Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 45

What to make of significant-moments/ peak experiences/ epiphanies/ revelations? ...Because they don't interpret themselves.

I have for decades had a strong interest in those moments of experienced "numinous significance"; those times and places where - either at the time, or in retrospect - we have a conviction that something-has-happened which is of relevance to our life, generally. 

It seems that many people have these "peak experiences" - they vary with age, circumstances, place and company; some people have them a lot, and some (apparently) not at all. 

The actual raw experiences - their emotional and sensory qualities - seem pretty similar and identifiable as such. Yet whether they are significant; and, if so, what is their significance seems to depend on the interpretative scheme that is applied - and a wide range of schemes are applied. 

I think it is Not the intensity of emotion that matters, but the lingering sense of significance - the way an event recurs in memory, and that "something important, and potentially good" happened. 

But understanding what happened, and what are its meaning and implications; is where there are such big differences between people. 

I have read many books and essays by mystical/ spiritual/ esoteric/ occult type people; and it is evident that most of them have these "peak experiences" and regard them as central to - whatever it is they believe. Yet that which they believe varies extremely widely and often in opposite directions! From atheism of an hedonic flavour, right through New Age spirituality to devout adherents of formal and traditional religions -  of many kinds and with perhaps opposite tendencies.  

From this; it seems clear that such experiences are not "evidence" or "proof" of any particular "system" or metaphysical assumptions. This applies even when the experience is one of "theophany" - a vision of God for example. 

Reading the reports from people who believe they have experienced the presence of God, it is clear that the believed experience alone does not really get them anywhere in the longer term; because they need to understand, explain, make sense of their experience - and that requires such larger, perhaps pre-existing, scheme of assumptions. 

There is therefore probably an excessive emphasis on the occurrence of mystical/ spiritual (etc) experiences, and a relative (or complete) neglect of the matter of making sense of such experiences. 

In other words: the significance of unitary, discrete experiences is not self-evident. 

The scheme by which one makes sense of peak experiences, and indeed of all kinds of life-experiences, is a different matter - and apparently a deeper and more significant matter; than even the most significant of moments. 

It is inevitable that churches become part of a totalitarian society - therefore obedience to a church here-and-now = damnation

If you consider the nature of the kind of totalitarian society we inhabit in The West, it can be seen that it is inevitable that churches - including Christian churches - will be parts of The System. 

This to the same extent that these churches exist in the public realm as legal/ economic/ financial/ employing/ educational etc.) entities. 

(The nature of a totalitarian society is that all significant social institutions are necessarily part of the system of surveillance and control - which means, part of the totalitarian strategy.)

Thus, in a totalitarian society, insofar as they are significant social systems; churches will be part of The System - that is, part of the totalitarian system. 

And, totalitarian = evil* 

Therefore (under totalitarianism, in The West here-and-now) churches are evil institutions: evil in overall-effect and by their overall-aim. 

 

The consequence is that (as a strong generalization):

Obedience to churches = obedience to evil.

...Which means a positive choice to reject the salvation of Jesus Christ, and instead to choose damnation. 

This is explainable on the basis that the totalitarianism is manifested materialism, and operates by "brainwashing" people (by multiple means) to regard the external and the material as primary - indeed as the Only Real; and to subordinate, ignore or deny the inner intuitive and the spiritual. 

Churches are readily encompassed into totalitarianism; insofar as they actually function on the basis of quasi-objective laws, rules, regulations, dogmas, written documents with fixed conceptual interpretations, on the one side; and requirements for particular publicly observable behaviours (speech, writing, actions...), on the other. 

Therefore; under totalitarianism, any church that operates on the basis of public obedience to publicly observable and regulate-able behaviours is doing the work of evil: doing evil in terms of training its members to regard "the external" and "the material" as primary and mandatory. 

(What is deadly is the doctrine that salvation depends on the principle of obedience to a church which is so pernicious, rather than the specific content of that obedience.) 

So; (here and now) any church is evil in requiring obedience to itself (which is a social institution) as necessary to avoid damnation - when in reality this obedience is itself, precisely, damnation. 

It can be seen that under totalitarianism; the churches (which are part-of The System) engage in the same institutionally-imposed value-inversion that characterize totalitarian evil. 

