An article pitting science fiction against Homeric epics

This article written by a science fiction writer is why I early and easily discerned science fiction was souless, Spiritless, cardboard written by the most annoying kind of ignoram[u]s: the ignoram[u]s who is convinced he has total understanding and everybody else is a moron. [Note to self: learn to spell ignoramus.]

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/

C. S. Lewis called atheism a "boy's philosophy." The writer of this article is a boy as well.

It's four pages, but worth slogging through. Though he is a popular writer, so it does read fast.

ps- I found this article linked to the wikipedia article on 'monomyth'. It's interesting that academics have soured on the idea of a monomyth (Joseph Campbell's hero journey thing). It's because myth leads one into seeing the truth of Christianity. It also leads one into seeing oneself in a real way. These are things shallow, anti-Christian academia cannot abide. So they are avoiding the subject altogether.

Critical Text products as salve to an uneasy conscience

This young man recounts his 'conversion' to Critical Text bible products and away from the King James Bible.

Notice how it reads like a conversion to Roman Catholicism testimony. That's because it shares a foundational point of similarity: the necessary downgrade on the Word of God.

This young man is recounting how he first started reading the King James Bible, then his conscience was troubled (by the Bible of Protestant Christians of the last 400 years? think about that). His conscience was troubled by a Bible that has the authority of God in it. To salve his troubled conscience he looked around for an alternative. He noticed that many scholars promote "different Bibles." He took a look. Yes! These Critical Text products were bibles he found that he could look down on and not have to look up to. They didn't have the authority of God in them. They had the authority of man in them. "Much more comfortable for my troubled conscience!" he joyously exclaimed.

A constructed text vs. a received text. There really is no question in going with the former. It's a 'no brainer.' Just as the new convert to Roman Catholicism can breathe that sigh of relief at getting out from under the 'oppression' of the authority of the Word of God and from apostolic biblical doctrine the new convert to Critical Text bible products sighs the same sigh of relief. "It's just a document afterall! What an idiot I was thinking I had to take it seriously!"

It's no coincidence that Roman Catholics use the same corrupt manuscripts used by Critical Text scholars in constructing their Critical Text bible products. Birds of a feather...sighing that oh so pleasant sigh of relief.

Anna Karenina

I'm continuing to read great novels because I feel drawn to it lately (little cosmoses of human nature and the ways of the world). I read War and Peace way back when (Ann Dunnigan trans.), in my main reading days, then upon completion of that mammoth work immediately launched into Anna Karenina only to quit after 300 or so pages. Too much Tolstoy at the time. That was a long time ago. Now I am reading Anna Karenina anew:

Parts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I'm reading the Bantam Classics, Joel Carmichael trans.
Started Mar. 25, 2009 ~ Finished Apr. 20, 2009.

Why God's elect are not churchians (Romanist or otherwise)

It's become a theme to state just why one isn't a Roman Catholic. The answers have been OK, but not practical. Here is the practical answer:

I need to be able to fight and defend myself in the spiritual realms. Spiritual warfare embarrasses churchians of all stripes, because so few are truly born again. When you are born again the devil and the world notices you. By default you are on the battlefield. You can't be born again *and* still reside in, for instance, Bunyan's Village of Morality where so many nominal Reformed Christians reside.

If you are in the Roman Catholic Church you are already in bondage to the darkness and death of the devil's kingdom. You can't fight the devil as a Roman Catholic any more than you can lift yourself up above the ground.

If Scripture (the real thing that has the authority of God in it, i.e. received, not constructed, Scripture) is not your authority or is a watered-down authority then you don't have the Sword you need to fight the forces of darkness that keep fallen man in bondage. If faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone is not your shield then you have no defense. Doctrine is armor of God. Doctrine effects your inner state. If your doctrine is the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church then you have *no armor* to fight the devil, the flesh, and the world.

If you allow any man or institution to get in-between you and your King, Jesus Christ, then you don't have the necessary Mediator between you and God and you are still under the wrath of God.

If you don't give glory fully to God but follow a man who calls himself Christ on earth then you are still living under the internal tyranny of vanity, worldly pride, and rebellious self-will.

If you are in the domain of the Roman Catholic Beast church then as a spiritual warriour you are in the army of the devil by default, and your armour is made of cardboard and wax. Good luck.

On the fetish for liberal politics in Reformed villages of morality

“Christianity.” (328-346) Banal, cleric-
al, idealistic chatter about the greatness
of Christianity (with quotations from
the Gospels!!). Disgusting, stinking!

Human devil Vladimir Lenin on a portion of Hegel's Philosophy of History.

