Thursday, January 25, 2024

First Ten Minutes of a Video About Deconstruction

Evangelicals Freak Out over “Deconstruction Destroying Christianity"
The Antibot | 23 Jan. 2024

3:06 Exactly how many people in the Deconstruction community have hoped for my Apologetics material to be blocked (by Christians too!) so they could have another go at pushing that?

It started when I was fifteen and sent to a boarding school, in a Sweden which was sending teachers to East Germany back then. I'm fifty five, and somehow, the very latest refutation I do of Holy Koolaid, it seems some go "he's interested in Holy Koolaid, we need to give him time to deconstruct from Christianity" and in the case of some Evangelicals "... from Catholicism" ...

From my own experience, it would seem to me you are wrong.

Deconstruction actually is an ideology.

3:17 1) "what is the historical faith?"

I think myself and Shameless Popery a k a Heschmeyer may have a thing or two to say on that issue.

3:25 Catholics in 150 AD had disagreements with Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites.

Catholics in 300 AD had disagreements with Novatians.

Catholics in 350 AD had disagreements with Arians.

Catholics in 450 AD had disagreements with Nestorians and Monophysites.

Catholics in 750 AD had disagreements with Iconoclasts.

So, what is the one true faith? Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites, Novatians, Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Iconoclasts? Really no unity in sight ...

Obviously there is no one true faith ... or is the summary after the items leaving out something?

3:46 — 3:58
"true yeah yeah I mean the historical faith of the first 10 centuries of Christianity in Syria was something much closer what one might call Gnosticism, to Marcionism, I mean believing that the the Jewish god was was an evil demiurge and that there were all these emanations and such and such"

Our dear Genetically Modified Sceptic (forget the actual name, sorry) certainly has an expertise in psychology behind making this talking point, but I'd appreciate if he could make some kind of show of historical expertise behind pretending all of Syria AD 33 to perhaps the 1st Crusade in 1099 (ten centuries and 66 years) was Marcionite.

I look up Marcionism on wikipedia, and I find this:

"The Arabic name for Marcionism, marḳiyūniyya, is attested to by several historical sources of the Islamic Golden Age which appear to reveal that a meager Marcionite community continued to exist in the Near East into the tenth century."

1) we don't know if they only shared the name and opposition to Catholicism or actual Marcionite "theology" (at least I don't know that)
2) I think there is a very different thing between being "a meager community" and being the predominant faith.

4:16 "for a thousand years in Syria, no"

1) Source wanted.
2) Syria is just Syria, what about the rest of the world? I mean we celebrate St. so and so from Gaza or St. so and so from present day Turkey, a bit South and North of Syria. We celebrate for instance St. Ephrem the Syrian, who was from "Edessa in Mesopotamia" also known as Urfa / Şanlıurfa in present day Turkey.

You may have some trouble showing that he was a Marcionite, for instance.

4:20 People in Ethiopia have an 83 book Bible.
It contains the 27 books of the New Testament.
It contains all the books in the Jewish canon also the OT of the Protestant 66 book canon.
It contains at least some of the seven more books that Catholics have.
AND some more.

4:26 Yes, we Catholics do have a different Bible, seven books more in the Old Testament (or, to some, six books, while Baruch counts as part of Jeremias).

We certainly have a different approach to what Christianity is. The Church is far more central.

We believe the very concept of "the Reformation" is in and of itself a heresy, not just because of the heresies that came out of it, but also because the idea, the Church lost important truth (like exact location and architectural style of Babel is not important, at least not until you dig up Göbekli Tepe) and then God sent a genius to restore it, is, very definitely, incompatible with the all days promise in Matthew 28:20.

The one version of Protestantism that is not tainted by this heresy directly, is Ruckmanism or Trail-of-Bloodism. The idea that Novatians, Iconoclasts, Paulicians all shared one same with each other and with Waldensians and with James Milton Carroll and with Peter Ruckman. This is however heavily tainted by ahistoricism.

IF they liked, they could then pretend "yeah, the Catholic persecutors were strong enough to make the real Church invisible" but:
  • this would leave the counterfeit more than the real thing obeying Christ's words in Matthew 28, since Catholicism, not Novatianism or Waldensianism was teaching France and Italy and up to 1534 England
  • the invisibility of the real Church, definitely in the contemporary but I would say even in retrospect, would go counter to another promise Jesus made about the Church, Matthew 5:15.

    While "the proto-Ruckmanites existed, but were doomed to remain hidden" is not a total impossibility (but very near) from the historian pov, it is a definite no no in theology.

4:41 When do you consider their type of Christianity began?

John Wesley or Asuza Street? That obviously depends on how broad or narrow you define it.

