the new emergent village doubles down on heresy

I remember mentioning once that the old Emergent Village was pretty much dead. In fact, visiting the old site a day or so ago, I saw that it is not very much dead.

Sadly, there is zombie of sorts out there, and if anything, it's doubling down on the heresies that marked the old site. One of their contributors now is Michael Dowd, who believes more in evolution than God of the Bible. Every one of his teachings is the rawest of blasphemy, as you can see here...

Idolatry of the Written Word

Biblical literalists who pick and choose which passages to preach and which to studiously ignore are thus faced with a nagging inconsistency. The way forward, I suggest, for all Christians—liberals as well as moderates and conservatives—is to join this crusade against idolatry of the written word as we embark together on the cross-cultural enterprise of interpreting our evolving world as best we know it today

Meaning, time to put aside the Bible, peoples (Dowd's own books, though, you can keep close at hand, along with all the other books he recommends in another post at the new EV).

Ultimately, the temptation of converting fluid stories and interpretations of stories into dead-end scripture and creed makes it nearly impossible for God/Reality to continue to suggest the kinds of functional modifications that our ancestors consistently sensed and assimilated

So, Scripture and creeds not only are not of God, but they handicap this God/Reality he worships (actually just himself in pseudo-divine make-up).

What this is is, simply, the elevation of mankind, the worship of us, the divination of ourselves. We do bow to God, because we are so full of ourselves and our cleverness and evolution.

So, yeah, the emergents are out there still, they haven't repented of their milder heresies, but are throwing themselves deeper into the cesspool, relishing the filth they are bathing in. It would be amusing if it weren't so sad, and if there weren't people being drug down with them.

pots and kettles

Christianity, conceived of as a system, begins with a religious or political mode of thinking and then seeks to impose it upon the world. Here a strong Platonic influence is at work whereby we mold the particular (the individual) into the Universal (the idea), and if the individual can’t—or won’t—be molded, then he or she is rejected. For instance, if a certain lifestyle is perceived to be wrong within the system’s framework, the individual in question will be asked to change or leave. The disavowed obverse of “all humans are part of my family” is then, “if you will not be part of my family you are not human.”

Various systems or worldviews fight for power and authority. Yet Christianity, as a religion without religion, offers a radically different approach. Christ opens up the idea of a system that seeks always to find those who are excluded from the system that is in power. The Christian “worldview” is thus manifested as always seeking out those who have been rejected from the worldviews that have authority. The way this works itself out in practice is that whatever political or religious idea is dominating the society at any given time, Christianity seeks out those who are excluded by it, the one sheep who is not in the pen, the one coin not in the purse, those who have not been invited to the party, the nobodies, the nothings. The Christian “system” can thus never take power for, by definition, it is always that which stands against power, seeking to identify with the powerless and the voiceless. It is a system in the sense that it systematically seeks out those who do not fit into the system offered up by the currently prevailing political and religious authorities.

What we see being worked out within Christianity can thus be said to be a prejudice toward those who are excluded and marginalized, those who are oppressed by our religious and political systems. This means that every time a “Christian” system is created, the Christian is the one who seeks out those who are excluded from it. Christianity, as a religion without religion, affirms a system that undermines every system of power by seeking those who are oppressed. The Christian critique is not then directed at the people in power so much as at the place of power itself. When a system of thought, however great, is given authority over all, it becomes oppressive and undermines its own liberative elements. The point then is not to find the “right” way of thinking and then give it a place of power and influence, but rather to question the place of power and influence itself. Is this not what we learn from the following biblical insight?

Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1929-1948). Paraclete Press. Kindle Edition.

First, a bit of a personal gripe. Rollins here goes on about "those who are excluded". Very well, but then, the past few times I've tried to leave comments at his little blog, they have not been posted. The comments of some other people have been, usually comments containing sycophantic praise. Now, my proposed comments have not contained praise, sycophantic or otherwise. Is that why Rollins or whomever the gatekeepers at his blog are do not allow such questioning and critical comments be allowed to stand?

But perhaps that exposes what he means above in a nutshell--the "excluded" whom his version of Christianity is suppose to seek out are only those "excluded" ones who do not voice much disagreement with him and those like him. To give an extreme example, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't bother him much the neo-Nazis are excluded from power and don't have that much of a voice, and in fact I would bet that if such people were to be put in power it would likely disturb him very much. In that, I hope he and I may find a rare bit of something to agree upon.

