Sunday, September 11, 2016

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 25) by St. Irenaeus c. AD 180

God is not to be sought after by means of letters, syllables, and numbers; necessity of humility in such investigations.
1. If any one, however, say in reply to these things, What then? Is it a meaningless and accidental thing, that the positions of names, and the election of the apostles, and the working of the Lord, and the arrangement of created things, are what they are?— we answer them: Certainly not; but with great wisdom and diligence, all things have clearly been made by God, fitted and prepared [for their special purposes]; and His word formed both things ancient and those belonging to the latest times; and men ought not to connect those things with the number thirty, but to harmonize them with what actually exists, or with right reason. Nor should they seek to prosecute inquiries respecting God by means of numbers, syllables, and letters. For this is an uncertain mode of proceeding, on account of their varied and diverse systems, and because every sort of hypothesis may at the present day be, in like manner, devised by any one; so that they can derive arguments against the truth from these very theories, inasmuch as they may be turned in many different directions. But, on the contrary, they ought to adapt the numbers themselves, and those things which have been formed, to the true theory lying before them. For system does not spring out of numbers, but numbers from a system; nor does God derive His being from things made, but things made from God. For all things originate from one and the same God.
2. But since created things are various and numerous, they are indeed well fitted and adapted to the whole creation; yet, when viewed individually, are mutually opposite and inharmonious, just as the sound of the lyre, which consists of many and opposite notes, gives rise to one unbroken melody, through means of the interval which separates each one from the others. The lover of truth therefore ought not to be deceived by the interval between each note, nor should he imagine that one was due to one artist and author, and another to another, nor that one person fitted the treble, another the bass, and yet another the tenor strings; but he should hold that one and the same person [formed the whole], so as to prove the judgment, goodness, and skill exhibited in the whole work and [specimen of] wisdom. Those, too, who listen to the melody, ought to praise and extol the artist, to admire the tension of some notes, to attend to the softness of others, to catch the sound of others between both these extremes, and to consider the special character of others, so as to inquire at what each one aims, and what is the cause of their variety, never failing to apply our rule, neither giving up the [one ] artist, nor casting off faith in the one God who formed all things, nor blaspheming our Creator.
3. If, however, any one do not discover the cause of all those things which become objects of investigation, let him reflect that man is infinitely inferior to God; that he has received grace only in part, and is not yet equal or similar to his Maker; and, moreover, that he cannot have experience or form a conception of all things like God; but in the same proportion as he who was formed but today, and received the beginning of his creation, is inferior to Him who is uncreated, and who is always the same, in that proportion is he, as respects knowledge and the faculty of investigating the causes of all things, inferior to Him who made him. For you, O man, are not an uncreated being, nor did you always co-exist with God, as did His own Word; but now, through His pre-eminent goodness, receiving the beginning of your creation, you gradually learn from the Word the dispensations of God who made you.
4. Preserve therefore the proper order of your knowledge, and do not, as being ignorant of things really good, seek to rise above God Himself, for He cannot be surpassed; nor do you seek after any one above the Creator, for you will not discover such. For your Former cannot be contained within limits; nor, although you should measure all this [universe], and pass through all His creation, and consider it in all its depth, and height, and length, would you be able to conceive of any other above the Father Himself. For you will not be able to think Him fully out, but, indulging in trains of reflection opposed to your nature, you will prove yourself foolish; and if you persevere in such a course, you will fall into utter madness, while you deem yourself loftier and greater than your Creator, and imaginest that you can penetrate beyond His dominions.


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103225.htm

Saturday, September 10, 2016

Discernment Ministries and Contemplative Prayer

the much feared by protestants rapproachment between
the charismatic evangelicals (often in the persons of their
most blasphemous and heretical leaders like Kenneth
Copeland) and the Roman Catholic church is along exactly
the worst lines of RC: contemplative mysticism.


This started as a warp of the Desert Fathers and is falsely
blamed on them because the same terms are used, but mean
totally different things. Originally contemplative prayer was
to pray while contemplating Jesus or some verses in the Bible
usually Psalms. And lectio divina was to read the Bible in order
to learn from it and put it into practice. All very conscious, and
not mystical except in the Orthodox meaning, to accord one's
life and thought outside of church services and prayers with
those church services and prayers. not to keep religion in one
pocket and the rest of life in another.


