Thursday, January 17, 2019
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The Subtle Deceptiveness of Cultural Christianity: Might We Too Be Among Its Innumerable Victims?
They say a 'good' counterfeit has to be a pretty reasonable likeness (of the thing counterfeited) to do its job properly. Stands to reason, don't you think, 'coz only a 'real deal' *fake/forgery will really fool anyone, i.e. be - at all - effective in its assigned task...
So, though (no matter how much in agreement/***'agreeance' with that self-evident concept you doubtless are) that may well appear an unlikely, even baffling, introduction to my new (titled) topic (about which I intend to run a series), let me for my first entry upon said subject now tie the two together, in the understanding that this ****initial post will only serve as an introductory one...
My general topic will be distinguishing the real from the sham variety in terms of the so-called 'Christianity' which does the rounds today - what I'll refer to as (a) *****'Clayton's Christianity'.
*Other synonyms provided by my handy lil **Roget's - 21st - Century Thesaurus for 'counterfeit' are: actor - bogus - bum - copy - deceit - deception - dummy - facsimile - fraud - gyp - hoax - humbug - imitation - imposture - junque - phony - pseudo - put-on - reproduction - sell - sham - simulacrum...-and let me add in my own latter-day example for good measure at no added cost: scam!
**Ed. The Princeton Language Institute (The Philip Lief Group), c/o Dell Publishing, 1993.
***Cited (even if it hasn't yet managed to grace the latest entries in world-renowned dictionaries) as I like the way it sounds, and it is used from time to time by other wordsmiths out and about...
****Let me quickly (if disappointingly for some) correct that: my 'initial posting' may well run on a bit, but, perhaps rather than make additional postings (within that particular subset of the whole discussion), I'll simply add numerous 'parts' to this introductory blogpost (as I've long done upon my alternative (davidedwinisms) blogite, and for all I know have occasionally upon this one as well)... .
Anyhow, that course of action seems especially appropriate to me since this is my 66th posting upon this particular blogsite...with all that that particular numerical configuration serves to signify...-as a *******'precursor', that is - just as '6', the 'number of man(kind)', itself prefigures that mysterious numeral of the ages, ********666 - the number of the biblical antichrist...
*****A 'New Zealanderism' in common currency/popular parlance over the past near half-century, i.e. the clayton's part, that is...used to signify what would be regarded as a poor substitute for the real thing. And so, in the best - and probably originating - example, a ******'clayton's beer' is simply not good enough for the tried and true connoisseur of the beverage...
******Understanding, moreover, that as a - virtual lifetime - teetotaller (or 'wowser'!), I have minimal experience in the subject, but it does serve as a useful, identifiable example (explaining what I'm on about)...
*******'Precursor', according to my ever trusty ole Chambers Concise Dictionary (Cambridge, 1988), means: 'a forerunner; a predecessor; an indication of the approach of an event (italics mine).'
********As made mention of in that most intriguing and mysterious biblical book, The Revelation - incidentally 'of Jesus Christ', not (the beloved apostle) John, as oftentimes supposed...-and 13:18 to be precise, which *********itself has doubtless given credence to (biblical and occult) numerologists (alike) and much for them to make mischief with...
Part Two: Tying Everything Together: (January 13th)
Having now *pretty well already explained myself (above) through my innumerable footnotes (esp. ****/*****/ ******), I'll **henceforth proceed to highlight/signpost what is arguably the 'greatest' - as in single worst - illustration of such counterfeit (and essentially cultural) Christianity ever to curse our little orb...
...i.e. the biblical antichrist...
...which subject was admittedly, inadvertently triggered by the fact that this very blogpost is my 66th ever...but since that (number), conflated into the weird and wonderful 666, itself dovetails perfectly into such a discussion, hey - as the ole saying has it - 'if ya can't ****best 'em, (you oughta) join 'em!'
And hence we'll now examine the essential biblical characteristics of just such a counterfeit...of which the numerical figure 666 serves as one of many...
Just as the normal, usual characteristic(s) of a good - as in suitably effective - counterfeit is to bear a really close resemblance in any and every respect to the real thing, thus and so a worthwhile counterfeit essentially has to look, sound, 'feel' (and occasionally smell and taste) like the genuine article...
And so, the Ultimate 'spiritual'/religious counterfeit of the ages - the *****biblical Antichrist - will, ultimately, in the final analysis, when all is said and done, and just prior to the eventual 'wrapping-up' of the Great Controversy upon Planet Earth - come over to one and all as representing the Real Deal...i.e. Jesus Christ Himself.
Yes, sirree! And how will ******'he' bring this about? In brief, thumbnail sketch fashion, let me succinctly enumerate the ways...
To Be Continued Tomorrow (Jan. 14th) -and now the next day (15/1) too: Hold onto Yer Seats, Folks!
*And pretty well ***bamboozled everyone else!
