Francis Berger's Blog, page 30
March 22, 2024
Can't See Sorath for the Ahrimans
This is basically another take on a phenomenon Dr. Charlton has noted many times on his blog.
The vast majority of people in the West remain seemingly oblivious to the increasing and accelerating destruction occurring all around them.
Whenever they do sense it, they are quick to downplay it, contextualize it, or rationalize it as anything but actual destruction.
You could chalk this up to some innate optimism or live-for-the-day mentality, but the extent of perceptible destruction in Western societies challenges such notions.
I posit that modern Westerners cannot see Sorath for the Ahrimans .
People are so wrapped up in the details and trivialities of what is unfolding that they cannot perceive, let alone grasp or accept, the situation as a whole.
The source of the details and trivialities is Ahriman — the demon of bureaucracy possessing virtually all Western governments, companies, institutions, organizations, and committees.
All aspects of this Ahrimanic bureaucracy now actively seek and implement programs of destruction; however, the masses tolerate the destruction precisely because it is being administered via impersonal bureaucratic programs.
Since impersonal bureaucratic programs have become the lifeblood of what people perceive Western civilization as , they cannot accept that such programs would actively seek to destroy on a grand, civilizational scale, even when confronted by stark “evidence” of such destruction.
As long as Ahriman is , Sorath cannot be .
Such appears to be the reigning rationalization among the masses.
The vast majority of people in the West remain seemingly oblivious to the increasing and accelerating destruction occurring all around them.
Whenever they do sense it, they are quick to downplay it, contextualize it, or rationalize it as anything but actual destruction.
You could chalk this up to some innate optimism or live-for-the-day mentality, but the extent of perceptible destruction in Western societies challenges such notions.
I posit that modern Westerners cannot see Sorath for the Ahrimans .
People are so wrapped up in the details and trivialities of what is unfolding that they cannot perceive, let alone grasp or accept, the situation as a whole.
The source of the details and trivialities is Ahriman — the demon of bureaucracy possessing virtually all Western governments, companies, institutions, organizations, and committees.
All aspects of this Ahrimanic bureaucracy now actively seek and implement programs of destruction; however, the masses tolerate the destruction precisely because it is being administered via impersonal bureaucratic programs.
Since impersonal bureaucratic programs have become the lifeblood of what people perceive Western civilization as , they cannot accept that such programs would actively seek to destroy on a grand, civilizational scale, even when confronted by stark “evidence” of such destruction.
As long as Ahriman is , Sorath cannot be .
Such appears to be the reigning rationalization among the masses.
Where Berdyaev’s Metaphysical Assumptions Should Have Led Him
Short answer — non-Omni God and pluralism.
I arrived at this conclusion after rereading the introduction to Berdyaev’s seminal work, The Meaning of the Creative Act, in which Berdyaev outlines the following:
I know that I may be accused of a basic contradiction that tears apart all my sense of the world, all my world outlook. I shall be accused of the contradiction of combining an extreme religious dualism with an extreme religious monism. I accept such attacks in advance.
The basic contradiction Berdyaev mentions is the demarcation line of virtually all Christian thinking. Is everything of God or are only some parts of God? However, this supposed line of demarcation is illusory. The Trinity tempers extreme religious monism in Christianity — an extreme sense of the oneness of reality. Nevertheless, Trinitarianism is still a form of monism, and it inevitably incorporates some aspects of dualism — a division of reality into two distinct parts — into its framework. In this sense, Berdyaev’s basic contradiction essentially serves as the foundation of most Christian thinking.
I confess an almost Manichean dualism. So be it. “The world” is evil, it is without God and not created by Him. We must go out of the world, and overcome it completely: the world must be consumed; it is the nature Ahriman. Freedom from the world is the pathos of this book. There is an objective source of evil against which we must wage a heroic war. The necessity of the given world and the given world are of Ahriman.
Berdyaev addresses the weakness of all Christian monism in the passage above. If God has indeed created everything and everything is essentially of God, then God is also the source of evil. Dualism solves this problem by separating light from darkness, which, on the surface, appears a useful approach to dealing with everything that cannot, by its very nature, be of God. If evil is not of God, then it has its own existence and must be overcome.
Over and against this stands freedom in the spirit, life in divine love life in the Pleroma. And I also confess an almost pantheistic monism. The world is divine by its very nature. Man is, by his nature, divine. The world process is self-revelation of Divinity, it is taking place within Divinity. God is immanent in the world and in man. There is no dualism of divine and extra-divine nature, of God’s absolute transcendence of the world and man.
I am entirely conscious of this antinomy of dualism and monism, and I accept it as insurmountable in consciousness and inevitable in religious life. Religious consciousness is essentially antinomic. In our consciousness, there is no escape from the eternal antinomy of transcendent and immanent, of dualism and monism.
Constructing one’s metaphysical assumptions — one’s deepest beliefs about the nature of reality — upon two contradictory principles or conclusions while accepting both as true hardly seems like a sound foundation upon which to base one’s religious thinking, yet this is exactly what Berdyaev admits to doing, primarily because he cannot conceive of any other option.
