Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 30

Comment moderation on this blog - policies and pitfalls

For a blog that is currently (by the apparently wildly unreliable Google feedback) accumulating some 300K views per month (c 10K per day) - I do not receive or publish many comments. 

This is partly because I am not seeking comments - except from those who have something to contribute to the posts. 

I greatly value comments that have read, and engage with, the post - or blog matters more generally; and (almost) all of those I actually publish are ones I either regard as potentially helpful, or at least harmless! 

I'm very grateful for such commenters (they know who they are!), and owe a good deal to some of the matters they have raised and debated over the years.

Indeed; without them I would probably have stopped blogging years ago.   

I neither read nor publish anonymous comments, and I block (filter-to-delete) all comments from those whom I suspect to be trolls or shills (e.g. from people who appear from nowhere, having just opened a pseudonymous Google account, and suddenly submit at least one comment for every post!) 

Nor do I publish comments from people who seem to want to use the blog for confessional psychotherapy; or to "set me right" on matters concerning which they are ignorant - e.g. by informing me of the official orthodox theology of whatever is their church - as if that was a refutation of my views - views that they have not troubled to discover.  

In fact, one of my own nasty little Schadenfreude tendencies; is when I delete Anonymous comments, or block what I have decided are troll-shill commenters! 

I repent this spiteful glee... But not the acts of deleting and blocking, which is necessary work. 

Schadenfreude derangement syndrome

The current orgy of Schadenfreude continues to escalate - energized a few days ago by a staged, acted and broadcast PR pseudo-spat over the Fire Nation war; a news-event which has been uncritically accepted at face value, and thereby ecstatically celebrated, by (apparently) hordes of people; individuals who, just a few weeks ago, expressed deep scepticism over the machinations of mainstream politics and the mass media. 

Yet another Litmus Test massively failed! 

It is becoming clear that the double-negative agenda is alive and well, dominating and sweeping-aside what has thereby been revealed as a shallow, feeble, self-gratifying, and this-worldly Christianity.   

Double-negative values are a hallmark of The Left - which is united only by its opposition to (ultimately) God and divine creation. 

The self-identified political "Right", including advocates of an imaginary and impossible "nationalism", have recently come-out as crypto-leftists - which, indeed, is the inevitable convergence of all primarily this-worldly and double-negative ideals.

In sum: The Right is united only by its rejection of The Left (i.e. particular-labelled individuals and institutions) - such that the only powerful source of Right triumphalism is when their Left-identified enemies appear to be getting humiliated and destroyed. 

(Note: In our world, all is of-the-left - except where religion is put first - and where that religion is motivationally-rooted beyond this world). 

There is a strong lure in religion that seems to combine success and status, power and prestige, pride and self-esteem, progress and historical inevitability, with aspects of real Christianity that is "not of this world". 

The proposed syncresis of this and next-world benefits appears in many guises through history - and dominates much of online Christian discourse; which is the reason behind current ecstasies of virtual Schadenfreude. 

The "prosperity Gospel" is indeed much more widespread than its crudest evangelists: the idea that the path to economic, or sexual, success lies via Christianity is a very popular and influential one online. 

Of course, Christianity must and should be-of-this-world as well as the next: not least because the incarnation and mortal life of Jesus Christ is evidence of this. 

In other words our mortal lives have purpose for as long as they are sustained by God. So a retreat from The World is not even a theoretical option for Christians - we must and should engage. 

But... in a civilization and society so completely built upon materialism and the denial of the spirit; in a world dominated by corrupt, and demonic-allied, institutions; it ought to be perfectly clear and evident that goodness cannot, therefore will not, emanate from, nor be gifted top-down by, those with institutional and official power/ wealth/ social status.  

It ought to be evident that politico-media-events intended to demonstrate the humiliation or destruction of people, organizations, nations - are not going to be evidence of, nor harbingers of, goodness. 