But given this extreme example, what about other, less extreme examples? That is one of the things that is most disturbing about the Left when they talk or write like this--they mean it only for themselves and those they agree with, but woe betide those who oppose them. One can see it, for example, in the lying accusation hurled at the conservative Tea Party that it is racist, violent, hateful, and should not be listened to or taken seriously. There is rather scant proof of any of that, if any proof at all, but it has become an established meme that is believed without question by those who oppose it.

As well, we should ask what is meant by these excluded whom the church should seek out. What about, for example, murderers in prisons? Again, an extreme example, but come along anyway. Certainly they are among the voiceless and powerless in regards to politics and religion. What does it mean that the church should seek them out? Should the Christian critique be directed at those who think that murderers should be put in prison, away from society, so that they should not be able to practice murder any more? Should the Christian system stand against those who have put the murderers into these prisons, such as the detectives and policemen who have arrested them, the lawyers who in trial put forth the evidence for their crimes, and the judge who sentenced them to prison?

Now, the idea that murder is a crime is a religious idea--"Thou shalt not murder". Should the church stand against this teaching that you should not murder, because it is the idea that is in power?

As I said, this is an extreme example, but I think it is one that's pointed. I doubt that Rollins would want murderers to be set free from prison. But this shows just how shallow what Rollins is saying really is, because the church's job is not to validate something simply because it's not in political or religious power. It's not the church's job to validate people like neo-Nazis and murderers, no matter how isolated they are, no matter much people don't pay attention to them, no matter how much they may feel oppressed because no one takes their looney beliefs seriously or because they are put into small concrete cells and kept away from innocent people so they can't murder any more of them.

But let us give Rollins a partial point, a good bit less than half a point, maybe about a quarter if we are to be generous. There are people on the outside, and the church does have a commission from Christ to take the Gospel to the world, that Christ came to seek and save the lost. Those lost may not be in power, but then maybe they are. Both the king and the peasant are equal in one thing, in being sinners whose every attempt at a good work is like the vilest of rags to God.

Rollins wants to make this about politics, which is blasphemy. It's about much more than that. It's about the condition we all find ourselves in, that we are separated from God, that we are enemies of God, that we are under God's wrath and rightfully so, that all we deserve is physical and spiritual death. It is about Christ being born of a virgin, living a sinless life, doing the thing recorded of Him in the Gospels, being crucified as a sacrifice for out sins, and rising from the dead.

The church doesn't go to the lost to proclaim what we can do for anyone. We proclaim what God has done for us. It isn't about being against power and authority, for then we would be going against God, but rather that we point to the one who has ultimate power, to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Don't doubt that Rollins' rhetoric is simply a cheat, a bait and switch. His main concern, and those like him on the Left, is simply that they should be the only voices, the only 'advocates' for whatever they espouse. Why else would they try to silence dissenters and opposing information? There're reasons why his book is called "The Fidelity of Betrayal", why he tries to make the traitor Judas into a hero.

peter rollins the postmodern pharisee

In short, such an approach reveals that Christianity exhibits the structure of a religion without religion. Belief thus has an important place; however, it is ultimately subordinate to the event that it points toward. The result is the idea that living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian, or in other words, the event contained in the affirmation of God is more important than the belief in God.
Rollins, Peter (2009-01-29). Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1555-1558)

Look at what he's saying here--"living within the event that is testified to in Christianity is more important than the affirmation that one is a Christian...the event contained in the affirmation is more important than the belief in God". What is he saying?

Unlike the former reading, which sees Christianity as a worldview that can somehow be compared and contrasted with other worldviews, this latter approach questions the idea that Christianity can be approached as a religious worldview at all; rather, in this approach Christianity operates within all worldviews, at least in those places where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor. While the first interpretation sees Jesus as the founder of the one true religion, the latter interpretation sees in Jesus one who would set an axe to all religion.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1487-1491).

Because a miracle takes place at a radically subjective level that cannot be objectified or analyzed, it is not, strictly speaking, something that is believed in. Rather it is lived. Indeed it can easily be lived and not believed in.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1746-1748).

