It seems that when considering the prophetic voice and why some young men are led by it, me being one such young man, it seems that the voice which they are privy toward communicating with is there because another voice is absent.
As an Aspergian, I recall it being discussed that we lack a theory of mind, which I can at least interpret to mean a voice within that communes with you actively to shine light into your interactions. It is by this voice, that some call intuition, but that I want to distinguish from intuition which I esteem as a good thing, that one is led toward appraising the language of another as being truthful, untruthful, sincere, insincere, said with humorous intent, said nefariously, or any other such way a thing can be said.
I should say that this is from some sort of voice, the reasoning voice, even if such voice is unreasonable in itself, that is natural to man, if he does have theory of mind.
But while the Aspergian understands concepts of morality, justice, and nobility, because they lack a theory of mind, or are more naive than most, they are extremely challenged to weigh if the person to whom they are speaking is being truthful or even has their best interests at heart.
Now I want to universalize this observation and talk about the guileless person, who may or may not be Aspergian. Shortly I will present a hypothetical dialogue that I'm not sure really takes place within anyone but is a subtle process, perhaps understood and with no need to be spoken. It is in the nature. As to what it is, I would say it is the voice of one reasoning with oneself within oneself. I say it is evil, because it is the natural self without any of the filter of civilization. A man cannot really be his natural self as an instrument in civilization, or the civilization would eliminate him as being bent purely on evil. How each man filters this aspect of himself is for him to decide. Some merely restrain themselves; some find religion and are changed from the inside. But certainly the discussion one has with oneself is a very different discussion from any that he has with others, particularly if he is not born again.
But as to these men, they are men who are guileless and are really themselves in civilization, not filtered. What this really means is that, if concerning a noble person, is someone who acts in civilization as one not constrained to act lawfully, he acts morally merely because he is a person whose morality comes naturally, rather than from being constrained to behave morally by society's mores. On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have some who act as completely lawless, rebels who are not constrained by any law to filter that part of themselves. The guileless are the most intriguing of all. Their motives are questioned constantly, and are more likely to be suspected of wrongdoing than to be guilty of any wrongdoing.
It is by the mercy of God, that some of these, even prophets, are led by the voice of God rather than that of their own rotten human nature, which somehow they are less in touch with.
A hypothetical discussion of one with oneself as a preliminary to socialization may look like this:
a. Within myself, I know that in communication with others, I am often torn between telling the truth or evasion, or telling a lie.
b. At some times, at least, it seems as if by necessity I must lie.
c. From this, I extrapolate that it is certain that others are motivated by these same natural impulses, I am even certain that at some times I am being lied to, even if I cannot indubitably determine which persons in which cases are lying.
d. But I am certain that at any time, I may be being lied to.
e. And furthermore I am certain that I have been lied to at some time and that at least some of the time some people are lying to me.
f. I feel that I am a noble person motivated by moral considerations and noble qualities.
g. And although I don't esteem myself as really any more noble than anyone else, for I am far too modest to deduce that, I do feel that I am often more motivated by morality than other men, why, because I am a rationalist.
___
As fake or unlikely as some of these scenarios may be, there is a transcendent truth to g. One juggles, actually almost all of us juggle in some way, with feeling to be more intelligent than the next man, more moral than the next man, more ____ than the next man, however it's also maintained that we are more self-restrained, humble, and modest than the next man, less quick to rush to judgment, and every other sort of quality that in this second category seem to invalidate all in the first.
One really can't have it both ways. But because of the malignant inner voice, these seem to be quite reasonable principles. Some are most comfortable when they are behind the wheel. Some are most comfortable calling the shots; so one is also convinced of his own balance and pleasing qualities, and even if he is an urchin among Papuan New Guineans, he is still enamored by number one, even if no one else is.
___
The prophetic voice... This is a very different communication. It doesn't gather reasoning from the inside but from without. I think it's often with people who lack the first voice and can often be taken in with frauds or deceit. The prophets then are the men that God has the greatest mercy on because if it were not for the guidance of God, then they would not even have a malevolent inner voice to lead them. They would have no intuition, no theory of mind at all.