But if you take it as only since Asuza Street, that's big news for Catholics (like me) who like them, since that means, they don't fall under the words by Pope Gregory XVI stating that Protestants aren't Christians, since he was speaking probably mainly of European versions of Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, basically all of which were at this time Modernist (Cuvier's Catastrophism is one Old Earth scenario, and Cuvier was also head of the Protestants in France under Napoleon), and important factions of which were at this time pro-Slavery (sth which the Pope condemned, if not continued slave owning, at least slave hunt and slave trade).

6:57 — 7:10
"doubting certain things in the the Bible coming away from the way that she or like dissecting and deconstructing the specific beliefs that you were programmed with about like the Bible and Christianity and Science"

In that case:
a) I never "decontructed"
b) I note, the words "that you were programmed with" are pretty dehumanising, at the very least infantilising, would you really consider using that kind of language about a belief held from childhood in Big Bang, Heliocentrism, Abiogenesis, Evolution?

I highly doubt it.

I had a phase beginning some time after my conversion to Catholicism (definitely not involved in the conversion), and ending when reading City of God, before I was 33, when I was into an Old Earth scenario, not exactly Evolutionism, but the kind of thing you find in Tolkien or in R E Howard, like putting a "second age" or "hyperborean era" millennia before the Biblical chronology, in its add-up, though obviously after the Flood.

But that phase was not deconstruction. I had no inner motivation against any strictness of Bible interpretation, I had some social fatigue from being a Fundie teen in Sweden. I had someone tell me "the Catholic Church is OK with this" ... I don't think that's deconstruction, what you mean by the word.

What I have deconstructed, since, is that compromise. In the direction of more integral Catholicism. Seing the Bible as much as I can as St. Robert Bellarmine saw it, not as Galileo saw it. As Urban VIII saw it, not as Galileo saw it.

If that involves some one-issue agreements with Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, so be it.

When I see Sid Roth's naturally supernatural show, I am obviously a bit on the edge against any pretense that Jesus told someone to leave the Catholic Church (but I don't see that) or shows of earth spinning as seen from Heaven in any near death experience (but the one example was the art work, not the words of the testimony itself).

While Ken Ham is wrong in upholding Reformers, and doing himself a wrong in comparing himself to the Reformers, his theology on free will and grace is probably more Catholic than either Calvin or Arminius, since the Dominicans and Molinists represent the same poles, but less far out, and he can't make up his mind for Calvin or Arminius and against the other. It's possible, his position on grace and freewill doesn't fall under the condemnations of Trent.

9:40 Wait, is Mike Winger for women in "overseeing" or "preaching" ministries?

I thought he had some hope for conversion, because he's admitted that teetotalism isn't the Biblical attitude to alcohol ....

10:01 I think [Alicia Childers] made a very good point about meeting deconstructionists who say that "if you still believe Jesus literally rose from the dead, you haven't deconstructed" ...

This may not be your view of deconstruction, but Alicia Childers is obviously not inventing those encounters, so it definitely is someone's view of deconstruction.

To at least some deconstructionists, deconstruction has as an end goal to leave Christianity.

I met such deconstructionists when I was at a boarding school.That was my training as a Christian Apologist (it also left me emotionally scarred quite some years into my Catholic conversion, which actually began back then).

Admitting this over here in France is not totally without legal consequences. If a French court admitted Deconstruction was a kind of ideology, or faith, even a very broad one saying only "Fundamentalist Christianity is Untrue" + "Fundamentalist Christianity is Harmful" — then a targetted effort to make me Deconstruct in that way would arguably fall under the definition of Sectarian Harassment ... wait, I may have misrecalled the exact terms, or they may have hidden the law I think of in favour of About — Picard ....

About Picard article I at least states that a moral person can be dissolved if it has committed any of ... of which the first is:

1° Infractions contre l'espèce humaine, infractions d'atteintes volontaires ou involontaires à la vie ou à l'intégrité physique ou psychique de la personne, de mise en danger de la personne, d'atteinte aux libertés de la personne, d'atteinte à la dignité de la personne, d'atteinte à la personnalité, de mise en péril des mineurs, d'atteintes aux biens prévues par les articles 214-1 à 214-4, 221-1 à 221-6, 222-1 à 222-40, 223-1 à 223-15, 223-15-2, 224-1 à 224-4, 225-5 à 225-15, 225-17, 226-1 à 226-23, 227-1 à 227-27, 311-1 à 311-13, 312-1 à 312-12, 313-1 à 313-3, 314-1 à 314-3, 324-1 à 324-6 et 511-1-2 du code pénal

I would say, deconstructionists have been involved in infringing on my liberties and personnality.

I am not saying you have, but if you recall what he said about meeting deconstructionists who do have an end goal, well, such people exist, and they have.

Example of Deconstruction "with a goal", I just saw this on Swedish Quora:

Frågor till dig / Questions for you
Om du kommer från en troende familj, kunde du vakna upp som vuxen från lögnerna?
[If you come from a believing family, were you able, as a grown up, to wake up from the lies?]

No comments: