Francis Berger's Blog, page 42
September 17, 2023
Why Do the Destructive Insist on Everyone Being Constructive?
Those actively aligned against God and Creation utilize many murky, sleazy, and polluted words, but few are as murky, sleazy, and polluted as “constructive.”
We tend to associate constructive with the positive. Thus, when someone offers us constructive criticism, we assume that the person is offering something helpful and encouraging instead of something unhelpful and discouraging.
When someone suggests that we be, do, or think constructively, we generally believe people are nudging us in the positive direction of being, doing, and thinking that is more useful, productive, effective, and beneficial.
As with all words, the real meaning of constructive depends heavily on the alignment and motivation of those who use it.
What then are those aligned against God and Creation really saying when they offer constructive criticism or ask us to be more constructive?
What help are they extending? Moreover, what are they encouraging us to be, do, or think?
Constructive extends far beyond general English and into law and legal writing, where its definition differs vastly from conventional usage. In law, constructive refers to “something legally declared, even if not technically true in a given case”, which translates into “judges and lawmakers making things constructively true so that the intent of the law cannot be easily thwarted by a loophole or a lack of personal responsibility.”
Again, making something constructively true in law relies heavily on discerning motivation or lack thereof. It is, in essence, a legal fiction.
For example, the law can determine that a landlord has “constructively evicted” a tenant if the landlord failed to provide the living conditions required to allow a reasonable tenant to stay on the premises, like turning off the heat, power, or water or neglecting sanitary minimums. Living conditions deteriorate so much that the tenant finally leaves. In this case, the landlord did not hand the tenant an actual eviction notice, but the landlord’s actions are tantamount to an unwritten, undeclared eviction notice that resulted in the tenant actually leaving the premises.
I eschew law-thinking and legal mindsets, but from a spiritual perspective, I think it is crucial to treat constructively any communication that asks us to be more constructive, that is, discern the spiritual intention or aspect, even if the spiritual intention or aspect is not technically obvious or “true” in a given case, so that spiritual matters cannot be easily thwarted by a loophole or a lack of personal responsibility.
An off-the-cuff example is being more constructive about implementing a D.I.E. agenda at a workplace. Or thinking more constructively about the climate crisis. Or receiving advice or criticism suggesting you or some aspect of you become more System-aligned.
Those who ask us to be more constructive are usually motivated by the destructive.
We tend to associate constructive with the positive. Thus, when someone offers us constructive criticism, we assume that the person is offering something helpful and encouraging instead of something unhelpful and discouraging.
When someone suggests that we be, do, or think constructively, we generally believe people are nudging us in the positive direction of being, doing, and thinking that is more useful, productive, effective, and beneficial.
As with all words, the real meaning of constructive depends heavily on the alignment and motivation of those who use it.
What then are those aligned against God and Creation really saying when they offer constructive criticism or ask us to be more constructive?
What help are they extending? Moreover, what are they encouraging us to be, do, or think?
Constructive extends far beyond general English and into law and legal writing, where its definition differs vastly from conventional usage. In law, constructive refers to “something legally declared, even if not technically true in a given case”, which translates into “judges and lawmakers making things constructively true so that the intent of the law cannot be easily thwarted by a loophole or a lack of personal responsibility.”
Again, making something constructively true in law relies heavily on discerning motivation or lack thereof. It is, in essence, a legal fiction.
For example, the law can determine that a landlord has “constructively evicted” a tenant if the landlord failed to provide the living conditions required to allow a reasonable tenant to stay on the premises, like turning off the heat, power, or water or neglecting sanitary minimums. Living conditions deteriorate so much that the tenant finally leaves. In this case, the landlord did not hand the tenant an actual eviction notice, but the landlord’s actions are tantamount to an unwritten, undeclared eviction notice that resulted in the tenant actually leaving the premises.
I eschew law-thinking and legal mindsets, but from a spiritual perspective, I think it is crucial to treat constructively any communication that asks us to be more constructive, that is, discern the spiritual intention or aspect, even if the spiritual intention or aspect is not technically obvious or “true” in a given case, so that spiritual matters cannot be easily thwarted by a loophole or a lack of personal responsibility.
An off-the-cuff example is being more constructive about implementing a D.I.E. agenda at a workplace. Or thinking more constructively about the climate crisis. Or receiving advice or criticism suggesting you or some aspect of you become more System-aligned.
Those who ask us to be more constructive are usually motivated by the destructive.
September 16, 2023
Freedom Presupposes Superable Resistance
From Nicholai Berdyaev's Slavery and Freedom (bold added):
Slavery is characterized as the social position of people in the objective world. Thus, for example, in a totalitarian state all the people are slaves. But this is not the final truth of the phenemonolgy of slavery.
