit must return to the body on awakening - and therefore there must remain a connection, and this residual connection of spirit with body can be greater or lesser. 

When the connection is greater, then the body and/or the environment around the sleeping body can influence the dreaming spirit; and we find some degree in which the physical shapes our dreams. For instance, a stomach pain or a ticking clock may be taken-up in the dream, and (in part or in whole) become part of a dream. 

But sometimes the connection between spirit and body is diminished to the merest thread; and to the extent that the spirit does break free; we are then in a similar state to post-mortal spirit life. 

What are the characteristic experiences of this kind of dreaming sleep, in a qualitative and formal sense? 

In dreaming we retain our sense of 'self', of being an individual with a personal persepctive, and we remain who-we-are; but the quality of experience changes. 

The typical mood of dreaming is one of perplexity - a sense of insecure grasp of the situation; of our understanding continually slipping-away. 

We forget important things in the dream, and then later in the dream they are recalled with a sense of puzzlement: how could I have forgotten that? Or else we may discover major things of great importance in the dream that, somehow, (in real life) we had never noticed before. 

In the dream we may take-for-granted bizarre situations that we (somehow!) find ourselves in; or conversely, may find ourselves unable to comprehend and function in situations that we would normally find routine. 

Recognition of people and situations is unmoored - much as the spirit is unmoored from the body. For example, we may recognize someone familiar who then turns-out 'really' to be someone else; or else it turns-out that a stranger in the dream is 'really' someone familiar (although they may look and behave completely differently). 

(These dream experiences are very similar to delusional misidentifications observed in psychoses.) 

These kinds of dreaming experiences derive, I believe, from the greatly diminished connection between the spirit and the body during dreaming sleep. If we can imagine this disconnection becoming total and potentially 'permanent'; then we may have some idea of what it may be like to be dead - but not resurrected. 

And it may be from such a dreamlike state - or perhaps more exactly from a temporarily lucid dream state (made possible by divine intervention) - that we make the choice about resurrection. 

That is; a state when the dream situation becomes suffused by an increased self-consciousness and ability to choose; when (perhaps) the dream-self becomes more detached-from dream-experience - and knows it as "a dream" - in other words, knows the reality of the situation. 

Then, it may be, we are confronted by the decision of whether to follow Jesus Christ through the process of transformation that is resurrection, to render us eternally incarnated, and to continue into Heaven.  

Perhaps this transformation can itself be imagined, as if from a dream; as our spirits meeting with Jesus Christ and knowing Him to be Jesus Christ - standing as the Good Shepherd in front of a portal, a doorway - the entrance into the 'sheep fold' that is Heaven. 

We are granted the comprehension that we may choose to follow Jesus through that doorway; and the knowledge that if we do so - as we are solidifying ('condensing') into eternal bodies - we will be taking with us only that which Good; only that which is Love - Love of God, of fellow Men, of divine creation... 

Also, if we choose to pass through that doorway; all that is of sin, death, corruption - will be left-behind. 

What I would emphasize here, is that when we make that decision; it will be from an experienced-situation that is somewhat like a dream, and the decision will be made by selves that are somewhat like our dream selves...

But a dream-like-state that we know to be reality; and the choice will be made by what we then-know to be our real, eternal and divine self.

*

Suppose that we accept a 'pop' Einsteinian idea of Time as sequential and linear but going at relatively different speeds in different places and conditions - as a consequence of the speed of light being fixed.

But let us also suppose that there is an underlying, absolute, objective Time behind all of this - which is due to there being a God for whom Time is also sequential: Divine Time is therefore the objective reality underpinning the different relative speeds of Time in different places.

*

Anyway...  Let us assume that from the perspective of our earthly and mortal life, Time in Heaven can run at different speeds than here.

Heavenly Time must run such as to achieve incomprehensibly more in a single second of earthly time than possible on earth, or else the vast work of creating and sustaining the earth and its denizens could not be accomplished.

From earth this would look as if the denizens of Heaven were operating in a blur of activity; from Heaven it would seem that hardly anything happens on earth.

*

But also, it seems likely that Heavenly Time could also be very slowed-up and almost suspended relative to earth-time; so that it would seem from earth that perhaps a Heavenly inhabitant was living in a frozen state of suspended animation.

In sum - let us say that Time in Heaven might run very much faster or slower than earthly time, as seen from an earthly perspective.

(This seems necessary for Heaven to accomplish what Heaven accomplishes.)

*

But this seems to create a serious problem of communication between Heaven and earth - because it is presumably extremely difficult and unsatisfactory to communicate with those whose Time may be either vastly sped-up or slowed-down - the relative rate of their activities is so different - what would seem like rapid interaction to one party would seem unbearably/ uselessly delayed to the other party - or, in reverse.

*

And the primary communication is of course Love.

It is hard to imagine Love between entities living at grossly different Time speeds - and this perhaps creates a problem for God the Father in his relationship with his earthly children?

God the Father must always be creating and sustaining the universe - which presumably involves unimaginably numerous and rapid activities (as they would seem to us).

Thus, the fastest possible Time is objective Time - God's Time.

*

Therefore, it is a vital part of Christian life to synchronize earth and Heaven - in practice this comes by a signal sent from here on earth in response to which a Heavenly entity will synchronize Time with us (usually by Heaven slowing-down a lot!).

For example, an angelic being who is whizzing around doing things (say) a billionfold faster than possible on earth, get a message and slows down and matches Time-speed with the earthly inhabitant who has signaled that communication is requested.

Then, having communicated, the angel speeds-up again to Heavenly Time. Or else the gaps are bridged by a hierarchy of angels living at different rates of Time.

*

What are these signals from earth - these requests to synchronize Time?

Perhaps things such as prayer, meditation, Liturgy, Holy Communion, Temple Ordinances and the like - perhaps these can be imagined as a signal for Heaven to match speed with us and thereby open the channels of communication?

*

(For example, perhaps Baptism of the Dead could be imagined to work by creating a synchronization of Time between the living and a post-mortal spirit, to slowdown the life of the spirit, and bring the post-mortal spirit into communication with the living; so the spirit can perceive the love expressed towards him or her. Perhaps otherwise, the spirit would be living either so rapidly and busily - or else so slowly and inertly - as to be incapable of exercising autonomous choice? By signalling to the spirit, getting the spirit to slow-down to mortal speed, and creating a state of communion with that post-mortal spirit; then the spirit is much better able to exercise agency and decide whether or not to accept the Gospel - than would be possible if earthly and Heavenly Time were grossly discrepant.)

*

Perhaps, furthermore, the rate of Time in earthly mortal life is optimal for making decisions about salvation and for accomplishing theosis.

Perhaps the acceptance of salvation, and working for theosis (and the highest exaltation) is not impossible in Heaven - but rather, it is very much more difficult and less likely, due to Heavenly Time being sub-optimal - usually too fast or too slow - and the efficacy of earthly prayers and rituals for the dead is related to getting post-mortal spirits at the right speed and into communication with us - who are the experts on salvation and theosis.

*

And, for God to do his infinite work of Love, required that Divinity synchronize Time with Men; hence God becoming Man - the incarnation of Christ and his dwelling among us on earth.

Perhaps the life of Christ can be seen as (to some partial extent) the ultimate act of synchronization of Time?

*

It seems to be accepted that it is either impossible, or at least rare and difficult, for a soul in Hell to repent and then be resurrected into Heaven.  

It is my primary assumption that death is necessary for spiritual progression toward a higher and fuller state of divinity - but how does this work?

If the purpose of mortal life is incarnation (to get a body) then why? One answer may be that the body brings us irresistibly into contact with 'the world' - because the body is unavoidably part of the world.

(Whereas, as pre-mortal spirits, we were not in direct contact with the world, and our spiritual body - if we had one - was not subject to the world.)

So long as we are awake, alert and purposive in thinking - our body is spontaneously and by-default part of reality. And our consciousness (our spirit) identifies with the body (including the body's senses).

We spontaneously get-away-from the body during sleep - and especially in dreaming sleep when we are all-but cut-off-from the senses, and paralysed; in dreams we remain influenced by the body (e.g. illness can influence dreams) but we are no longer constrained by the body (we can dream anything, and be anywhere).