Remember, Reformed academics and 'pastors': lukewarm, ignorant 'libertarians' never faced down a single communist or fascist in the blood-soaked 20th century. Politics is like the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan, you're either in the one or the other, no in-between. There is only up and down, there is no left and right, as Ronald Reagan said (and all you Reformed academics who just giggled at the reference to Reagan you are the same elitists who voted for Obama, i.e. 'educated' morons who don't know your left elbow from your thumb stuck contentedly somewhere.) If you are ashamed to be for freedom, life, and light (and to hate tyranny, death, and darkness) you are ashamed of the name Christ as well.

To all the default liberals calling themselves Reformed Christians: you don't fool God's elect any more than you fool God Himself.

Email questions on the subject of the republication of the Covenant of Works on Sinai

[This post is regarding this post on the Mosaic Covenant being a republication of the Covenant of Works.]

>Within this scheme how do we see the curses at the end of Deuteronomy...

The curses and blessings are what happens to regenerated believers. If a regenerated, converted believer is tempted into sin he will be chastised in some way by God. He won't be cast out, but he will be chastised. All regenerate Christians experience this, to greater degree the more we are awake and changed by the Spirit within us, and thus more convicted.

>How do we interpret the northern kingdom essentially being completely dissolved...

As long as that bloodline from Adam to Christ was kept pure, in all the bad history of the Israelites, they weren't being 'cast out.' That bloodline was kept pure up to the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

It's not warranted by Scripture to say the northern kingdom was completely dissolved, in the way you are meaning it. We have to speak of tribes, anyway. Scholars get embarrassed when speaking of the tribes in this context, because they fear man more than God. I fear only God and will say those Israelite tribes did not cease to exist and God did not abandon them. The northern kingdom itself as a political entity is less important, if not important at all, in the context of this subject.

As for Israel following a religion of works, this is where objectors to republication show their really rather inexcusable cluelessness. Most Reformed academics and their followers don't grasp Federal Theology. They didn't even know Federal Theology is Covenant Theology *systematized* until they read it from me. Suddenly one of their great academic historians started to write that after I introduced him to the fact on his blog (R. Scott Clark). But they still don't grasp Federal Theology. They can't see how the covenant of Sinai is a Covenant of Works *for Jesus* while at the same time it is part of the Covenant of Grace for God's elect. That seems to be too much for them to handle. Then also they can't discern that *national Israel* does not correlate, in God's plan, to *fallen man.* National Israel *is a unique player* - just as Adam in the Garden was a *unique player* - in God's plan of redemption. So for Israel to be in a strange position vis-a-vis the law is similar to Adam's position vis-a-vis the Covenant of Works. Adam was going to break that covenant because it was part of God's plan that he break it, yet he is still guilty at the same time. Israel too was presented with the law, they would break it, as part of God's plan, yet they too were in a position of only being saved by faith in the future coming of the Messiah. Their uniqueness in God's plan, among other things, was the fact that they *were the living, historical material* of the written Word of God.

This isn't difficult, and the diffidence and petulance of Reformed academics in refusing to see it has everything to do with their inherent Romanist sympathies (their disdain for a Covenant of Works in the Garden to begin with). Their sacramentalism, and their secret sympathy with quasi works righteousness.

And, again, for the confused: *these types who refuse to recognize republication will bellow in righteousness like they are tied to a stake and being set on fire that they "will not stand for any stench of works righteousness, by God" and that they are "defending justification by faith alone" while in fact they are doing just the exact opposite. By denying Jesus (the Second Adam) accomplishes what Adam in the Garden failed to accomplish - and does it on the elect of God's behalf - *they put the burden of fulfilling the law right back onto the back of fallen man, right where the devil wants it to be.*

At a real level within them they *know* what they are doing.

They need to get out of their villages of morality and get in to the pure and whole - God preserved - received Word of God.

The 'solo' and 'nuda' Scriptura scare

When you hear a Reformed academic (and anybody, including Roman Catholic apologists, who are following in the footsteps of said Reformed academics, think about that) use the terms 'solo Scriptura' or 'nuda Scriptura' know you are in the presence of a boy who is afraid of the devil and wants everybody else to be in the exact same fear-bondage he resides in.

Yes, pilgrims, sola Scriptura is hardcore. (Wow, those reformers were a hardcore bunch, weren't they? Yes, they were called Christians.)

What makes a Christian? Listen closely: regeneration.

How does regeneration happen? Again, listen closely: regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the Word and the Spirit.

Practically what does it mean? It means you are given a new heart. You have the Holy Spirit in your heart.