But for some reason they hear the reasoning of God stronger than they hear their own reason. I think it is a tremendous act of mercy. On one hand, you have people that are so innocent that they will believe anything a deceiver will tell them. On the other, you have people so enamored with themselves and consentaneously suspicious of others that they do not even believe the testimony of the saints. And then you have some among us, prophets who struggled with both, but somehow came to lean on God for their understanding.
I know this because I too am chosen for the prophetic task. I struggled with a rotten voice inside of me, speaking threats and blasphemy. I struggled with my own naivete and innocence, and being taken by deceivers. But I try to rely on God for insights as much as I can. If I buy a winning lottery ticket, I thank God. When a tasty meal brings tears to my eyes, I thank God. When a breeze lets up on the brutal summer heat, so natural to East Texas, I thank God. And maybe sometimes I don't. I hardly ever say thanks at meals, for when I sit down, that is a moment for me to break from saying thanks. It is so often throughout the day I'm in awe of His work and giving thanks.
Awe itself is thanks. In awe over a new mathematical law you have learned, awe over the contrast of oppressively hot weather and the sort of cold that leads you to sit by the fire with a hot cider, a musician who has struck angelic chords, a child enamored with a balloon, and all sorts of things that cause you to thank God for having created the world with such moments of perfection, even despite the other instances of unregenerate evil.
But the people have never really believed the God-led. The prophets from the beginning have been brought to sit in judgment of the conventional wisdom, those truths society holds so dear. They are principles, like geocentrism or phrenology, that in one era are held sacrosanct, in another remembered bitterly and mocked. Think of how so many bitterly remember the legacy of the Church with respect to Galileo. But the prophets, to God's glory, and for strange reason, are commanded by God to go before the people and denounce their cherished notions, and what's more, to become bolder, more obnoxious, and more strident in denouncing them over time! Instead of rehabilitating their image, the prophet is continually brought toward making himself look worse, in the eyes of the political and religious establishment. These are men never censored by the filter of common convention, of law, or society, like the savages we discussed earlier who censor themselves merely to continue being tolerated by society.
They are people who say what they think. It couldn't be that they say what they don't think, or then they would be telling a lie. But they say things that, at least some of the time, the hearers cannot believe any rational person would think at all. The crowd has to conclude, and with the appearance of seeming logical, that they are liars, connivers, rebels, and dissenters. I don't know why that is. I suppose it is the evil voice that has many convinced that men are liars.
The greatest medicine against lying is to allow a person to say what they feel and what they think, without judgment, without condemnation, without fear of reprisal. But it has also to be reckoned with that we will often be disgruntled by their opinions and that should be met with restraint, or rather than restrain free discourse we should restrain punishing those who speak freely.
The prophetic voice is when the person has conquered their own rotten counsel, or non-counsel, and submitted with faith to the voice of God.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Religion Makes People 'Experts' and Should Be Viewed With Suspicion
Religion should be viewed with suspicion.
It is the clever venue for charlatans to take the appearance of credibility and honesty to further their swindling enterprise.
It also serves a unique function for the stupid. The stupid, who are not experts in anything, by being given this revelation, can now be experts in something. They now have authority, they have letters after their name (from a degree mill), and they have a shiny badge. Their authority now is so powerful, they can never be questioned. It is instead they are who the geniuses and now everyone else are the stupid ones.
You see that? Now, those same people who have struggled with doubt of their own inferiority and unintelligence, now feel validated! They too are intellectuals and Au contraire! It is those who made them to feel weak always that were the dumb ones! And they are the most clever of all!
So the man of the cloth isn't often the smartest man in the room.. although he may be the least capable.
It is the clever venue for charlatans to take the appearance of credibility and honesty to further their swindling enterprise.