Much mysticism is trying to get away from the body - but insofar as this includes drowsiness or sleep, undirected or free-associative thinking, thinking directed by external cues etc. then this represents (merely) a regression towards the situation of pre-mortal spirit existence - which is fine, but regression is not the reason why we became incarnate mortals (otherwise we would simply have remained in our pre-mortal state).

Minimally we are incarnated for our spirit/ consciousness to identify with the body - and then die (this applies, for instance, to those people who die in the womb, or around the time of birth - they experience little more than the bare fact of incarnation).

Beyond this minimum, some people survive into childhood, adulthood - perhaps for many decades... what is that for? The purpose of prolonged life seem to be spiritual progression, divinization, theosis, sanctification (variously conceptualized) during mortal life.

I think this divinization necessarily entails a development, or evolution, of consciousness - of a type which is a foretaste of the post-mortal resurrected state.

This state of advanced consciousness has been variously termed a particular type of clairvoyance by Rudolf Steiner (also called Final Participation by Owen Barfield), or 'self-remembering' by Gurdjieff or Colin Wilson), or Active Imagination by Jung, or some versions of Abraham Maslow's Peak Experiences.

In essence, this is an awareness of ourselves as spiritual beings simultaneous with identification with the body and its senses.
Death is therefore the separation of spirit from body, the spirit having experienced the identification of spirit with body.

So there are three stages in spiritual progression in relation to mortality:
1. The spirit is identified with the body (mortal life)
2. The spirit separated from the body (death)
3. The spirit rejoined with the body from which it had separated

This three-stage process of incarnation, death and resurrection was - of course - established and made possible for us by Jesus Christ.

It leads to the post-mortal state of a permanent and habitual attainment of that state of consciousness which is typically only glimpsed (if experienced at all) during mortal life.

This is the divine mode of consciousness - which can then embark on further development.

*
This may be the lesson taught by the relative success of Mormonism in the modern environment. In The Mormon Culture of Salvation - a sociological study by Douglas J Davies (Professor in Religious Studies at Durham University, England; and not a Mormon) he highlights the exceptional success of the CJCLDS in inculcating and sustaining what could be termed certainty about the reality of post-mortal life.

I only get exposed to this at third hand, and superficially (not being baptised into LDS, nor having attended the Temple ceremonies, nor living the Mormon life) - but even thus remote and incomplete, the impression of a people who live in full expectation of eternity in Heaven is powerful and convincing.

As a culture we perhaps need more than any other single thing this kind of active belief. As well as being true - here are many factors about the full-on LDS life which support this perspective; but one neglected aspect is that Mormons also believe in pre-mortal life.

This is not unique to Mormonism, and there have been Christians who believe in pre-mortal life throughout history - some extremely eminent such as St Augustine - but in the CJCLDS it is right up front, and indeed one of the very first things taught to novices.

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-plan-of-salvation/the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng

Belief in eternal post-mortal life is clearly essential to all Christians and always has been, while belief in pre-mortal eternal life is not essential. However, while not essential to salvation, (as well as being true) the belief in pre-mortal life has considerable advantages in making common-sense of belief in eternal post-mortal life.

It is very simple to imagine and to explain and understand the sequence of being pre-mortal spirit children of God; who voluntarily came to earth to be embodied and experience life as mortals; then die - when the spirit and body are separated; and finally be resurrected with spirit and body reunited for eternity with cleansed spirit and a perfected body.

It is easier to believe that mortality is an episode in our eternal life, than that our spirit popped into existence some (uncertain but precise) time in the womb then lived forever from that point forwards.

If it is indeed true that modern Man needs first and foremost to believe in his own eternal life (and also the eternal life of anybody and everybody who chooses eternal life and is prepared to live accordingly) - then a wider awareness of our pre-mortal existence may be extremely important.

I don't think it would be hard to convince most people of this - since so many people have an intuition and some cloudy memories of their own pre-mortal heavenly existence, what is needed would be more in the nature of of a reminder and a validation of something they already sort-of know.

*

These little limbs,
These eyes and hands which here I find,
These rosy cheeks wherewith my life begins,
Where have ye been? behind
What curtain were ye from me hid so long?
Where was, in what abyss, my speaking tongue?

When silent I
So many thousand, thousand years
Beneath the dust did in a chaos lie,
How could I smiles or tears,
Or lips or hands or eyes or ears perceive?
Welcome ye treasures which I now receive.

(Read the whole thing)


It seems to be characteristic of Romantic Christians that they - we, including myself - have a belief in having lived before this mortal life.

Often this takes the form of some version of reincarnation - which seems to be a basic, default belief among tribal people, and many Eastern religions. But the key things seems to be not reincarnation, but the direct, intuitive conviction of having lived before this mortal life; of having lived as a spirit, before being incarnated.


In the poem above Traherne describes (or imagines) the memory of being incarnated; and many people - perhaps all Romantic Christians - have some such memory, although they may be unsure of its validity.

William Blake explicitly believed in a pre-mortal existence; Wordsworth described it in glorious detail in his Intimations of Immortality; Coleridge in a poem to his son. But of these, Coleridge seemed especially uncomfortable about his statements - and rejected the  reality of pre-mortal life; and Wordsworth became similarly negative about in his later life - because it conflicts with the metaphysical assumptions of traditional Christianity.

(The reality of pre-mortal spirit life is, however, consistent-with the Fourth Gospel - being specifically asserted for Jesus; and indirectly in the discussions of the Baptist's identity, and at John 9:2.) 


I have come to recognise that a belief in my pre-mortal existence is more powerful and more causally-important for me than a belief in post-mortal Life Eternal.

This is so, because the pre-mortal implies the post-mortal; and the pre-mortal is more sure.

Memory of my pre-mortal life, albeit dreamlike and hazy, is a direct and personal experience. And since I also believe that pre-mortal life had no beginning, but was from eternity; then this implies to me that post-mortal life is also eternal.

Since I have lived from eternity, then I expect that I shall live - in some form - to eternity; since I was transformed (not created) at birth, then I expect to be transformed (not annihilated) at death. 

By contrast, post-mortal life eternal (after biological death) can, for me at least, only be known indirectly*.


*Those who know post-mortal life directly are (I guess) those who (potentially) believe in reincarnation; but I do not have such memories or intuitions.
 

*

Yesterday's post on theosis and free will elicited two accounts (in the comments) of how it is that after death and resurrection a human characterized by free will can nonetheless choose only good: the idea that the choice of good after death functions rather like a freely-subscribed oath binding us for eternity, and the idea that the last choice as we pass from time into eternity becomes eternal.

*

The fact that needs to be explained is that somehow a creature of free will can become such as to choose only good.

But the answer must be such that we can understand the purpose or necessity of mortal incarnate life in this world.  And I do not think either of the above answers help us to understand this.

* 

I have been thinking along somewhat different lines.

What follows is a mixture of conviction and rational elaboration - regard it as a fantasy if you wish.

*

If Man has a pre-mortal spirit existence of the soul, then the choice of good or evil could have been made with full foreknowledge of the nature and consequences of the choice, such that the decision was of necessity permanent.

(This is the orthodox account of why fallen angels are irreversibly damned - because - unlike mortal men - they knew exactly what they were doing, and the consequences, and chose damnation.)

Then the spirits of those Men who chose good were enhanced with bodies - but mortal bodies, on earth. The reason for which was that incarnation in mortal bodies provides and unique and essential experience.

Thus, mortal life and death is ultimately an experience, not a test.

*

For the human soul (or spirit), even living very briefly in a body and then dying is a necessary experience to qualify us to become Sons of God.

So that for a soul even to live very briefly as a baby, even perhaps living only as an embryo in the womb, is an experience of incarnate mortality; which is of such great value to the soul, that the difference between a spirit who has lived and died as a mortal and a spirit who has lived only as an un-incarnated spirit is a qualitative difference.

The spirit who has lived a mortal life and died, and then been resurrected, is a qualitatively higher state than is attainable by a spirit lacking this experience.

*

But free agency continues throughout as part of the essence of being a Man.