**Or as some - many - illiterates these days might phrase it, 'going forward'...
***Or, as Roget's Thesaurus (above) provides suitable synonyms thereto, in addition to '[v] fool; cheat': 'baffle, befuddle, bilk, con, confound, confuse, deceive, defraud, delude, dupe, flimflam*, hoax, hoodwink*, hornswoggle*, mystify, perplex, puzzle, stump, swindle, trick.' And again, scam! (This last term - earlier a noun, now a verb - being again my own addition at no extra cost.)
Editor's Extra (Attached) Footnote thrown in for good measure...
If you've read thus far, you'll perhaps be surprised/taken aback/even astonished by the serendipitous fact that the meaning of 'bamboozle' seems to parallel that of 'fake/forgery' (at the very start of Part One)...i.e. signifying something serving the purposes of deceiving (and defrauding) someone. But whereas this can be done by deliberate design, let me hasten to reassure readers/viewers that in my case it is not at all intentional...though admittedly the result may well be the same - a tragedy in itself!
****Yes, another syntactical faux pas, yet oddly enough it's just as good as the usual...
*****In all three major monotheistic religions, incidentally - Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
******Referring here, of course, to the one who so impersonates the Son of God...i.e. 'the (great) dragon...that serpent of old, who is/called the Devil and Satan' no less (Revelation 12:9; 20:2.) But personally I much prefer how the idiosyncratic and iconoclastic H Scott Peck refers to 'him' (in terms of *******gender, that is)...
In his brilliantly incisive and perceptive People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, Peck says the following (though it's simply a paraphrase for now, the actual quote ********yet eluding me): that the devil doesn't even warrant, as in deserve, to be 'graced' with a gender, 'he' is such an 'it' - if you can grasp where Peck is coming from (i.e. he's not being - remotely - flattering!)...
*******Though I'm only too well aware that such a 'gendered' comment would these days inevitably land Peck into a heckuva lot of hot water, even 'deep doggy doo-doo' as one now dead former American President used to express matters.
********Now (i.e. Jan 14th), after much searching, I find that Peck makes a detailed consideration of this very matter (of gender, vis-a-vis not only the devil but God as well)...and indeed the entirety of said discussion is well worth re-quoting (esp. in this day and age of heightened 'snowflake generation' sensibilities), but copyright considerations and moral sensibilities - on my part - mean I'll firstly contact Peck's estate (dealing with his published materials) prior to sharing this, or any (quotable) part thereof, since I suppose if I myself ever get published - i.e. in proper print - I'd like others to treat my own copyright requests with an equal degree of respectful consideration...
So, though (no matter how much in agreement/***'agreeance' with that self-evident concept you doubtless are) that may well appear an unlikely, even baffling, introduction to my new (titled) topic (about which I intend to run a series), let me for my first entry upon said subject now tie the two together, in the understanding that this ****initial post will only serve as an introductory one...
My general topic will be distinguishing the real from the sham variety in terms of the so-called 'Christianity' which does the rounds today - what I'll refer to as (a) *****'Clayton's Christianity'.
*Other synonyms provided by my handy lil **Roget's - 21st - Century Thesaurus for 'counterfeit' are: actor - bogus - bum - copy - deceit - deception - dummy - facsimile - fraud - gyp - hoax - humbug - imitation - imposture - junque - phony - pseudo - put-on - reproduction - sell - sham - simulacrum...-and let me add in my own latter-day example for good measure at no added cost: scam!
**Ed. The Princeton Language Institute (The Philip Lief Group), c/o Dell Publishing, 1993.
***Cited (even if it hasn't yet managed to grace the latest entries in world-renowned dictionaries) as I like the way it sounds, and it is used from time to time by other wordsmiths out and about...
****Let me quickly (if disappointingly for some) correct that: my 'initial posting' may well run on a bit, but, perhaps rather than make additional postings (within that particular subset of the whole discussion), I'll simply add numerous 'parts' to this introductory blogpost (as I've long done upon my alternative (davidedwinisms) blogite, and for all I know have occasionally upon this one as well)... .
Anyhow, that course of action seems especially appropriate to me since this is my 66th posting upon this particular blogsite...with all that that particular numerical configuration serves to signify...-as a *******'precursor', that is - just as '6', the 'number of man(kind)', itself prefigures that mysterious numeral of the ages, ********666 - the number of the biblical antichrist...
*****A 'New Zealanderism' in common currency/popular parlance over the past near half-century, i.e. the clayton's part, that is...used to signify what would be regarded as a poor substitute for the real thing. And so, in the best - and probably originating - example, a ******'clayton's beer' is simply not good enough for the tried and true connoisseur of the beverage...
******Understanding, moreover, that as a - virtual lifetime - teetotaller (or 'wowser'!), I have minimal experience in the subject, but it does serve as a useful, identifiable example (explaining what I'm on about)...
*******'Precursor', according to my ever trusty ole Chambers Concise Dictionary (Cambridge, 1988), means: 'a forerunner; a predecessor; an indication of the approach of an event (italics mine).'
********As made mention of in that most intriguing and mysterious biblical book, The Revelation - incidentally 'of Jesus Christ', not (the beloved apostle) John, as oftentimes supposed...-and 13:18 to be precise, which *********itself has doubtless given credence to (biblical and occult) numerologists (alike) and much for them to make mischief with...
Part Two: Tying Everything Together: (January 13th)
Having now *pretty well already explained myself (above) through my innumerable footnotes (esp. ****/*****/ ******), I'll **henceforth proceed to highlight/signpost what is arguably the 'greatest' - as in single worst - illustration of such counterfeit (and essentially cultural) Christianity ever to curse our little orb...
...i.e. the biblical antichrist...
...which subject was admittedly, inadvertently triggered by the fact that this very blogpost is my 66th ever...but since that (number), conflated into the weird and wonderful 666, itself dovetails perfectly into such a discussion, hey - as the ole saying has it - 'if ya can't ****best 'em, (you oughta) join 'em!'
And hence we'll now examine the essential biblical characteristics of just such a counterfeit...of which the numerical figure 666 serves as one of many...
Just as the normal, usual characteristic(s) of a good - as in suitably effective - counterfeit is to bear a really close resemblance in any and every respect to the real thing, thus and so a worthwhile counterfeit essentially has to look, sound, 'feel' (and occasionally smell and taste) like the genuine article...
And so, the Ultimate 'spiritual'/religious counterfeit of the ages - the *****biblical Antichrist - will, ultimately, in the final analysis, when all is said and done, and just prior to the eventual 'wrapping-up' of the Great Controversy upon Planet Earth - come over to one and all as representing the Real Deal...i.e. Jesus Christ Himself.
Yes, sirree! And how will ******'he' bring this about? In brief, thumbnail sketch fashion, let me succinctly enumerate the ways...
To Be Continued Tomorrow (Jan. 14th) -and now the next day (15/1) too: Hold onto Yer Seats, Folks!
*And pretty well ***bamboozled everyone else!
**Or as some - many - illiterates these days might phrase it, 'going forward'...
***Or, as Roget's Thesaurus (above) provides suitable synonyms thereto, in addition to '[v] fool; cheat': 'baffle, befuddle, bilk, con, confound, confuse, deceive, defraud, delude, dupe, flimflam*, hoax, hoodwink*, hornswoggle*, mystify, perplex, puzzle, stump, swindle, trick.' And again, scam! (This last term - earlier a noun, now a verb - being again my own addition at no extra cost.)
Editor's Extra (Attached) Footnote thrown in for good measure...
If you've read thus far, you'll perhaps be surprised/taken aback/even astonished by the serendipitous fact that the meaning of 'bamboozle' seems to parallel that of 'fake/forgery' (at the very start of Part One)...i.e. signifying something serving the purposes of deceiving (and defrauding) someone. But whereas this can be done by deliberate design, let me hasten to reassure readers/viewers that in my case it is not at all intentional...though admittedly the result may well be the same - a tragedy in itself!
****Yes, another syntactical faux pas, yet oddly enough it's just as good as the usual...
*****In all three major monotheistic religions, incidentally - Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
******Referring here, of course, to the one who so impersonates the Son of God...i.e. 'the (great) dragon...that serpent of old, who is/called the Devil and Satan' no less (Revelation 12:9; 20:2.) But personally I much prefer how the idiosyncratic and iconoclastic H Scott Peck refers to 'him' (in terms of *******gender, that is)...
In his brilliantly incisive and perceptive People of the Lie: The Hope For Healing Human Evil, Peck says the following (though it's simply a paraphrase for now, the actual quote ********yet eluding me): that the devil doesn't even warrant, as in deserve, to be 'graced' with a gender, 'he' is such an 'it' - if you can grasp where Peck is coming from (i.e. he's not being - remotely - flattering!)...
*******Though I'm only too well aware that such a 'gendered' comment would these days inevitably land Peck into a heckuva lot of hot water, even 'deep doggy doo-doo' as one now dead former American President used to express matters.
********Now (i.e. Jan 14th), after much searching, I find that Peck makes a detailed consideration of this very matter (of gender, vis-a-vis not only the devil but God as well)...and indeed the entirety of said discussion is well worth re-quoting (esp. in this day and age of heightened 'snowflake generation' sensibilities), but copyright considerations and moral sensibilities - on my part - mean I'll firstly contact Peck's estate (dealing with his published materials) prior to sharing this, or any (quotable) part thereof, since I suppose if I myself ever get published - i.e. in proper print - I'd like others to treat my own copyright requests with an equal degree of respectful consideration...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)