You now have, among many other big things, discernment! Yes, you can discern the truth (and know the truth) in God's Word all by yourself! Sound scary? Only if you are the devil and his followers!

No, pilgrims, despite what the Reformed academics will tell you you don't need to have any other authority but the pure and whole Word of God. That's it.

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

A Christian doesn't reject history or teachers or creeds or confessions or catechisms any more than general Revelation itself. A Christian just doesn't make any of those things 'authority', and a Christian like the Bereans mentioned in the Word of God (Acts 17:10-11) puts *all* to the tribunal of Scripture. And a Christian ultimately doesn't need them to be able to discern ('see') the truth and to know the truth and to have the truth in understanding.

It is false teachers that assert that biblical truth is a hall of mirrors. It is *not* for born again believers who have the discernment of the Holy Spirit in them.

That's it? But what about giving man the fear and reverence he demands? What about pleasing the world by seeking authority in the words of man? Won't they beat us up if we neglect doing such things? Won't they gang up on us and hurt us? Maybe they will mock us too?

Or burn you on a stake. Whatever, pilgrims, deal with it. There is suffering before glory. That's how God's plan works out.

Expect war and fight like a king.

The call of the Beast

Here it is. Listen to the siren howl.

Yes, the siren howl of the Beast. What protects you from being in bondage to the system of the Beast? The armor of God. The five solas. The word of God inside you. Read the word of God. Put on the armor of God. The Kingdom of God is within you, and union with Christ is within.

You need understanding to discern the system of the Beast. The Beast preys upon ignorance (and weakness). Be strong in the knowledge of the Lord. The word of God.

Don't be motivated by anything to do with this time and this world. Be motivated by eternity. The siren howl you hear continuously, a howl in nature but a song in deception, will turn into an eternal reality of grinning devils and lost souls.

Don't fall for the siren howl of the Beast. Be a prophet, a priest, and a king in your understanding of Scripture (be mighty in the Scriptures), in your engaging of Scripture, in your warfare now and beyond. Your King, Jesus Christ, and His Kingdom brook no imposters.

Kids

[To an email correspondent who just had a baby.]

I've noticed that not only is there a window where kids are very teachable (they crave being taught, they want to sit in your lap and be read to for instance, to learn how to draw or write, to sing melodies) but in that window of time it's very powerfully concentrated experience for the child (time and experience is different for the child and the adult has to see that from the child's view and experience), so that a little effort on the part of an adult is very, very big for the child. I've also noticed how a child will tend to learn directly from a parent in a much faster way than from a non-parent. Actually, this may have exceptions, but it *is* something I directly observed in one instance.

And if you think about it you can give a child so much that is foundational in simple efforts and events, with cards (letters, numbers, words, pictures) books, drawing, coloring, simply playing with toys on the floor. These things last a lifetime.

Being one's usual self (fallen self) with a child (being sarcastic or short-tempered or anything like that) though lasts too. Of course I probably spoil kids I've been around and I know parents have different roles, but it seems so usual for parents to not give their children these simple things. For instance, my dad was a cartoonist of some talent, yet I never once saw him drawing pictures and figures for any of his grandkids. I even prompted him to do it, and he was like "not interested." He couldn't see the value from the child's perspective. I guess.

Also, you see so many parents demeaning their children. I once saw a child very happy and excited leaving a store because obviously her mother had bought some kind of food that makes a child happy, and the little girl was grabbing at the food in the bag as they were walking, and this young mother sneers at the little girl: "Did you buy that? Did you pay your money for that?" The words alone are incredibly stupid (I felt like saying did you buy food you ate when you were her age?), but seeing how it just slammed into the child's innocent, skipping along happiness is what is hard to take.

Children aren't exotic, easily-breakable glass vases I know. Most parenting, I also know, is instinctive and influenced by the sheer amount of time one has to give a child on an everyday basis, and children aren't angels (always). But they know when something special is taking place. And if you buy them a book and put it in their room they remember that.

Ten great Russian novels

I was reading a book of literary criticism (Tolstoy or Dostoevsky - George Steiner), and the writer said casually that these ten novels are the great Russian novels of the golden era of the 19th century (golden era for Russian novels):

Dead Souls - Gogol
Fathers and Sons - Turgenev
Oblomov - Goncharov
A Hero of Our Time - Lermontov
War and Peace - Tolstoy
Anna Karenina - Tolstoy
Crime and Punishment - Dostoevsky
The Possessed - Dostoevsky
The Idiot - Dostoevsky
Brothers Karamazov - Dostoevsky

I only replaced Tolstoy's Resurrection with Lermontov's A Hero of Our Time.