It also serves a unique function for the stupid. The stupid, who are not experts in anything, by being given this revelation, can now be experts in something. They now have authority, they have letters after their name (from a degree mill), and they have a shiny badge. Their authority now is so powerful, they can never be questioned. It is instead they are who the geniuses and now everyone else are the stupid ones.
You see that? Now, those same people who have struggled with doubt of their own inferiority and unintelligence, now feel validated! They too are intellectuals and Au contraire! It is those who made them to feel weak always that were the dumb ones! And they are the most clever of all!
So the man of the cloth isn't often the smartest man in the room.. although he may be the least capable.
Christians Are Worse Than Pharisees!
The Pharisees accused him of claiming to be God.
The Christians accuse him of this same blasphemy.
Only Christians are much worse than the Pharisees ever were.
They go even further and say this 'God' character told them to eat bacon.
Even the Pharisees could not dream of such a wicked blasphemy!
You as Christians assign even greater evil to Jesus Christ than the Pharisees ever did.
You say he pretended to be God and he also told us to eat bacon. That is worse than the Pharisees ever could have imagined.
The Pharisees were not all bad you know. For instance, they believed in very clean dishes, so much so that they thought it would make them even closer to God. They made tithes of mint and cumin, and everyone knows how indispensable those good spices are. By the way, what is cumin?
You see, beyond the hard outer shell of pharisaical hatred, there was a soft gentle soul inside, with cream-filling!
Honestly, I can't say as much for some of you. I see all the trappings of Pharisaical hatred and your theology is just as weak. Like when you project your own fascination with larva-infested meat on to Jesus Christ himself.
That's cool and all, if eating worms is your thing, but don't bring the Messiah into it and tell me that He said it was okay.
Now that is sick.
"But if you cook it to 165.."
Get a clue moron. The larva don't just hop off the meat because it got too hot. They're still there, though dead. Okay, you're eating worm larvae.
And these aren't the little critters that you pull out of the ground and go fishing with with your grandpa.
These are worms that will suck your blood from inside your body, will implant themselves in your brain, grow to several inches and pass on one of dozens of diseases, that will make your life nearly as miserable as you made that of all those around you, before you die in screeching agony in a hospital room all alone.
"But if you cook it to 165.."
Indeed.
The Christians accuse him of this same blasphemy.
Only Christians are much worse than the Pharisees ever were.
They go even further and say this 'God' character told them to eat bacon.
Even the Pharisees could not dream of such a wicked blasphemy!
You as Christians assign even greater evil to Jesus Christ than the Pharisees ever did.
You say he pretended to be God and he also told us to eat bacon. That is worse than the Pharisees ever could have imagined.
The Pharisees were not all bad you know. For instance, they believed in very clean dishes, so much so that they thought it would make them even closer to God. They made tithes of mint and cumin, and everyone knows how indispensable those good spices are. By the way, what is cumin?
You see, beyond the hard outer shell of pharisaical hatred, there was a soft gentle soul inside, with cream-filling!
Honestly, I can't say as much for some of you. I see all the trappings of Pharisaical hatred and your theology is just as weak. Like when you project your own fascination with larva-infested meat on to Jesus Christ himself.
That's cool and all, if eating worms is your thing, but don't bring the Messiah into it and tell me that He said it was okay.
Now that is sick.
"But if you cook it to 165.."
Get a clue moron. The larva don't just hop off the meat because it got too hot. They're still there, though dead. Okay, you're eating worm larvae.
And these aren't the little critters that you pull out of the ground and go fishing with with your grandpa.
These are worms that will suck your blood from inside your body, will implant themselves in your brain, grow to several inches and pass on one of dozens of diseases, that will make your life nearly as miserable as you made that of all those around you, before you die in screeching agony in a hospital room all alone.
"But if you cook it to 165.."
Indeed.
America is Pagan-Christian, Not Judeo-Christian
We were founded by a religiously diverse group of men who believed in natural law. It's clear to me that we are pagan-Christian rather than Judeo-Christian.