After the Great Schism of AD 1054 when RC went into schism
from us (and proceeded to lie about it to this day claiming we
went into schism from them), there was less grace in them and
so they more easily fell to deceptions. Complicating this was
Jerome's mistranslation of Genesis 3:15, from the woman's SEED
being the one to crush the serpent's head, to the woman herself
doing this. GENESIS 3:15 IS THE FIRST MESSIANIC
PROPHECY OF CHRIST IN THE BIBLE, AND IT POSITS A
DEATH AND RESURRECTION SINCE BOTH THE SERPENT
AND THE SEED DO LETHAL ACTIONS TO EACH OTHER.
The serpent's bite can only refer to a poisonous bite, and the
crushing of the head well, obviously the devil isn't totally bound
and totally crushed, but a severe crippling has occurred. the final
permanent elimination of him from all of creation but the lake of
fire hasn't happened yet.


Jerome mistranslated this against the witness of three streams of
Holy Scripture: Septuagint, Masoretic, and Samaritan. This had
to be deliberate. A contemporary excused him that he was
influenced by corrupt Greek manuscripts, but he did enough
research to know better. This mistranslation set up the RC for
any "marian" visions that promoted an extreme focus on Mary as
the one to conquer the devil. Sure, she is powerful, and likely a
supreme exorcist after Jesus, but the picture presented by most
of these visions is flawed, and involves a lot more talkativeness
and multiple visitations over time than typical of the few events
that occurred before and after the Great Schism in the east.


Scholasticism kicked in, adopting philosophy as guide instead
of merely a tool to exploit to convert pagans. Monastics revolted
in the opposite direction, anti intellectual and more emotional.
Contemplative prayer became the sort of garbage now promoted
by saints and magisterium and new age alike, and lectio divina
became "soaking" to get in a mood which was then exited to deal
with the rest of life, and as the mood fades so does any holiness
assuming you got any in the process in the first place.




Stumbling somehow on Barbara Aho's site, Watch
Unto Prayer, I discovered a lot of stuff that really
alarmed me.

Now, first off, I am sad to see that Ms. Aho accepts the
Jewish world conspiracy line of thought, totally rejects
Israel (after all didn't Ezekiel say they would be brought
to their old land and THEN purified of their uncleanness?
This is hardly the picture of the return from Babylonia,
though a few priests and others had married Moabite
women and not converted them or their children, and
some other problems, it was hardly a picture of the kind
of apostasy typical of secular and race oriented Israel
now), and is pre trib and I am not sure of her end times
scenario,

all that said her research on ecumenical dangers and the
networking involved and the New Apostolic Reformation
and other charismatic heresies and demonic manifestations
is superb.

Aho is good at catching subtleties that go over a lot of
peoples' heads. Those subtleties are important, because
just like subtleties in times past they lay the groundwork
once accepted for less subtle things. Also she points out,
that when some occult ritual in disguise is going on, the
lack of understanding by most participants has no bearing
on the outcome, it may even enhance it. Probably because
lacking understanding that might make them reject it, they
wholeheartedly go along with it, and the energies they
generate in their "worship" services are directed to the
purposes of the demons.

Fuller Theological Seminary is one institution that you
do NOT want to see in the specs on a minister of your
church.

For details, cruise her site. http://watchpair.com

Now, an awful lot of materials produced by various
discernment ministries are good. But NEVER accept
a writer or teacher as the best thing since sliced bread.
They all have flaws. (They are usually protestant,
which means they will attack the clear Bible teaching
of the literal Body and Blood of Christ being in the
Eucharist, which is also upheld by early church writers
from the second and third centuries, 100s and 200s
AD.)