It has already been said that slavery is in the first place a structure of consciousness and that, a certain kind of objective structure of consciousness. Consciousness determines being, and only in the secondary process does consciousness fall into slavery to being.
A servile society is the outcome of the inward slavery of man. Man lives under the sway of an illusion which is so powerful that it appears to be normal consciousness.
This illusion finds expression in the usual awareness of the fact that man is in slavery to an external force, at the same time as he is in slavery to himself. This illusion of consciousness is different from that which Marx and Freud detected.
Man defines his relation to the 'non-I' in a servile way. That servile social philosophy according to which man ought to put up with external slavery and emancipate himself inward only, by no means follows from this. Such a philosophy is an absolutely false interpretation of the relation between inward and outward.
Inward liberation demands outward liberation also, and the destruciton of servile dependence on social tyranny.
The free man cannot put up with social slavery. But he remains free in spirit, and in that case if it is not within his power to overcome the external social slavery, it is a struggle which may be very hard and long drawn out.
Freedom presupposes superable resistance.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thoughts:
Superable here means conquerable, surmountable, which is interesting.
Does this mean that resistance itself can be overcome, or that resistance can overcome anything?
Perhaps both.
Berdyaev provides an overview of people who could be categorized as Christian slaves.
A core truth of Christianity that is continuously conspired against and denied is that one can be both a Christian and a slave; however, this requires the conscious, honest acknowledgment that one is indeed a slave; that one cannot overcome the external slavery of society or any other external force or internal failing, but remains committed to following Jesus into eternal life despite everything.
Being a Christian slave also entails repentance and a commitment to practicing and living the Good, regardless of how constricted and restricted this practicing and living may be.
Berdyaev's insight about freedom presupposing superable resistance reveals much -- primarily that a Christian can remain free even when his resistance to the external crumbles or is conquered, implying that freedom must be anchored in something beyond mere resistance.
Freedom from may be conquered; freedom for is always unconquerable.
Slavery is characterized as the social position of people in the objective world. Thus, for example, in a totalitarian state all the people are slaves. But this is not the final truth of the phenemonolgy of slavery.
It has already been said that slavery is in the first place a structure of consciousness and that, a certain kind of objective structure of consciousness. Consciousness determines being, and only in the secondary process does consciousness fall into slavery to being.
A servile society is the outcome of the inward slavery of man. Man lives under the sway of an illusion which is so powerful that it appears to be normal consciousness.
This illusion finds expression in the usual awareness of the fact that man is in slavery to an external force, at the same time as he is in slavery to himself. This illusion of consciousness is different from that which Marx and Freud detected.
Man defines his relation to the 'non-I' in a servile way. That servile social philosophy according to which man ought to put up with external slavery and emancipate himself inward only, by no means follows from this. Such a philosophy is an absolutely false interpretation of the relation between inward and outward.
Inward liberation demands outward liberation also, and the destruciton of servile dependence on social tyranny.
The free man cannot put up with social slavery. But he remains free in spirit, and in that case if it is not within his power to overcome the external social slavery, it is a struggle which may be very hard and long drawn out.
Freedom presupposes superable resistance.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thoughts:
Superable here means conquerable, surmountable, which is interesting.
Does this mean that resistance itself can be overcome, or that resistance can overcome anything?
Perhaps both.
Berdyaev provides an overview of people who could be categorized as Christian slaves.
A core truth of Christianity that is continuously conspired against and denied is that one can be both a Christian and a slave; however, this requires the conscious, honest acknowledgment that one is indeed a slave; that one cannot overcome the external slavery of society or any other external force or internal failing, but remains committed to following Jesus into eternal life despite everything.
Being a Christian slave also entails repentance and a commitment to practicing and living the Good, regardless of how constricted and restricted this practicing and living may be.
Berdyaev's insight about freedom presupposing superable resistance reveals much -- primarily that a Christian can remain free even when his resistance to the external crumbles or is conquered, implying that freedom must be anchored in something beyond mere resistance.
Freedom from may be conquered; freedom for is always unconquerable.
A Truly Overwhelming Thought
Sometimes I get this notion that I would be quite content in eternal life if I were to experience only half the love I have experienced thus far in mortal life.
But then I remember that love in eternal life is infinitely more abundant, deeper, higher, and purer -- and the thought of such love overwhelms me, to the point that I feel my heart may rupture from the sheer beauty of it all.
But then I remember that love in eternal life is infinitely more abundant, deeper, higher, and purer -- and the thought of such love overwhelms me, to the point that I feel my heart may rupture from the sheer beauty of it all.