He is hardly alone. Virtually all Christian thinking though the ages has amounted to little more than perpetual ping-pong between the antinomy of dualism and monism, with the underlying understanding that religious consciousness must accept the antimony for the simple reason that monism and dualism can both be obtained by correct reasoning. Since both can be reasoned correctly, neither is necessarily false. Since neither is necessarily false, both are true — even though they blatantly contradict in every imaginable way.
This antinomy cannot be abolished, neither in conscience nor in reason, but in religious life, in the depth of religious experience itself.
I agree with Berdyaev here. Only religious experience can abolish the antinomy of monism and dualism, and this religious experience is pluralism and the existence of a non-Omni God. Some of Berdyaev’s radical assumptions pointed in that direction, but for reasons I cannot understand, Berdyaev just could not take the pluralist plunge.
I find this odd because pluralism would have provided a more than adequate “home” for nearly all of Berdyaev’s radical ideas, including:
his heterodox idea of expanding Jacob Boehme’s Ungrund to absolve God of evil, thereby limiting God’s omnipotence,his vehement declarations of the primacy of uncreated freedomhis insistence that man is called to co-create with Godhis announcements that the ultimate purpose of Divine Creation was to “create” more God-like creatorshis beliefs in the development of human consciousness
and so forth.
I note the above because I sense that the antimony of monism and dualism within Christian thinking has been stretched to its limits and is coming to an end.
Christians who can find no escape from the eternal antinomy of transcendent and immanent, of dualism and monism in their religious experience will find it increasingly more difficult to remain Christian.
I arrived at this conclusion after rereading the introduction to Berdyaev’s seminal work, The Meaning of the Creative Act, in which Berdyaev outlines the following:
I know that I may be accused of a basic contradiction that tears apart all my sense of the world, all my world outlook. I shall be accused of the contradiction of combining an extreme religious dualism with an extreme religious monism. I accept such attacks in advance.
The basic contradiction Berdyaev mentions is the demarcation line of virtually all Christian thinking. Is everything of God or are only some parts of God? However, this supposed line of demarcation is illusory. The Trinity tempers extreme religious monism in Christianity — an extreme sense of the oneness of reality. Nevertheless, Trinitarianism is still a form of monism, and it inevitably incorporates some aspects of dualism — a division of reality into two distinct parts — into its framework. In this sense, Berdyaev’s basic contradiction essentially serves as the foundation of most Christian thinking.
I confess an almost Manichean dualism. So be it. “The world” is evil, it is without God and not created by Him. We must go out of the world, and overcome it completely: the world must be consumed; it is the nature Ahriman. Freedom from the world is the pathos of this book. There is an objective source of evil against which we must wage a heroic war. The necessity of the given world and the given world are of Ahriman.
Berdyaev addresses the weakness of all Christian monism in the passage above. If God has indeed created everything and everything is essentially of God, then God is also the source of evil. Dualism solves this problem by separating light from darkness, which, on the surface, appears a useful approach to dealing with everything that cannot, by its very nature, be of God. If evil is not of God, then it has its own existence and must be overcome.
Over and against this stands freedom in the spirit, life in divine love life in the Pleroma. And I also confess an almost pantheistic monism. The world is divine by its very nature. Man is, by his nature, divine. The world process is self-revelation of Divinity, it is taking place within Divinity. God is immanent in the world and in man. There is no dualism of divine and extra-divine nature, of God’s absolute transcendence of the world and man.
I am entirely conscious of this antinomy of dualism and monism, and I accept it as insurmountable in consciousness and inevitable in religious life. Religious consciousness is essentially antinomic. In our consciousness, there is no escape from the eternal antinomy of transcendent and immanent, of dualism and monism.
Constructing one’s metaphysical assumptions — one’s deepest beliefs about the nature of reality — upon two contradictory principles or conclusions while accepting both as true hardly seems like a sound foundation upon which to base one’s religious thinking, yet this is exactly what Berdyaev admits to doing, primarily because he cannot conceive of any other option.
He is hardly alone. Virtually all Christian thinking though the ages has amounted to little more than perpetual ping-pong between the antinomy of dualism and monism, with the underlying understanding that religious consciousness must accept the antimony for the simple reason that monism and dualism can both be obtained by correct reasoning. Since both can be reasoned correctly, neither is necessarily false. Since neither is necessarily false, both are true — even though they blatantly contradict in every imaginable way.
This antinomy cannot be abolished, neither in conscience nor in reason, but in religious life, in the depth of religious experience itself.
I agree with Berdyaev here. Only religious experience can abolish the antinomy of monism and dualism, and this religious experience is pluralism and the existence of a non-Omni God. Some of Berdyaev’s radical assumptions pointed in that direction, but for reasons I cannot understand, Berdyaev just could not take the pluralist plunge.
I find this odd because pluralism would have provided a more than adequate “home” for nearly all of Berdyaev’s radical ideas, including:
his heterodox idea of expanding Jacob Boehme’s Ungrund to absolve God of evil, thereby limiting God’s omnipotence,his vehement declarations of the primacy of uncreated freedomhis insistence that man is called to co-create with Godhis announcements that the ultimate purpose of Divine Creation was to “create” more God-like creatorshis beliefs in the development of human consciousness
and so forth.