A major problem in Roman Catholicism or rather two
major problems is this.

a. the veneration of Mary is over the top, various visions
have promoted ascription of titles and functions to her
that are proper to Jesus Christ only. While prots misinterpret
the idea of her intercession being in conflict with Jesus as
the ONE intercessor between mankind and God, when in
fact she intercedes with Jesus for us, so do the saints, so
does anyone you ask to pray for you, the overall picture
and terms in play in these visions and pop Catholicism is
close to usurping that role of Jesus if not actually usurping
it. Notable also is the fact that all or most of this stuff
began AFTER they went into schism from the original
undivided church, now called Eastern Orthodox in AD
1054. Of course they lie and say we are in schism but
that is not the case. Supposedly we are heretical also, but
how this can be when they share the same core doctrine
we do, but added to it, I don't know. By official RC
statements, Orthodox Apostolic Succession and Sacraments
are as valid as theirs.)

b. closely allied to the whole visionary trend are the
practices called lectio divina and contemplative or centering
prayer. Supposedly this goes back to the Desert Fathers
of Orthodoxy, but that is a lie or at least a misconception.

lectio divina was originally reading The Bible in order to
practice it, live it. Contemplative prayer was originally
about contemplating verses or several verses of Scripture.

In the west in the Middle Ages, the extreme rationalism of
scholasticism was a turn off to many monastics, and a more
emotional "mystical" mindset developed to offset this. The
result was lectio divina became "soaking" in the Bible as
it is called now, an irrationalist kind of reading, a state you'd
get into, then leave, no connection to the rest of the day.
Contemplative prayer similarly became an exercise in dreamy
states. This of course helped the development of visions and
so forth.

A major problem I have with visionaries is "locutions." This
is where instead of hearing a voice from outside into your ears,
the voice speaks inside your body, maybe your belly, very
weird sounding.

A person of my acquaintance who could project to some extent
did this to me once, I found it very creepy and told him not to
do this, but obviously a whole lecture could be delivered this
way to a deceived visionary, by a secret heretic with paranormal
ability within a mile of him or her, and an agenda. Aside from
just demons.

NO LOCUTION SHOULD BE GIVEN ANY CREDENCE,
and the presence of locutions in any visionary's history should
discredit the entire batch of visions.

In precisely this New Agey form, these RC mystical practices,
unknown (almost except for some individual deceived monks)
in Orthodoxy and among the early Desert Fathers, has come
into evangelicalism in the emerging church and other such
movements. (Some of them play with Orthodox icons and so
forth, and might be approachable to educate them about the
realities of what they are doing, and maybe convert them to
Orthodoxy and non ecumenical sanity.)

Watchman Nee once said that passivity of the mind and will
is what the demons want, and will possess a pagan doing this,
and when Christians do this demons will act on them also.
(you can argue about whether Christians can get possessed or
not, but then there would be the issue of were they really
"born again" or devoted to Jesus of The Bible or were they
only seeking thrills, chills, miracles, and cultivating occultism
relevant passive mind states and perhaps other ways of opening
doors to demons, such as getting the pseudo Christian version
of hindu shakti pat the touch that transfers anointing so called
and can put you on your back, whether Christian or hindu
context.)


Wednesday, September 7, 2016

grave sucking charismatics


"Grave sucking" is the name given by practitioners, people like Benny Hinn who may have started this, maybe not, by lying on Katherine Kuhlman's grave to get "anointing" from her remains (pick up vibes left over with the corpse supposedly uber holy), and denied after derision by some but recently a photo of the wife of a denier doing exactly this put the lie to this.
While Benny Hinn's Middle Eastern Orthodox or RC background as a child may have contributed to this, there is... nothing like this in the practice of either. Venerating, maybe touching, relics (bodies or body parts) of dead martyrs and other saints never including crashing out on their graves. This was some really extreme innovation on his part.
(that the dead may leave some kind of personality vibes behind, incl. influence from evil spirits they had or godly influence if very godly is another matter, frankly I always thought that funeral customs of kissing the corpse goodbye, and less extreme stuff like having picnics in graveyards, was asking for trouble, since the vast majority of people even baptized, chrismated and confessed and last rites-ed Christians even Orthodox are not reliable as perfect and God bearing.)
But there is another cultural source for grave sucking of exactly this kind, and even more extreme.
Nazi SS men, more trained in the mystical side of nazism than the average Nazi "laity" so to speak, would do this sort of thing, I think I recall they would lie on graves of heroic dead to get some of their courage, but DEFINITELY THEY WOULD HAVE SEX ON SUCH GRAVES WITH THEIR WIVES OR GIRLFRIENDS, WITH A VIEW TO THE RESULTING CHILD HAVING SOME OF THE QUALITIES OF THE ADMIRED DEAD.
So where is Hinn coming from? Especially with his bullshit about each Person of The Holy Trinity being Himself a trinity adding up to NINE gods? this is like ancient Egyptian pantheon. Obviously he is getting led and taught by demons who are the sort more able to contain their hate and obvious venom towards mankind enough to pretend to be loving and light and so forth, as St. Paul warns, satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. And the same spirit crew who could give pleasing even beautiful false experiences (just look at Miguel Serrano's ravings in Hitler the Ultimate Avatar) were with a more pagan flavor misleading Nazi and proto Nazi mystics, such as the Thule Society and the Germanen Order and less obviously harmful wanderwogel types before that that laid the groundwork for this.
Interesting how Paul Crouch (probably in hell, someone pray for his soul) and Hinn could both get in a wanna kill their detractors state of mind.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

