What would you like for dinner?

I got some flak for the last article about "Honest Errors", and mostly it was flak not about businesses or governments lying, but about churches doing it.

Yeah, bad news.  Churches do this.  They are, in fact, as big a group of offenders as anyone, which should be no surprise.  They are made up of men, and men are fallible.  Or as it says in Romans 3:23, "For all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God."

Or as I've noticed, some have fallen quite a bit more than "short" of that glory.  And how they love most to do it is to simply state a lie and pretend that they "honestly" believe it is the truth.

Take this video clip from the movie "A Guide for the Married Man":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pmBC_CrQS4&list=RD4pmBC_CrQS4#t=2

In it we see the strategy of the Little Psychopaths I spoke of in the last article.  The husband is literally caught in bed with his mistress, and he denies it while getting dressed and while the mistress gets dressed.  Then the mistress leaves, the wife is still protesting, and he is still denying it.

For the specific case of churches, this involves the variety of those who get into odd positions of power in various faiths and denominations and choose to abuse it.

It started right out of the gate with the Catholics.  They saw the Ten Commandments, saw that one of them said "Thou shalt not make any graven images" and another said "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, six days shall ye labor and the seventh rest" and what did they do?

They carved crucifixes and changed the day to the first day of the week.

When asked, they're the married man in the video clip.

Parishioner, looking at giant carving of Jesus at the front of the sanctuary:  "Hey, isn't that a 'graven image'?"

Priest:  "Why no, that's a 'worship aid', nothing more."

Parishioner:  "It's not an idol?"

Priest:  "Idol?  Huh?  Why would it be an idol?  Just a worship aid!"

Parishioner:  "Looks like an idol."

Priest:  "Worship aid."

Parishioner scratching his head:   *sighs*  "What kind of cookies should I bring to the youth meeting tonight?"

Later on, same Parishioner:  "Hey, doesn't it say the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week?"

Priest:  "Yeah, but we celebrate the Lord's Day to honor Christ."

Parishioner:  "Didn't Christ celebrate the Sabbath?"

Priest:  "Yeah, but we do this in honor of Christ."

Parishioner:  "But didn't Christ's Father, God, say that we should remember the Sabbath?"

Priest:  "Yeah, but those old commandments were nailed to the cross with Jesus."

Parishioner:  "Where does it say that?"

Priest:  "I just said it, didn't I?"

Parishioner:  *sighs*  "What should I bring to next week's food drive?"

Clever, huh?  You watch that movie clip and think that no one could be so stupid as to accept such a "deny, deny, deny" tactic, but then you read the above and learn that apparently over one billion Catholics have learned to do just that.

Not that this is only the Catholics, most Protestant faiths worship on Sunday, and with no other reason than some Pope thought it would be funny.  Or that it would show off his power.  Or for any reason you - or that Pope - cares to name, but for no biblical reason.

Nowadays, we see much more of this "deny, deny, deny", particularly among the liberal churches, but the conservative ones are hardly immune.

Church member:  "Why did you ordain that actively homosexual Bishop?"

United Methodist Church:  "Oh, that was just one section of us that did that, not the whole UMC."

Church member:  "So you're over turning it?"

UMC:  "Well, we're looking into it."

Church member:  "But she's actively homosexual!"

UMC:  "Well, she says that's not necessarily the case."

Church member:  "She's 'legally' married to her lesbian partner!"

UMC:  "That's why we held a hearing."

Church member:  "And?"

UMC:  "We held a hearing!"

Church member:  "And?!"

UMC:  "And we held the hearing.  The section is aware of our findings."

Church member:  "What were the findings?"

UMC:  "That they maybe shouldn't not have refrained of the prevention of it and such but that they did have such rights as they had, so they'll now know what the hearing of it was."

Church member:  "So nothing?"

UMC:  "No, we had that hearing."

Church member:  "She's still a Bishop, though!"

UMC:  "But we did have that hearing."

Church member:  "But how can an active sinner who is proclaiming her sin as good be left in place as a leader?"

UMC:  "Well, God is Love and who are any of us to cast the first stone?"

Church members:  "Are any sins to be okay then?"