Instead of rendering God present to the understanding, this way of reading the text interprets the phrase ’ehyeh ’asher ’ehyeh as a means of describing the nature of God’s presence among us. Here God is presented neither as reducible to the status of other objects, nor as outside the world and eternally distant from it, but rather as one who is received by us without ever being directly conceived by us. Here the mystery of God is revealed as an incarnated mystery, that is, the mystery of God is revealed in the midst of God’s presence. God is here being presented as saying something akin to, “Do not try to name me. my name is above all names; I am present to you beyond all names.” Here we find a different way of approaching God: here we come across the idea that God is made manifest as a happening, an event, a blessing. God is here revealed as one who is made present through the acts of love and liberation rather than through the categories of human understanding. This does not mean that we will come to an understanding of God through closely observing the actions of God. Here the text goes further: God is made known only in action, only as blessing.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1276-1275).

When Jesus spoke of being “born again” he was not referring to some proposition that could be considered through logic, religious sermons, Bible reading, or through some kind reflection on religious experience; rather he was speaking of an event that opens up a whole new world of experience. Religious experience, in its fundamental form, is not then an experience at all but rather a counter-experience, one that transforms our mode of being in the world rather than being reduced to some strange feeling. With the incoming of this truth nothing necessarily changes in the physical world, no new object enters our horizon. But in its aftermath the person is never the same again, for everything has changed. This luminous life can never be captured, contained, or pulled apart; it is lived. This event in which nothing changes is an event so radical that nothing remains the same.
Fidelity of Betrayal (Kindle Locations 1346-1352).

Look at how he denigrates belief. This is a common theme throughout the book. He is constantly playing games with belief, claiming that belief in the truth claims of the Bible or even in God are not important, and even the questions of whether or not the Bible is true or if there is a God are not important. Something else is, something he calls the "miracle", and is something that, as he says in one of the quotes above, can "easily be lived and not believed in".

Looking at Rollins' words about this "miracle" and conversion, one is struck by a complete lack of the things the Bible places as central to this conversion--repentence from sins, belief and faith in Christ who was crucified as a sacrifice for our sins. Instead, he goes on about change and experience, using nonsense phrases about nothing being changed but everything being changed.

In his own convoluted way, he's simply repeating what the Pharisees in Jesus' day believed. His definition of righteousness is some combination of works and experience, that for example in regards to worldviews those worldviews are acceptable "...where people’s lives reflect love, hope, and passionate commitment to one’s neighbor".

But what does that mean? God cannot be understood, so he says. Thus, beliefs are essentially meaningless. What the Bible says about God is essentially meaningless; indeed, God cannot even interpret His own Word, because that would somehow be an untrue interpretation. There are no answer, only questions. Believe in Christ, or not; believe in God, or not; put your faith in the gods of Greek mythology, for all that it matters.

All we have are works that somehow God is pleased in, though we don't know how we know that or why. Why, after all, should a god about whom we cannot know anything by reason or logic be a god who wants us to be kind to people. Mankind has had many gods who wanted their priests to take other people and sacrifice them in bloody rituals. Why should not that be how this unknowable god is? Or why should people not worship this god in that way, as other do so through kindness? How can we know that this god prefers one or the other, because if the priest who sacrifices captives from another tribe thinks he being kind to his neighbor in doing so, then what argument can be made against it?

As soon as we start looking at Rollins' claims, that we can learn little or nothing about God through His Word, that God did not really speak to the prophets, that it's really not important whether or not Christ really died and rose again, then we are simply brought up against Rollins' own opinions and beliefs about what this god approves of. And let us be clear, they are simply the biases and presuppositions of Rollins and those like him. Why the bloody Aztec gods should be shunted aside is simply a matter of preference, not of any standard that says human sacrifices are wrong.

Rollins is playing as a Pharisee, but at least the Pharisees had the Law of Moses, even if they abused it and misused it. At least they would have claimed that belief in Jehovah was important, even if it was more a belief in their own supposed righteousness. All Rollins has is his own law, his own beliefs that no beliefs are important, yet somehow love and hope and caring for others is important, simply because the Christ he doesn't believe in said so, even if He may not really have said those words at all. And why this god spoke through Christ more than through the bloody Aztec prophets is not a question that can be answered.

where does God put his feet?

Out of the mathematics of general relativity would come ideas and postulates that are themselves also matters now of household conversation: time as another, and fourth, dimension; time as capable of being slowed; the ongoing expansion of the universe; the Big Bang. And in conjunction with the work of other brilliant, popularly known physicists like Edwin Hubble, general relativity would eventually make it possible, on July 20, 1969, for Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to walk on the surface of Earth's moon. In doing so, they walked on what always before had been the footstool of God, and that made all the difference. Literalism based on inerrancy could not survive the blow (though it would die a slow and painful death); and without inerrancy-based literalism, the divine authority of Scripture was decentralized, subject to the caprices of human interpretation, turned into some kind of pick-and-choose bazaar for skillful hagglers. Where now is our authority?
Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence, p 82, emphasis mine

I think I commented on this or a similar quote of Tickle's some time ago, but something struck me in this statement--the contention that in going to the moon we had somehow walked upon "the footstool of God".

So, doing a little search in the Bible on what is the footstool of God, I found a bit of something that makes Tickle's statement rather amusing.

Isaiah 66:1
This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?

Matthew 5:34-35
But I tell you, Do not swear at all; either by heaven, for it is God's throne, or by the earth, for it is his footstool; of by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.

And Acts 7:49 quotes Isaiah 66:1.

I have not found any place in the Bible where the moon is referred to as God's footstool; rather, it is the Earth itself that is given that moniker.

Which makes Tickles statement about us walking on God's footstool rather amusing, since long before astronauts set foot on the moon, we were walking quite frequently, openly, and with impunity upon God's footstool. It seems that setting foot on God's footstool didn't make all that much of a difference, after all.

Which leads me to think that Tickle's declaration of the death of biblical literalism is based more on wishful thinking than reality. But just as people on Tickle's side of the aisle have tried to declare things dead that really are not, like political conservatism and the Republican Party, biblical literalism is still alive and well. Tickle need not whistle as she passes by the graveyard, for the ghost of literalism is not there.

Nor is the ghost of liberalism there, either, though that spirit I would wish was confined within the walls of the cemetery of ideas, where it richly belongs. But it would be wrong of me to say that it is, no matter my own preference for it's swift demise. Liberal politicians are still out there, still defending the rights of certain 'doctors' to take the lives of the most helpless of human beings, the unborn; still trying to normalize sexual perversion; still trying to take the US down the failing road of socialism; still trying to use class warfare rhetoric to take more and more tax money from people; still using questionable science to gain more and more control over us; still making criminals into heroes; and so on.

And liberalism is still alive in religion, too. Tickle's statement about the death of literalism and Scripture losing its divine authority could be considered among the hallmarks of religious liberalism.

peter rollins and the pathological love of betrayal

A few days ago, I wrote a bit about how Peter Rollins tries to spin the betrayal of Judas into being a good thing, an act of courage, a sign of devotion to God.

Well, there is another story in his book The Orthodox Heretic, which pretty much puts it plainly.

The story is called "Betrayal", and it and it's short commentary are on pages 117-119. The story is about a temple master who calls his faithful young disciple, and says that he fears the disciple will betray him. The disciple is shocked, and says that he always tries to be faithful to the master's teachings. Here are the master's words, that end the clever little story.

"But you fail to understand, my young friend." replied the Master. "The fact that you have never betrayed my teachings, and the fact that you swear never to betray them; this is to betray them already."

In his commentary, Rollins seems to keep this in the realm of human teachers. But even in that, I think it is problematic. Especially in regards to Christian teachings.

For example, Paul says to "imitate me, as I imitate Christ". Paul does not seem to take the stance that the believers were to practice some kind of "faithful betrayal", as Rollins puts it in the commentary, lest they betray him and his teachings by following them too closely. Now, Paul does seem to recognize areas for differences of opinions, for example when he deals with those who eat meat and those who don't, but he treats most of his teachings as being authoritative, and expects those he writes to to take them seriously, to follow them, and to be faithful to them.

But I think there is more to Rollin's clever little story and commentary. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I think he is going beyond mere human teachers. I think that he is saying that we can betray God by following too closely to what He says in His Word.

I could, for example, point to the story which gives it's name to the whole book, The Orthodox Heretic. In this clever little story, a man gets a message directly from God about a way to act, but he defies God, saying "I do not need the Scriptures or your words to tell me what I ought to do", and "So, my God, I defy you in order to remain faithful to you", p 97. Rather than being angry with the man, the story ends with God seeming to be rather pleased with this man's act of defiance.