So Men who have chosen good, and which choice is irrevocable (because made with full knowledge) choose then to embark upon mortal life in which there is partial and distorted knowledge and during which they regain the freedom to choose evil.

Because, during mortal life they are subject to temptation from those pre-mortal spirits who originally chose evil.

So mortal life is a hazard; a risk taken freely by the pre-mortal spirit in hope and expectation of attaining a higher state; but which opens the human soul to the possibility of losing everything.

*

Yet, if the benefits of mortal life and death can be attained by living briefly as an embryo or baby, then why should humans live longer and suffer the corruptions and temptations of childhood and adult life, of disease and senility?

The answer would presumably be that the benefits of mortality are qualitative with respect to the preceding spirit state, but quantitative with respect to one another - that to survive the hazards a longer life without yielding to the temptation to choose damnation is a higher thing.

So, when a man dies (at any age: an unborn baby, an old and sick adult) then the innocence of the less experienced human has a reward that is certain - but  a lower place in Heaven; while the endurance of the old and sick is rewarded by a higher place in Heaven (assuming that the offer is accepted, not rejected), because the result is a higher being - a more complex resurrected Man capable of a higher role - just as a mortal adult is potentially more complex than a child.

*

In terms of free will the sequence is:

1. Pre-mortal spirits (souls) with free agency, irrevocably chooses good - irrevocably so long as they remain in the spiritual state (those spirits who choose evil are damned which means excluded from the following - they remain spirits).

2. Those spirits who choose good may become incarnate mortals with free agency.

3. The experience of being an incarnate mortal, however briefly, is of qualitative value or benefit - it enhances the pre-mortal spirit beyond his former state and in a way otherwise impossible.

4. But the experience of being an incarnate mortal re-opens the possibility of rejecting good/ God and choosing evil - so that a pre-mortal spirit who could not have chosen damnation as an incarnate mortal again becomes capable of choosing damnation.

5. However, the default of mortal life is salvation - due to the once-and-for-always (past, present, future) work of Christ 's atonement - his death and resurrection. Thus Men will be saved by default, and eternal damnation is only by active rejection of salvation.

(This is the safeguard of mortal incarnate life, without which it would not just be a hazard but a hopeless gamble against overwhelming odds. It is only by Christ's work - in cleansing us of the sin from innumerable bad choices - that there is any possibility of the incarnate soul coming through an extended mortal life with a hope of salvation - because that hope has been made an assurance of salvation (unless it is rejected by choice.)

6. At the end of mortal life, those who have-not-rejected salvation (a negative definition) will return to the spiritual realm outwith the earth (Heaven) to await ultimate resurrection in the same but perfected bodies they inhabited during mortal life - at which point they have a higher state than they would otherwise have had without the experience of mortal life.

So for the good souls, the judgment is a matter being allocated between the 'many mansions' of Heaven - by analogy their job, role, authority. 

(Those good spirits who have not been through the experience of mortal life simply remained as they were, at a lower hierarchical level - remembering that all levels are blessed.)

7. At the end of mortal life, those who reject salvation, go to hell (or pre-hell, perhaps) to await ultimate resurrection and the final judgment; at which point decision for- or against-good must be made in light of its full consequences; and those who actively-choose evil instead of good are then - in resurrected form - sequestered in that permanent hell which they have chosen.

*

This may seem, and probably is, an over-elaborated, over-complex and fanciful tale - but parts of it seem to answer some of my most pressing problems in a simple and pictorial fashion.

In particular, I find the explanation of incarnate mortal life as primarily an experience (and only secondarily as a test) to be valuable - especially because it makes sense both of the fact of mortal incarnate existence, and also the fact that so many humans have got no further than being fetuses or babies, and many other do not reach adulthood - on the basis that it is potentially of great value to have been an incarnate mortal human at all and however briefly, while on the other hand extended life is potentially of additional value.

Incarnate mortal life is thereby conceptualized as a high risk, high reward venture - freely chosen.

*

In terms of choice, the above seems to regard choice in an extended fashion - that as free agents interacting withe the world, we are making choices all the time - only a very few of which (or perhaps none of which) are conscious.

Yet since Men are intrinsically free agents, we necessarily make these choices - it is intrinsic to our relation with the world.

Thus even a baby makes choices. However, these baby choices do not have the same status as conscious, deliberate choice. Because salvation is a default, damnation must be chosen - and a baby cannot choose damnation - thus a baby is Innocent.

*

The above account is tentative, conjectural, no doubt garbled and contains errors (as do all human things, but maybe more than usual!), and its theological basis will be obvious to some; but I think it is pretty-much (if corrections were made) - or perhaps - not-impossible to reconcile with, potentially compatible with, standard Christianity and Scriptural interpretation - if not currently, and in all denominations - then across the sweep of Christian history...

In other words: take it, modify it, or leave it - as you will.

*

It has been noticed for more than a century that there is a broad correlation between ontogeny and phylogeny. Ontogeny is the development of an organism through its lifespan, while phylogeny refers to the sequence of forms leading from earlier to later members of the same presumed evolutionary lineage. 

In terms of the evolutionary-development of conscience something analogous (and perhaps homologous - i.e. from the same causes) is seen in the change of consciousness during a human lifespan, and throughout human history. 

In other words, the sequential development of consciousness from early through late childhood, into adolescence and adulthood; is similar to the sequence of human cultural conscience from the hunter-gatherer nomadic (analogous to early childhood); agrarian/ classical-medieval (older childhood); modern (adolescence) -- and the human society of 'adulthood' lies in the future (if enough people choose that path) and corresponds to whatever emerges from the first glimpses of what I have termed Primary Thinking, heart-thinking, or the state of Final Participation.   

Why should this be? Why should our lifespan development correspond to the characteristic evolution of consciousness throughout history? 

The explanation given by Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield is a version of reincarnation: that each modern individual has been incarnated multiple times in historical societies through history; so that the eternal 'self' (which persist between incarnations) undergoes cumulative linear transformation as a result of experience and learning. 

In other words, modern people are more mature and developed than in the past, as a consequence of having incarnated many times before, in many types of society.  

But I regard reincarnation as having been (whether wholly or mostly) ended by the work of Jesus Christ; such that since the time of Christ's death, Men have (pretty much) ceased to reincarnate; but instead make a choice between accepting or rejecting resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

(I think that there may be exceptions when some of those who reject Heaven may be allowed further reincarnation; when the souls desire and may benefit from this in terms of coming later to embrace resurrection due to further experience.) 

Therefore I find myself advocating much the same scheme of evolutionary-development of consciousness - but without reincarnation as the explanation. What then is my explanation for (on average) 'more mature' souls being reincarnated in modern than in hunter-gatherer times? 

(Note: 'More mature' does not correspond to 'better' in terms of more-Good or more likely to attain salvation. It just means more-mature. Plenty of adults are worse people than most children; many people get worse as they grow-up; and probably more modern children would choose salvation than modern adults. Nonetheless adults are indeed, on-average, more mature in consciousness than children.) 

My answer to this relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is to focus on the experiences we accumulate in pre-mortal life. 

Following Mormon theology, I believe that we all had an (eternal) pre-mortal existence as immaterial spirits. In other words; before we incarnated into mortal bodies we were immortal spirits; and resurrected-incarnated immortality must be preceded by phases of spirit immortality and incarnated mortality. 

The immortal pre-mortal spirits are each unique in terms of their original disposition and the differences due to different experience as spirits. 

I don't think all pre-mortal spirits do the same thing (i.e. they have different 'jobs' or functions); but some at least are 'angels' - messengers and workers for the will of God. 

(Other 'angels' are resurrected Men - so there are two types of angel: pre-mortal spirit, and post-mortal incarnate.) 

Some of these spirit angels are apparently closely concerned with life on earth: some are what is termed 'guardian angels', that work very closely with incarnated mortal humans. 

As the name implies, pre-mortal spirit angels do not have as much agency (or free will) as us mortal incarnates - they function more as intermediaries between God and mortal Men, conduits of God's will - they are, nonetheless, individuals, each an early step in Man's potential development. 

(Potential development, because some pre-mortal spirits may choose to remain at that stage indefinitely. Mortal incarnation is optional, chosen.)