Indeed, the likely reality behind the façade of apparent destruction is not even difficult to discern for those with a bit of accurate knowledge who stand-back from the contrived frenzy - even when these people have no religious basis. 

(In a geopolitical world of puppet leaders; the spectacle of one puppet berating another for the cameras, should be obvious as what it is: a puppet-show.)  

The spiritual war of this world is essentially about "hearts and minds" - and the great aim of the various factions of evil is not to impose physical/material slavery or misery; but to induce individuals to choose to commit themselves (hearts and minds) to one or another of the agendas of evil. 

Evil is only spiritually effective when it has been freely embraced. That is why our enthusiasm, support, and hope; are so assiduously cultivated by The Establishment. 

And that embrace of evil is precisely what we are observing, in real time, on a day-by-day basis. People who were, until recently, apparently Christian; are changing sides; abandoning salvation as their primary goal -- 

And instead they are committing more and more of their support, energies, enthusiasm, efforts (and, worst of all, hopes) on what is at root a negative, destructive, demon-motivated agenda. 

Like Son, unlike Father: King Henry the Eighth, versus Henry the Seventh

Henry VII and VIII - These two portraits express well their differences

It is a sad reflection on the English that Henry VIII continues to get continual attention, and a kind of sneaking admiration, for his (unsurpassed except by except by William I) rapacious brutality in the Dissolution of the Monasteries; together with his "achievement"of having six wives. 

Yet Henry the Eighth left England far weaker, poorer and more internally conflicted than he found the nation. 

By contrast, Henry the Eighth's father, Henry Tudor, was one of the best of English Monarchs, the last King of Merrie England. 

This is not recognized for various reasons. Henry Tudor's character was shrewd and compassionate - he was not "larger than life" like his son. 

Also, English people have forgotten the colossal destructiveness of "the Wars of the Roses", decades of selfish and self-destructive civil war between Lancastrian and Yorkist aristocrats; to which Henry VII put an end. 

As a measure of destructiveness; when the English population was only about 2-3 million, the Roses wars were a terrible drain on the fittest and most productive of the national population. For instance, the Battle of Towton (hardly known by anyone, nowadays) probably killed something like 4% or more of the military-age and physically able men (ie. something like 25,000) in a single horrific day of mutual slaughter.  

But the saddest reflection on our national memory is related to the marriage question. 

While Henry VIII married six times (plus mistresses, and illegitimate children) of which he killed two, and "divorced" (technically had-annulled) another two - in contrast, his father Henry Tudor had what has been described as perhaps the most genuinely loving Royal Marriage in English history. 

This, despite that the marriage was originally a "political" alliance between the houses of Lancaster (Henry) and York (his wife Elizabeth). 

Henry seems, indeed, to have been that most unusual thing among monarchs - a loving husband and father. The husband and wife were devastated by the premature death of his first son and heir Arthur, Prince of Wales at age 15; and then Henry was even more affected by the death of his wife - after which he was never the same again. 

Nonetheless, and despite the fault of a somewhat miserly greed in his final widowed years; Henry VII left England a stronger, richer, more peaceful, unified and powerful nation; and the English monarch probably the most secure and dominant leader in Europe. 

Most of which achievement (except domestic power) his son then exploited and dissipated for personal gratification - with adverse consequences that extended for several generations.   

If nations usually get the monarchs they deserve; then the relative English reputations of these two Henrys may partly explain how this happens. 

Are explanations really necessary? Must we personally seek understanding?

It's often been recommended that we should cease to seek explanations (which are, anyway, always wrong by ultimate standards); and should instead just accept what is. 

It is said: We should acknowledge that we cannot know, and strop striving for something unattainable, and very probably misleading. 

Indeed, it is often asserted, that searching for explanations is just a waste of time, because it will fail to find anything with which we can be contented.

Sooner or later; we will give-up the quest - so why not do it sooner?  

Another way of saying the same thing is that it is the activity and process of seeking which justifies the exercise. For instance, this is a common New Age-y suggestion - the ideal of being be a perpetual "spiritual seeker". However, on examination this advice reduces to meaning that seeking explanations - discovering, trying-out, then dropping one after the other -  is justified merely because it passes the time before death fairly-pleasantly, and relatively-harmlessly. It reduces spirituality from a matter of primary human concern, to the level of a hobby.  

Even since I became a Christian; I have often tried to stop myself seeking explanations; tried to be contented with some kind of simple faith. 

I have tried this with more than one Christian denomination/church. Tried to stop myself questioning and trying to understand - on the basis that such activity was futile at best, destructive of faith at worst - because it never seemed to reach an end point. 

Yet - especially - the events of 2020 hammered-home why - in a world such as that we inhabit; which is a world where public discourse is near-monopolistically dominated by evil-affiliated powers - the seeking of explanations and personal understanding is now almost essential for Christians --- if Christians are not to be led away from salvation and into voluntarily embracing damnation. 

I have noticed again and again that the attempt (here and now I mean - and I note that it was not always and everywhere thus) to be "content without explanations", to seek to "rest upon "the mystery" of existence", are attitudes that have long-since been weaponised as a tool of Satan. 

It seems to be a psycho-social fact that the only matters upon which people Actually Do cease to seek understanding, and are contented without explanation, on which they rest-comfortably as if upon the ultimate mysteriousness of existence... 

In practice, the only much matters are those where knowledge/ ideas/theories/facts are supported by the civilizational, media, official, bureaucratic, institutional consensus. 

In practice, therefore; the advice to cease seeking personal understanding is equivalent to recommending that we live in accordance with the dominant social consensus. 

There are man theoretical possibilities for conducting our spiritual lives, but in practice it seems that the only alternative to accepting social consensus, is personally to keep seeking understanding and a satisfactory explanation. 

So, I would remind myself - and suggest to others - that in the situation of a Modern Man of 2025 it is a snare to cease striving for understanding.

And that we ought instead to discover for ourselves, and to our personal satisfaction, explanations for every aspect of existence that we regard as important. 

Of course (as always) such a search must strive to be completely honest, and must Christianly-motivated; because if we seek (whether consciously or unconsciously) any this-worldly and hedonic outcome such as comfort or convenience, therapy or thrills - then our "explanations" will be expedient merely, and we shall not achieve solid understanding. 

The only real alternative to a personal quest for explaining and understanding the essentials of our faith; is to accept spiritually lethal rule by consensus external values -- which is embrace the side of damnation in the spiritual war of this world. 

For the record: I Was Wrong, with my recent geopolitical prediction

Just to note that my recent geopolitical prediction that there would, before March, be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - was wrong. 

Soviet and socialist origins of the British folk music revival

I'm reading an oral history of Folk Clubs, called Singing from the Floow, by JP Bean (2014) which institutions were the main manifestation of the British Folk Revival from the middle 1950s until the late 1970s. 

I knew this well and participated somewhat, towards the end of this era; and perhaps because I came late to it, I had not previously realized the extent to which the trend was dependent upon the Communist Party (in effect the government of the USSR), and socialist Trades Unions, for planning, funding, publicity and organization.  

This top-down and social engineering aspect of the British Folk Revival is perfectly clear cut, not hidden, and was always openly acknowledged (albeit the fact that the activities of UK communism were primarily as a tool of USSR foreign policy, was never generally recognized). 

Like so much of popular music and popular culture generally, it turns-out that the public face and administrators of Folk Music (aside from the always present actually "folk" musicians, such as farm workers and miners) were the intelligence branches of the Eastern Bloc, and their sympathizers and collaborators within the UK Establishment and Labour movements. 

In the end, the movement outgrew its roots, and the aspects of folk music that I most liked were either disconnected-from or hostile-to the original Soviet-agent "controllers" such as Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, or AL Lloyd.   

But there is no doubt in my mind that a major aspect of the Folk movement was agenda driven, was upper and middle class in origin and actuality; and that this strategy was highly successful in its (presumed) political aims of permeating many performers and audience with a particular world view and assumptions. 

And what applied to Folk Music (top-down, organized and funded by Leftist sources) was analogously true (although probably with less direct Soviet influence, and a more Western Intelligence impulse) for the much larger "pop culture" of Britain. 

These were built into people at an early and formative stage of life, and especially associated with enjoyment, happy memories and day dreams during the "coming of age" years of teenage and young adulthood - that are a cultural obsession in The West, and consequently still exert a near-monopoly in large sectors of the population in the UK.

  

Systemic social problems - the implicit utopianism of the Left and the implicit selfishness of the Right

In any possible and realistically-imaginable society in this mortal life on earth, there will be situations and people who are having an absolutely and/or relatively miserable time of it. 

This may be due to the necessity for "dirty work" - or it may be due to all manner of negative aspects of any system. Because no matter how overall-optimal a system of society may be, it will be imperfect; it will include groups and/or individuals who are less favoured at least - and usually groups/ individuals who are systematically dis-favoured. 

By my understanding, Leftism began in the late 1700s with movements such as abolition and pacifism; and gathered strength through the 1800s with many varieties of socialism; before developing the current New Left-ism - sexual politics such as feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, transhumanism etc - to dominate from the later 1960s. 

Early Leftism was often explicitly utopian - positing an ideal society that was sometimes claiming to be a possible paradise; even if not quite "Heaven on earth". 

In recent decades Leftism has abandoned explicit utopianism, but retains a wholly-implicit, never stated, assumption of the perfectibility of human society; from which stance proceeds its critique of any degree of absolute or relative inequality, or suffering. 

In other words, Leftism is rooted in a denial of the systematic imperfection of all possible human societies; which is why Leftism is insatiable, and leads to the state of "permanent revolution" that has prevailed over the past six decades.

All problems that the Left focuses upon are always regarded as systemic and requiring systemic change; then, because all possible systems have problems - the Left  

To take racism in the USA as an example; at first the focus was upon laws and practices that excluded or disadvantaged, so that opposite "affirmative action" laws were introduced. The focus then shifted to unequal outcomes; so that quotas were introduced. Then the focus shifted to individuals' subjective feelings of oppression, disrespect, neglect etc ("micro-aggressions"). Then to a requirement for positive acts of group affirmation, admiration, celebration. 

And so forth. 

What all of these imply without ever stating; is than any degree of imperfection in a social system is intolerable and ought to lead to system change - with the unstated assumption that this will lead towards a perfect system where no such problems will occur. 

This strong assumption of perfectibility would probably be denied; yet there is always an assumption that things can and will be improved overall by each proposed or actual system change; and that there is no limit to such improvability. 

Such assumptions and denials inevitably lead to systematic dishonesty, which has been such a major feature of Western social development over the past several decades; until here-and-now those with power think and behave wholly manipulatively with respect to their implicit Left-agenda; and are "not even trying" to be honest about anything.   

I regard this implicit assumption of societal perfectibility as an almost inevitable consequence of the atheistic this-worldly materialism of Western Societies; in certain personality types. I am thinking of those people who regard suffering as the main human problem; or who judge a society on how it treats what they regard as its most "disadvantaged" members. These are the Leftists, and are in practice systematically dishonest. 

Other atheistic this-worldly materialists are less concerned about suffering; and more interested in optimizing peace, prosperity, comfort, convenience, and gratification. These are those who regard themselves as on "the Right". They accept the inevitability of imperfection and the necessity for compromise in systems - but disagree among themselves on what social system is optimal, and/or how to attain it. In practice, Rightists are systematically selfish - i.e. favouring a social system that they believe favours themselves (+/- favouring people like themselves). 

As I see it; the only alternative is to adopt a Christian not atheist, spiritual not materialist, and Heaven-focused not this-world-focused, perspective on all possible social systems. 

 

The current orgy of virtual Schadenfreude

The current online orgy of virtual Schadenfreude - triggered by media reports of the activities of the new US Presidential administration - is a dismaying spectacle in many ways, from my Christian perspective.

"Schadenfreude" describes the (spiteful) emotion of gratification at the (real or imagined) sufferings of others - typically of one's enemies. "Real or imagined" is relevant, since the current sufferings are substantially imagined, being learned-of via news-media reports and governmental/ bureaucratic announcements. 

That is why I inserted the word "virtual" - because the information on the sufferings is substantially indirect, secondhand, and obtained via mass/social media and from State sources. 

At least two things should be said about this online delight. 

The first is to clarify that reports of sufferings will almost certainly be misleading. 

The second, and more important, that the reported activities being celebrated are almost-wholly negative and destructive in nature - therefore not driven by any explicit and conscious, positive Christian motivation.

I have been deeply suspicious of claims of destruction of the managerial bureaucracy, since I had inside experience of such events about thirty years ago, within the UK National Health Service. 

The government of that era claimed to be determined to "cut red tape", including severely reducing the particular layer of bureaucracy within-which I was working. 

Official announcements from the specific layer of NHS bureaucracy also claimed (and complained) that it was being reduced severely. About 150 jobs were supposedly to be cut from a single office complex where I worked - and official returns to this effects were submitted. 

The news media duly reported the 150 jobs cut. 

Yet those on the inside knew that this was a kind of theatre for public consumption. 

In reality, hardly any jobs were cut - and these were almost exclusively among those who wanted to leave anyway and were grateful for severance pay. 

Nearly all of the 150 sacked/ let-go were redeployed within the larger organization; and/or rehired into almost the same jobs, shortly after the big announcement of cuts. 

The message is that, when you hear or read about job-cuts, layoffs, closures etc; all this kind of stuff may quite easily be faked - but faked in a way that is not detectable without detailed inside knowledge. 

The deeper problem with this current celebrations of destruction, is that of the underlying motivation. (Because the difference between virtue and sin, between good and evil, is essentially that of motivation - rather than specific action). 

A motivation for destruction as such, is anti-divine-creation, hence an evil motivation - and therefore leads to more and greater evil. 

And this applies pretty much for anything that might be destroyed - almost regardless of how useless or evil it is. 

An historical comparison could be the Dissolution of the Monasteries that happened in England under the rule of Henry the Eighth. 

The Roman Catholic Church itself, and its religious orders in particular - monasteries, friaries, priories, nunneries - owned a vast and still increasing proportion of the national wealth (from memory, something between a third and a half of the land). 

Church abuses were rife and widely experienced by the English population; there was a good deal of exploitation, luxury, self-indulgence, and political activity; and apparently much less (although certainly still a significant amount!) of asceticism, scholarship, piety, charity, and virtue. 

Therefore, there was no shortage of those among the English who celebrated (even when they did not personally benefit from) the truly colossal appropriation, violence and destruction that followed. 

My impression is that there was a good deal of tacit, if not active, public support for the Dissolution - as well as senior political, and a large segment of religious, leadership involvement. 

A great deal, therefore, of Schadenfreude was evident in the Dissolution. 

For instance; when the last major Abbey, in Glastonbury, was closed and demolished, and the greatest monastic library in England was destroyed; and its Abbot and two other senior clerics were publicly hung on top of Glastonbury Tor - it seems that the local population were pleased to observe their ex-landlords get "what was coming to them". 

Yet the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a national catastrophe, especially for the middle and poorer classes, from which it took England generations to recover - if indeed it ever did recover. More than a century of terribly destructive religious wars and exterminations were initiated. For many decades, there were almost no schools or hospitals, and no organized provision for relief of the poor.  

My simple point is that when goals are negative and destruction is the primary aim - and when this is unacknowledged, un-repented; spiritual disaster will surely ensue. Because this is, in effect, a celebration and endorsement of evil. 

No amount of negative action ever amounts to a positive strategy - and almost all current self-styled positive motivations are merely double-negative simulations. Or else, like Western "nationalism" as of 2025; almost wholly wishful, conjectural - hence in practice very secondary to other motives, and far too feeble to be effectual. 

With respect to the native populations of Western nations in 2025; any motivation that is truly good, positive, virtuous; absolutely needs to be consciously chosen and a grass-roots/ bottom-up phenomenon. 

Because, however differently things were in the past, good cannot now be done covertly nor in a top-down fashion. 

So that all fantasies of covert positive top-down agendas among the ruling elites are impossible, as well as unreal.   

  

In sum - the current orgy of online Schadenfreude may concern much that is merely virtual; and by its celebration of negative and destructive motivations, is very likely (from a Christian point of view) to prove multi-valently corrupting of those who engage in it. 

(As, indeed, seems to be the case.) 

What prevents "war in Heaven"? Or, the necessity for death and resurrection

The phrase war in Heaven is common enough, sometimes used to describe a rebellion of Lucifer and the demons against God, and a subsequent war among spiritual beings with Michael the Archangel leading the forces on God's side*. 

Yet, if we really think about it, "war in Heaven" is nonsense, an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 

Because - if there is war, then it isn't Heaven. And if there is a Heaven, then there cannot be war in it, nor even the possibility of war. 

*(If the war of God and angels versus demonic rebels did indeed happen in the time before Christ; and I believe something of that sort did happen, albeit it was and still is probably continuous, rather than a finite war - then it was not a war in Heaven. It was/is a war in the First Creation which was not and cannot be Heaven - not a war in Jesus Christ's Second Creation.)  

Heaven did not exist, and was not even claimed to exist, until Jesus Christ. It was Jesus that "made" Heaven, and made Heaven a possible destination for Men.  

But the "trouble" was and still is, that Jesus made Heaven on the other side of death; Jesus insisted that Men must die (as did he) and be "born-again" in order to dwell in Heaven. 

This has never been popular! 

People do not want to wait until after death. They want Heaven here and now! - or as soon as possible. They want to dwell in Heaven as they are, and not as they become after death. They want Heaven on Earth. 

Why then did Jesus insist that Men must die? Why not abolish death? 

Well, if we assume Jesus was both good and competent; then we must assume that death was necessary for Heaven: necessary for Heaven to exist; necessary for Men to live-forever and go to Heaven; necessary in order that Heaven actually be Heaven. 

And this can be understood by considering how war in Heaven is prevented. 

While some kind of powerful government could suppress dissent, detect and punish rebels etc - this would not be Heaven. (Being a thwarted, or brainwashed, rebel is not a Heavenly state!)

War in Heaven can only be ruled-out eternally if not a single one of the denizens of Heaven ever want war - and this situation must be eternal.  

In other words; the inhabitants of Heaven must - of their very nature, spontaneously, by their own fundamental desires and motivations - always and forever desire to live in love and harmony with God, and with each other. 

The "problem" was how to arrive at this situation; given that Men (and all other Beings) just-are free agents? 

The problem is: How can free agents become eternally good?

And my answer is that Men need to be able to make permanent their commitments, their choices, their deepest desires. 

Here on earth we cannot stick to our commitments, cannot stick to our choices. 

New Years resolutions get broken! The grandiose hopes of qualitative self-reform and betterment in a new Christian convert, never work-out. The "Old Adam" is ineradicable, as the Apostle Paul famously complained.  

We may passionately want to do this or that, or to be good, loving persons; but always we get distracted, or sick or older; our motives or mood change; circumstances change - and over-and-again we want something different, and end by doing something else altogether. 

Even/especially the greatest Saints are self-acknowledged to be great - almost continuous - sinners (by the truest standards of sin; sin as something-like deviation from the loving nature of divine creation).  

For there to be a Heaven, Men need to be able to choose God, Divine Creation, Love and all that is Good - and to choose this-only and this-forever. 

The way this happens is resurrection. 