It's my view after further study and reflection that there is nothing about this country or its founding that can be described as 'Judeo-Christian', a truly farcical term. This country never shared a heritage of abstinence from pork or unclean meats, celbrating Passover or other holy days preferring instad to celebrate pagan feasts Ostara and Saturnalia calling it the birth and resurrection of Christ, followed in the tradition of anomian Paulinist faith, and a long-standing tradition of persecution against Jews who, for instance, at elite progressive-minded Northern colleges were discriminated against in admissions until the middle part of the last century.
If you want to be Judeo-Christian, you are going to need a little bit more Judeo in your Christian.
But we cannot have that! NO, the Christians will tell you the Law is a curse, and it is done away with, and that the Old Testament is only secondary in importance to the New Testament.
So stop with this Judeo-Christian lie. This country is more pagan than Judaic or Christian.
It's my view after further study and reflection that there is nothing about this country or its founding that can be described as 'Judeo-Christian', a truly farcical term. This country never shared a heritage of abstinence from pork or unclean meats, celbrating Passover or other holy days preferring instad to celebrate pagan feasts Ostara and Saturnalia calling it the birth and resurrection of Christ, followed in the tradition of anomian Paulinist faith, and a long-standing tradition of persecution against Jews who, for instance, at elite progressive-minded Northern colleges were discriminated against in admissions until the middle part of the last century.
If you want to be Judeo-Christian, you are going to need a little bit more Judeo in your Christian.
But we cannot have that! NO, the Christians will tell you the Law is a curse, and it is done away with, and that the Old Testament is only secondary in importance to the New Testament.
So stop with this Judeo-Christian lie. This country is more pagan than Judaic or Christian.
Science is a Caricature of Religion and a Hostile Force to Religion
Science has lost all grounding and direction and is merely a caricature of religion and itself.
False research with poor methodology, shrouded in technical language and under color of science is holy writ,
the scientists are moral intercessors seeking the 'advancement' of humanity,
there is no God outside this world but it is certain that there are space aliens,
and the eternal God manifesting to the world in the form of a man is an insurmountable
conundrum, but in space there are wormholes by which we can bounce from one galaxy
to another.
Life and consciousness arising from an intelligent cause is preposterous! It is clear it
arose from nothing, instead.
Man is so insignificant and a little ant, however his gases jeopardize the stability of the
whole planet.
The Revelation is false, there is no Apocalypse! global warming, the world is ending!
It has a writ, it has a morality, it has a priestly class, it has an origins myth, it has a myth of intelligent, perhaps vastly intelligent life on another plane in another realm, and finally has an eschatology.
Can we seriously continue designating science what is nothing but a clever satire against religion? The best thing is for science to stick to the facts... of science, and not personal religious speculation.
Pastors... stop trying to sound scientific and 'beat' the scientists. You are not going to beat them at their own game and you're only going to stick your foot in your mouth and make us all look bad. Stick to your speculations... on religion.
False research with poor methodology, shrouded in technical language and under color of science is holy writ,
the scientists are moral intercessors seeking the 'advancement' of humanity,
there is no God outside this world but it is certain that there are space aliens,
and the eternal God manifesting to the world in the form of a man is an insurmountable
conundrum, but in space there are wormholes by which we can bounce from one galaxy
to another.
Life and consciousness arising from an intelligent cause is preposterous! It is clear it
arose from nothing, instead.
Man is so insignificant and a little ant, however his gases jeopardize the stability of the
whole planet.
The Revelation is false, there is no Apocalypse! global warming, the world is ending!
It has a writ, it has a morality, it has a priestly class, it has an origins myth, it has a myth of intelligent, perhaps vastly intelligent life on another plane in another realm, and finally has an eschatology.
Can we seriously continue designating science what is nothing but a clever satire against religion? The best thing is for science to stick to the facts... of science, and not personal religious speculation.