I note the above because I sense that the antimony of monism and dualism within Christian thinking has been stretched to its limits and is coming to an end.
Christians who can find no escape from the eternal antinomy of transcendent and immanent, of dualism and monism in their religious experience will find it increasingly more difficult to remain Christian.
March 20, 2024
We Are Too Spiritually Lazy to Feel Bored
The saying, “The Magyar is much too lazy to be bored,” is worth thinking about. Only the most subtle and active animals are capable of boredom.
– A theme for a great poet would be God’s boredom on the seventh day of creation.
The above ranks among my favorite Nietzsche aphorisms, and living in Hungary for nearly a decade has only increased my fondness for it.
I suppose it has much to do with my Hungarian cultural background — not my ethnic background, though, which is German, but Nietzsche was also German, so there is that.
Although the average Hungarian is far too lazy to be bored, I have never thought of God as lazy. Quite the opposite. I believe God remained active even on the seventh day — albeit in a subtle way.
Still, I can’t shake the feeling that God is capable of boredom, at least when it comes to Man.
He is waiting for us to answer His call to creativity, and I can’t help but imagine the ennui he experiences when we provide Him with anything and everything but an answer to that call.
We are too spiritually lazy to feel bored.
Now that is worth thinking about. It could also serve as theme for a great poet.
The above ranks among my favorite Nietzsche aphorisms, and living in Hungary for nearly a decade has only increased my fondness for it.
I suppose it has much to do with my Hungarian cultural background — not my ethnic background, though, which is German, but Nietzsche was also German, so there is that.
Although the average Hungarian is far too lazy to be bored, I have never thought of God as lazy. Quite the opposite. I believe God remained active even on the seventh day — albeit in a subtle way.
Still, I can’t shake the feeling that God is capable of boredom, at least when it comes to Man.
He is waiting for us to answer His call to creativity, and I can’t help but imagine the ennui he experiences when we provide Him with anything and everything but an answer to that call.
We are too spiritually lazy to feel bored.
Now that is worth thinking about. It could also serve as theme for a great poet.
March 18, 2024
Our Children and What We Leave Them
What kind of world will we leave our children?
Many proclaim this to be the most pressing question of this time and place.
Some counter this question with another.
The most pressing question is not what kind of world we will leave our children but what kind of children we will leave the world.
Both miss the mark.
The question should be more directed towards the kind of children we will leave for eternity.
Yet even that falls short because it neglects to mention that our children will have a tremendous say in whatever we leave them with.
We could leave them an ideal world, and they could still seek death.
Or we could leave them hell, and they could still seek Heaven.
Of course, we all long to leave them the best possible world in which to commit to Heaven, but the best possible world cannot guarantee that commitment. Nor can the worst possible world.
Ultimately, the world we leave them is far less significant than we vehemently assume.
Such is the nature of freedom.
We must believe that God loves our children even more than we do and will always leave paths to salvation open to them regardless of the world we leave them.
And we must believe that our children will recognize these paths and commit to them.
Such is the nature of faith.
Many proclaim this to be the most pressing question of this time and place.
Some counter this question with another.
The most pressing question is not what kind of world we will leave our children but what kind of children we will leave the world.
Both miss the mark.
The question should be more directed towards the kind of children we will leave for eternity.
Yet even that falls short because it neglects to mention that our children will have a tremendous say in whatever we leave them with.
We could leave them an ideal world, and they could still seek death.
Or we could leave them hell, and they could still seek Heaven.
Of course, we all long to leave them the best possible world in which to commit to Heaven, but the best possible world cannot guarantee that commitment. Nor can the worst possible world.
Ultimately, the world we leave them is far less significant than we vehemently assume.
Such is the nature of freedom.
We must believe that God loves our children even more than we do and will always leave paths to salvation open to them regardless of the world we leave them.
And we must believe that our children will recognize these paths and commit to them.
Such is the nature of faith.
March 16, 2024
The Dangers of Magnifying and Amplifying False Selves
Making oneself familiar with or revisiting William Arkle’s core thoughts concerning the true self and false selves (
A Geography of Consciousness
) has never been more urgent.
The more the world and the West in particular descend into chaos, the more pressing Arkle’s insights become. I will defer to Dr. Charlton to provide a summary for those unfamiliar with the true self/false selves:
One of William Arkle's core insights is that - in normal, everyday life - people act from a multitude of false selves. The true self, which is of divine origin and potentially able to become a god, is what makes us what we are - but it may be completely buried beneath false selves; the true self may be utterly ineffectual.
These false selves are of many types. Some are the collections of traits - hereditary and socialised - that constitute our 'personality' as described and measured by psychology. Others are that mass of automatic, robotic skills and responses that we learn to deal with the problems of living; including skills like typing or driving, small-talk and routine social interaction.