September 15, 2023
One Tough Toad
There is this toad that lives in one of my sheds. I first noticed it in the early morning about two months ago when it hopped inside the shed and hid behind a pile of junk. That same evening, I saw it emerge just after sundown.
The next morning before sunrise, it returned to the shed and hid in the same place it had occupied the night before. I keep the door of that particular shed open year-round, and the toad had figured out that it could come and go as it pleased without much interference from me.
I caught sight of the toad throughout the summer months, always leaving the shed at twilight and returning just before dawn. Thankfully, my cat has not found the toad’s comings and goings as interesting as the comings and goings of the mice and voles that live in the yard, the sheds, and the henhouse. Like me, she sometimes spots it exiting the shed in the evening or entering in the morning, but the most she has ever done is give it a playful swat or nudge.
As for me, I have fallen into the habit of wishing the toad a good morning or evening when I encounter it and have been extra careful whenever I step into the shed or move anything inside, at least until yesterday morning, when I entered before daybreak and experienced the awkward sensation of having stepped on something soft and squishy.
I lifted my foot immediately and, wincing, clicked on the light. It had been the toad alright. It writhed on the floor for a few seconds and then, to my unmitigated surprise and relief, hopped off and concealed itself in the pile of odds and ends it called home. I examined where my foot had fallen but noticed no blood or other fluid staining the floor, which struck me as odd since I had inadvertently pressed about half of my body weight down upon the toad.
Palming the flashlight on the nearby shelf, I knelt and illuminated the toad’s little lair. Half-expecting something gruesome, I was cheered to see the toad simply staring out at me from the circle of blinding light. I clicked the flashlight off and left the shed feeling somewhat comforted. Yet I couldn’t shake the feeling that I must have injured the toad, and quite seriously, too, if nowhere else, then internally, by crushing some vital organ.
The ambivalence plagued me for the better part of the day. At times, I wondered why I was even worrying about the well-being of a toad, but the creature had become a part of my summer landscape, and I had grown fond of it. Its comings and goings had been as reliable and faithful as the sun's movements. I arrived home late that evening and, still fearing the worst, could not find it within myself to visit the shed.
The next morning before sunrise, I stepped outside with a mug of coffee and looked toward the shed. In the dawn’s dull light, I made out the toad’s form hopping through the grass toward the building. I stepped closer and leaned forward. There was no doubt about it; it was the same toad. It paid me no attention as it entered the shed and took its usual place beneath the pile of clutter.
The force I had pressed down upon that unsuspecting toad had been enough to crack a walnut, but it is carrying on as if the accident had never happened.
Not only is it intact, but it appears completely unscathed. I don’t know what to say other than that is one tough toad, and I would consider it a tremendous honor if it chose to overwinter in that shed of mine.
The next morning before sunrise, it returned to the shed and hid in the same place it had occupied the night before. I keep the door of that particular shed open year-round, and the toad had figured out that it could come and go as it pleased without much interference from me.
I caught sight of the toad throughout the summer months, always leaving the shed at twilight and returning just before dawn. Thankfully, my cat has not found the toad’s comings and goings as interesting as the comings and goings of the mice and voles that live in the yard, the sheds, and the henhouse. Like me, she sometimes spots it exiting the shed in the evening or entering in the morning, but the most she has ever done is give it a playful swat or nudge.
As for me, I have fallen into the habit of wishing the toad a good morning or evening when I encounter it and have been extra careful whenever I step into the shed or move anything inside, at least until yesterday morning, when I entered before daybreak and experienced the awkward sensation of having stepped on something soft and squishy.
I lifted my foot immediately and, wincing, clicked on the light. It had been the toad alright. It writhed on the floor for a few seconds and then, to my unmitigated surprise and relief, hopped off and concealed itself in the pile of odds and ends it called home. I examined where my foot had fallen but noticed no blood or other fluid staining the floor, which struck me as odd since I had inadvertently pressed about half of my body weight down upon the toad.
Palming the flashlight on the nearby shelf, I knelt and illuminated the toad’s little lair. Half-expecting something gruesome, I was cheered to see the toad simply staring out at me from the circle of blinding light. I clicked the flashlight off and left the shed feeling somewhat comforted. Yet I couldn’t shake the feeling that I must have injured the toad, and quite seriously, too, if nowhere else, then internally, by crushing some vital organ.
The ambivalence plagued me for the better part of the day. At times, I wondered why I was even worrying about the well-being of a toad, but the creature had become a part of my summer landscape, and I had grown fond of it. Its comings and goings had been as reliable and faithful as the sun's movements. I arrived home late that evening and, still fearing the worst, could not find it within myself to visit the shed.