UMC:  "Of course not!  That is, no 'sins' are to be okay.  There can be question as to what counts as 'sin', though.  That's why we have such hearings!"

Church member:  *sighs*  "What should I bring to the potluck this Sunday?"

Conservative churches have fun with this, too.  Just on other subjects.  Subjects nearer and dearer to their hearts than homosexuality.

Mormon:  "I thought you all said we have no paid clergy!"

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:  "We don't!"

Mormon:  "But the President of the Church and the top 14 apostles each get $120,000 annually!"

LDS:  "Oh, but all the local Bishops don't get any pay."

Mormon:  "But all those Apostles get $120,000 annually!"

LDS:  "Oh, well, we can't confirm or deny any obviously true leaked information, but if it were true, that's just the modest stipend we had told you about, not actual pay, therefore no paid clergy."

Mormon:  "What's the difference between a stipend and pay?"

LDS:  "Are you questioning the Prophet, the Church, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Father Himself?"

Mormon:  "No, but it just seems odd that 'modest' could be six figures..."

LDS:  "Have you not considered all the great work they do and how such is 'modest' compared to that? Or have you gone apostate?"

Mormon:  *sighs*  "What night should I have the missionaries over for dinner?"

In each case, the Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, whoever, is doing EXACTLY like the poor woman in the video was doing.  You didn't catch it, because you found it so fantastical that you tuned out a bit, but she said something very plaintive near the end, that explains the whole thing.

Wife:  "But Charlie!"

Charlie:  "What?"

Wife:  "Aren't you even ashamed of yourself?"

Charlie:  "What?"

And then the poor thing checks the now empty bedroom, shakes her head in bafflement, and comes out - utterly defeated - and asks him what he wants for dinner.

But why?  Why would any woman do that, or those billion Catholics or nine million Methodists or six million Mormons?

Because they judge others based upon how they know themselves to be.  And as they are NOT "Little Psychopaths" they falsely then conclude that the other cannot be.

And so since they know they'd feel shame at telling such a blatant lie, they figure that if the other was telling a blatant lie that they'd feel shame.

When the other - being the actual psychopath I said they were - then shows no shame, the regular Joe and Jane figures that, "Well, if they are so sure of it, maybe there is something to it, in any case, I sure don't want to stick my neck out and look foolish.  They'd not be saying this if they couldn't back it so even if I can't figure it out, I'll just let it go."

Adolf Hitler called this phenomena "The Big Lie", and it was his dark advice that if you're going to lie, tell a large one.  The masses - as he correctly pointed out - are used to telling little lies and so will be willing to believe you would tell such.  But - and this is crucial - the masses are NOT used to telling large lies, for fear of being caught and feeling shame, so they will assume that the Leader (any leader) would not tell a large lie either.

Therefore?  If you tell a large lie, that is MORE likely to be believed!  Had the man in the video clip told his wife that his mistress "meant nothing to me" she would not have believed that "little lie".  But pretending that she did not exist at all?  You might be surprised just how close that might come to working in real life.

In the case of the well-dressed businessman denying that his company is polluting a river or a Congressman denying that his legislation violates the Constitution or an Apostle telling you that $120,000 per year - plus sinecures, paid chairs, expense accounts and such - is a "modest stipend", you believe them as they show no shame in saying so.

And it's the same case when the lesbian Bishop stands proudly behind the alter with her co-wife and tells some schmaltzy tale of God being Love and wanting her to not be ashamed to express her love and to love her as she is and love and did she mention love?  And how God is love?  And loves to love her loving in love?  Yeah, same deal, she'll show no shame, and thus you'll figure that there must be something to it.

Because who would go to such lengths?  Psychopaths will go to such lengths, but you're still, while reading this, not up for believing that.

Because they're so sure.  And as they are so far up there, and so sure, who are you to doubt them, let alone deny what they say?  And even if you kind of sort of do doubt them, and suspect that this guy (me) on the internet may be making some kind of point, all your friends and family and neighbors are acting like they believe those "leaders" so best to keep quiet, right?  Right?