alchemists were after gold not wisdom

Where did all the bullshit about alchemy being spiritual get started? it is of course easily
fed by the hermetic notions of a world soul and prime material that can be manipulated.
But if all the symbolism was not about chemistry, with a mystical bent to it but the goal
being material things like gold and physical immortality, whence all the physical
chemical activities that resulted in the discovery of some elements and other things?
you don't do that by meditating.


it seems to have started with an American Civil War General, Ethan Allen Hitchcock.


" http://mysticbourgeoisie.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html
"during the winter of 1856-7 General Hitchcock writes a volume of 300 page entitles REMARKS
UPON ALCHEMY AND THE ALMESITS, INDICATING A METHOD OF DISCOVERING THE
TRUE NATURE OF HERMETIC PHILOSOPHY; AND SHOWING THAT THE SEARCH ATER
THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE HAD NOT FOR ITS OBJECT THE DISCOVERY OF AN AGENT
FOR THE TRANSMUTATION OF METALS. BEING ALSO AN ATTEMPT TO RESCUE FROM
UNDESERVED OPPROBRIUM THE REPUTATION OF A CLASS OF EXTRAORDINARY
THINKERS IN PAST AGES.


In this book, published in Boston, the author sets forthe the reasons for his contntion that the
alchemists were neither frauds nor dupes but that they spoke in symbolic language, and that the real
subject of all their desires and efforts was not any philosopher's stone or any transmutation of base
metals into gold, but distinctly the human race and its improvement. The one desirable thing was
wisdom, - that self-knowledge from which flows the uprightness of life which is salvation."


pp. 425 - 426 Fifty Years in Camp and Field: Diary of Major-General Ethan Allen Hitchcock ...
By Ethan Allen Hitchcock "
 in Wikipedia is
"Contributions to alchemy studies[edit]
By the time of his death, Hitchcock had amassed a large private library, including over 250 volumes
on the subject of alchemy. This collection was widely regarded as one of the finest private holdings
of rare alchemical works and is preserved by St. Louis Mercantile Library at the University of
Missouri-St. Louis. Through Remarks upon Alchemy and the Alchemists and other writings,
Hitchcock argued that the alchemists were actually religious philosophers writing in symbolism. In
Problems of Mysticism and its Symbolism, the Viennese psychologist Herbert Silberer credited
Hitchcock with helping to open the way for his explorations of the psychological content of
alchemy."


Remarks upon Alchemy and Alchemists (published in 1857)
Swedenborg a Hermetic Philosopher (1858)
Christ the Spirit (1861)
The Story of the Red Book of Appin (1863)
Spenser's Poem (1865)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethan_A._Hitchcock_(general)#Contributions_to_alchemy_studies "


notice something here. this guy was interested in Swedenborg, and in James Webb's The Occult
Establishment I noticed that all the really major dangerous stuff track back to two sources of
lineage of influence, Swedenborg being one of them. I forget the other right now.  Swedenborg
had a lot of weird experiences and believed he was talking with angels, but he said at one point
that ALL spirits will lie. doesn't sound angelic to me. satan can transform himself into the likeness
of an angel of light Paul warns.


then that title Christ the Spirit would seem to imply a confusion between the Second and Third
Persons of the Holy Trinity and perhaps even a denial of the physical nature of Christ's
Resurrection. Not having read the book I can't be sure, but both are possible given the title and
neither inconsistent with occult philosophy.