+++

*Totalitarianism is evil because it is a manifestation of that kind of "materialist", anti-life, anti-human evil I have termed Ahrimanic; therefore evil both by its demonic-aim, and also intrinsically - by its nature. 

+++++++

NOTE ADDED: I realize that real Christians who are (here and now) members of churches do not obey them (except selectively, and on the basis of intuition and spiritual guidance - which is precisely Not to obey, in a traditional sense). 

However, too many of these people are currently dishonest or self-blinded as to the foundational Christian necessity of their own and personal discernment; which is itself a weakness and/or a sin - doubly-so when they pretend to church obedience as necessary to salvation. 

It is therefore important that such people understand what they are actually-already doing, and why; and are explicit and honest about what they are doing (at least in their own minds, if not publicly).

As we may perceive all around us in everyday life: nobody can be argued or compelled to take personal responsibility for their own choices, nor can they be argued or compelled into becoming conscious of that which they prefer to maintain unconscious. And there is a significant chance that having "bad faith" pointed-out will merely lead to an escalation of the self-distraction and displacement-activity of attacking the messenger.   

It would therefore be much better if the kind of self-identified "obedient" church-first Christians I am talking about would reach a true recognition, each from- and for-himself. 

It is inevitable that churches become part of a totalitarian state - therefore obedience to a church = damnation

If you consider the nature of the kind of totalitarian society we inhabit in The West, it can be seen that it is inevitable that churches - including Christian churches - will be parts of The System. 

This to the same extent that these churches exist in the public realm as legal/ economic/ financial/ employing/ educational etc.) entities. 

(The nature of a totalitarian society is that all significant social institutions are necessarily part of the system of surveillance and control.)

Thus, in a totalitarian society, insofar as they are significant social systems; churches will be part of The System - that is, part of the totalitarian system. 

And, totalitarian = evil* 

Therefore (under totalitarianism, in The West here-and-now) churches are evil institutions: evil in overall-effect and by their overall-aim. 

 

The consequence is that (as a strong generalization):

Obedience to churches = obedience to evil.

Which means a positive choice to reject the salvation of Jesus Christ, and instead to choose damnation. 

This is understandable on the basis that the totalitarianism is materialism, and operates by "brainwashing" people (by multiple means) to regard the external and the material a primary; and to subordinate, ignore or deny the inner intuitive and the spiritual. 

Churches are readily encompassed into totalitarianism; insofar as they actually function on the basis of quasi-objective laws, rules, dogmas, written documents with fixed conceptual interpretations, on the one side; and particular publicly observable behaviours (speech, writing, actions...), on the other. 

Therefore; under totalitarianism, any church that operates on the basis of public obedience to publicly observable and regulate-able behaviours is doing the work of evil: doing evil terms of training its members to regard "the external" and "the material" as primary and mandatory. 

(It is the doctrine that salvation depends on the principle of obedience to a church which is so pernicious, rather than the specific content of that obedience.) 

So; any church is evil in requiring obedience to itself (which is a social institution) as necessary to avoid damnation - when in reality this obedience is itself, precisely, damnation. 

It can be seen that under totalitarianism; the churches (which are part-of The System) engage in the same institutionally-imposed value-inversion that characterize totalitarian evil. 

*Totalitarianism is evil because it is a manifestation of that kind of "materialist", anti-life, anti-human evil termed Ahrimanic; therefore evil by its aim, and also intrinsically - by its nature. 

NOTE ADDED: I realize that real Christians who are members of churches do not obey them (except selectively, and on the basis of intuition and spiritual guidance). However, too many of these people are currently dishonest or self-blinded as to the necessity of their own and personal discernment; which is itself a weakness and/or a sin - doubly so when they pretend to church obedience as necessary to salvation. It is therefore important that such people understand what they are actually-already doing, and why; and are explicit and honest about what they are doing (at least in their own minds, if not publicly).  

A droll music-video - Mission Impossible Theme from The Piano Guys with Lindsey Stirling

A blast from the past (11 years ago) - I remembered this today and enjoyed it as much as ever.

Christianity is ultimately Not about happiness, Nor the elimination of suffering

What is life "for" - it it to be happy - which implies a continual "timeless" state of bliss. 