For instance, pre-mortal angels may be a link Men to God's presence, God's will, and a spiritual between Men. They may also perform miracles, under direction of God. They are agents in making early Man more naturally and spontaneously spiritual than modern Man. 

In other words, an abundance of pre-mortal angels working closely with incarnate mortal Men may help account for the characteristics of Original Participation. Furthermore, these angels are building-up experience through living (spiritually) in close association with many of the various earlier forms of human society. 

Later in history, after the time of Jesus Christ; at various points some of these angels are incarnated as mortal Men; and bring into mortal life the same maturity they have developed as pre-mortal angels. 

Therefore, the evolution of consciousness through history is due to the greater maturity of more experienced incarnated souls; due to their having themselves lived-through much of previous human history - not incarnated, but in the form of spirits. 

Part of this maturity is the 'spiritual adolescence' that rejects the spiritual influence of pre-mortal angels; rather as teenagers reject influence-by and association-with children. 

One consequence of this scheme is that many of the pre-mortal spirit-angels live more like learners than helpers. 

Thus 'guardian angels' may actually be more concerned with their own learning than with providing irreplaceable 'services'. 

(Interestingly, this corresponds with the view of 'learner angels in some popular depictions - for what that is worth).

The above implies that some of us who are currently incarnated have probably been around and closely involved with human society and individuals at several or many times and places in human history - perhaps as pre-Christ reincarnates, and/or as post-Christ spirit-angels. 

Why, then, do most people not remember something of this? 

Well, some people do! And others have an implicit memory - like the memory of a dream (because spirit life has dream like qualities); but a dream than affects waking life.   

Or even more like the implicit memories of very early childhood - mostly unrecalled, but affecting us in many ways. 

If that is something like the way that these things work; then maybe many of us do have some kind of memories of this sort - perhaps evident in some of our innate aptitudes and preferences - as well as our varying degrees of innate, accumulated spiritual maturity 

 

It was Jesus Christ who made Heaven possible: there was no Heaven before Christ. 

That was the main thing He did. 

Jesus brought Men resurrected life eternal; and it is resurrection that makes Men wholly and permanently good: that is, wholly and permanently aligned-with, and in-harmony-with, God's creation and its purposes. 

And Heaven is the wholly-good mode of existence. 

In pre-mortal life, when we were spirits, we did not dwell in such a state of perfection. In that childhood of the spirit; those were good who obeyed God - and this obedience was unconscious and spontaneous.

Pre-mortal life is analogous to the goodness of a good young child; whose goodness consist in obedience to good parents.   

But while pre-mortal spirit life is good - it is not wholly-good. There is, to varying degrees, evil in all pre-mortal Mens' spirits - natural evil, from basic-selves; from their original nature as Beings who existed out-with divine creation; and from desires that are dissonant-with, and perhaps opposed-to, creation. 

Yet, while pre-mortal spirits are living in loving obedience to God; this evil is prevented expression. 

However, some pre-mortal spirits do not love God, disobey God, and leave the divine presence. These are the fallen angels or demons. 

Demons can be understood as pre-mortal spirits who initially dwell in the Heavenly state; but (sooner or later) reach a point that cannot obey God, and cannot live (even a unconsciously and passively) in obedience to God. 

They are (from their basic selves, in their original nature) so evil that it (sooner or later, perhaps quickly, or perhaps after some development of the spirit) breaks-through and demands expression. They do not love God enough to obey - probably, some are incapable of love altogether. 

This is analogous to a nasty, wicked young child of good parents; the wicked child desires to do evil things, and rejects the good instructions of his parents by refusing obedience. Or else the child does not love his parents and sees no reason to obey them. 

Or, in extreme situations; the child is incapable of, or excluding of, love; and knows of no reason why he should not do exactly what he wishes - if that is possible.  

We can imagine a demon as being like a child who (from some mixture of innate nature, and learning) becomes so evil that he runs away from the loving environment of his parental home, and perhaps joins a gang of like-minded thieves or murderers ... whatever enables him to enact his wicked desires. 

(This running-away is thus analogous to the fall of angels, to the emergence of demons.) 

Such a child's rejection of parental goodness does not require a conscious awareness of what he is rejecting. He makes his choice on the basis of what he most wants to do, and seeks to escape an environment that prevents him. He is 'in thrall' to sin.  

In sum; the contrast between the Heavenly life of unfallen pre-mortal spirits, and the Heaven of post-mortal resurrected Men; is that in pre-mortal life Men still have (to varying degrees) a disposition to evil. 

The spirits are only partly-good by nature, but behave with goodness because of (unconscious, spontaneous) obedience to God.  

Whereas, after resurrection, Men in Heaven have left-behind all their evil nature, all impulses towards sin (i.e. all inclinations to depart from the purpose and harmony of divine creation). 

Resurrected Men have been transformed to wholly-good inhabitants of that state of eternally-good heaven. This transformation must be chosen, must be assented-to - or else it cannot happen. 

Therefore the state of Heaven is one of wholly-good beings who are motivated only to do good; whereas the pre-mortal state is of partly-evil beings who (for so long as they remain in this state) behave with perfect goodness - yet not from inner motivation, but from obedience to God. 

There are therefore several choices here, with varying degrees of consciousness. 

The choice of a pre-mortal spirit to become a demon is largely un-conscious, and rooted in nature and desire. 

The choice of a pre-mortal spirit to move-on to mortal incarnation is more-conscious choice to embark on spiritual development towards greater consciousness; with the goal of making a permanent choice for or against resurrection. 

In other words; pre-mortal spirits who desire to become more like God (analogously to a child desiring to become more like his parents) want to grow-up; and enter mortal incarnated life; which is somewhat like the phase of adolescence between child- and adult-hood. 

(Presumably some pre-mortal spirits do not want to grow-up, do not incarnate, and remain in that Heavenly state.) 

And at the end of mortal incarnate life; comes the possibility of making a conscious permanent choice to become wholly-good (wholly God-aligned) and undergo the transformation of resurrection...

Or else of rejecting this. 

(I believe that - in principle, in some times and places - there are several possibilities for those who reject resurrection; but in this era, in The West, it seems that more-and-more of those who reject Heaven will instead choose Hell. At least, that is what they say, and what their behaviour indicates.)

The sequence is therefore a process of development, a maturation, a growing-up - through a series of choices; and the main change throughout (if the sequence goes according to God's wishes) is on of increasing consciousness of those choices.

If God just wanted good-behaviour from us; then the spontaneous, natural, passive obedience of pre-mortal spirit life would suffice. 

But God wants more! 

God desires that we grow-up to become our-selves more god-like; and part of this is making a conscious choice to align ourselves with divine creation; and to do so permanently by means of resurrection. 

Only after resurrection can we freely participate-in and contribute-to the work of creation; because then we will be wholly-good in terms of our alignment; such that all our creative activities will naturally and harmoniously contribute-to the eternal development of divine creation.  

The Fall can only be understood in terms of the purpose of mortal life - including the question of whether there is a purpose to mortal life. That must be sorted-out first - and only then can there be an understanding of what is meant by The Fall in Christian scripture and theology.

My understanding of mortal life is that it comes between a spiritual pre-mortal life, and a resurrected post-mortal life (this is standard Mormon theology). The purpose of this incarnated mortal existence has been clarified for me by the work of William Arkle - and is that God (in fact our Heavenly Parents) is aiming to nurture and educate other gods like himself, to raise up Men to the same level as himself; or rather, to allow Men the experiences necessary to educate him to fuller divinity - if each Man chooses that path for himself.

All this is motivated by love - and the ultimate aim is a society of divine persons related (but not united) by love. Because the aim is love, this is an opt-in situation - we cannot be compelled to love.

So the purpose of our mortal and incarnated life is related to this long term goal. We began as immaterial spirits, and at that point were were 'immersed' in God's love. Our aim for the future is to be incarnated immortals each of whom is fully divine, and not immersed in God's love but participating in a fully loving relationship.