Spenser's Poem would be about The Faerie Queen which essentially posits that a knight who
wears the cross of Christ would properly have to do with the fae, and though all kinds of
deception by spirits is indicated (Spark notes) the association makes the fae look legitimate.
That it is a red cross is indicating this knight is a Templar, of which the less said the better.
They had already been hijacked by (or perhaps did help form) speculative masonry and other
groups by Hitchcock's time.


The Red Book of Appin is a flat out grimoire. I don't propose to read any of this garbage
having been exposed already in my wrong headed teens and prefer to forget most. But the
picture I'm getting on this guy is that he was into dark stuff.


Hitchcock influenced Silberer, Silberer influenced Jung, Jung with the help of a familiar
spirit aka demon and assorted Nazi mysticism begat a sizeable chunk of the New Age and
took Freud's dip into mythology into a whole hog wallow.


Jung invented the notion of the collective unconscious, which is bullshit. a similar idea in
theosophy and related occult philosophy is the akashic records where is recorded everything
that ever happened. That by definition would include every thought that ever happened, most
of which is going to be bullshit. So if it exists it is worthless. A classic example of what you
can get when you seek to find the real history of whatever, is a couple of proto Nazi mystics
Webb I think it was wrote about, who meditating discovered that originally there was Aryan
Adam and Eve, who were if I recall right 12 feet tall, lived at the north pole or something
like that and ate cabbage and drank ice water and would have conquered the world on this
brew if Helga a Jew hadn't come along and introduced them to beer.


yeah. right. so much for universal collective unconscious and records of ancient reality.
(an occasional psychic stamp of some events on a location, which is probably what those
hauntings that do not interact with the viewer and seem to replay events every time seen
would be, is not akashic records as proposed.)


The collctive unconscious is a fraud, the product of a fraud. Famously, Jung was treating
some girl who had dreams consisting of ancient false gods including hindu. Supposedly
she could only have gotten this by tapping into the collective unconscious. OOPS! she was
the daughter of a scholar in all this with a library for her to wallow in. that gal was NOT A
BLANK SLATE. Jung knew this. Jung lied.


But I digress.


Years ago I stumbled on some mention of ancient Egyptians processing gold out of
gold mining slag, when the easily gotten gold was used up and they were after trace
amounts. My guess is that the whole alchemy nonsense was the result of some lackey
seeing this, and jumping to the wrong conclusion.


I read the Turba Philosophorum decades ago, probably in the 1980s. All the different
lectures in it contradict each other. There is one commonality among them.


Alchemy is a process, of taking something, breaking it into its constituent parts,
doing things to these parts or in some cases to only some of them, and then
putting the parts back together to make something totally different than what you
started with.


some similarities to cooking of the more complex sort are obvious. And once you get
the gist of this process, you can start applying it to social manipulation and even
pedagogy and whatnot. But that doesn't mean that that is what it was always about.


The failure of alchemists to make gold is legendary. less well known are some
apparent successes, which may be nothing more than developing a good counterfeit
to gold, that by weight (from the lead part) and temperature tolerances (from some
alloying) would pass assay of the medieval sort.  In one case in one of the German
kingdoms, a king ordered all alchemic gold items turned in for reimbursement, no
questions asked. a shield or a plate of such was in a museum whether it was ever
tested I don't know. Clearly someone succeeded on a massive basis and the king
wanted this stuff off the streets. probably because it was fraudulent.


Alchemists developed many herbal and chemical mix medicines, and Paracelsus'
remedy for syphilis and other things was essentially an early experiment in
chemotherapy.