Some of you will come up with any excuse for those who lie to you, just so you can feel safe.  "But, Dean, he didn't just deny it, he said that it was a stipend instead of pay!" or "But, Dean, she didn't just deny it, she said that God told her that she was to be open about who she loved!" or "But Dean, he didn't just deny it, he said that it was only that once because I had been so distant and he wants to make it work for the kids!" or "But Dean, they didn't just deny it, they said the important thing is that 'a' day is kept holy!"

But a reason that is no reason at all is a "deny, deny, deny".  Sometimes they are called "sophisms" or "sophistries", arguments and sayings that sound wise and true, but are not.  Or sometimes it's just an example of the old phrase, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with...bovine excrement".

The poor Catholic or Methodist or Mormon is in the same position as that wife in another way.  Where maybe they aren't quite fooled...but they have the same hard choice that the wife in the video had.  The choice of, "Do I insist I know what I know...and lose the marriage, the comfort of the house, the companionship, the children having both parents, the social set and the million other benefits of it all? Or do I swallow my pride, pretend I'm falling for this, and still keep all the good that can be salvaged?"

So maybe the wife doubts.  Or maybe she's being practical.  Or maybe a bit of both.

I mean, the leader is so sure, the others aren't saying anything, and this guy you're reading right this moment is nobody, so if you do disagree with the leader, others will then think less of you, and you'll lose all the good stuff that you have come to enjoy...*sighs*

Better find out what to make for dinner.

"Honest" Error

As the cynical saying goes, "It's better to apologize later than ask permission first."  Mainly because most of us know when the answer is going to be "no", so if we want to do what we want to anyway, we must pretend that we thought it was okay, and be prepared to say "sorry" when we're inevitably scolded.

Cute, I suppose, when we are kids and it's a matter of taking a cookie because "Well, mom didn't say we couldn't take a cookie from Aunt Thelma's cookie jar right before dinner, just the cookie jar at our home!"  Not so cute when you realize that a large percent of our nation's government, business and churches are run - or run into the ground - on this same cynical principle.

I'll be taking three examples, one for when some in government pull this, and also for when some in business or churches do.  Some may dislike this or that example, but the examples are just examples, it's not about whether you are in favor of any of them or not in favor of any of them.  What's being put across here is the cynical principle of "Since I can't get my own way legitimately, I'll pretend that I think something is okay when I know it is not, and by the time I'm caught - if I'm ever caught - I'll have already ate the cookie!".

"Blah, blah, blah, your favorite cause, blah, blah, blah."

The "No Flag Burning" laws of the eighties and nineties.  Remember before gay marriage when flag burning was the "big" issue to distract the masses?  And in each case, the legislators would pass all these feel good laws banning "flag desecration" even though any village idiot with a Constitution in one hand and the Dictionary in the other could have said that such was a right?

The game then was to play that the men who had trained in the law for seven years and built a career on knowing the Constitution of the United States of America were too stupid to know that flag burning is a form of expression.  That a Constitution that was only to delegate some powers, and that made no mention of flag burning, and that further in the 1st and 10th amendment acknowledged such expression as a right, some how permitted this new law.

And so it was perfectly okay to pass a law against flag burning, because they "honestly" thought that it was okay.

Result?  If any disagreed, they had to burn the flag with ill thoughts (because burning it for a respectful destruction of it was not only legal but hilariously mandatory!), then be arrested, then sit in jail and let the case wind all the way up to the Supreme Court at tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and years in waiting.  Before the Supreme Court finally said the obvious that I as a child of 15 had said at the start - that yeah, the Government has no right to keep you from burning your own property and that burning it for political motives is by definition an act of expression.

Oops.  Congress's bad.  Not that they apologized.  They just promptly tried it again, and had that one struck down also.  At other people's time and trouble and expense.

Or how about businesses?  With an army of lawyers and PR agents and lobbyists they will "honestly" believe they are in compliance with environmental regulations even while pouring sewage and poison into a river feeding into a reservoir for a entire town.  Or towns.

When approached by a citizen's group with damnably obvious proof in the form of brown water and dead kids, or even then approached by investigative journalists with brown water and dead kids, or even then confronted by some EPA agent with the same brown water and the same dead kids (just more dead kids by that point), they will deny, deny, and for variety, deny, while continuing to pour the poisons in to the river while saying that "more study" is needed.