You can see that false selves are the totality of what a person presents to the world; and usually also everything that a person is aware of in himself, insofar as he is aware of anything. So, our consciousness is not the same thing as our true self, because it may be unaware of the true self, may even deny the reality of any such thing as a true self.
False selves are therefore necessary but a problem, because whenever we make an effort to change ourselves in any way, the probability is that this will be a matter of one or more of the false selves trying to change us in a superficial and false direction.
The last paragraph above is vital. A small but increasing number of people are beginning to sense that they need to change themselves in some way; however, more often than not, the changes they attempt or implement emanate from false selves rather than the true self, entailing that the attempts or implementations take them in false or specious directions that end up maintaining or increasing the distance from the true self.
Discovering and bolstering the true self through consciousness and intuition is predominantly a matter of looking inward and self-observing. Yet this introspection and self-observation do not happen in the vacuum of space or somewhere out there in the ether but within a dynamic and changing world. This is as it should be given that our experience of mortal life in this world is indispensable to the further development of the true self.
The bulk of our false selves are external in their orientation. Some of these are useful and necessary for us to live in this world. Other false selves comprise the ones we intentionally or unintentionally pick up or absorb from our experiences, primarily within the context of society.
Unsurprisingly, most people consider one or more of these entirely socially oriented false selves to be their true selves. The most common expression of this kind of true-self substitution is the full identification with some vocation or other — i.e., I am a doctor; I am a writer — but it can also appear in forms like political affiliations and so forth.
Now, I imagine that these socially/externally oriented false selves serve a purpose in spiritual learning in the same sense that the ethnicity, sex, or nation we are born into serves spiritual learning goals that are of potential benefit to the true self; however, I suspect such externally imposed or socially-acquired false selves can only benefit the true self if we recognize them as false selves. These false selves will not support the true self if they are mistakenly identified as the true self. On the contrary, I suspect such false selves do more to hinder and obstruct the true self than help it, particularly when making changes.
In another post, Dr. Charlton adds the following concerning Arkle’s problem of false selves:
So, a basic problem is that most people, most of the time, do not know their true selves, and are not living from their true selves; but are instead (more or less unconsciously) simply doing and thinking whatever the process of these superficial selves are churning-out.
It is this which makes it counter-productive always to ‘do what comes naturally’ – since what seems ‘natural’ to us in this modern world is very often artificial, inculcated by propaganda or malicious intent, evil, terrorising, despair-inducing…
The last bit about propaganda, malicious intent, evil, terrorizing, and despair-inducing is of the utmost importance in this time and place.
On the one hand, I sense that the growing chaos within the external world may help some people recognize and come to terms with the false selves they have regarded to be their true selves. Some may even draw closer to their true selves during the process.
On the other hand, many people are likely to swap one of their false selves for another or intensify or reinforce the false self with which they most identify and regard as their true selves.
The demonic powers behind the System will continue to use this to their advantage by stimulating, prodding, encouraging, inflaming, stirring, and provoking people to magnify and amplify such false selves.
Such developments offer the demonic powers a veritable win-win situation. The more amplified and magnified the false selves become, the more they hinder the discovery and bolstering of true selves.
The amplification and magnification of false selves parading as true selves will also expand and compound the demonically-motivated chaos and destruction.
The more the world and the West in particular descend into chaos, the more pressing Arkle’s insights become. I will defer to Dr. Charlton to provide a summary for those unfamiliar with the true self/false selves:
One of William Arkle's core insights is that - in normal, everyday life - people act from a multitude of false selves. The true self, which is of divine origin and potentially able to become a god, is what makes us what we are - but it may be completely buried beneath false selves; the true self may be utterly ineffectual.
These false selves are of many types. Some are the collections of traits - hereditary and socialised - that constitute our 'personality' as described and measured by psychology. Others are that mass of automatic, robotic skills and responses that we learn to deal with the problems of living; including skills like typing or driving, small-talk and routine social interaction.
You can see that false selves are the totality of what a person presents to the world; and usually also everything that a person is aware of in himself, insofar as he is aware of anything. So, our consciousness is not the same thing as our true self, because it may be unaware of the true self, may even deny the reality of any such thing as a true self.
False selves are therefore necessary but a problem, because whenever we make an effort to change ourselves in any way, the probability is that this will be a matter of one or more of the false selves trying to change us in a superficial and false direction.
The last paragraph above is vital. A small but increasing number of people are beginning to sense that they need to change themselves in some way; however, more often than not, the changes they attempt or implement emanate from false selves rather than the true self, entailing that the attempts or implementations take them in false or specious directions that end up maintaining or increasing the distance from the true self.
Discovering and bolstering the true self through consciousness and intuition is predominantly a matter of looking inward and self-observing. Yet this introspection and self-observation do not happen in the vacuum of space or somewhere out there in the ether but within a dynamic and changing world. This is as it should be given that our experience of mortal life in this world is indispensable to the further development of the true self.
The bulk of our false selves are external in their orientation. Some of these are useful and necessary for us to live in this world. Other false selves comprise the ones we intentionally or unintentionally pick up or absorb from our experiences, primarily within the context of society.