The Fall is related to the fact that we move from immersion to relationship via a state of separation from God. First we come out of the immersion of our pre-mortal state, and we are separated from God - then we much choose to develop towards a full loving relationship with God - not inside love but as a love between two autonomous divine beings. It is indeed a Fall out of Love - and therefore, because Love is the primary Good of reality, it is a Fall from a better state to a worse. But it is a necessary transition if the higher form of relational love is desired. .

The Fall represents this separation from God - which is en route to a higher divinity but is a hazardous situation because we are both free (we have agency, we have choice, we can act from within ourselves uncaused) and separate from God. Therefore we can choose not to continue towards divinity, and the fact of separation enables us to deny the reality and goodness of this divine scheme of life - we can choose to deny that the goal of loving divine entities (a perfect family in Heaven) is true, or we can deny that it is good, or we can choose to reject it.

So The Fall is necessary to spiritual progression beyond that of our pre-mortal selves, it is necessary to move from a passive immersion in love to an active, chosen love between full free divinities - but mortal life creates the possibility of getting 'stuck' in the state of separation, and the danger of rejecting God's plan.

Indeed, this situation is almost inevitable given the conditions of mortal life - it is almost inevitable that we would fail to make the right choices to make the necessary spiritual progression, it is almost inevitable that we would end up rejecting the aim of a fully divine loving relationship in the post-mortal life.

So, it was necessary for Jesus Christ to intervene in this scheme in order to undo the ill effects of The Fall, so that we can get the benefits of The Fall without the lethal drawback - if we so choose. I understand the Atonement of Christ as being the creation of a situation of default theosis - that mortal life provides benefits of experience which are retained, and the harms of mortal life are simply left behind at death - then we are offered, as a gift, the perfected life as basis for post-mortal existence.

Because we are free agents, we must choose to accept this gift - but that is all we have to do. The gift is handed-us, we merely need to accept it. Rejection of the gift is an active process of pushing it away, or of turning away - a chosen refusal to accept.

So mortal life was made a fail-safe experience, by the work of Christ. However, even though it is fail-safe - mortal life is still risky, and still requires a choice to accept 'salvation' - and since we are separated from God and are in an in-between state, some are likely to deny and/ or reject the gift. Some apparently (as with Eastern religions) take a look at the incarnate life and reject it, preferring to return (for at least a while) to the psychological state of pre-mortal spirit life: immersion in the love of God.

Others - and we see this all around us - reject the reality of God's creation; deny that there was a creation; deny the reality of God; deny the goodness of God's plan; deny the primacy of Love... and so on. They are free to do this - and they will (presumably) opt-out after their death - will not participate in the loving relationship of post-mortal life. They prefer to remain in the state of separation - without moving on to the state of relationships. In other words they reject salvation and choose what is termed damnation.

Since Men are free this choice cannot be prevented, It is what such people want - and although they are mistaken, they get what they want. So for these people, The Fall is a permanent separation from God and a permanent exile from Love.

So, by his incarnation, death and resurrection - Jesus undid The Fall in its bad aspects, and thereby we are enabled to achieve a higher state than we had before The Fall - all the advantages, and the disadvantages made merely temporary.

However, we currently live with these disadvantages - in our mortal lives.

William Arkle believed in reincarnation, and a means of Men gaining experience and being-educated across multiple lives. Angels are seen as a separate creation from Men, and angels gain their experience and education by moving 'downward' from spiritual Heaven deeper into the material realm of incarnation and earth - the job being both to help and educate Men and themselves to learn about the problems of imperfection and evil.

By contrast, my understanding is derived from Mormonism - which is that there is a three stage progression from pre-mortal life, as spirit angels, through incarnate mortal life ad via death to post-mortal resurrected life; this time as incarnated angels.

Yet, brooding on Arkle's understanding of the nature and role of angels and Men, which can be found in his works Letter from a Father and Equations of Being; I have realised that these provide considerable insight when interpreted from his scheme.

Arkle's angels correspond to pre-mortal existence; and he emphasises that the innocence, bliss and purity of this life is a deficiency of understanding - angels have no spontaneous understanding of the constraints of incarnation, mortality, and the evil effects and suffering resulting from free agency.

Therefore, while spirit angels work to educate and assist Men (when such interventions are of benefit - given that our purpose in mortality is primarily to learn for ourselves, by trial and error); the angels are of limited knowledge, and prone to make errors due to their lack of understanding. In fact, angelic errors are themselves an accidental but inevitable contribution to the evil and suffering of mortal life.

We might imagine a ladder from the spirituality of highest Heaven to the materiality of earthly-mortal existence; angels are descending that ladder, Men are ascending it; angels are the teachers, but also learning - Men are the learners, but indirectly acting as teachers of angels; both angels and men benefiting from the interactions.

Spirit angels existed before the first Men were incarnated as mortals, and have always been involved in earthly life; but we can assume that they will have found mortal problems both confusing and appalling - and they needed to learn from the experience.

We can imagine that - over time - more and more spirit angels will have learnt enough to recognise that they would benefit (in terms of progression towards full divinity) from voluntary incarnation as mortals; and then do this.

Over time, from the first mortal Men, there would be a development of angelic expertise, and eventually spirit angels were supplemented by incarnate angels who had experienced mortality.

However, over this timescale, there will have been an accumulation of the effects of evil - so the problems of mortal life have also accumulated.

And the evil of mortal life has also been increased by the activities of fallen spirit angels - I mean demons. These demons perhaps include individual spirit angels whose interaction with mortal Men have led to various responses such as hatred, resentment, fear and the desire to dominate mortals.

For example, the prime demon - The Devil, Satan or Lucifer - is depicted in Mormon scripture as having rejected the divine plan for free agency in Men; and having fallen in order to destroy Men's free will, and to enforce a compulsory plan on Men (and other demons). The devil is therefore the prototypical totalitarian dictator; who believes he 'knows best' what is best for Men.

Arkle also assumes that the difficulties of mortal life, the accumulation of errors, evils and demonic power will eventually make mortal life just too difficult for the need for learning by experiencing; and this world will need to be ended, and another begun. In other words there will be an end time terminated by the end of this world (i.e. equivalent to Christ's second coming, the New Jerusalem).

Anyway, I find that this understanding of spirit angels descending and Men ascending and both interacting - to be helpful in making sense of what has happened in this world since the original incarnation of Adam and Eve; and the ways in which the problems and tasks of mortal life have changed throughout history.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_c01.html

I believe that we, all of us, existed as pre-mortal spirits; and that we chose to be incarnated into this mortal life (from which we will be resurrected). This doctrine, I got from Mormonism, where it is a key part of the revelations from Joseph Smith; but I believe it because of direct intuitive experience...  because I 'remember' that it was so.

(That is the proper - although not sole - reason for believing any key Christian doctrine; indeed until one has such a personal revelatory conviction, any belief tends to be 'just a theory', and thereby feeble or fear-based.)

However, as Terryl Givens makes clear in his scholarly book When Souls Had Wings (OUP 2009) - this idea of pre-mortal existence is Biblical, and was a belief of several of the early church Fathers, before it was 'oulawed' as heretical by later church councils.

Nonetheless, the belief in a pre-mortal spirit existence has remained a minority thread within Christianity throughout its entire history - and could perhaps be regarded as heterodox rather than heretical.

Anyway, having understood and assented to the reality of pre-mortal life; I have come to realise how much mainstream Christianity lost by excluding it and instead insisting that our souls were each created from nothing sometime between conception and birth.

For a start, the exact point at which the newly-created soul is joined with the body seems important, yet all arguments I have seen on the topic seem unconvincing, arbitrary.

Secondly, when the soul is newly-created from nothing, then there is no possibility of our having agreed to incarnation - leading to the 'I didn't ask to be born' notion, so common in modernity. People understand themselves to have been 'thrown-into' the world. Whereas I believe that we did ask to be born - each of us, individually; we were offered the possibility, and each of us actively chose it. Those who did not so choose, remained as pre-mortal spirits.

Because the baseline assumption of mainstream Christianity is that we were incarnated without consent, this creates a big problem when someone has a life of extreme suffering - because it seems that God has forced that soul to endure extreme suffering, like-it-or-not...