The next morning before sunrise, I stepped outside with a mug of coffee and looked toward the shed. In the dawn’s dull light, I made out the toad’s form hopping through the grass toward the building. I stepped closer and leaned forward. There was no doubt about it; it was the same toad. It paid me no attention as it entered the shed and took its usual place beneath the pile of clutter.
The force I had pressed down upon that unsuspecting toad had been enough to crack a walnut, but it is carrying on as if the accident had never happened.
Not only is it intact, but it appears completely unscathed. I don’t know what to say other than that is one tough toad, and I would consider it a tremendous honor if it chose to overwinter in that shed of mine.
September 13, 2023
That's a Lot of Souls
People assume that the earth's current population exceeds the number of people who have ever lived in the past, but this may be far from accurate.
According to a group called the Population Reference Bureau, "about 117 billion births have taken place since 190,000 BCE, far outnumbering the 8 billion people who are alive today."
117 billion. That is a lot of people and a lot of incarnated souls.
So how did PRB arrive at this conclusion?
Well, it "used population estimates from various points in history and prehistory and applied an assumed birth rate (which got lower over time, to reflect the declining birth rate). The method gave a rough estimate of the number of births . . ."
Moreover, PRB claims that 117 billion may be a gross underestimation, and if they were to revisit and revise their figures, they would likely increase the 117 billion to, well, who knows?
PRB’s methods sound like they come straight from “the science,” and the organization is all about helping to "build climate resilience", so color me skeptical when it comes to the 117+ billion figure.
Still, the notion that the people who have ever lived on earth since 190,000 B.C. outnumbers our current population of eight billion makes sense to me.
Granted, the vast majority of those people did not make it past the age of five, but they were born, and they did live, so they do count.
I don’t think we can ever truly know how many people lived and died in the world in the past 200,000 years, but I think we can safely say that number easily surpasses eight billion, which means this world of ours has hosted a lot of souls through the ages.
And if you believe in God and Creation, as I do, then each one of those souls came into the world for a specific spiritual purpose. Anyway you estimate it, that’s a lot of souls and a lot of specific spiritual purposes.
According to a group called the Population Reference Bureau, "about 117 billion births have taken place since 190,000 BCE, far outnumbering the 8 billion people who are alive today."
117 billion. That is a lot of people and a lot of incarnated souls.
So how did PRB arrive at this conclusion?
Well, it "used population estimates from various points in history and prehistory and applied an assumed birth rate (which got lower over time, to reflect the declining birth rate). The method gave a rough estimate of the number of births . . ."
Moreover, PRB claims that 117 billion may be a gross underestimation, and if they were to revisit and revise their figures, they would likely increase the 117 billion to, well, who knows?
PRB’s methods sound like they come straight from “the science,” and the organization is all about helping to "build climate resilience", so color me skeptical when it comes to the 117+ billion figure.
Still, the notion that the people who have ever lived on earth since 190,000 B.C. outnumbers our current population of eight billion makes sense to me.
Granted, the vast majority of those people did not make it past the age of five, but they were born, and they did live, so they do count.
I don’t think we can ever truly know how many people lived and died in the world in the past 200,000 years, but I think we can safely say that number easily surpasses eight billion, which means this world of ours has hosted a lot of souls through the ages.
And if you believe in God and Creation, as I do, then each one of those souls came into the world for a specific spiritual purpose. Anyway you estimate it, that’s a lot of souls and a lot of specific spiritual purposes.
September 12, 2023
Certain Dimensions of Thought and Creativity Are No Longer Attainable
The literary critic/philosopher/novelist George Steiner once noted that
“where God's presence is no longer a tenable supposition and where His absence is no longer a felt, indeed overwhelming weight, certain dimensions of thought and creativity are no longer attainable.”
I appreciate where Steiner -- George, not Rudolf -- is coming from with this line of thinking.
The unattainable dimensions of thought to which Steiner alludes are most glaring in the arts, particularly poetry. I have this personal theory that the novel maximized the creative space between man and God, and it did so in a positive rather than a negative sense – at least for a while. This no longer holds true for the most part.
At the same time, this creative chasm between man and God proved too great for poetry. Though some good poetry still existed in the mid-twentieth century, the creative space-separation became too strained to be tenable, and poetry basically collapsed.
The arts aside, unattainable dimensions of thought and creativity are now ubiquitous in all areas of human life. Ironically enough, these are most pronounced in spiritual and religious thinking, which virtually lack all semblance of creativity today.