Pastors... stop trying to sound scientific and 'beat' the scientists. You are not going to beat them at their own game and you're only going to stick your foot in your mouth and make us all look bad. Stick to your speculations... on religion.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
The Seven Spirits of God
Most Christians deny such a thing even exists.
They so deeply desire to prove the trinity of God that they openly revile and decry His seven spirits.
One apostate, Jeanine, and another impostor Mondale, both of whom are among the damned, if I were placing bets, suggest to me that I have misunderstood. They recall Isaiah's seven abiding qualities of God.
But John was the prophet who spoke of that which I speak. But I don't plan on explaining the meaning of the mystery, mostly because I just don't want to... and you're probably not worthy.
Revelation 1:4
"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne..."
Revelation 3:1
"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."
Revelation 4:5
"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God."
Revelation 5:6
"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."
What are they? Stay tuned for more...
They so deeply desire to prove the trinity of God that they openly revile and decry His seven spirits.
One apostate, Jeanine, and another impostor Mondale, both of whom are among the damned, if I were placing bets, suggest to me that I have misunderstood. They recall Isaiah's seven abiding qualities of God.
But John was the prophet who spoke of that which I speak. But I don't plan on explaining the meaning of the mystery, mostly because I just don't want to... and you're probably not worthy.
Revelation 1:4
"John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne..."
Revelation 3:1
"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead."
Revelation 4:5
"And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God."
Revelation 5:6
"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."
What are they? Stay tuned for more...
Indecision in the Watchtower Society Over Cardinal Ordinances
Acts 15
The apostles establish four cardinal ordinances for new Gentile converts, "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication..."
One of the cardinal doctrines of the Jehovah's Witness religion comes from this 'blood' provision and they derive from this that one cannot receive blood transfusions.
Yet they also find in Paul's letters Paul's plain teaching of the permissibility of eating meats sacrificed to idols, which Paul outrageously defends, wherewith he undermines the of the ordinances, which he has no right to do.
How can they remain consistent by strongly emphasizing the 'blood' provision and yet denounce the first proposition? It seems that to maintain consistency they must abide by all four laws or dismiss them all.
And how does the Word remain infallible once it's recognized that Paul taught against apostolic counsel in Acts 15?
So clearly, where Paul's teachings are found, so also are errors.
The apostles establish four cardinal ordinances for new Gentile converts, "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication..."
One of the cardinal doctrines of the Jehovah's Witness religion comes from this 'blood' provision and they derive from this that one cannot receive blood transfusions.
Yet they also find in Paul's letters Paul's plain teaching of the permissibility of eating meats sacrificed to idols, which Paul outrageously defends, wherewith he undermines the of the ordinances, which he has no right to do.
How can they remain consistent by strongly emphasizing the 'blood' provision and yet denounce the first proposition? It seems that to maintain consistency they must abide by all four laws or dismiss them all.
And how does the Word remain infallible once it's recognized that Paul taught against apostolic counsel in Acts 15?
So clearly, where Paul's teachings are found, so also are errors.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Emptiness of Christianity's Folk Intellectuals
The Emptiness of Christianity's Folk Intellectuals, With a highlight on C.S. Lewis
Now, I am, by definition a 'heretic'. I teach doctrines that are a profound departure from historic Christianity, and I'm not changing and I'm not repenting either.
But what I tend to see, what I've experienced in my life, what I've experienced learning about others, is that heretics don't feel their beliefs are in error. They feel they are teaching the truth.
I find there are as many definitions of heresies as there are opinions.
I find there are a few basic points most or all Christians agree constitute heresy.
I find that when a Christan confronts what he finds heretical, he responds in varying degrees of discontent, and they go from coolly replying and critiquing your opinion to absolute violence, and I'm not kidding you. They will get extremely violent if they feel you are not rolling over and just accepting what they say.
Nevertheless, I find Christians collectively identify with the heretics, particularly heretics who resonate with them, and sometimes there is a true reverence for one heretic, held in common by Christians universally.