They will put everyone to the trouble of a lawsuit that will drag on for millions of dollars and a decade or more, before finally, it will be ruled that yeah, pouring poison and sewage into a river that feeds into a reservoir really is a violation of the Clean Water Act, and that the brown water really is brown and that the dead kids are, in fact, dead kids.  At which point - and only after all the appeals have run their course - will they stop doing that.

And start doing it under another re-incorporation one river over.  And not realize or understand - "honestly" - that doing the same thing to this new river counts as the same kind of bad.  At least not without more studies.  And more dead kids.

Or how about churches?  Too many in the hierarchy of too many churches will claim to - "honestly" - believe that there is no real prohibition against homosexuality, it's all just translation errors and differing cultures and past bigotries!  Any parishioner over the age of seven will readily see that for better or worse that the Bible in both the Old and the New Testament very clearly prohibits homosexuality, but it'll be insisted with a straight face that an openly lesbian bishop is perfectly fine!

Then the rogue local conference of some besieged church will appoint such a bishop, some lesbian woman openly married to another lesbian woman, and pretend that the words in the church rule book that forbid such, and the words in the Bible that forbid such, mean nothing, or anything else but what the words actually say.

And they'll put the rest of the church to the time and trouble of fighting it, and going to ecclesiastical court over it and risking schisms and heart aches and drop offs in attendance all to ram through their own private agenda upon the entire world of believers who joined the church for not agreeing with that very thing!

And after it's ruled "no", they'll re-introduce it another way, or raise another "argument" that they will - "honestly" - believe!  "Maybe it's okay if they're legally married!" or "Maybe the words that said, 'don't do this ever' meant that each sub section of the church was to decide!" or "God is Love, so, so, so there!" or "Maybe since there's so much confusion on this we need to have a whole conference on this to see about 'clarifying' the rules!"

Meanwhile that homosexual church teachers and preachers are molesting children, well that little "side-effect" gets shouted down the moment it is brought up.  "Homosexuality is not pedophilia!" will be the chant used to bludgeon you into silence, as if they truly don't get that a deviancy from the norm in one area makes it statistically more likely for a deviation from the norm in another.  Or that given that most adult parishioners know that engaging in homosexual play is sinful, who else but the children could be sought?

What do all three of those examples have in common?  Besides innocents being jailed, killed, molested or otherwise abused?

In all three of those cases, and in every other case in each of those three realms, it is profoundly selfish and profoundly evil men (and women) who feel that their personal wishes are to take precedent over the wishes and well-being of every other person involved.  That is how they honestly feel, and it is the only thing that they honestly feel.  All other claims of "honestly" feeling or believing a thing are lies, flat out lies, and blatantly obvious lies.

They know that this trick will work because they know that everyone judges others on how they are. Thus as most of us are regular honest Joes (and Janes) we'll naturally assume others are.  So when these Little Psychopaths (the kind that don't personally kill) trot out their "plausible" stories of how "this expression isn't really expression" or "this toxic sludge isn't what the Clean Water Act meant" or "when Paul said that unrepentant homosexuals won't see Heaven he really meant we should ordain them" the rest of us are to think, "Aww, gee, do they believe that?  Well, golly, I guess we'll have to all go to a bunch of time and trouble to correct them as they bitterly fight us every step of the way!"

Or - and here's the real point - say, "We've fought this issue so long, I can't afford it any longer.  Fine, let them jail hot head teens, or poison a whole town or minister to the congregation with his co-husband!"

You, the reader reading this, you pause at the phrase "Little Psychopaths", but that is what they are. Oh, not all who then go along with it are, but those who originally propose it and vigorously proclaim it are. And yeah, some who do go along with it are not tricked or fatigued into that, but have their own little malicious reasons for wishing things to be a way they know is inappropriate.