I would argue that the "certain" dimensions of thought and creativity Steiner refers to depend on much more than God being a tenable supposition or the deep feeling (or not feeling) of God's absence as an overwhelming weight.
The dimensions of thought and creativity Steiner mentions are attainable once man understands that the overwhelming absence pressing down on Creation emanates from himself, not God.
And this absence can only be filled by man making the unattainable attainable via thinking and creativity.
God is there. Man isn't.
God is waiting, patiently for a creative answer to His call. Man continues to insist on being absent in Creation.
I appreciate where Steiner -- George, not Rudolf -- is coming from with this line of thinking.
The unattainable dimensions of thought to which Steiner alludes are most glaring in the arts, particularly poetry. I have this personal theory that the novel maximized the creative space between man and God, and it did so in a positive rather than a negative sense – at least for a while. This no longer holds true for the most part.
At the same time, this creative chasm between man and God proved too great for poetry. Though some good poetry still existed in the mid-twentieth century, the creative space-separation became too strained to be tenable, and poetry basically collapsed.
The arts aside, unattainable dimensions of thought and creativity are now ubiquitous in all areas of human life. Ironically enough, these are most pronounced in spiritual and religious thinking, which virtually lack all semblance of creativity today.
I would argue that the "certain" dimensions of thought and creativity Steiner refers to depend on much more than God being a tenable supposition or the deep feeling (or not feeling) of God's absence as an overwhelming weight.
The dimensions of thought and creativity Steiner mentions are attainable once man understands that the overwhelming absence pressing down on Creation emanates from himself, not God.
And this absence can only be filled by man making the unattainable attainable via thinking and creativity.
God is there. Man isn't.
God is waiting, patiently for a creative answer to His call. Man continues to insist on being absent in Creation.
September 10, 2023
What Made Father Stu Such a Lackluster Film?
I don’t have a definitive answer, but I sense it might have to do with the simple fact that the makers of Father Stu knew they had a compelling story and decided that they needn’t do more than tell the story in a generic biopic format.
The decision birthed a lackluster experience that deadened the inspiring narrative into something tepid. I’m not saying the film was terrible, but with such a compelling premise, it should have been much better.
The opposite is true of The Phantom Thread, which I watched recently. I did not consider The Phantom Thread’s premise – a renowned dressmaker having his fastidious life upended by a strong-willed woman who becomes his lover and, eventually, wife – all that compelling before seeing the film, yet the story ended up being riveting and thoroughly engaging.
Some will immediately point to the acting and the uncanny chemistry between Daniel Day-Lewis and Vicky Krieps, but there was more to it than that. The actors in Father Stu certainly did not hit the same notes, yet it would be unfair to claim that Mark Wahlberg, Mel Gibson, and the others in Father Stu did not rise to the occasion.
I suppose Father Stu’s fault lies somewhere in the directing – specifically, in the storytelling aspect of direction. To return to my initial thought, the people behind Father Stu knew they had a great story – so they fell under the erroneous impression that they did not have to invest too much into its unfolding.
On the other hand, the crew behind The Phantom Thread must have sensed that they did not have much to work with. Thus, they made the most of the little that they had.
The result is one film with an engaging premise that all but falls on its face and another film with a threadbare premise that rises to the stars.
Note added: For the sake of clarity, I enjoyed Father Stu, but when the film ended, I had the distinct and disappointing impression that I should have enjoyed it more -- much more.
The decision birthed a lackluster experience that deadened the inspiring narrative into something tepid. I’m not saying the film was terrible, but with such a compelling premise, it should have been much better.
The opposite is true of The Phantom Thread, which I watched recently. I did not consider The Phantom Thread’s premise – a renowned dressmaker having his fastidious life upended by a strong-willed woman who becomes his lover and, eventually, wife – all that compelling before seeing the film, yet the story ended up being riveting and thoroughly engaging.
Some will immediately point to the acting and the uncanny chemistry between Daniel Day-Lewis and Vicky Krieps, but there was more to it than that. The actors in Father Stu certainly did not hit the same notes, yet it would be unfair to claim that Mark Wahlberg, Mel Gibson, and the others in Father Stu did not rise to the occasion.
I suppose Father Stu’s fault lies somewhere in the directing – specifically, in the storytelling aspect of direction. To return to my initial thought, the people behind Father Stu knew they had a great story – so they fell under the erroneous impression that they did not have to invest too much into its unfolding.
On the other hand, the crew behind The Phantom Thread must have sensed that they did not have much to work with. Thus, they made the most of the little that they had.
The result is one film with an engaging premise that all but falls on its face and another film with a threadbare premise that rises to the stars.