Unsurprisingly, most people consider one or more of these entirely socially oriented false selves to be their true selves. The most common expression of this kind of true-self substitution is the full identification with some vocation or other — i.e., I am a doctor; I am a writer — but it can also appear in forms like political affiliations and so forth.
Now, I imagine that these socially/externally oriented false selves serve a purpose in spiritual learning in the same sense that the ethnicity, sex, or nation we are born into serves spiritual learning goals that are of potential benefit to the true self; however, I suspect such externally imposed or socially-acquired false selves can only benefit the true self if we recognize them as false selves. These false selves will not support the true self if they are mistakenly identified as the true self. On the contrary, I suspect such false selves do more to hinder and obstruct the true self than help it, particularly when making changes.
In another post, Dr. Charlton adds the following concerning Arkle’s problem of false selves:
So, a basic problem is that most people, most of the time, do not know their true selves, and are not living from their true selves; but are instead (more or less unconsciously) simply doing and thinking whatever the process of these superficial selves are churning-out.
It is this which makes it counter-productive always to ‘do what comes naturally’ – since what seems ‘natural’ to us in this modern world is very often artificial, inculcated by propaganda or malicious intent, evil, terrorising, despair-inducing…
The last bit about propaganda, malicious intent, evil, terrorizing, and despair-inducing is of the utmost importance in this time and place.
On the one hand, I sense that the growing chaos within the external world may help some people recognize and come to terms with the false selves they have regarded to be their true selves. Some may even draw closer to their true selves during the process.
On the other hand, many people are likely to swap one of their false selves for another or intensify or reinforce the false self with which they most identify and regard as their true selves.
The demonic powers behind the System will continue to use this to their advantage by stimulating, prodding, encouraging, inflaming, stirring, and provoking people to magnify and amplify such false selves.
Such developments offer the demonic powers a veritable win-win situation. The more amplified and magnified the false selves become, the more they hinder the discovery and bolstering of true selves.
The amplification and magnification of false selves parading as true selves will also expand and compound the demonically-motivated chaos and destruction.
March 15, 2024
If You Do Not Repent, You Will (Eventually) Relent
The spiritual war in mortal life is not about the sinners versus the sinless. If it was, there would be no war of which to speak.
Sinners comprise the side for God and Creation and the side opposed to God and Creation. At its core, the spiritual war in mortal life pits sinners against sinners, including the various sinners (or selves) within the one’s own being, which is and will always remain the spiritual war’s dominant and primary battlefield.
What distinguishes “good” sinners from “bad” sinners? Well, motivation immediately springs to mind, but virtually every incentive, motive, stimuli, reason, ground, or rationale that drives individuals to think and act derives from metaphysical assumptions — from one’s deepest beliefs concerning the very nature of reality.
That does not imply that individuals consciously check every one of their motivations against their assumptions, only that the motivations themselves emanate from the assumptions, regardless of whether individuals are aware of the motivations as emanations of their core assumptions.
Yet even the best motivations for God and Creation perfectly aligned with coherent metaphysical assumptions remain susceptible to various external or internal influences, manipulations, corruptions, flaws, ineptitudes, deficiencies, weaknesses, and so forth.
Motivations can also wane, sour, or reverse, often within a blink of an eye. So, even though motivation can help illuminate which side of the spiritual war a sinner may be on, it is anything but ironclad proof of affiliation.
I posit that repentance is the only meaningful factor that demarcates the “good” sinners from the “bad” sinners. Put another way, the side for God and Creation consists of repentant sinners, while the side against God and Creation is unrepentant.
If we were to follow some conventional interpretations of what repentance is, the repentant side would be filled with mewling, self-flagellating, guilt-ridden masochists perpetually begging God to forgive them — but only after thoroughly punishing them — for the unforgivable sin of existing, while the unrepentant side would brim with people who refuse to give or take a damn (pun very much intended).
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pathetic excuse for a spiritual war.
Another conventional interpretation is that the side for God and Creation is perpetually involved in making this world a better place for everyone, while the side opposed to God and Creation does nothing but disrupt and destroy this world. The bad sinners disrupting and destroying this world refuse to repent because they enjoy disrupting and destroying. On the other hand, the good sinners striving to create a good this-world only need to repent if they advertently or inadvertently slide over to the side of disruption and destruction.
I suppose the spiritual war does or can involve some of these aspects; however, the inherently non-spiritual, this-worldly focus of both sides renders the comprehensiveness of this interpretation moot. The spiritual war certainly encompasses this world, but its primary significance is not limited to this-worldly considerations, at least not in any mundane, material sense.
So, how and why is repentance the demarcation line between the side for and against God and Creation, particularly when the word repent does not appear in any form in the Fourth Gospel?
To help explain this, I defer once again to William James Tychonievich:
It means acknowledging sin as sin. The unrepentant are those who make excuses for themselves, who deny that their sins are sins and are therefore unwilling to give them up. Willingness is all; the flesh is weak, but the spirit must be willing. Daily repentance does not mean daily groveling for forgiveness like a beaten dog; it means reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
The matter about acknowledging sin as sin is key, but as William points out in his Repentance, Forgiveness, and Damnation in the Fourth Gospel post, only the Pharisees use the word sinner. Jesus does not refer to anyone as a sinner in the Fourth Gospel, nor does he call for repentance; however, he does speak about sin, but not in the way the Pharisees interpret it.