And it is we, the "polite ones" who not being evil cannot conceive it in others that let them get away with it.  If more people were willing to unashamedly stand up and say, "Senator Porkbarrel?  You're an idiot and/or a liar.  There is no world in which you could have spent nearly a decade studying Constitutional Law and think that letting Citizen A burn a flag to dispose of it is fine, but Citizen B burning a flag while thinking bad thoughts is not fine.  You are being a demagogue and a rabble rouser and trying to wipe your bottom with the very Constitution you claim to hold sacred and swore an oath to defend."

Or, "Oh, you work for SludgeCo?  Then you are a well-poisoning, child murdering psycho and when you say you're just working to feed your family all I'm hearing is that you choose to feed them by being a hired killer instead of working for an honest living like the rest of us do.  All I'm hearing is 'Blah, blah, blah, I'm an order following, baby killing Nazi'."

Or, "Oh, your cousin, son, niece or such is homosexual and they're good people and who are we to judge?  So what?  Sorry to hear it!  But drunkards, murderers and homosexuals don't get to go to heaven unless they repent of being a drunkard, repent of being a murderer, or - oh yeah - repent of homosexuality!  As to who I am to judge, I'm the person who Christ told to judge in righteousness in John 7:24!  And yeah, that means your loved one is a sinning sinner, who no matter how nice, sweet and gosh darn cute they are - shouldn't be teaching the kids alone or preaching to anyone who has hope for heaven!"

When we fail to say such things loudly, clearly and yes, even "rudely" - as no matter how you say it, it'll be took as "rude" - then we are conceding the battle to all the Little Psychopaths who not content with the stolen cookies of childhood are now going to seize the whole world and with crumbs on their greedy lips say that they don't know nuthin' 'bout nuthin'.

And we have, in the main, failed to say anything.  Which is why businesses are doing whatever they please and whenever they please to whoever they please.  And why those who want to destroy organized religion strive to keep watering down the message into nothingness - and when it leads to less member retention, not more as they said it would, they respond by watering it down even more! Which is why Congress perpetually makes any law against all the things that the Bill of Rights said they'd make "no law" against.

This is not as inconsequential as you think.  Business-wise, it's why that government regulatory agencies are little more than rubber stamps to give an impression of fairness and justice to any chicanery they choose to partake in.  Government-wise, it's why more than 100,000 teens have been killed overseas in the past 70 plus years - even though we've not declared any war in 70 plus years!  Religion-wise it's why you see women ministers last year and lesbian ministers this year and married lesbian co-wives as Bishops the next year.

It's why the numbers of Christians in America have gone from 98% to 68%.  It's why our "limited government" now controls, regulates, taxes and oversees every facet of our lives.  It's why Business is King and Unions are co-opted when they're not disbanded.

All for psychopaths using pretense instead of poison, golden words instead of guns, sophisms instead of stabbings.  And their goals are the same as any "real" psychopaths.  Directing or Destroying.  They want to run things, or they want to run it into the ground.

They also have allies.  Any who like something being different, but know that it is wrong, or that it would make them look bad to advocate for it, will ally with the smooth talk of the "honest" psycho. They will gladly pretend - for the sake of their job - that the factory isn't polluting "too" much, if at all. Or that their nation isn't really the baddie, it's that other nations hate us for our freedom.  Or that sin isn't really sin - when they know someone who does that particular sin, or want to do that themselves.

Those are the strongest allies of those who seek to direct or destroy.  Similarly strong - because while less strident, there are more of them - are the ones who just don't want to get involved.  They'll then follow whoever screams loudest, and in this culture, that's mostly those who have the sly agenda.  They sometimes even see the game, or at least know that the person is full of it, but they're just keeping their head down, they're not there to cause trouble or make waves.

The psychopath and his active and passive followers count for 99% of all mankind.  1% psychopaths, 8% active followers, and 90% passive folk who won't oppose the 9%.

The last 1% are those few who see the game and name the game.  And since they use real words like "psychopath" they mostly will fail in waking anyone up, as it is far more comfortable to dismiss them and just assume that to the extent anything is ever wrong, it is only due to "honest" error.

For many of the followers, it may be.  For the few yelling the loudest - no.

Hollywood Christianity

Hollywood hates Christianity.  One can see this in how ungodly most of the movies they make are, but also in how if a Christian is shown, he's usually a molester, or a backwoods idiot, or at best, a middle aged and middle classed hypocrite.