Note added: For the sake of clarity, I enjoyed Father Stu, but when the film ended, I had the distinct and disappointing impression that I should have enjoyed it more -- much more.
September 9, 2023
"Born" From Love
The Establishment continues to remind Hungary that a globo-only option is off the table.
If Magyars want the globo -- and let's not kid ourselves, deep down, Magyars really, really want the globo -- then they have to sign up for the homo part, too.
Them's the breaks, Magyars! Don't pretend otherwise.
Random notes on the image above:
ElleFrench pronoun meaning she. Modern usage has provided it with a "chic" connotation.What is chic? Well . . . (strong language advisory). Elle continuedfeminine name of Hebrew of Greek origin meaning "sun ray." Related to the Hebrew name Eleanor, meaning "God is my light", "God is my candle."elle sounds like the twelfth letter of the Latin and modern English alphabet. love starts with the letter "L".
Born from Lovethis used to apply exclusively to childbirth resulting from the union of a man and woman. Not anymore, baby! Cover imagesimilar to a "love-is-love" ad Coca-Cola launched in Hungary last year, with a bottle of Coke occupying the same space the baby occupies on the Elle cover. 
Reactiontouted as a landmark step for positive queer representation in the media.apparently, social media in Hungary has been flooded by comments "celebrating" the image.the magazine has stated the cover is part of a "campaign all over the country for love and all forms of family".
Personal Thought
Is it just me, or are these campaigns and lines of attack growing a bit stale?
Note added: I've concluded that the best approach to these sorts of "campaigns" is to refrain from "reacting" to them -- either negatively or positively.
Instead, I have found that is better to discern -- see the thing for what it is, and by what it is, I mean understand the motivations and manipulations behind it -- and then focus instead on the Good.
Non-reaction to these sorts of exclusively external campaigns provides the space needed for creativity.
If Magyars want the globo -- and let's not kid ourselves, deep down, Magyars really, really want the globo -- then they have to sign up for the homo part, too.
Them's the breaks, Magyars! Don't pretend otherwise.
Random notes on the image above: ElleFrench pronoun meaning she. Modern usage has provided it with a "chic" connotation.What is chic? Well . . . (strong language advisory). Elle continuedfeminine name of Hebrew of Greek origin meaning "sun ray." Related to the Hebrew name Eleanor, meaning "God is my light", "God is my candle."elle sounds like the twelfth letter of the Latin and modern English alphabet. love starts with the letter "L".
Born from Lovethis used to apply exclusively to childbirth resulting from the union of a man and woman. Not anymore, baby! Cover imagesimilar to a "love-is-love" ad Coca-Cola launched in Hungary last year, with a bottle of Coke occupying the same space the baby occupies on the Elle cover.
Reactiontouted as a landmark step for positive queer representation in the media.apparently, social media in Hungary has been flooded by comments "celebrating" the image.the magazine has stated the cover is part of a "campaign all over the country for love and all forms of family".Personal Thought
Is it just me, or are these campaigns and lines of attack growing a bit stale?
Note added: I've concluded that the best approach to these sorts of "campaigns" is to refrain from "reacting" to them -- either negatively or positively.
Instead, I have found that is better to discern -- see the thing for what it is, and by what it is, I mean understand the motivations and manipulations behind it -- and then focus instead on the Good.
Non-reaction to these sorts of exclusively external campaigns provides the space needed for creativity.
September 7, 2023
Why Do So Many Self-Professed Christians Bother To Call Themselves Christians?
Michael Coren living for others as an Anglican priest. “I became an Anglican, and three years later entered seminary. I’m now a priest, spend my time trying to preach the genuine song of the Gospels, and write books and columns doing the same. In other words, I’m a Christian conservative’s nightmare. But for me, a dream lived. I found truth. I found Jesus. This straight, 64-year-old man, married for 36 years and with four children, has a lot to be grateful for. Most of all, I thank the gay community for teaching me so much about what Christianity really means.”Thus writes Michael Coren, the Canadian-English TV personality, muckraker, columnist, writer, two-time former Catholic, former Evangelical, and now ordained Anglican priest.
I first became aware of Coren through his 2011 book Why Catholics Are Right, which is dubbed as a defense of the faith and a “passionate response to anti-Catholic opinion.”
Five years later, Coren wrote a book called Epiphany: A Christian’s Change of Heart and Mind Over Same-Sex Marriage. His change of heart prompted him to unceremoniously leave the Church – for the second time; he left it once already at an earlier stage and became an Evangelical but then returned for a second serving in the 1980s – that he had once so vigorously defended and join the Church of England, which is far more tolerant and welcoming of Coren and his epiphany.