We can therefore consider resurrection to be the way that we are enabled to make our commitments permanent. 

And resurrection first requires death. 

Thus resurrected Beings can live forever in Heaven without war, resurrection includes a permanent choice, an eternally-binding commitment, by which Men are (thanks to Jesus Christ) now able to make for ourselves.

It will surely be asked: "But why can't we have resurrection without death?"

The only real answer is: because that is the nature of things. If we want resurrection, we must die. 

It makes sense to me that resurrection can only be after death; because it entails a kind of permission to be re-made as eternal Beings; and although resurrection is a material process as well as spiritual, the process is essentially spiritual - because the material is a sub-set of the spiritual. 

(i.e. Originally there were only spiritual Beings  the material came later in creation. All materiality is also spiritual, but there can be and is spiritual being that is not material.)

I conceive of death as a kind of dissolution, or dissolving of my beingness from its current temporarily incarnated (embodied) level of creation, back towards a primal and immaterial (only-spiritual) simplicity that is a barely-conscious mere-existence. 

I envisage resurrection as redirecting the death-process by which only-and-all of that which is Good in me is taken, retained, rebuilt into the resurrected me.

The resurrected me is still me because it is a transformation of my eternal Being; but it is only remade of that which is Good, which is Heaven-compatible and Heaven-sustaining. 

The resurrected me will be eternal because this selective process retains only that which is harmonious and loving; and leaves-behind forever all that would have potential to generate dissent, rebellion or war against that-which-makes-Heaven-heavenly. 

In other words all of my mortal self that leads to death (all evil, and all "entropy") is left-behind in the process of resurrection, therefore after resurrection creation is unopposed and life is everlasting. 

How this selection process during resurrection actually happens, I guess to be the point at which the Christian imperative of "following Jesus Christ" comes-in. It may be as if we are continually-guided-through the process of resurrection (knowing what must be retained, what must be let-go and shed) by the very simple matter of Love. 

The discernment of what to keep, what to discard; comes from that love which motivates anyone who permanently desires Heaven, and the outer direction of that love to Jesus Christ and what he offers us. 

In different words; it is the loving and personal attention of Jesus Christ towards our souls during the process of dying, that enables resurrection; and which enables Heaven to exist...

And which enables heaven to be heavenly, include that there can never be any desire for, or possibility of, "war in Heaven".  

**

H/T - Francis Berger's comment that a possible motivation for those who insist on an Omni-God is that they fear that anything less than an Omni-God will not always and forever be able to defeat Beings that might strive to usurp creation. God therefore (supposedly) desires to retain an infinite and qualitative gulf between Himself and all created-Beings. (Or rather, this gulf just-is, and a consequence is that nobody and nothing can subvert creation.) Such a line of reasoning is, I think, just an extreme case of the much more general problem stated here: how can Heaven stay "heavenly" when its inhabitants are free agents. The above is my understanding of how this is so, and some the consequences. Once it is understood that the denizens of Heaven can, by free and irrevocable choice, permanently be fully in harmonious accord with God's creative purposes and methods - then there is no reason why Men cannot rise to a level of divinity on-a-par with God the primary creator; and join-with God as partners in the work of creation.  

Saving the Appearances - excellent audiobook version read by Aaron Parker

A complete audiobook version of Owen Barfield's most important book Saving the Appearances has been recorded on YouTube by Aaron Parker.  

This is an excellent resource, because Saving the Appearances, although extremely well written, has often proved to be difficult for people to understand. 

At least, many people, including myself, seem to have misunderstood the book and failed to recognize its exceptionally deep and transformative implications on a first reading. 

I think this is likely to be helped by Aaron Parker's impressive narration, which is highly engaged with the text; and articulated with an emphasis and modulation that makes it both easier to maintain concentration, and to grasp the argument. 

Saving the Appearances has been a life-changing book for many people. If you have never yet tried it, or tried and didn't "get" it; then here is a new kind of opportunity for you.