Rarely is he any kind of hero, unless it's made clear that he's the "good" kind of Christian who has broke from his church, defies it's authority and accepts all manner of sinners as being not really sinners. In other words, he may be good if he - or she - is pro-LBGTQ or otherwise anti-"any Christian doctrine" you can think of.

The only good Hollywood Christian pastors are
lesbian married co-pastors.

It is complained sometimes that Hollywood does unusually few Christian movies in a nation that is not only the third largest nation on Earth, but has more Christians than any nation on Earth.  So once in awhile, they'll trot out a "Christian" movie or TV show.  And I'm speaking of the mainstream of Hollywood, not the specifically Christian movie makers that have popped up as a "niche" market.

(That Christian movie making by various church groups and church organizations is regarded as a "niche" market in this largest of Christian nations says it all.)

But as bad as it is when the mainstream ignores Christianity, it is even worse when they do not ignore us. They know this, of course, it's not by accident that they get it so wrong, it's pure anti-Christian propaganda from start to finish, sugar coated to taste sweet and nice so that the poison goes down better.

Where would I go to find an example of their specific and deliberate malice and misrepresentation? Oh, any number of places, but let us choose "Highway to Heaven". Too far back?  Au contraire, when I clicked on a list of "Christian TV series" one site had that one as Number Six, with that silly "The Young Pope" as the Number One.  That alone speaks volumes about Hollywood and it's hate of any Christian programming.

"Highway to Heaven" typifies how Hollywood portrays Christianity.  In it, God and Satan are equal and opposite forces of Good and Evil. The more educated of you recognize that as Zoroastrianistic, not Judaic or Christian or even Islamic.  It's been known as a heresy to think that is the case for, well, ever, but Hollywood plays like it doesn't realize this.

God then has sent an angel down - played by Michael Landon of "Little House on the Prairie" fame - to aid various humans.  With his magical powers.  Thus when a human is in trouble, it is not Jesus, but a random angel played like a down home cracker barrel philosopher who should be called upon.

Unsurprising, though.  The name Jesus Christ is rarely mentioned at any time in Hollywood films or shows, unless as a curse.  This "Christian" show then is about how humans are trapped between Good and Evil and only the magically random intervention of angels can aid us.  

Why do I say "magic" and not "miracle"?  Because miracles are things done by God, and for His Divine purposes.  What Hollywood shows are tricks done by a super-being that they enjoy calling an "angel", though if he were a real angel, his first advice would have been to "fear not", as angels are powerful and scary not down home and folksy, and his second advice would have been to call upon Jesus Christ.

That any real Christian would have solved any of the contrived problems simply by picking up a Bible or "calling upon the name of Jesus" never occurs to any scriptwriter, though, or so they'd have you believe.  I say that it occurs to them, but why would they want any in the audience learning to do that? If they portrayed Christianity as real, and showed the real blessings that flow from it, then people might start attending church!

And they sure can't have that.

So they make it all random magic.  Same as the show "Touched by an Angel".  Where this time it's Roma Downey who you may call upon in dire need.  She's cuter than Jesus.  And perkier.  And LBGTQ friendly.  And not so judgey, unless it's to scold some mean hypocritical church person who was trying to advise standards.

That's Hollywood's favorite misrepresentation of Christianity.  That it's "really" about not judging, so if you ever see anyone judging you or anyone you know, then they're not "real" Christians, because "real" Christians don't judge!

Thus when Pastor Meanie McIntolerant looks sadly at a gay couple, we can learn that he must be a hypocrite for thinking that their active and proud homosexuality is a sin.  But when Pastor Softie McLovesall risks his job to marry Adam and Steve, he's such a hero, because he knows to never ever judge!

In case some of you were unaware - and Hollywood has done a great job of making too many "Christians" unaware - yeah, you get to judge.  "Not judging" is not really a thing.  Oh, true, you cannot judge a man's final fate, you cannot arrogate yourself the insights of God, like you can see into a man's heart and know whether he will receive salvation or not!