Before I go any further, I must stress that this post will not be a longwinded rant against Coren, who has always complained about being on the receiving end of unfair and hateful criticism, regardless of what stage he happened to be on in his media career or his spiritual journey.
If memory serves me well, as a media talking head, Coren reveled in the controversial and relished scandal if it involved other people. He was less keen on scandal when it came his way, but he was always shrewd enough to use such occasions to have epiphanies that would inspire him to completely one-eighty his worldview and reorient his Christianity.
Coren’s most recent epiphany convinced him that his former conservative Christian beliefs had been all wrong. A further insight led him to conclude that so-called conservative Christians are mostly bigots and bad people with messed up values that have little to do with Christ or Christianity.
Consequently, Coren now embraces and promotes a progressive and tolerant form of Christianity he describes as a “great, grand dance of collective dance of goodness” and a “permanent revolution of love.” He currently spends the bulk of his time slagging the side he called home before his gay epiphany:
But then there’s the rest, and how loud and numerous they appear. The dark obsessions and deranged conspiracy theories concerning the pandemic, plots at world domination, and the alleged war on freedom. The grotesque abuse of the LGBT community, the attempting and sometimes succeeding in reversing women’s rights over their own bodies.
The labeling of opponents as pedophiles – believe me, I’ve been accused countless times – and the advancing of the most nauseating ideas, ranging from support for Vladimir Putin and his “family values” to an adoration of Donald Trump as the only man who can save us from the liberals, communists and atheists who are apparently behind every corner.
Nor is this mud of nonsense confined to social media platforms. Some of these ideas have entered public debate, and what was once the preserve of the fundamentalist ghetto had punched its way into provincial, state and even federal centres of power. Witness some of the rulings in the U.S. over abortion, the banning of books from schools and libraries, and organized hostility to trans rights.
It seems pointless to mention the Litmus Test issues Coren has actively and willingly chosen to fail; so I won’t wade into that. Suffice it to say, Coren positions himself among those so-called Christians who are determined to “rebrand Christianity to reflect the social justice values of Jesus.”
What Coren and his ilk champion above all is altruism as the highest form of Christian love, and their interpretation and practice of Christianity is utterly mired in this altruistic misinterpretation of Christian love.
Here's the thing – altruism is the brainchild of the one and only Auguste Comte, the father of positivism and the materialist Religion of Humanity , whose Law of Three stages regarded metaphysics and theism as earlier, primitive stages of development that man must supersede via science. At the same time, he insisted upon the nobility of living for others, even if such living for others was detrimental to the self.
Christians like Coren claim to have rediscovered the authentic teachings of Jesus and strive for a Christianity whose values are “progressive and enlightened” as opposed to a Christianity that is regressive and unenlightened:
Whether we call it Christian nationalism, the Christian right, or even Christo-fascism (a term that breaks my heart), the ogre remains the same. It holds a gun and a flag in one hand, a Bible, and a cross in the other.
As I pondered Coren’s words, I found myself asking why he insists on being a Christian. Full stop. The values he celebrates do not require Christianity to support them. If he looked hard enough, I am sure he would find he could live and promote his progressive and enlightened values without having to drag Christ or Christianity into it.
Moreover, he would find that his values are already endorsed and promulgated by virtually all organizations, governments, institutions, and channels of worldly power, so why bother being Christian?
On the flip side, the same could be said of the gun, flag, and Bible Christians Coren so vigorously denounces. With their obsessive concentration on social, political, and ideological issues, most gun and flag Christians could easily forgo the Bible or Jesus and concentrate instead on the topics that occupy your average secular-based alt-righter. The same applies to many self-professed trads whose adherence to traditional, orthodox beliefs rarely rises above the level of implementing ways for others to live for others.
What’s interesting about the whole Christian left versus Christian right or Progressive Christianity versus Conservative Christianity divide is the seemingly superfluous inclusion of Christianity in the antagonism. Strip away the religious backdrop of the dispute, and you have something that eerily resembles a mundane debate between a Democrat and a Republican or a secular liberal and secular conservative.
The whole conflict over so-called Christian values boils down to a Comte-ian debate over the most optimal way to live for others.
Seen from this perspective, most of what parades around as Christianity today amounts to little more than warmed-over Positivism for the simple reason that most Christians dwell in the pinnacle stage of Comte’s Three-Stage Law and have willingly allowed society to supersede theism and metaphysics.
Cynically, I will even go as far as to suggest that most Christians have reached the point where they have inverted Comte's dictum of living for others to "living for myself under the guise of living for others."