This problem is compounded by the common mainstream Christian assumption that damnation and eternal suffering in Hell is the default outcome of mortal life; and that it is very difficult to avoid this outcome, so that (probably) most people/ nearly everybody ends-up in Hell. Such a nightmare scenario is, to say the least of it, hard to reconcile with God as our loving Heavenly Father... It seems more like an act of gratuitous cruelty, only somewhat ameliorated by the slim chance of eternal happiness.

In other words, under the standard scenario, it is statistically better never to have been born. Yet we are born. ...Which apparently refutes the Christian description of the loving nature of God.

However, if we acknowledge and believe (and know) that we were pre-mortal spirits who freely chose incarnate mortal life en route to resurrected eternal life; then this life can quite simply be made sense of in terms of its being the necessary step of obtaining a mortal body, which can via death become an eternal body; and as a finite period of experience and learning through-which 'theosis' we may (if we choose well) become more-divine in our natures, leading-into in our eternal post-mortal life.

This scenario has a further indirect implication, which is that we would not have been likely to choose our own incarnated mortality unless there was a reasonable chance of avoiding permanent damnation into Hell. It therefore fits with the idea (which I believe to be scriptural) that salvation is a gift (from Jesus) which we must actively reject in order to be self-consigned to a chosen Hell of eternal suffering.

(This is part of the Mormon model of post-mortal life being, for nearly everybody, a matter of levels of 'Heaven'; of essentially pleasing places, with grades from a materialist paradise at the lowest level; to a highest level including close friendship with our brother Jesus, partnership with God our Father, permanent celestial marriage, and participation in the primary work of divine creation... Hell being a reality of eternal suffering chosen by the deliberately unrepentant (prideful) and calculating (Good-hating) sinner: the conscious rejecter of Heaven.) 

In sum (and I could say more) it seems to me that the doctrine of pre-mortal spirit life is something close to an essential for a coherent Christian faith if it is to provide a scenario of mortal life that is consistent with our knowledge of God as our loving Heavenly Father who made this world and this life for the  benefit of all his children.

I would therefore urge all Christians who do not already have a conviction of pre-mortal life, to consider this matter with seriousness, and diligently to seek personal revelation on the topic.

If this mortal life is everything, and is terminated by death and the destruction of ourselves eternally; then this mortal life is worth nothing beyond our current feelings. Because if only this lifespan matters, then significance reduces to here-and-now satisfaction merely; and a "delusory" happiness of intoxication or disease is as-good-as "real life" - because only our now-feelings matter.    

But if real life lies after death, beyond death; and when this life after death includes the annihilation of our self, our distinctive nature and consciousness - then our personal mortal life is a waste of time, and (rationally) we should try to die as soon as possible. 

If this mortal life is a kind of examination leading either to eternal reward or eternal punishment; then this mortal life is by-design a miserable trial of existence, essentially negative - which implies a hostile or indifferent God (and is is reasonable to expect such a God to provide an eternal reward?) 

So; if these world pictures eliminate positive meaning from this mortal life. So; what would it take for this mortal life to be meaningful, to have positive goals? 

We need to be concerned about this life and world - not indifferent. There must be something positive to gain from life. And this life must potentially make a difference - not just in the moment or over a finite lifespan, but lastingly - indeed forever. 

Life after death needs to be everlasting and our life, a life where we remain our-selves; and when we carry forward into eternity the benefits of whatever positive experiences and lessons we have learned in this mortal life. And this post-mortal life needs to be our choice - we can have it if we want it. 

How would this expectation of this kind of post-mortal life (call it Heavenly Resurrected Life) affect this mortal life? - because it surely would affect this mortal life to live in expectation of Resurrection to heaven and knowing that our positive learning from experience would enhance our lives eternally... 

I think this would lead to a positive and ultimately light-hearted attitude to the experiences of this mortal life: our current experience potentially matters forever, but it is not everything. 

We can embark upon this mortal life in a spirit of Trial and Error, Learning and Repentance. 

But what trails are worthwhile, and which errors are valuable (when repented) rather than corrupting and destructive?

The answer lies in motivation. When we are following our good motivations, with goals intended to yield positive experiences of potentially eternal value; then errors and bad outcomes are OK. 

After all, there is no safe path through life - because it always ends in death; and often in decline, degeneration, disease. Especially in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus seems to advocate and model a serious but positive, and never fearful, attitude to this mortal life. 

The point is that an attitude of confident expectation of resurrected Heavenly life should (logically, if sincere) lead us to be bold and care-free in tackling our own life with a spiritually ambitious attitude. 

If we take our risks, make our mistakes, experience adverse consequences from the right motivations; then we will be able to recognize and repent our sins, and learn what needs to be learned from whatever happens (pleasant, boring, or horrible)... 

Then we are leading life in the same kind of fearless, positive, serious attitude that seems to have been most characteristic of Jesus, and his teachings; and is underpinned and sustained by his promises. 

Note added: I get frustrated when the debate about an Afterlife is confined to the broad categories of survival of something beyond death - or not. Because it makes a Huge difference what "something" of our mortal selves is posited to survive death, in what conditions it survives, what the surviving entity does after death - and what implications this something-survival has for mortal life. Modern people are often uninterested by the question of afterlife, because of their implicit understanding of what this afterlife would entail and what it would imply. In other words; there is an unexamined but inbuilt assumption that an afterlife would either make no meaningful difference to this life, or would reduce or abolish the significance of this life. And that is indeed true for some conceptualizations of afterlife. But not true (I believe) for the Christian afterlife - at least not as I understand the Christian afterlife (also as described in the Fourth Gospel) - although I am quite prepared to admit that many or most self-styled "Christian" concepts of afterlife are indeed futile or negative, for one reason or another. The main question is whether we passively accept one or other of the standard "Christian" understandings (as expounded by one or another of the modern churches); or whether we actively seek a Christian understanding from and for our-selves. My point in the above post is that the IV Gospel understanding of Christian afterlife is one that gives a positive meaning to this mortal life -- Indeed, I believe it is the one and only concept of the human condition among all the religions, philosophies, and ideologies that does explain and sustain a positive mortal life.    

The importance of sleep (which occupies about 1/3 of life) can only be understood once it is established (at least in outline) what is the importance of life itself - I mean mortal life as-a-whole.

My understanding is that this life is sandwiched between a pre-mortal spirit life (which goes back to the beginning of everything), and a post-mortal incarnated life (which is eternal); among the purposes of this life are to be incarnated, to die - and be resurrected, and to have experiences from which we may learn towards our ultimate - and remote - destiny (if we choose it, and keep choosing it) of divinity as sons and daughters of God.

In this context, sleep is one of the experiences from-which we may learn and develop.

Therefore sleep should be considered an activity - indeed it is (at least) two kinds of activity: deep sleep and dreaming sleep.

If we take things at face value - we are absent from our living-bodies during sleep; the body is alive, but pretty much cut-off from its surroundings, neither perceiving nor capable of purposive activity. So our conscious-self is absent, elsewhere during sleep - and this is indeed our subjective experience (insofar as we remember it).

Deep and dreaming sleeps are, in many ways, opposite experiences.

In deep sleep we seem to experience very simple states in a slowed-up time; such that when we awaken from this slow time-bubble, more time has passed in the rest of the world.

In dreams we are in a sped-up time bubble - our subjective experience in dreams is 'compressed' into a much shorter period of awake time. In contrast to the strong, basic emotional states of deep sleep; dreams provide social and narrative-type experiences.

Where do we go when asleep? Well, when we sleep we return to the spirit state of our pre-mortal existence; so our conscious-self is no longer localised in a body. We go into the universal and universally-accessible spirit world - inner space (as it used to be conceptualised); an unbounded space within everyone; but not contained by them; so it is a single space into which each person is a 'portal'. (e.g. The ancient Egyptian dwat, Jung's collective unconscious - same thing.)

By these sleep experiences everyone has a rich and various life; and sleep life is both complementary to and deepening of awake life. In sleep we can access our own experience, and universal experiences - this mortal life and the Heavenly world of pre-mortal life - also the persons of God, angels, the dead... (Some of whom are misguided and some of whom are evil.)

Thus sleep enables deepening and contextualising of our experiences: sleep makes us wiser persons (if we allow it).

Yet sleep itself is not profound, or not always - and thus we reach a point when the work is done, the sleep experience sufficient; and we awaken (or should awaken) to engage with the different experiences of awake life.

We typically remember little of dreaming sleep, and even less of deep sleep (where there is not much to remember) - we do not remember but we do learn (if we allow ourselves). Sleep affects our behaviour, and it affects us as persons - whether we can recall anything or not.

But the direction of human destiny is towards greater consciousness, so we should expect to become more aware of sleep and have more memories of it; as we progress spiritually through our mortal, and post-mortal, lives...

*


There are several (orthodox) Christian explanations of Christ's work including the atonement - and an explanation is not the doctrine, or belief - an explanation is not necessary.

Nonetheless, this is a problem which - it seems - won't leave me alone; not least because I find the standard formulations to be either meaningless or actively-misleading.

*

The difficulty is that Christ's incarnation, ministry, death, resurrection and Lordship is a very complicated and 'roundabout' and linear series of 'answers' - indicating that whatever the problem/s they solved were several-fold, and also that there was 'no other way' for them effectively and completely to be addressed.

So there is no short and simple explanation for what Christ did, but only an answer which includes - or at least assumes - multiple needs and constraints.

*

Christ got us everlasting life, so we would not die - which is necessary for life to be meaningful; but what is everlasting life contrasted with?

The context is one where souls (or spirits) are already (and necessarily) everlasting (and also, I believe, we had a pre-mortal spirit existence).

Thus, 'everlasting life' apparently means specifically an everlasting incarnated life - life with a soul in a body such as we have now.

*

But then the kind of everlasting life we get is one when we must first die in the sense that our body must die, and the soul will (for a while at least) be severed from the body; and it was obtained for us by Christ Himself dying.

If we were to die without Christ's work, we would have an eternity as a severed soul (this, I infer, is what is described as the demented, witless state of spirits in Sheol, Hades or the Northern pagan Hel); and this is not the same state as our pre-mortal spirit life (and not the same as the spirit life of a never-incarnated angel).

It seems that to have been incarnated and then to die means that the soul or spirit will be maimed/ incomplete eternally (whereas never to have been incarnated seems to be okay).

*

So incarnation - if it is to have any point to it - must be in one sense potentially better than to have a pre-mortal spirit life; yet the post-death spirit life is worse than the pre-mortal spirit life.

And also, it seems that eternal (endless) life without first dying is not a blessing - but that it is best we should first die.

What is needed is resurrection - but resurrection cannot simply be either not dying, nor can it be a coming back to life (like Lazarus). The reason is that we are so very flawed, so very corrupted by sin that an eternity of living as we are now would be a torment.

*

So, to be fitted for resurrection into eternal life we must first be purified and perfected; this is the specific function of Christ's atonement.

By Christ's work of atonement we can be perfected and purified so as to be able to live forever with great happiness; but this requires that:

1. first we die and are resurrected, and

2. during this process, in-between death and resurrection, we are purified and perfected.

*

So, this clarifies, or narrows-down, what the atonement does and where it is located in terms of death and resurrection.

But how it is done remains obscure to us - as if we were very young children to whom an advanced scientific or technical process was being described - something like the functioning of a nuclear reactor, or fractional distillation.

*

Things happened as they must happen - the complex 'rigmarole' described in the Bible was the only way that the necessary could be achieved.

Time just is linear and sequential - therefore for Christ to enable us to die and be resurrected (apparently) required that Christ himself (Lord and maker of this earth) Himself become incarnated, died and was resurrected over Time and in human history.

And required also that Christ performed that act of atonement whereby He took upon Himself the sins and corruptions which we necessarily accumulate through mortal life with free agency and the reality of purposive evil.

*

And even this rather complicated answer to explain what Christ did remains seriously incomplete, because it leaves out Christ's teaching ministry, the role of the church, the role of scripture - and many other vital matters.

*

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).  

  

*
Mortal life is usually considered to be some kind of trial or ordeal or experience. But what kind, and with what purpose?

Two Christian, and indeed more broadly religious, views of this mortal life are as essentially 'a bad thing', maybe a punishment - a vale of tears, and time of suffering, which we must get through as best we can ("an assault course"); or life as overall 'a good thing' and a privilege - an unique opportunity to gain experiences and strength, and to make choices ("a moral gymnasium").

(There are other possibilities - these two do not capture the whole range of views concerning mortal life.)

*

These two conceptualisations are very different, and lead to a very different flavour of Christianity.

Christ said that he was 'not of this world', and all types of Christians have been instructed to strive to live that 'unworldly' way, in the sense that the ultimate and structuring goal and purpose of mortal life is outside of mortal life, beyond mortal life.

However, there is disagreement among Christians about the proper attitude to this life - should it be seen overall negatively or positively?

*

At one extreme, it can seem that mortal life is a cruel assault course. If we complete the assault course successfully, if we do not fall into damnation, then our main reward is simply not to be punished.

This kind of Christian is very vague about the joys of Heaven, and in truth seldom thinks about it - their primary motivation is terror of Hell.

Since life is about bodily incarnation, this view is usually anti-bodies; the body is a source of temptation, the body is weak, finite, limiting... it is hard to understand, in that case, why Men exist in the first place, and then why after death Men are resurrected, since an un-incarnated spirit seems to be superior. 

This model of Christianity can be defended by a large number of specific scriptural passages; but not by the overall flavour of the message of Christ being 'good news' as presented in the New Testament.

*

At the other extreme, mortal incarnate life is seen as a framework intended for spiritual progression - mortality provides a certain unique set of challenges and experiences, and is a positive (albeit risky) opportunity for enhancement.

This kind of Christian is likely to be much more specific about the joys of Heaven, and to be motivated by desire to share these joys: because the primary motivation is getting to Heaven.

Indeed, since life as a moral gymnasium is quantitative (i.e. we can be either more, or less, built-up by life) - then this rather clearly-visualised Heaven is not seen as unitary (the same Heaven for everyone) but stratified, hierarchical and quantitative - analogously to life on earth.

So the motivation for Man is not just to get to Heaven, but to build himself up in the moral gymnasium to become suited to the highest possible level of Heaven.

*

And, for this kind of Christian, to have a body is better (at least potentially) than to be an unembodied spirit; because it is the body which engages with mortal experiences and indeed itself provides many of the most fundamental and educational experiences.

This explains why Men are resurrected, but it is not immediately obvious why the body is imperfect and subject to disease, or why Men must die (before resurrection) to move further along progression.

To explain death (when life is a moral gymnasium) entails assuming that God is significantly constrained, and can only achieve His goals for Man by this risky sequence of incarnate birth, mortal life, death and resurrection.

*

So if life is seen as an assault course - the fits with one kind of Christianity and concept of God and attitude to the body; but if life is seen as a moral gymnasium then all these matters will probably be differently conceptualised.

And one way to know which kind of Christian you are at present, is to ask how much you think-about and are motivated-by post-mortal life in Heaven, and how specific are your Heavenly hopes and expectations.

*

A Being exists through time, and undergoes transformations.

When a Man incarnates, the pre-existing spiritual Being transforms by a process including the organisation of 'solid matter', to incarnate as a zygote.

At death, the human Being leaves-behind solid matter and transforms to spirit.

With transformation of a being, the identity is maintained by provenance - i.e. by continued linear existence.

There is no retention of previous forms of organisation - so this is not a spirit getting matter added to it, or subtracted from it...

The reality is a continuously-existing-Being, transforming from a first spiritual entity into a solid entity (incarnation), then to a second and distinct spiritual entity.

It is the same Being throughout; because it has existed continuously, in unbroken continuity, through time. 


Continuing from the schema above, the concept of transformation can also help us to understand what happens at resurrection.

Resurrection is a transformation of the spirit, when that spirit has been-through the prior transformation of mortal incarnation and death.

The human Being that is resurrected has, therefore, a lineage of transformations that include pre-mortal spirit, mortal incarnation, then post-mortal spirit.

The assumption is that only such a Being, with such a lineage, is able to be resurrected into an eternal divine incarnation.