But I digress.


the failure as I said was legendary, and a cartoon in an old history book I had
in Palo Alto High School (or was it Jordan Jr. High?) was a single square, with
the recurring character Hy Story now done up in wizard gear and chemical equipment
on the table and the landlord is telling him "and if the rent isn't paid by tomorrow you
can go make gold somewhere else."


so now suddenly you have all this "spiritual alchemy" garbage. while it is not
exactly garbage to say you can apply alchemic procedures on society and individuals
economically and psychologically, it IS garbage to say that that is all that alchemy
was ever about.


with the failure of alchemy physically, the search to explain the alchemy and hermetic
reputation for wisdom and to preserve that reputation so you could keep your mystic
reverie and sense of awe and wonder going and maybe pocket some cash was on.


Some clever bastards may have applied alchemic procedure to non physical mental
and social issues as an extrapolation, but that grew OUT of alchemy, the chemical
efforts were not a decay FROM it or a misinterpretation of it.



Sunday, July 31, 2016

The uncondtional forgiveness heresy

on Constance Cumbey's blog, I endeavored to explain from the perspective of one
who has been victimized so knows how it works, the evils of psychic domination.
This was intensely dismissed as delusional, and bitterness and lack of forgiveness
towards the perpetrator who I refer to as my biological (not adopted) so called (because
lousy) mother.


an extreme example is this, and I am posting this as an answer here having invited
him her or it to see the rest of the answer here that I posted part of there.


"Anonymous said
"in any case, any lessening of hostile feeling towards her risks reactivating the
mesmerism she had on me. trance state. crippled peaceful no reason to live
eventual state if allowed to go on catatonic or nearly so."
We are asked to give up everything to follow Christ, including the right to "not be harmed". Complete forgiveness,
100%. No excuses. It's hard, but that's why we are asked to count the cost beforehand."
10:51 AM
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=7383821847849022919&blogID=11772087&isPopup=false&page=2


aha, you admit your idea of forgiveness means surrender to evil. you mention "the right to 'not be harmed.'"
and this in context of the risk of losing sanity and coming under evil spirit influence.
 you are a new ager of
the worst sort, that perverts the words of Christ, twisting the Scriptures to your own and possibly others'
destruction (2 Peter 3:16b) we are not called to do this kind of forgiveness you demand, but to "save yourselves
from this untoward generation" Acts 2:40
MAY GOD SMITE YOU YOU FOUL WHITED SEPULCHRE SOFTLY SPEWING THE POISON OF SATAN
TO LURE GOD'S CHILDREN BACK INTO STRIKING RANGE OF HARM THEY ESCAPED.
God damn you to hell. and rescue all those you've sent back into the hands of pedophiles, rapists, hypnotizers,
corrupters, seducers, abusers of the children and animals that they need to protect and you would keep them
from being able to do so because they have to "forgive" not to mention the cultists and slow persuaders away
from the faith of Christ.


ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM FOLLOWS.


unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness are not biblical. you won't find it in the Bible
only in twisted exegeses that are really eisegesis, reading things into the Bible that aren't there.
cherry picking a verse here and there and exalting something out of all proportion to its role
in the Bible and you won't find it in the behavior exhibited by The Fathers when confronted with pretend repentance,
such as when St. Athanasius refused to admit Arius to communion recognizing his fraud in
pretending to renounce his heresy.


Jesus said to resist not evil but what context? immediately follows turn the other cheek if someone
smites you on your cheek. okay, so what kind of smiting? it must be something leaving you in
a position to turn the other cheek, i.e., conscious, not stunned, standing upright, alive. in other
words, a slap in the face. this is not evil with a capital E.


Jesus said to the Father to forgive His crucifiers because they did not know what they did. That
however is usually not the case regarding people who do serious harming and are often
psychopathic. Prior to the verses about forgiving seventy times seven, IMMEDIATELY PRIOR,
is Matthew 18:15-17 which describes a process of private confrontation on an issue, and the
problem person won't "hear" you. then you take a couple of witnesses for the next confrontation
to establish who said what so no one of you can lie about the other. If the problem person still
won't "hear" you, take it to the congregation. and if still the problem person won't "hear" you
"let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican." In other words, total ostracization. act
like he or she doesn't even exist.