If happiness is rooted-in the elimination of all suffering (which is the emphasis in some major religions); then there can be no needs, no desire, no "wanting"*. 

All Just Is, and what is, is good.  

Or else is life rooted in purpose? Purpose is dynamic, includes time; and purpose entails and some degree of dissatisfaction, yearning, wanting, desiring.

(Because if here-and-now was wholly satisfactory and sufficient, then there would be no reason to change it - no purpose.) 

Happiness (and the elimination of suffering) is in ultimate conflict with a life of purpose: one or other, but not both, can be the aim of spiritual life. They can't simultaneously be the aim. If we tried to conflate both in a unity, then one or other will - in actuality - be dominant over the other. 

So purpose is in-conflict-with the desire for a state of perfect happiness; and with the desire to eliminate all suffering - because purpose entails some degree of suffering. 

To live (always) with purpose, is always to experience some degree of dissatisfaction with here-and-now; in order to desire some, somewhat-different future state. 

Therefore the desire for happiness (including the elimination of suffering) is incompatible with purpose. 

This is part-of the incompatibility of, on the one hand, the many forms of oneness spirituality - of "Eastern" religion so-styled, yet actually far more widespread that the East, including being strongly, and from early, within Christianity) -- with, on the other hand, Christianity (properly understood).

Christianity is about purpose, ultimately. Therefore, not ultimately about happiness, nor about the elimination of suffering. 

What Christianity is about, is dynamic, purposive, taking place in-and through-time: it is about Love as the basis of creation. 

**

(But because Love has so often been defined in terms of a static state of perfect happiness, the dynamic purposive nature of Love - hence of creation - has become confused and/or occluded. To put is the other way about; there are two distinct ways of considering "Love" as the goal of existence: one is as a timeless, perfect-in-itself, blissful - and essentially impersonal - state; the other is as dynamic, purposive, creative - and essentially inter-personal.) 

*Note added: It could be said that Love (understood as participation in divine creation) is itself the ultimate happiness; and in a sense that would be correct - for those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. But it is not the ultimate happiness for everybody. It seems that for many people the highest happiness entails a changeless bliss. And there are others for whom the greatest gratification (if not exactly "happiness" entails that which Christians regard as evil - selfish gratifications of various kinds. 

The positive path, forward through life

If oneness is primary, why did oneness allow that oneness be fractured; only to permit or demand the restoration of primal oneness? 

Contra-oneness: life is linear and the future is open. Therefore; what we need above all is a way forward; and the inner motivation to pursue it. 

Most important in faith is that there is always - at every moment - a positive path ahead. This must be so; or else we would (by now) be dead. 

Avoiding wrong paths  (double-negative living) does not suffice, since wrong paths are limitless in number; and all living would be expended on error and repentance.  

Our path forward is for each of us to find, because it is not, and cannot be, externally provided from any source in this world. It must be sought (which is our responsibility), and be discerned (by our-selves, as much as is possible). 

There can be, and may be, divine rescue and the external imposition of a direction when our own efforts fail; but remember that this is seriously second-best. 

God most wants us to do it, so that we will learn it. Divine rescue may be useless or counter-productive in terms of what we are here for - promoting passivity instead of creativity.  

What is the bottom-line? Not one thing, because we are Beings, and Beings are complex (irreducible) by nature. 

The true complexity of this world derives primarily from the hearts of Beings; secondly from the relationships of Beings. 

In other words; the complexity of this world is rooted in extreme structural simplicity - therefore Not in complex theological-philosophical schemata. 

Unconditional, universal love is a benign disposition towards abstract "thought forms"; whereas Christian love is for particular and personal Beings. 

Personal and abstract are distinguishable, and vitally so; but are not completely separable. 

...Thought forms become inhabited by personal spirit Beings; thus unconditional and abstract love gets personalized (willy nilly); while personal Love contains the expansile tendency to seek more of itself, pressing towards other and (as yet) unknown persons.     

Jesus overcame the world*- but nobody else among Men has come near!

Including not the Saints (by their own accounts). 

Neither you nor I can overcome the world. 

It is a terrible, and terribly common, error to suppose that Men can overcome the world; or, even worse, that we should. 

