Anatomy of a Liberal Seduction

First, he told me how smart, beautiful, charming and such... I was.

Then he told me that he was an important figure, and trustworthy, as per his status and old age.

Then he asked me for my e-mail address, so he could send me a document for my perusal, analysis... since I am so smart, insightful...

Then he suggested reading material for me, since he is also smart, and we are both smart and we could have a fruitful exchange.

Then he told me there was no such thing as simple honesty.

There is no such thing as love, as in 1. Cor. 13, though Paul specifically says that without it, one is only a noisy gong.

Then he said that he would test me and things would get a little rougher.

The dialogue became insulting when he felt like it.

The tone changed at a whim.  I thought it was his med's.

The whole thing was not supposed to be flippant or pointless.

I was not allowed to use the word "supposed to".

I was not allowed to use the informal.

There were a whole lot of things one was not "supposed" to do, say or talk about.  The list is endless.

I was not allowed to talk about Jesus, ever.

I was not allowed to quote the Bible, ever.  Though he could quote the Bible out of context.  That was permitted.

Of course, we could not talk about Mohammed.  Nobody gets to talk about Mohammed or draw Mohammed.

If you believe Jesus or the Bible are real, you are a "Fundamentalist".

Fundamentalist is the worst thing to be.

Morality does not work.  We are beyond good and evil.

Death is nothing.  It's all good.  Don't worry about a thing.

It's great to be inconsistent.  It's great to be ambiguous.

Satan is a good accuser with a worthwhile mission, like Socrates.

Cloak and dagger or hiding in plain view, it's all ok.  Just be a gadfly at all times.

Converse action is the goal of all.

Mocking, provoking, persecuting is all good (or evil, does not matter) as it causes converse action.

It goes on and on and on, endlessly, addictedly, insensibly, hopelessly, depersonalizedly, unhealthily.

Pointlessly.  Meaninglessly.

There is nothing broad-minded about it.

There is nothing liberal about it.

There is no depth to it.

There are no new idea's generated:  heat not light.

Gong-show.


Argue--just don't argue with a "liberal".



"If you have to argue with a Liberal--don't."

Myth of the Metaphorical Resurrection

I am reading through this dissertation on John Dominic Crossan's work by Tawa Anderson.  Surprisingly, I know the author, as he lived in Edmonton.  Small world!  Great topic!

http://digital.library.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/2847/Anderson_sbts_0207D_10031.pdf?sequence=1

Poetry and liberal Protestantism vs. Religion / Flannery O'Connor

Yesterday's Flannery O'Connor Quote from FB. 

"One of the effects of modern liberal Protestantism has been gradually to turn religion into poetry and therapy, to make truth vaguer and vaguer and more and more relative, to banish intellectual distinctions, to depend on feeling instead of thought, and gradually to come to believe that God has no power, that he cannot communicate with us, cannot reveal himself to us, indeed has not done so, and that religion is our own sweet invention. This seems to be about where you find yourself now. Of course, I am a Catholic and I believe the opposite of all this." - Letter to Alfred Corn, June 16, 1962


I think I have come across this.  
One can learn a few things from Catholic writers.  

It can happen.  

Poetry is fantastic 
and human life is sacred and deep.  
Therapy can be loving and profound. 
Wisdom, wit and wild abandon to art, freedom and joy 
can be ecstatic, bold and sublime.

Knowing me and knowing you,
stirs me in the deepest places.

Our spirit is 
so much more than
reductionist biology.

We can sense the divine.

And we can sense the evil.

We hope and we fear and we lose and we cry
and we falter and try again,
and seek the eyes of another.

We cannot be alone.

But God, who is he?  Does he hear me?
Does he really love me, like they say?

Poetry can't tell me. 
Therapy can't tell me. 

Knowing the Great Books

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/01/barbara-kay-in-the-shadow-of-the-great-books/


But the tide has been turning. Last week, venerated, yet controversial 80 year old classical scholar Donald Kagan gave his fare-well address at Yale University, reiterating themes from the 1990s, when as Dean of Yale College, he was called a "racist" and criticized on campus as "peddler of European cultural arrogance." This time the reaction was quite different.