I suppose the contrasts could not be more plain--the disciple in the "Betrayal" betrays the teacher by being too faithful to the master's teachings, while the man in "The Orthodox Heretic" defies God in order to remain faithful to God.

And the message could not be more plain--the rebels are the saints, the disobedient are the shining examples, the traitors are the faithful, those who shake their fists at God in defiance to His Word are those who are most pleasing to God. God doesn't want you to follow His Word, but to strike out on your own.

Again, it seems Rollins is most interested in spinning his own betrayals into having been good things. I rather suspect that, consciously or not, Rollins knows that what he teaches is against God, is against God's Word, is contrary to sound doctrine, is actually a betrayal of what God has revealed. But instead of repenting, he would rather do what is right in his own eyes, and wants to justify his ways in the eyes of the world. That is why Judas becomes a figure of courage in his clever little story, why the faithful disciples is the real traitor, why the man who stands in defiance against God is the one who is faithful to God.

going without a map

A few weeks ago, I had to make a bit of trip out-of-state. It was to a place I had not been before, and while I had a general idea of how to get there, I still needed some directions in order to reach the city, and even more to find the place in the city I needed to go to.

Now, let's test our imagination, shall we? Let's suppose that as I was preparing to leave for this trip, I pulled out of my driveway and simply decided to go any which way I wanted. If I cam to a turn in the road, I went whichever direction I though seemed ok, basiced on strictly subjective reasons. If I happened to make it to a highway or interstate, I got if at whatever exit I wanted. I consulted no map, disregarded all road sign, didn't care about directions.

What would be the odds that I would get to where I needed to go? Not being very exact, but I think the term "mathematically impossible" would be an accurate description of those odds.

Keeping that little fiction in mind, take a look at this.

Practice Precedes Doctrine

One thing that’s intriguing to note, and easy to lose sight of two millennia later, is that in the very earliest church, practice begat doctrine. That is, the early church didn’t convene theological conferences to debate the nature of the godhead and then spin out a practice of prayer.

Instead, it’s clear in the earliest Christian documents that the people prayed, and out of their experience of God’s nearness did they develop doctrinal beliefs regarding who God is and how God acts. That all changed, of course, by the dawn of the fourth century: as the Christian religion was afforded more freedom, church leaders rose up to fight heresies. Thereafter, the formation of doctrine seems to have had as much impact on the evolution of Christian practice as it had happened conversely in the earliest years.

Really? It's clear from those documents that this is how they did it?

Consider, for example, Peter's sermon at Pentacost. Taking Jones' words, one may be surprised to see very little about practice in that sermon. It's mostly about doctrine--Jesus fulfilled Scripture and prophecy, Jesus was crucified, God raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus is the Messiah. The only action Peter tells them to do is to repent and be baptized in His name.

In other words, doctrine preceded practice. It wasn't until there was a church and believers, people who believed in certain things, that there were discussions about certain things.

Those practices did not happen in some kind of spiritual or doctrinal vacuum, which seems to be what Jones is contending.

And how could it otherwise? Putting actions first is simply pragmatism--whatever works. Questions of right and wrong are shunted aside. If the church had not begun with doctrine, with for example belief in the Scriptures that they had (the Old Testament) and faith in a crucified and risn Christ, it would have stood for nothing.

I think that, if you look at what Jones believes, you'll see why he's so eager to put practice first. If he put doctrine first, if he put the things Scripture teaches first, he would not be able to believe the things he believes.

i already gave, i was taxed

Indeed, I could imagine that if the New Testament is our literal guide, then the standad tax rate for Christians should be set at 100%
John Caputo, What Would Jesus Deconstruct, p 93

That is an interesting claim. His support for it?

The early Christians lived in common and distributed to one another according to their needs; in fact, one of the first disputes to break out in the church was whether this distribution was truly equal (Acts 6:1).

And Acts 6:1 says...

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

An interesting claim. I would certainly like to see how that equates into Christians needing to be subjected to a 100% tax rate.

I've heard that claim about the early church before, or something similar. For my part, I have to question if what the early church practices were so much like the communism people like Caputo seem to want.