That was-not/ is-not how the world is set-up in God's creation. It is not how things work. 

There is no such thing as enlightenment - we cannot overcome the world; but there is repentance, which (properly understood) is the path to eternal resurrected life.  

Men are God-intended to know, acknowledge, and repent sin - to learn-from mortal life; that we may thereby become better Men in eternal resurrected life. 

We should not strive to overcome this world, because Christ's "Kingdom" is not of this world.

Instead we should know and follow Jesus: out of this world and into Heaven.  

*John 16:33 - These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. 

My "kingdom" is not of this world... On being led by the Fourth Gospel (called John)

A couple of days ago I wrote that we should think of Jesus primarily as The Good Shepherd (leading those who will follow to resurrected life everlasting beyond biological death); and not as a King. 

Such is a natural consequence of the decision I made to base my Christian belief on the Fourth Gospel (called John) - the background to which decision is covered in my 'mini-book' from a few years ago, Lazarus Writes. 

I am aware that history took a very different path of putting the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed the Epistles of Paul, above the Fourth Gospel; and also of interpreting the Fourth Gospel in light of the rest of the New Testament. However, I regard this as an error, simply because I believe what the Fourth Gospel says about itself, and therefore put it first and above all other scriptures. 

The Fourth Gospel tells us, repeatedly and in many ways, that Jesus is Not a King, that it is a mistake to regard him as such. How then do I interpret the phrase "My kingdom is not of this world"? [See this verse in context below the post.]

Quite simple - in the context of the whole Gospel and of the section in which this occurs; I understand Jesus to be saying to Pilate something like: My "kingdom" is not of this world. 

In other words, Jesus is telling Pilate something like: "I am Not saying that I am a king - that is Your assertion, and that of Jews who have misunderstood my mission and role. 

"Furthermore what You might think of as the kingdom to which I belong is Not even part of this mortal life on earth. 

"I am, in other words, not primarily concerned with this mortal world. What I have to teach and do is concerned with life beyond death, the world of eternity: Heaven not earth". 

In other words, it is a radical misunderstanding to suppose that the Fourth Gospel asserts Jesus is a King. 

 

Of course, most Christians through history regard Jesus as a King because this is clearly and repeatedly stated in other parts of the New Testament. Jesus (after death and ascension) is often regarded as true ruler of this world ("Pantocrator"). But if the Fourth Gospel is what is says it is; then this must be an error - no matter how common. 

I completely understand that Christians who take the orthodox and traditional, church-led, view of Christianity; will reject this idea outright as being ridiculous. They have made very different assumptions concerning the relative validity and authority of Scriptures, and of the authority of their church - or of historical churches. 

I understand this perspective, and why people do not want to go-against the weight of tradition and church authority - but I reject it for myself; because I believe the Fourth Gospel and therefore think it is a mistake. 

Here-and-now (however differently it may have been in the past) I believe that understanding Christ as King of this world, first and foremost, may well lead to contradiction and adverse consequences.

Instead of a King - we need to grasp that Jesus is essentially the Good Shepherd, one who enables all who will follow him to attain resurrection into Heaven.   

John: 18 [33] Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?[34] Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?[35] Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.[37] Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.[38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

Is BRICS the backlash of Lawful Evil?

As The West continues its path of (in Dungeons and Dragons terms) Chaotic Evil  - or what I would term spite-driven Sorathic self-and-other destruction; it seems to me that Lawful Evil (i.e. the Ahrimanic - control-motivated, hence totalitarian and bureaucratic type of evil) is making an attempt at comeback via the now world-dominant BRICS grouping. 

In other words The System ("the Matrix") is doomed to inwardly-driven (and actively-desired) self-destruction, and is already collapsing, in The West; therefore the powers of evil whose strategy is to impose a material mechanism for spiritual damnation, are shifting attention from The West to The Rest. 

Geopolitics is always evil, no matter its explicit purpose. 

While, from the POV of the dominant countries of the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, BRICS seems to be a means towards the end of national sovereignty and the cultural autonomy in face of a monolithic globalism; the very facts and necessities of any multi-national compromise coalition, continue to push the existing and emerging alliance towards the nature of Lawful Evil. 

This is evidenced by several of the many recent statements of BRICS policy and strategy; which favour UN-type organizations to formulate and enforce "international regulation". 