All Christians possess some degree of what Owen Barfield called Residual Unresolved Positivism. Unfortunately, for most Christians, positivism appears to be anything but residual. On the contrary, they are marinating in it - to the point that they have allowed materialism to supplant metaphysics.
This begs the question - Of what use or relevance is Christianity when materialism has superseded metaphysics?
Why bother with Christianity? Why bother with calling yourself a Christian at all?
September 5, 2023
What God Wants Versus What God Needs
I recently watched Legion, a remarkably putrid horror/apocalyptic film that left a wafting stench lingering in my living room long after the end credits had finished rolling.
The film had only one redeeming feature – a snippet of dialogue in which the Archangel Michael informs the Archangel Gabriel that Gabriel gives God what he wants whereas he, Michael, is more interested in providing God with what He needs.
Gabriel gives God what He wants via unfailing obedience. Thus, Gabriel has no reservations or qualms about a disillusioned and wrathful God ordering him and the other angels to descend upon the earth and exterminate humanity. Steadfastly obedient, Gabriel does not pause to reason why God wants to unleash the apocalypse but faithfully adheres to the “whatever God wants, God gets” credo.
Michael, on the other hand, not only questions the rightness of God’s decision; he blatantly chooses to disobey it, guided by the intuition that God’s impulse to destroy humanity might not be what God needs. Michael senses that God needs a restored faith in humanity. Thus, the archangel assumes the risk of disobeying what God supposedly wants to provide God with what He needs.
As terrible as Legion was, this small snippet of dialogue started me thinking about how the matter of God's wants and needs signifies a demarcation line in contemporary Christianity – a perceptible distinction between two broader categories of Christians.
On the one side are Christians who believe it metaphysically impossible for God to have any needs. Within this metaphysical framework, God does not need man or any other created Being. Man and every other created Being needs God.
Since God does not need man or any other created Being, the most God can do is want something from them -- obedience, faith, love, and worship. Although these wants are often expressed or interpreted as needs, they are not truly needs because God is independent in Himself and is sufficient to Himself. Thus, the best man or any other created Being can strive for is to obey God and provide Him with what he wants.
On the other side, you have Christians who sense that God, as a loving parent, has genuine needs beyond mere wants. Such Christians also sense that the core purpose of Creation centers upon aspiring to those needs.
Hence, the purpose of Creation is not mere obedience to what God wants – usually expressed solely through externals like scripture, doctrines, laws, traditions, and rituals – but the active pursuit of discovering and pursuing what God needs, which transcends externals and emanates primarily from the internal.
The wanting God seeks obedience; the needing God seeks creativity.
The film had only one redeeming feature – a snippet of dialogue in which the Archangel Michael informs the Archangel Gabriel that Gabriel gives God what he wants whereas he, Michael, is more interested in providing God with what He needs.
Gabriel gives God what He wants via unfailing obedience. Thus, Gabriel has no reservations or qualms about a disillusioned and wrathful God ordering him and the other angels to descend upon the earth and exterminate humanity. Steadfastly obedient, Gabriel does not pause to reason why God wants to unleash the apocalypse but faithfully adheres to the “whatever God wants, God gets” credo.
Michael, on the other hand, not only questions the rightness of God’s decision; he blatantly chooses to disobey it, guided by the intuition that God’s impulse to destroy humanity might not be what God needs. Michael senses that God needs a restored faith in humanity. Thus, the archangel assumes the risk of disobeying what God supposedly wants to provide God with what He needs.
As terrible as Legion was, this small snippet of dialogue started me thinking about how the matter of God's wants and needs signifies a demarcation line in contemporary Christianity – a perceptible distinction between two broader categories of Christians.
On the one side are Christians who believe it metaphysically impossible for God to have any needs. Within this metaphysical framework, God does not need man or any other created Being. Man and every other created Being needs God.
Since God does not need man or any other created Being, the most God can do is want something from them -- obedience, faith, love, and worship. Although these wants are often expressed or interpreted as needs, they are not truly needs because God is independent in Himself and is sufficient to Himself. Thus, the best man or any other created Being can strive for is to obey God and provide Him with what he wants.
On the other side, you have Christians who sense that God, as a loving parent, has genuine needs beyond mere wants. Such Christians also sense that the core purpose of Creation centers upon aspiring to those needs.
Hence, the purpose of Creation is not mere obedience to what God wants – usually expressed solely through externals like scripture, doctrines, laws, traditions, and rituals – but the active pursuit of discovering and pursuing what God needs, which transcends externals and emanates primarily from the internal.
The wanting God seeks obedience; the needing God seeks creativity.