For example, here are Acts 2: 46-47

So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

And also Acts 4:32-35

Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked, for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things they sold, and laid them at the apostle's' feet, and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

Again, fascinating. At the risk of being contrary, I think it would be safe to say that this must mean that not all homeowners sold the homes they were living in--it hardly seems to be smart to help others by making ones so destitute that one must then become a part of the supported. Though the idea that it may have been an extra home or excess land is interesting.

But one things is pretty clear--this is something the people were doing themselves, of their own accord. It was not coerced by the church, as the account of Peter's confronting Ananias and Sapphire shows. It was their own money, they could have done with it as they wished, their sin was not in keeping back a part of it, but in lying about it.

Nor was it normative. People may make much of Jesus telling a rich young ruler to sell all he had, but so far as I can remember, that was the only person to whom Jesus said that. He seemed quite pleased enough that the tax collector Zacheaus gave half (I can well image a Caputo smirking that it was 'only' half), and seems to have not held it against Lazarus and his sisters that they had their own house, but rather accepted their hospitality in allowing Him and his disciples to sometimes stay there (which likely meant it was a pretty large house, since it could hold so many guests).

This is telling, for Caputo writes things like this...

I may be forgiven (I depend a lot on the Christian virtue) if I have concluded that the private-charity argument is a cynical cover for greed, which has a way of working thigns out so that I get to keep as much money as I can for myself and let the poorest of the poor go to the devil.
p 93

What is telling is that, after saying that, he looks to the early church for support for his positions. But the early church was practicing private charity, not tax and redistribute. They certainly weren't being funded by the government of Rome or of Israel, and not by the Jewish religious authorities (unless those were themselves private individuals giving to the church, which ones like Nicodemus may well have done). It was members, be they individuals or families or maybe some small group or two of them, who of their own accord (with the leading of the Spirit, perhaps) sold their own things and gave the proceeds to the church (not sold their own things and then waited for the various governments to tax them) so that those the church set in place to provide those in need may do so, not let far-off government bureaucrats decide issues of welfare.

philosophical poison, with an added dash of Dogbert

In the last entry, I gave an excerpt from the called "Zizek: a (very) critical introduction" by Marcus Pound, a part of a set of books called Interventions. I also hinted that it was only one of several things said in the book that were poisonous. I intend to go into that here and now.

First, a couple of excerpts from Chesterton, to kind of give a bit of perspective.

...The temptations of philosophers is simplicity rather than subtlety. They are always attracted by insane simplifications, as men poised above abysses are fascinated by death and nothingness and the empty air. It needed another kind of philosopher to stand poised upon the pinnacle of the Temple and keep his balance without casting himself down. One of these obvious, these too obvious explanations is that everything is a dream and a delusion and there is nothing outside the ego. Another is that all things recur; another, which is said to be Buddhist and is certainly Oriental, is the idea that what is the matter with us is our creation, in the sense that our coloured differentiation and personalitiy, and that nothing will be well till we are melted into one unity. By this theory, in short, the Creation was the Fall.
The Everlasting Man, p. 135

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true.
Orthodoxy, at the beginning of ch. II

I want to point out these two insights by Chesterton because most of the things I'm going to point out from the "Zizek..." book will prove him true; they will be "insane simplications" made into "cynical maxims" made by "thoroughly worldly people" which will simply be "not true".

Here are the insights in the book, made by the various persons referenced by the author...

(male) love is murder--p. 145; Christ's death was not a sacrifice, save in the sense of sacrificing sacrifice--p. 47; Femininity is athiesm--p. 109; all men are castrated--p. 106; God's creation of the material world is "proof of the divine madness, of the fact that God himself is out of his mind"--p. 30; we can believe in order to not believe--p. 62; the Holy Spirit is 'the spirit of the community of believers'--p. 38; Christ's death shows that 'there is no longer any transcendent God with whom to communicate--p. 38; concerning Job, it ' was not him (Job), but God himself, who was actually on trial in Job's calamities, and He failed the test miserable--p. 58; "it is when we learn that suffereing is meaningless that we cease to be tyrannized by it."--p. 58; Christianity is the religion of atheist, "He (Zizek) reads Christ's cry of dereliction as the "over-coming of metaphysics," i.e., the death of the big Other.--p. 114; Old Testament Judaism was masculine, while Christianity is feminism--p. 114-118.

I'll stop there. It's enough, though I think I could go on a bit longer.

I do want to conclude with something I've just read. It's today's Dilbert comic strip. Why do I feel so like the human?