It therefore seem like the demons of Lawful Evil have abandoned "The West" to the ministrations of Chaotic Evil, and are increasingly directing their main efforts towards "The Rest". 

From a Christian perspective, we are dealing with greater versus lesser evils (at best); therefore there is again the pitfall opening of inducing people actively to support that which is actually-evil, on the basis that it is a different, and maybe less extreme, kind of evil than that which preceded it.  

The danger is that Christians are actively supporting Lawful Evil on the basis that it is possible to be optimistic about its prospects in this-world, here-and-now. 

I suggest that Christians need to be much clearer than they currently seem to be, about the necessity actively to support only that which is Good by motivation and methods - no matter how weak that Good may be in this-worldly terms; and no matter how pessimistic the prospects of Good seem, with things as they currently are.

On the material and earthly level, Christians will inevitably lose - sooner or later; and it is on the spiritual level that are there solid grounds for realistic optimism. 

The grounds of our hope are sure, but Not Of This World. 

Once we have grasped this; then (but only then) can we see and know how such a spiritual and next-worldly expectation, can and will improve things in this mortal life. 

In D&D terms we should eschew not just evil, but the categories of lawful and chaotic, and pursue that which is creative. 

Go to Heaven - Go Directly to Heaven; do not pass through earth, do not collect 200 lashes

One of the questions that are answered inadequately (incoherently) by the off-the-peg mainstream religions is: What is the point of this mortal life on earth? 

Why don't we go directly to Heaven? Why must we mass-through mortal life, why must so many people endure (and, sometimes, enjoy) decades of earthly existence - what may amount to decades of suffering? 

Even for Christians: Why do some of us spend so-much time, effort (and, often, misery) tediously mucking-about in getting, conceived, born, growing-up, living, getting sick, maybe reproducing, getting old and dying (the whole complicated and hazardous rigmarole) - before we get to Heaven (maybe).  

There are indeed ways of making sense of this, but mainstream Christianity - with it's omni-God and double-negative Jesus - is not one of them. 

But do we really need (after 2000 years without!) a deep, metaphysical, theology that tells us positively what this mortal life is for, and what Jesus did, and how it fits into divine creation? 

Surely it is (as Jesus seems to have said) enough to love and follow Jesus Christ to salvation? 

Yes it is enough - for salvation; assuming that we can get through mortal life still wanting it, and not so corrupted as to reject the offer when it is made after our death.

Yet this world is full of ex-Christians, fake-Christians, self-identified by not-really Christians. The churches are collapsing, and those that remain "devout" are evidently on a path leading down and away from Jesus. 

But meanwhile? Are we really living through mortal life just for that final decision? - or is there something we ought to be doing here and now that will contribute to that eternal resurrected life we anticipate with confidence?

Important questions - vital questions - it seems to me. 

And if our society and our churches are not giving coherent answers - then what are we (personally_ going to do about it? Say "it's not my fault"? Or find answers?

(Or, is there something more important that you need to do instead?)

The darkest hour is just before the dawn... No it isn't!

 

From timeanddate.com/sun/uk/newcastle-upon...

"The darkest hour is just before the dawn" may be psychologically true as a proverb - but is astronomically false. 

If dawn is defined as the sunrise; the night goes through three evolving phases of increasing light (defined by the sun's angle below the horizon), that are conventionally separated as such:

Astronomical dawn - Sun is 12-18 degrees below the horizon: when the sky lightens from black towards blue such that fainter stars disappear.

Nautical dawn - Sun is 6-12 degrees below the horizon: when, on a clear day, the horizon and brighter stars are still visible at sea.

Civil dawn - Sun is 0-6 degrees below the horizon: when all the stars (except, maybe, Venus) disappear, and it is light enough over land to do normal outdoor stuff.  

The truth is that it is darkest in the middle of the night, when the sun is at its greatest angle below the horizon. 

That doesn't fit the moral of the proverb - which is rooted in an archetypal narrative of eucatastrophe. 

Yet I can't help but suppose that "the darkest hour is just before the dawn" is a proverbial product of the kind of people who never look at the sky, or who have not been out of bed early enough to observe the dawn for themselves!...