(This is why Jesus needed to be born and to die, before he was resurrected.)


These descriptions can be regarded as a deeper explanation of my argument against computer AI.

*

A belief in reincarnation is probably spontaneous for human beings. It is a feature of most hunter-gatherer animistic religions, and also of 'Eastern' forms of paganism such as mainstream Hinduism and Buddhism.

The basic idea is that after death of each currently-alive human, each human soul returns to earth in another body - and that each currently-alive human being has a soul which previously inhabited other bodies.

Thus, in the normal situation, souls circulate through incarnations; and life is a matter of cycling and transformations.

*

(In different traditions, this cycle of souls or a particular soul may be constant; or may have a meaning or tendency - towards upward progression or downward degeneration.)

*

Since I do not believe that reincarnation really happens (or, at least, that reincarnation would be a rare and singular occurrence, not the norm) - then there is a need to explain why so many people feel that reincarnation accounts for basic perceptions concerning the nature of life.

I just have a couple of observations or suggestions based on the idea that the reality of reincarnation may be a consequence of 'misinterpreting' the meaning of true intuitive knowledge.

*

For example, the feeling of a particular affinity between individuals born in different generations may be due to a pre-mortal, pre-incarnate, spiritual relationship - and that incarnation of pre-mortal spirits may be purposive: that the earthly reality of human relations is in some way a microcosm of the pre-existent spirit reality of divine relationships.

(The reality of a pre-mortal spirit existence has been a minority, although sometimes prestigious - e.g. St Augustine of Hippo, view within Christianity throughout its history - and is currently mainly represented among Mormons.) 

This would mean that we are non-randomly incarnated to be born by particular parents in particular situations and with a particular 'network' of potential-deep relationships (not all of which may be apparent). But this is not (as for reincarnation) based on what we did in past lives, but what we are 'destined' to do in this mortal life.

(Bearing in mind that we may choose to defy our destiny, or it may be thwarted by the choice of others or by accident.)

*

Also, the survival of the soul after death seems to be a near universal intuition (which can, of course, be over-learned and suppressed as is usual among modern Western adults); and this intuition may be interpreted not as a step towards some period of life in a post-mortal spirit realms and then resurrection, but as implying that the surviving soul returns to earth in some other form.

(If there is no concept of a heavenly realm, or a spirit underworld, then the only thing a surviving soul could do is to return to earth: either as a discarnate ghost, or by taking another body.)  

*

Also, our intuitive sense of a need for a great deal of spiritual progression, that we are actually grossly imperfect but are supposed to be perfect (or much better than we are) - suggests more learning and development is necessary than can be accomplished in one mortal life.

The interpretation of this intuition may suggest that soul would need to return for multiple lifetimes or attempts. Christian theology regards this perfecting and progress as the work of Christ; and some also allow for further spiritual progression in the state that comes after death.

*

On the one hand reincarnation is optimistic, in the sense that this mortal life we currently experience is not our one and only chance; in another sense and at a deeper level, reincarnation is pessimistic because it devalues this particular mortal life as non-essential, optional, just one among many.

*

Both reincarnation and my own theology demand some kind of rationale and metaphor to explain why the reality is non-obvious: why do we not know spontaneously and exactly where our souls come from and go to?

If the feelings are built-in, which they are; then why not also the understanding of what these feelings mean?

Why must this be puzzled out, guessed or made the subject of divine revelation?

The various answers are the basis of the various theologies.

*

If we think back and recall the early dawning of self-awareness as young children, then perhaps we may remember the catastrophic dawn of consciousness of death - the time when we first realized that everybody, including our-selves, will die. 

It seems likely that this stunning fact, and the implications it carries for the rest of life, is perhaps the primary fact of consciousness.

For example, that seems to have been the conviction of JRR Tolkien, which he wove into Lord of the Rings as the deepest structuring concept. 

I have come to recognize - or, at least, believe - that the core of Christianity, the prime work and achievement of Jesus Christ, was 'simply' offering the possibility of a life beyond this mortal life, and indeed a better life; the chance of escaping the otherwise universal fate of death.

In other words - starting from where we are, the human condition as-is - Christianity essentially offers eternal resurrected life after death; and the promise that the everlasting life beyond temporary mortal life will be like this life, in that we are still our-selves with the same kind of experiences; but these selves and experiences will be qualitatively enhanced. 

This I regard as having been very clearly set-out in the Fourth Gospel - but it is also something that is quite spontaneous and intuitive in terms of what we, qua Men, want - starting from the situation in which we find-ourselves. 

So, we become aware that death is the great catastrophe and destroyer of life's meaning and hope, and we naturally seek - above all else - an escape from that ultimate termination. 

That, at least, is - I believe - how Men spontaneously, naturally, consciously regard death as young children - albeit 'culture' will overlay this innate attitude with some other attitude; and there are a wide range of secondary and acquired - but more superficial, and often ineffective - attitudes to death and what happens after it.

(All ancient societies believe in some kind of persistence after biological death, often a kind of reincarnation, or partial, maybe depersonalized, life as a spirit or 'ghost'. The Christian idea of resurrection was something new; as is the mainstream modern atheist idea of annihilation of the person.)  

But we can see that the Christian offer of resurrected life is not ideal. It is not a full and perfect solution. 

After all, death - and what leads-up to death, which is entropic change, decline, decay, disease, suffering etc. - is still a catastrophe. (Albeit temporary.)

Would not the ideal have been that Men were created-into Heaven, or, in some way, could go directly to resurrection without having to go-through mortal life and death?  

In other words; we can see Christianity as an eventual cure for the tragedy of the human condition; but it is not an immediate cure, and resurrection into Heaven does not - of itself - do much, or ultimately do anything substantive, to ameliorate the human condition (except secondarily, in providing hope for the future). 

I suppose this deficiency must have been immediately apparent; because "Christianity the religion" very quickly became 'mixed-up' with ideas that it would improve the human condition here on earth and during this mortal life - plans and schemes whereby mortal life would be regulated by 'God's laws' and (by ritual, symbolism, lifestyle etc) connected with divinity.

Also the idea that - at some point - Jesus Christ would return and transform life on earth so that there was no suffering or decay (the Second Coming, the New Jerusalem). 

Yet even with such additions to what Jesus actually said; the fundamental 'problem' remained to be explained: the question of why do we have to go through the tragedy of earthly mortal life terminated by death - before attaining resurrected Heavenly life? 

Properly to answer this question (rather than just kicking the can) requires further assumptions concerning the nature and attributes of God; and of God's aims in creation.

The fact that we are living in this mortal life, and destined to suffer the death of others and ourselves, suggests that there is no other way of reaching resurrected eternal life than via incarnated mortal life. 

Perhaps, for example, it is not possible for God to 'make' a resurrected body except via a mortal body. There might be another reason - but whatever the reason implies a constraint upon the power of God. 

This is not a metaphysical problem for me; but is ruled-out by the common belief in the omnipotence of God. 

Believers in an Omni-God have never, I think, been able satisfactorily to explain why such a God did not create resurrected Men ready for Heaven and incarnated directly-into Heavenly bliss - thereby avoiding the hazards, suffering, and risks of damnation of mortal life. 

(I regard the 'omnipotent God' assumption as false; and probably a post-ascension, maybe even post Apostolic, importation (from pagan Greek-Roman philosophy) to Christ's teaching, not being found explicitly in the New Testament.)

Once we have discarded this notion of the Omni-God, it is then coherent to assert that because God wants as many as possible to choose resurrection, there is no alternative to suffering death. 

This implies that - yes! - resurrected life after mortal death is the best that can be done, if the destination is to be resurrection. 

Thus far mortal life is irreducibly tragic; but for Christians that tragedy is ameliorated by the post-mortal destination.

However, for non-Christians, mortal life and death is just inescapably tragic in its structure; which may help explain why denial, distraction and despair in relation to death are so common among non-Christians.   

Therefore; my bottom-line answer is that, in broad terms, this entropic mortal life, followed by the catastrophe of death, is indeed the best that can be done - given that the destination God desires for us is resurrection, and resurrection can only be attained via the intermediate phase of a mortal body and death.