John the Baptist announces Jesus as the lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world. Does this mean Jesus absolved all the moral crimes and corruptions of all the people of the world? Not quite. As Bruce Charlton notes in one of William's posts:
What does it mean that Jesus would 'take away' sin? Sin seems to mean all the transitory nature of satisfaction in this world, the corruptions, the selfishness, that which contributes to the recurrent sense that life is travail and loss. Jesus will take away Mortality and all its badness, all that we know in our hearts to be intrinsically wrong about life.
Wait a minute! Sin involves the transitory nature of satisfaction with this world! How can that be? Well, to feel satisfaction with this world as it is just is a rejection of what Jesus offers. It is akin to saying that Jesus is unnecessary — that we can ultimately find all we need in this world and require nothing more. It is also a refutation of the Divine purpose of Creation.
Sin is a declaration of satisfaction with this world, of keeping our focus narrowed solely on this-worldly concerns, of prioritizing this-worldly affairs over eternal otherworldly considerations. Jesus does not condemn when he speaks of sin in the Fourth Gospel, but he does refer to sin as an enslaving force that can attach us to this world in ways that are detrimental to salvation.
Jesus does not instruct us to turn our back on the world and reject it outright. We are in the world, and as long as we are in it, we are in it for a reason. Whenever we fail to discern why we are in the world or what our experience in the world means from the perspective of salvation and Heaven, we may become fused to sin, fused to various satisfactions, corruptions, and selfishness that comprise mortal life. Taken far enough, we may even embrace death as a final destination.
Though the Fourth Gospel offers no fire and brimstone condemnations of sin, it does condemn those who love the darkness more than the light Jesus offers and reveals that those who do evil hate the light lest their deeds be reprimanded. Jesus also reveals the reality of Satan as the father of lies who has nothing to do with truth. Thus, the matter of evil boils down to the willing preference of darkness over light.
Returning to the matter of the spiritual war and its repentant and unrepentant sides, I would say the unrepentant side spiritually rejects Jesus’ offer of Heaven in favor of this-worldliness to which they have become enslaved. The repentant side accepts Jesus’ offer of Heaven and expresses a willingness to give up any spiritual enslavement to this worldliness that is incompatible with Heaven. The unrepentant side reject Jesus' offer outright or trick themselves into thinking they have accepted Jesus' offer while remaining entirely engaged with this-world and nothing but this world.
On the flip side, repentance is not disengagement with this world! On the contrary, it represents an awareness of what our engagement in this world should and should not be about. It is as, as William notes in his post on repentance, “reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
Such reminding requires discernment — the ability to distinguish light from darkness, and the willingness to spiritually embrace the light and turn away from the darkness even if/when we fail to do so in mortal life.
However, if we cannot spiritually discern, we will not spiritually learn. And if we do not learn spiritually, we will be far more likely to relent to sin than repent it.
We will be far more likely not to believe.
We will be far more likely not to believe in anything beyond this world and will, ultimately, believe in all the wrong things while we are in this world.
Sinners comprise the side for God and Creation and the side opposed to God and Creation. At its core, the spiritual war in mortal life pits sinners against sinners, including the various sinners (or selves) within the one’s own being, which is and will always remain the spiritual war’s dominant and primary battlefield.
What distinguishes “good” sinners from “bad” sinners? Well, motivation immediately springs to mind, but virtually every incentive, motive, stimuli, reason, ground, or rationale that drives individuals to think and act derives from metaphysical assumptions — from one’s deepest beliefs concerning the very nature of reality.
That does not imply that individuals consciously check every one of their motivations against their assumptions, only that the motivations themselves emanate from the assumptions, regardless of whether individuals are aware of the motivations as emanations of their core assumptions.
Yet even the best motivations for God and Creation perfectly aligned with coherent metaphysical assumptions remain susceptible to various external or internal influences, manipulations, corruptions, flaws, ineptitudes, deficiencies, weaknesses, and so forth.
Motivations can also wane, sour, or reverse, often within a blink of an eye. So, even though motivation can help illuminate which side of the spiritual war a sinner may be on, it is anything but ironclad proof of affiliation.
I posit that repentance is the only meaningful factor that demarcates the “good” sinners from the “bad” sinners. Put another way, the side for God and Creation consists of repentant sinners, while the side against God and Creation is unrepentant.
If we were to follow some conventional interpretations of what repentance is, the repentant side would be filled with mewling, self-flagellating, guilt-ridden masochists perpetually begging God to forgive them — but only after thoroughly punishing them — for the unforgivable sin of existing, while the unrepentant side would brim with people who refuse to give or take a damn (pun very much intended).
I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pathetic excuse for a spiritual war.
