Life Beyond the Reach of the Dialectic
E-mail from Bobby Garner to subscriber list
March 31, 2009
I am a Christian, and recognized as such more often by my enemies than
by my friends. Many of my friends belong to some religion which I have
objections to, while my enemies know only that I quote the bible and
often refer to Jesus. Thankfully, I won't be judged by any of them, or
all of them combined. I am at odds with all formalized religion,
because I haven't been able to find a clear biblical basis for them.
Jesus said "where two or three are gathered together in My name, there
I am in their midst." (Matthew 18:20) He had nothing but the greatest
contempt for religious leaders of his time, and there is no less
corruption among them today. Jesus said "when you pray, enter into your
room and shutting your door, pray to your Father in secret.... do not
be babbling vain words, as the nations; for they think that they shall
be heard in their much speaking."
The only thing Jesus said even remotely resembling a ritual exercise,
and which has been reduced to exactly that by the Christian religions,
is the so called "Last Supper", when he broke the bread saying "This is
My body being given for you. This do to My remembrance." (Luke 22:19).
Religions teach that he meant a symbolic eating and drinking of his
flesh and blood on a regular and continuing basis. That is a ritual and
thats what religion is. Jesus' disciples knew that his body (and by
extension his blood) had no life giving power. Life therefore does not
come from partaking of the symbols of these things. John recorded Jesus
saying: "It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh does not profit,
nothing! The Words which I speak to you are spirit and are life." (John
6:63) Then 12:48: "The one who
rejects Me and does not receive My Words has that judging him: the Word
which I spoke, that will judge him in the last Day." Because: "I did
not speak from Myself, but He who sent Me, the Father, He has
given Me command, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I
know that His command is everlasting life." (John 12:49,50)
Note: A sacrifice is something given up or lost. A
ransom is a tribute paid to a thief. Jesus' life was taken (not
given) by his enemies. His blood was the ransom demanded by them (not
God). John mentions neither ransom or sacrifice. In Matthew Jesus
quotes Hosea 6:6 "I
desire mercy and not sacrifice." Sacrifice is mentioned at Mark 12:33,
and Luke 2:24, 13:1. Only Mark (10:45) and Matthew(20:28) use the word
ransom.
So, the question relates to how Jesus expected his disciples to
understand the symbols of bread and wine which he said represented his
body and his blood (metaphorically). The body is just flesh and bone,
which has life only because the blood, oxygenated in the lungs is able
to carry nutrients derived from food and drink to every cell. So
physical life as we know it is in the blood circulating through our
body, but Jesus taught that life is in the "Words" of his teachings.
Obviously then, the "Words" spoken by Jesus establish the proper
standard of conduct for a true Christian, and living by them is the
only way to everlasting life. The "Last Supper" was a celebration of
Passover, and a requirement of the Mosaic Law, and Jesus observed it
flawlessly because he was under that Law. The symbols of unleavened
bread and wine served on that occasion represented the life saving
quality of his "Words". There is no tangible value in the symbols
themselves. The value lies in the teachings for which he was put to
death at the hands of his enemies. God did not cause his death, and
neither his birth nor his death is a thing to be celebrated. The value
is in his life and teaching and his faithfulness unto death. Christians
then are to celebrate not his birth nor his death, but his life, and
the principles taught and exemplified by him.
Nearly everyone agrees that we are being dragged along a destructive
course. Christians may simply conclude that its the work of the Devil,
but such a dismissal is dangerous, because it doesn't require any
research for deeper understanding. New Agers may say good riddance to
thousands of years of male dominated authority. Environmentalists are
pleased with the collapse of civilization because its good for "Mother
Earth". The world is on a destructive course in search of a pot of gold
at the end of a rainbow which Aldus Huxley called The Brave New World.
It passes under many guises and names. Nearly everyone finds something
in it to identify with, but its all based on a lie. Its an impossible
Utopian dream that will become a nightmare for all who follow it.
Niki Raapana says, and I must agree that the dialectic offers no choice
but to support the evolution of their Utopia. The dialect offers
choices, but they are all evil, so choosing from among them leaves no
alternative but to choose the lessor evil. Niki notes the irony in
realizing her academic credentials for her research on
communitarianism. She writes:
"Regardless of whether you're in favor of or opposed to
communitarianism, it is now a proven fact that it cannot be the final
perfect, ultimate dialectical synthesis, because it has valid
opposition (us). ... I'm dazzled by the brilliance of their finding
such an effective way of
using my opposition to help them win their covert coup. So our
inclusion in this biblio is a double edged sword. Scholarly recognition
means our antithesis exists, and that means we're already yesterday's
news (before most people have heard of it!)."
- Who
is Niki Raapana? My academic credentials :)
My reply to Niki's observations may not be posted yet, or some of you
may not see it, therefore I thought it was important enough to include
here:
Of course, Utopia is a place which cannot ever
exist in reality, that is the physical world. But then transcendent has
a similar definition: 1 a: exceeding usual limits b: extending or lying
beyond the limits of ordinary experience c: being beyond the limits of
all possible experience and knowledge.
When we consider the
New Age philosophy of relativism, we can understand why that doesn't
present any problem. From that perspective nothing is impossible, and
some of its True Believers have attempted to prove it by flying
off the top of tall buildings for example. The transcendence is in the
same class of irrationality, and it will prove to be just as unworkable.
This
scheme, for all of its cleverness was never supposed to actually work
in this world as we know it. This is what needs to be understood. The
transcendence is to a place lying beyond the limits of our experience
where we have never gone before, the Brave New World of the New
Aquarian Age, The
Great Transition to Technological Singularity, Humanism, Unitarianism,
and Utopian ascension to godhood. Non of these are the choices of a
rational human.
This
is not about revitalization and renewal. It is all about destruction of
an ungodly world. Its "the kings of the earth, and their armies being
assembled to make war with the One... who is called "Faithful and
True. And He judges and wars in righteousness." - Revelation 19:11-21
Given
the nature of the dialectic where even the opposition supports it, I
think we are proving the validity of neutrality toward its phony
opposites, because they are both losers. The winners will be those
aligned with the One riding the white horse who is called Faithful and
True.
That Faithful and
True One is of course, "Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the
First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth."
(Revelation 1:5). Those "kings of the earth" have refused to be ruled
by him (Psalms 2) so they are and have been assembling their forces in
opposition to his authority under the direction of Satan's Hierarchy
following his ouster from heaven. (Revelation 12:9, 16:14). Their
forces are comprised of the political, social and scientific
technologies used to accomplish global unity among nations and the
people of the "Global Village". Every organization or division of
society supports it in some way either by their active compliance or by
their direct opposition. Both support and opposition comprise the
dialectical conflict of thesis v.s. antithesis, and the result is the
synthesis which we have now identified as Communitarianism which is,
according to the Dialectic
Tetrad, only "a
transitory phase" which must soon give way to the Transcendence
(Utopia).
I believe the Transcendence may equate not to Utopia, but to
Armageddon. (Revelation 16:16)
The "spirits of demons doing signs, which go forth to the kings
of the earth" (Revelation 16:14), coincides with what Alice A. Bailey
called "The Externalization of the Hierarchy" which was a compilation
of her writings from 1919 to her death in 1948. The purpose of the
Hierarchy is to "prepare the world for the Reappearance of the Christ.
So all of this "love" and "unity" of the New Age is nothing but
Orwellian Noöspeak for war and destruction.
Since neither support nor opposition is a viable option, we are left
with the only remaining choice of neutrality in this dialectical
conflict. Neutrality is the only position not controlled by the
dialectical conflict, and its the only one which is in perfect
agreement with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >
none
|