But you are perfectly capable of, and expected to, judge what is or is not sin.  If a man hits you the first time, you are allowed, when seeing his fist coming the second time, to duck.  True, that is you judging that he intends to hit you again, but yeah, you get to judge that.

When Druggie McBaddie, age 37, shows up to date your 16 year old daughter, you're allowed to judge that such is inappropriate.  When you see someone stealing the collection plate, you may judge that to be theft.  And when you see two homosexuals flaunting their homosexuality and seeking to have it validated as a "marriage", you are allowed to judge that as sin.

But Hollywood has trained generations - even of "Christians", even of the elect - to regard any kind of discernment of what is sin and what is not and who is sinning and who is not as a "judging" which is - according to their false teaching - unacceptable.

Thus is an entire body of philosophic thought, going back more than 2,000 years, reduced - no, not reduced, but changed entirely to - a contest between Light and Dark with the only thing you can do is live nice enough that maybe an angel will notice you and give you a boost.  And meanwhile never ever say that anyone else is doing anything bad at all or that anyone ever should change in the least bit.

Examples of how if you are not a follower of "Hollywood Christianity" then you must be a Kool-aid drinking cross burning hate mongering child molesting terroristic bigot abound.  "V" shows an Anglican priest as a child molester. "Saved" shows a fornicating minister who's real "sin" is that he won't let two gay kids attend prom.  "The Walking Dead" has a minister who's a coward and betrayer and murdered his whole congregation.  "Caprica" had the terrorists as those who believe in one God and blow up people, while the good guys were the pagans who worshiped many gods.  "The Simpsons" has religion as an organized racket in it for the offering plate money.  "The Mist" showed that as soon as the civilization collapses, the Christians will sacrifice children because Christians are mean and hate those who don't think like them. The most recent "Law and Order SVU" episode was where a minister of a church - from the Midwest, of course - had a high school senior rape a high school girl so that she would be cured of lesbianism.

I could bore you with a list ten - one hundred - times longer.

Enough said.

Or the little softball lines inserted in otherwise non-religious shows.  "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual", teaching that it's okay to never go to church but that somehow just wandering through life not killing and not being too mean somehow equates to a "relationship" with God, when those who say that wouldn't even know how to define Him.  "Too many hypocrites at church", as if that made any more sense than saying, "Too many fatties at the gym."  

This applies to an allegedly religious series like "Left Behind", too.  Jesus is massively downplayed.  The Rapture was of...not those who accepted Christ, but those who were "good".  Or take the quintessential "Christian" themed movie from none other than Stephen King.  "The Stand".

Another Good versus Evil, Light versus Dark, where Jesus plays no role at all.  Good is represented by Mother Abigail who can do magic, and Dark is represented by Randall Flagg who can do magic. Never mind that the whole thing in real life would have been over as fast as it would take any character to simply pray to Jesus.

Perhaps this is due to Hollywood wanting to have suspense in their movies, but I doubt it.  Suspense could be had over whether the characters would accept Jesus fast enough.  No, it's propaganda.  And if it is not, then it has the trait of being remarkably similar to being propaganda, and having the exact same effect.

It trains up a generation - or two or three generations by now - to know that all one has to be is good. Good and non-hypocritical people get heaven and bad and hypocritical people get hell.  In Hollywood Christianity, the only sin is hypocrisy.  And the only hypocrisy is to judge anyone for anything at all. So you may be as sinful as you please if you aren't telling others what to do, but if you strive not to sin, encourage others not to, and are found to have fell in any particular, than you are a hypocrite and all you said can be dismissed.

Wonder who that benefits?  Hint:  Not us.  And while they do not know it?  Not them, either.  Not in the long run!

Hollywood Christianity has an ally - or a product that Hollywood itself aided in creating.  It's what most call "Mainstream Christianity" or sometimes "Mainline Christianity".  The liberal wishy-washy theology of women ministers and homosexuality being okay and God not being an entity in Heaven but rather the concept of "Love".  And Jesus is reduced in this version of Christianity to being a Michael Landon, but one who may not even have done miracles, but was just there to preach about the Love and Peace, man.

A hippie-ish type of Christianity, where he was little more than a social reformer if mentioned at all.  