This is falsely handled by people like Tom Horn and/or Chuck Missler I forget which I think it
was Tom Horn, who argue that no one should publicly criticize a minister of God on a blog
post but talk privately to him. Well, that criticized person made their problem statements
publicly, and it is not a relationship that is at issue but the false teaching that others influenced
by it need to hear the refutation of. and warnng against the false teacher. St. Paul said to
publicly rebuke evil doers before all so the others will fear and named names on two occasions.
One of which was Alexander the Coppersmith, who was denounced for two things: doing
much harm to Paul personally, and greatly resisting the Gospel.


Some situations are so dangerous that you need to short circuit the process and just get out of
there.


And when one is susceptible for whatever reason, the situation is dangerous.


unconditional this and that is how evangelicalism following the fads of writers not the word of
God and not searching the Scriptures like the Bereans did has decayed into the mess it is now.
From an Orthodox perspective, Protestantism in general has problems. but this is bad by any
standard, and in Roman Catholicism and even in Orthodoxy you find this same poison. It
facilitates the worst crimes against children, the worst heresies and covering it all up.


in Orthodoxy, the problem is that instead of some Bible verses out of context we have writings
of monastics, which are sometimes over the top. the context not only of the words but of the
writer should be kept in mind, which show THESE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE OUTSIDE
OF A MONASTERY. Church canons against certain behaviors apply in the world (the rest
of the church living around marriage and business and whatnot things of the world) and in
monasteries, so that means you have to take some action involving denunciation and getting
some prosecution done. In monastery incidents there are cases of people being thrown out.


The sort of things we are not to take note of are the sort of petty nonsense people kill over
or start family feuds lasting generations. Typical in Middle Eastern and supposedly Orthodox
Balkan cultures.


The second problem is the problem of pride. the monastery is targeting this above most
else, since the other sins lust and gluttony are ruled out by the lifestyle though homosexuality
occasionally becomes a problem.


Pride and vainglory can operate, poisoning ANY virtue like with the Pharisee who was
proud of all his virtue which ruined the value of that virtue in God's eyes, compared to
the sinner publican who was sorrowful and ashamed and repentant. And pride can
definitely ruin the virtue of condemning evil and exposing it because you can feel very
holy, virtuous and worthy of all glory and honor and praise.


That is the context in which Desert Fathers statements were made, that are prostituted to
the coddling of evil in RC and Orthodoxy.


the problem is inappropriate application of Scripture or of monastic examples. whence
the problem? the evil one throws the mind into a sharp focus on something out of
context. someone who is well intentioned gets obsessed. Also a person who is not
well intentioned at all, knowingly twists and misapplies Scripture and elders' words.


A classic example of Scripture twisting is a Talmudic decision regarding the rule that
one shall not be killed for their children's sake or the children for the fathers' sake but
each die for his own sin. This is obviously against killing family members of a
condemned person. And this law was cited in Kings or Chronicles to explain why when
a man was killed for the murder of the king whose son ordered the murderer's death
the murderer's family was not killed. Obviously this common sense meaning was the
interpretation in those days.


But in the Talmud somewhere we read that it was held to mean that a son couldn't
testify against his father (or daughter couldn't either). that would be a case of someone
dying on account of his children. OBVIOUSLY THIS MAKES PROSECUTION FOR
INCEST, OR FOR PROSTITUTING YOUR DAUGHTER, or anything else prohibited
for a parent to do to the kid impossible. I can only wonder what the rabbi who came
up with this one was into himself.


Here are some links that address this. http://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/judge_not_heresy.php


http://www.itlnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100:is-conditional-forgiveness-biblical&catid=43:systematic-theology&Itemid=78


http://cfsc.com.au/confronting-a-common-heresy/


http://pemptousia.com/2012/08/the-myth-of-unconditional-lovw/




In Christ or Therapy by E.S Williams, unconditional love is described as luciferic since it is
amoral in fact antimoral. unconditional forgiveness is denounced in the next chapter.


I can't buy the rejection of therapy entirely or the rejection of psychiatric drugs, but then
some people surrender themselves to any authority easily and others pick and choose.


amazon kindle gives you a chance to read some of this.


And the NEw AGe scene is big on this unconditional and non judgemental stuff. that should
tell you something right there.