In his overview of the state of American universities, Kagan declared: “I find a kind of cultural void, an ignorance of the past, a sense of rootlessness and aimlessness.” He accused faculty of lacking “an informed understanding of the traditions and institutions of our Western civilization and of our country and an appreciation of their special qualities and values.” The students responded with a protracted standing ovation.

Warning of democracy’s fragility, Professor Kagan called for schools to adopt “a common core of studies” to convey the history, literature and philosophy of western culture to students.

Such “core” texts sometimes are referred to as the Great Books — the Bible (and now the Koran), Aristotle, Shakespeare, the American Constitution in the U.S., Canada’s founding debates here — summarized in Matthew Arnold’s words as “the best which has been thought and said.”

One of the most intelligent people I have ever met, a scholar, a teacher, a pastor and a university president said to me once that there are "no scholars in America. "

I wasn't totally sure what he meant, but I think this is the sort of thing we are talking about.  It has become unnecessary to be acquainted with history with the great books with comparative religion with languages...  

   

The Presbyterian Controversy

There is another book that needs to go back to the library.  I read it entire with great interest and can recommend it for good insights. I suspect that the entire series is very good.

It's title is:  The Presbyterian Controversy.  Fundamentalists, Modernists, and Moderates. Author:  Bradley J. Longfield.   From the Religion in America Series.  Harry S. Stout, Editor.

I should have taken some notes while I was going through it but I will try and find some of the things which I found particularly relevant to the things I've been thinking about.

The author decided to illuminate the controversy by exploring in great depth the background and motivations of the persons involved.  This was certainly a fruitful approach because through the biographies much useful material could be introduced naturally and interestingly.  We can also learn to see how certain people arrive at their positions in various ways, some through great trials, some more or less in a facile way.  Of course, you would think that more credence should be give to those with greater trials and depth, but we can see that character and popularity also play into this.

The main criticism of the book, as seen on Amazon, seems to be the characterization of a central figure, J. Gresham Machen of Princeton Seminary.  Here is one opinion:

Longfield attempts to fairly and finely balance the most pivotal denominational split of 20th century America. He does so by briefly biographing and documenting the interaction of the PCUSA's main players at that time. The documentation is excellent. The problems enter when Longfield interprets and implies motives. The main problem is Longfield succumbing to the whole problem Machen was fighting against in the modernist contrversy: historical consciousness. As a result the reader is not given an objective account. Machen is categorized as a fundementalist in the same category with William Jennings Bryan. Anyone familiar with Machen's intense new testament scholarship and political stances know otherwise. And to someone like myself who greatly admires Machen, such a depiction is borderline blasphemy. Machen was a brilliant and faithful standard bearer, not a demagogue or reactionary (as implied by fundementalist label). I recommend this book with serious reservations to discerning readers. 'Toward a Sure Faith' by Chrisope serves as an excellent account setting the stage for Machen's latter battles.

What interests me in this complaint above is the distinction someone is trying to draw between kinds of "fundamentalists".   "Fundamentalist" is not a word in my active vocabulary, nor in people's who I know in person, i.e. in "real" life as opposed to on the internet.  For some on the internet, this is a huge hot button.  "Fundamentalist" seems to be synonymous with literal Bible believing total idiot, bigot and justifiable object of derision.

In Germany, we had pastors who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead and somehow managed to preach something on Easter Sunday.  We also did have  pastors who proclaimed the resurrection of the dead, according to scripture. -- We, as the poor sheep, would distinguish between the kinds of pastors as "believing" or "not believing".

All of this, however, is somehow connected, call it what you want.  The liberal calls the "believer"  all kinds of insulting things.  And the conservative considers the liberal pretty much as anti-Christ, which in my opinion comes pretty close.  Denying that Christ came "in the flesh", may have referred to Docetism and Gnosticism, etc., but coming up with various anti-reality or pleasing metaphorical schemes is really not that different. These not only dare to deny the teaching about Christ but also persecute and malign those who hold to the word as blasphemers (even Christ was called Beelzebub), profane idolators...  and today someone called it a "throwing the dice at the foot of the cross for Christ's robe".  Sure, we will take away the substance and substitute a vendetta against those who confess Biblical teaching.

Ok, ok, ok.  That's all for now.  Time is running out.  I'll will try and get some notes from the book.