And while I could be talking about a good number of people, I want to bring especial attention to C.S. Lewis.
Now of course, we've been inundated with a diversity teachings in our modern era and some have enjoyed wide acceptance. Various teachers spew one view of prosperity, fairy-tale eschatologies, and hyper-grace election doctrines of salvation. But the one figure I think you all will know immediately to whom I'm referring is C.S. Lewis.
In elementary school and middle school, his epic, The Chronicles of Narnia, were one of the great fantasies that many of the children escaped to. I was also an aficionado of Redwall, though I never read all of them. Some other kids of course were about the Lord of the Rings. As for me, other fantasies I enjoyed were Hugh Lofting's Dr. Doolittle tales and The Secrets of NIMH. I was never a Star Wars or Star Trek geek. On TV, the great fantasy that captured me from 10-14 was Dragon Ball Z.
But enough of that.
C.S. Lewis.
I even picture now what a distinction he holds. Kids who read Tolkien or Jacques or the various other authors read other authors as adults. That's because those authors wrote children's books.
But C.S. Lewis was different. He wrote a six volume series on the land of Narnia. But he also wrote a number of adult reads, including several dialogues and allegories. I've known a number of young Christians who read these books voraciously and whose lives and intellects were shaped by his writing and genius.
However, when I looked at his theology, I found him wanting. He was, by all accounts, a radical.
Some of his controversial notions: A person does not have to know Christ to be saved. He appears to acknowledge that the Communion or the Eucharist imparts salvation to communicants. He appears to advocate evolution. He endorses purgatory. He endorses prayers for the dead. He did not believe in a literal, fiery hell. He didn't consider the stories in the Bible as all literal events, but some contained value as symbols. He taught the ransom theory of salvation.
These are only a few.
Why does this matter to me?
My experience as a heretic showed the emptiness of Christian teaching. I have been asked to leave their churches, I have been cast out of their churches, I've been banned in absentia, I've been physically assaulted, I've been stared at and mocked. My beliefs were continually put down. I've been lectured to by one after another who had no desire to know what I believed and openly belittled my beliefs when I expressed them. One pastor insulted me on Sunday morning before a church of hundreds. Pastors have lied straight to my face. They've told me to seek psychological counseling. I could go on but I'm appalled just at that much I've finished.
So it's all fake. This whole 'heresy' thing is a canard. It's like saying, "You're black," "You're gay," "You're a Communist." That's all it means, is 'you're bothering me. I don't want to talk to you. I hate you so much I hope you burn in hell. You're a heretic, heretics burn in hell.'
Yet again, the Christian experience is that they hold heretics among them in high esteem, they are enamored with heresy, and certain heretics like C.S. Lewis are held in high universal esteem.
Why do they affirm the wicked? Why do they uphold false teachings? Why are they schismatics and dissenters?
And why do they crush the good-hearted among them? They chew them up and they spit them out. They rip out their hearts and stomp on them on the ground and then shove them back in. They marry, and they remarry, divorce, and divorce again. They're evildoers and sluts and manwhores, and filthy vultures.
_______________________________
Christians quote C.S. Lewis. But why shouldn't they? It's trendy, everyone does it, and he's made a significant impact on the culture.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
And if it breathes through its mouth, talks incessantly about contradictions like trinities, quotes C.S. Lewis, and blows hot air, it is the modern stupid, profane, and intolerant Christian.
When one actually contrasts Christians' claimed theological pretensions with their folk intellectuals and folk theologians, you see by a wide margin that they prefer heretics, schismatics, and treacherously immoral teachers.
Now, I am, by definition a 'heretic'. I teach doctrines that are a profound departure from historic Christianity, and I'm not changing and I'm not repenting either.
But what I tend to see, what I've experienced in my life, what I've experienced learning about others, is that heretics don't feel their beliefs are in error. They feel they are teaching the truth.
I find there are as many definitions of heresies as there are opinions.
I find there are a few basic points most or all Christians agree constitute heresy.
I find that when a Christan confronts what he finds heretical, he responds in varying degrees of discontent, and they go from coolly replying and critiquing your opinion to absolute violence, and I'm not kidding you. They will get extremely violent if they feel you are not rolling over and just accepting what they say.
Nevertheless, I find Christians collectively identify with the heretics, particularly heretics who resonate with them, and sometimes there is a true reverence for one heretic, held in common by Christians universally.
And while I could be talking about a good number of people, I want to bring especial attention to C.S. Lewis.
Now of course, we've been inundated with a diversity teachings in our modern era and some have enjoyed wide acceptance. Various teachers spew one view of prosperity, fairy-tale eschatologies, and hyper-grace election doctrines of salvation. But the one figure I think you all will know immediately to whom I'm referring is C.S. Lewis.
In elementary school and middle school, his epic, The Chronicles of Narnia, were one of the great fantasies that many of the children escaped to. I was also an aficionado of Redwall, though I never read all of them. Some other kids of course were about the Lord of the Rings. As for me, other fantasies I enjoyed were Hugh Lofting's Dr. Doolittle tales and The Secrets of NIMH. I was never a Star Wars or Star Trek geek. On TV, the great fantasy that captured me from 10-14 was Dragon Ball Z.
But enough of that.
C.S. Lewis.
I even picture now what a distinction he holds. Kids who read Tolkien or Jacques or the various other authors read other authors as adults. That's because those authors wrote children's books.
But C.S. Lewis was different. He wrote a six volume series on the land of Narnia. But he also wrote a number of adult reads, including several dialogues and allegories. I've known a number of young Christians who read these books voraciously and whose lives and intellects were shaped by his writing and genius.
However, when I looked at his theology, I found him wanting. He was, by all accounts, a radical.
Some of his controversial notions: A person does not have to know Christ to be saved. He appears to acknowledge that the Communion or the Eucharist imparts salvation to communicants. He appears to advocate evolution. He endorses purgatory. He endorses prayers for the dead. He did not believe in a literal, fiery hell. He didn't consider the stories in the Bible as all literal events, but some contained value as symbols. He taught the ransom theory of salvation.
These are only a few.
Why does this matter to me?
My experience as a heretic showed the emptiness of Christian teaching. I have been asked to leave their churches, I have been cast out of their churches, I've been banned in absentia, I've been physically assaulted, I've been stared at and mocked. My beliefs were continually put down. I've been lectured to by one after another who had no desire to know what I believed and openly belittled my beliefs when I expressed them. One pastor insulted me on Sunday morning before a church of hundreds. Pastors have lied straight to my face. They've told me to seek psychological counseling. I could go on but I'm appalled just at that much I've finished.
So it's all fake. This whole 'heresy' thing is a canard. It's like saying, "You're black," "You're gay," "You're a Communist." That's all it means, is 'you're bothering me. I don't want to talk to you. I hate you so much I hope you burn in hell. You're a heretic, heretics burn in hell.'
Yet again, the Christian experience is that they hold heretics among them in high esteem, they are enamored with heresy, and certain heretics like C.S. Lewis are held in high universal esteem.
Why do they affirm the wicked? Why do they uphold false teachings? Why are they schismatics and dissenters?
And why do they crush the good-hearted among them? They chew them up and they spit them out. They rip out their hearts and stomp on them on the ground and then shove them back in. They marry, and they remarry, divorce, and divorce again. They're evildoers and sluts and manwhores, and filthy vultures.
_______________________________
Christians quote C.S. Lewis. But why shouldn't they? It's trendy, everyone does it, and he's made a significant impact on the culture.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
And if it breathes through its mouth, talks incessantly about contradictions like trinities, quotes C.S. Lewis, and blows hot air, it is the modern stupid, profane, and intolerant Christian.
When one actually contrasts Christians' claimed theological pretensions with their folk intellectuals and folk theologians, you see by a wide margin that they prefer heretics, schismatics, and treacherously immoral teachers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)