Another conventional interpretation is that the side for God and Creation is perpetually involved in making this world a better place for everyone, while the side opposed to God and Creation does nothing but disrupt and destroy this world. The bad sinners disrupting and destroying this world refuse to repent because they enjoy disrupting and destroying. On the other hand, the good sinners striving to create a good this-world only need to repent if they advertently or inadvertently slide over to the side of disruption and destruction.
I suppose the spiritual war does or can involve some of these aspects; however, the inherently non-spiritual, this-worldly focus of both sides renders the comprehensiveness of this interpretation moot. The spiritual war certainly encompasses this world, but its primary significance is not limited to this-worldly considerations, at least not in any mundane, material sense.
So, how and why is repentance the demarcation line between the side for and against God and Creation, particularly when the word repent does not appear in any form in the Fourth Gospel?
To help explain this, I defer once again to William James Tychonievich:
It means acknowledging sin as sin. The unrepentant are those who make excuses for themselves, who deny that their sins are sins and are therefore unwilling to give them up. Willingness is all; the flesh is weak, but the spirit must be willing. Daily repentance does not mean daily groveling for forgiveness like a beaten dog; it means reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
The matter about acknowledging sin as sin is key, but as William points out in his Repentance, Forgiveness, and Damnation in the Fourth Gospel post, only the Pharisees use the word sinner. Jesus does not refer to anyone as a sinner in the Fourth Gospel, nor does he call for repentance; however, he does speak about sin, but not in the way the Pharisees interpret it.
John the Baptist announces Jesus as the lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the world. Does this mean Jesus absolved all the moral crimes and corruptions of all the people of the world? Not quite. As Bruce Charlton notes in one of William's posts:
What does it mean that Jesus would 'take away' sin? Sin seems to mean all the transitory nature of satisfaction in this world, the corruptions, the selfishness, that which contributes to the recurrent sense that life is travail and loss. Jesus will take away Mortality and all its badness, all that we know in our hearts to be intrinsically wrong about life.
Wait a minute! Sin involves the transitory nature of satisfaction with this world! How can that be? Well, to feel satisfaction with this world as it is just is a rejection of what Jesus offers. It is akin to saying that Jesus is unnecessary — that we can ultimately find all we need in this world and require nothing more. It is also a refutation of the Divine purpose of Creation.
Sin is a declaration of satisfaction with this world, of keeping our focus narrowed solely on this-worldly concerns, of prioritizing this-worldly affairs over eternal otherworldly considerations. Jesus does not condemn when he speaks of sin in the Fourth Gospel, but he does refer to sin as an enslaving force that can attach us to this world in ways that are detrimental to salvation.
Jesus does not instruct us to turn our back on the world and reject it outright. We are in the world, and as long as we are in it, we are in it for a reason. Whenever we fail to discern why we are in the world or what our experience in the world means from the perspective of salvation and Heaven, we may become fused to sin, fused to various satisfactions, corruptions, and selfishness that comprise mortal life. Taken far enough, we may even embrace death as a final destination.
Though the Fourth Gospel offers no fire and brimstone condemnations of sin, it does condemn those who love the darkness more than the light Jesus offers and reveals that those who do evil hate the light lest their deeds be reprimanded. Jesus also reveals the reality of Satan as the father of lies who has nothing to do with truth. Thus, the matter of evil boils down to the willing preference of darkness over light.
Returning to the matter of the spiritual war and its repentant and unrepentant sides, I would say the unrepentant side spiritually rejects Jesus’ offer of Heaven in favor of this-worldliness to which they have become enslaved. The repentant side accepts Jesus’ offer of Heaven and expresses a willingness to give up any spiritual enslavement to this worldliness that is incompatible with Heaven. The unrepentant side reject Jesus' offer outright or trick themselves into thinking they have accepted Jesus' offer while remaining entirely engaged with this-world and nothing but this world.
On the flip side, repentance is not disengagement with this world! On the contrary, it represents an awareness of what our engagement in this world should and should not be about. It is as, as William notes in his post on repentance, “reminding oneself what is good and what is evil, what is of God and what is not, and then going on with life, confident in the knowledge that "he that believeth is not condemned."
Such reminding requires discernment — the ability to distinguish light from darkness, and the willingness to spiritually embrace the light and turn away from the darkness even if/when we fail to do so in mortal life.
However, if we cannot spiritually discern, we will not spiritually learn. And if we do not learn spiritually, we will be far more likely to relent to sin than repent it.
We will be far more likely not to believe.
We will be far more likely not to believe in anything beyond this world and will, ultimately, believe in all the wrong things while we are in this world.
March 12, 2024
The Unrepented Lies and Deceit of Our Side Are Acceptable and Necessary
...because they align with Truth and Reality.
Unlike the unrepented lies and deceit on the other side, the unrepented lies and deceit on our side are driven by good motivations to un-invert evil inversions and return the world to some semblance of Truth and Reality.
Sure, it's not perfect, but this is a fallen world and we are all fallen and flawed creatures.
What matters most is that we actively embrace, harness, and weaponize our flaws and fallenness to lie and deceive in the name of Truth and Reality (unlike the evil other side who embrace, harness, and weaponize their flaws and fallenness in the name of untruth and unreality).
Look, if we want Truth and Reality, we must lie and deceive. There's no other way around it.
So stop philosophizing over it and griping about repentance. Get out there and lie and deceive for the sake of Truth and Reality already. Don't you understand that that is what we are called to do? I mean, Truth and Reality can't and won't lie and deceive on their own. They need our help! So get to it!
And don't worry about having to repent! Just remember, the lies and deceptions you endorse, support, and promote all align with Truth and Reality. They are the good lies and deceptions that prop up Truth and Reality. Without them, Truth and Reality don't stand a chance!
Rest assured, you're on the right side -- the good side. Hence, no need to repent!
Talk about a win-win!
Unlike the unrepented lies and deceit on the other side, the unrepented lies and deceit on our side are driven by good motivations to un-invert evil inversions and return the world to some semblance of Truth and Reality.
Sure, it's not perfect, but this is a fallen world and we are all fallen and flawed creatures.
What matters most is that we actively embrace, harness, and weaponize our flaws and fallenness to lie and deceive in the name of Truth and Reality (unlike the evil other side who embrace, harness, and weaponize their flaws and fallenness in the name of untruth and unreality).
Look, if we want Truth and Reality, we must lie and deceive. There's no other way around it.
So stop philosophizing over it and griping about repentance. Get out there and lie and deceive for the sake of Truth and Reality already. Don't you understand that that is what we are called to do? I mean, Truth and Reality can't and won't lie and deceive on their own. They need our help! So get to it!
And don't worry about having to repent! Just remember, the lies and deceptions you endorse, support, and promote all align with Truth and Reality. They are the good lies and deceptions that prop up Truth and Reality. Without them, Truth and Reality don't stand a chance!
Rest assured, you're on the right side -- the good side. Hence, no need to repent!
Talk about a win-win!
Please Refrain From Criticizing the Unrepentant Liars and Manipulators on Our Side...
... and be grateful that they are putting themselves out there on the front line to lie and manipulate on our behalf.
We should do nothing but support, endorse, and promote their unrepented lies and manipulations because endorsing and promoting the unrepented lies and manipulations of our side is the only way we can realistically counter our enemy's unrepented lies and manipulations.
You see, that's the way the world works. And, no...not all politics in the West is on the wrong side. Far from it.
We should do nothing but support, endorse, and promote their unrepented lies and manipulations because endorsing and promoting the unrepented lies and manipulations of our side is the only way we can realistically counter our enemy's unrepented lies and manipulations.
You see, that's the way the world works. And, no...not all politics in the West is on the wrong side. Far from it.
Down to the Last Two Squash. Or Is It Squashes?
The plum trees in my yard are blossoming, which means it's time to start planning this season’s garden. Last year’s harvest was very successful. Going down to the cellar this afternoon, I noticed we still have two plastic crates of sweet potatoes and two squashes, down from the five crates of sweet potatoes and over twenty squashes we harvested in the fall. In retrospect, I’m surprised our skin didn’t turn orange this winter.This spring, I will plant far more onions than usual. Unlike the sweet potatoes and squash, the onions we harvest have never made it past Christmas, indicating that I need to up my onion numbers considerably. I also plan to have more corn. The five rows I planted last year turned out very well. The few cobs we froze kept their flavor, so that’s a plus. Swiss chard, lettuce, garlic, and carrots will be new additions. Cantaloupe and watermelon will be scratched.
Otherwise, I’ll probably stick to the usual fare — tomatoes, peppers, beets, radishes, zucchini, snap peas, potatoes (regular and sweet), and cucumbers. Oh, and I may grow something green or leafy especially for the hens and rooster.
But first I must purchase a new rotary tiller; the one I have has peremptorily indicated that it isn't at all interested in helping out in the garden this year. I only hope the lawnmower doesn't follow suit.
March 9, 2024
Post-2020 Politics Should Be a No-Brainer for Christians, But...
I’ve concluded that these supposedly right-wing, populist, Christian-banner waving Western politicians are far worse and far more dangerous than their explicitly anti-God, foaming-at-the-mouth, woke brethren who infest Western governments.Worse, because their lies, deceits, and disingenuousness run way deeper. Far more dangerous because they encourage people to continue participating in manipulative and malevolent System politics.
And they achieve all of this by igniting and nurturing false optimism about protecting and defending family values, nationhood, Christianity, and the like.
Many were optimistic during Trump’s presidency. I sometimes expressed optimism about Orbán during that time. Other bloggers were optimistic about things like Brexit.
But that was before 2019-2020.
Serious Christians ought to view 2020 as a line of demarcation revealing what things were and were not worth focusing on going forward.
Politics ranks near the top of things not worth focusing on. Any Christian who thinks otherwise is not thinking deeply enough about happened in 2020.
Moreover, any Christian who adopts “yeah but, no but” rationalizations about “having to be” involved in politics post-2020 has wilfully blinded himself about which side politics-- in the West is on.
And yes, that includes the less-left, lesser-evil varieties of politics.