Liberal Christianity, Left-wing Christianity, Hollywood Christianity - it's all the same kind of thing.  A watered down, twisted up version where God and Satan are equal and opposite, where it is being nice that gets you to heaven and even the "bad" - whatever is left to be bad - only gets you...well, they don't preach much on that.  

And "bad" is really just not being as Peace and Light and Tolerant as they are.  All one has to do to not be "bad" is to accept that no one else is really all that bad!  Handy, huh?  Judge not - and never fear then being judged!  Which is why the cardinal sin in Hollywood/Liberal Christianity is to in any way say that what a person is doing is wrong or sinful!

That is the unpardonable sin for them - to judge a sin as sin!  And they will judge you quite quickly for judging, be assured of that!  

Mammon's Memes

I admin or moderate quite a few dozen groups.  Including participating in many Seventh-day Adventist groups and being an admin for three of them who's total membership exceeds 50,000 people world wide. So I tend to get exposed to a lot of what most people call "memes".

"Meme" used to have a different meaning, but now, in common usage, they are simply a nice photo, picture or backdrop with a nice or funny or inspirational quote on it.  They are used for two reasons.  One is to convert others to a given viewpoint, be it political, religious or just a certain world view.  The second is to affirm and support those who already share that view.

This could be a funny picture of Hillary or Donald with some comment panning on either of them.  In theory this would move some neutrals off the fence to the side for or against whoever.  And give a chuckle and/or affirmation to the supporters of whoever.  Me, I voted Gary Johnson, so I'll use an example that might move neutrals from both of those to a third party candidate:

Or it could, instead of being political, be some general opinion on our society/culture in general.  It lets others know they are not alone in their frustration, and may even let some know that it's okay to be frustrated by such things.  Such as:

No real politics or religion there, but a desire to bring people around to a general view all the same.

Or it could be religious memes.  These can range from funny in-jokes that only Christians in general or some particular churches specifically will get.  Haystack jokes for Adventists, for instance.  And if you're not Seventh-day Adventist, don't worry about it, the point was for it to be an in-joke!

Or from that narrow range, it can go to some broad meme where Christ is shown on the Cross and it says, "I asked Jesus how much He loved me and He opened His arms wide...and died for me."

Besides funny in-jokes and broad general messages, there is another class of religious meme.  The conversion kind.  These are memes that are deliberately designed to prompt a change in the belief of another. They are not bad in and of themselves, and they can be for political purposes as well as religious.

Some - most - are relatively straight forward and honest.  They are not trying to hide what they are.  Thus you see many memes from Seventh-day Adventists about Saturday being the Sabbath.  They are put out there as Seventh-day Adventist memes, designed to have you want to think about Seventh-day Adventism.  

I call that Green Level propaganda - It is true and from a true source.  The political equivalent of the Republican Party posting "Trump 2016!".

Next there is Yellow Level propaganda.  This is stuff that is mostly political, and mostly from Neo-Nazis.  It's bad stuff from bad sources.  "Hitler Was Right!" posted by StormFront.  Why is that only Yellow Level? Because it is massively ineffective.  The message is too obviously wrong, the source is too obviously a bad source.  

So now we get to Red Level Propaganda.  This can be for subtly effecting a change in the viewer's political beliefs over time, or his religious beliefs.  Or his social beliefs in general.  Or for fast cash.

It mostly is true, but it comes with a hook.  Like a beautiful picture of a father pushing his bicycle along while his little boy rests upon it.  And the caption says, "A Father Loves His Children".  What could be wrong with that?  Well, nothing - but at the bottom it has a "sponsored by" section, and the "charity" that sponsored it is fraudulent and hoping that you'll visit their website, get suckered and send them some money.

It is true, but not from a true source.  I have had to delete that very type of meme from many of the Adventist groups just for it being a snare to sucker people into thinking it is safe to donate to them.

Other types of Red Level propaganda involve various mixings and matchings between some truth and some lies. Or it could be an "incrementalist" meme, designed to habituate you to a bit of error, so at a later time, you can be took a bit further down that road.  Each meme in that series will be just a shade wrong, but when the shade is added up over the years, you are now then in the dark. 

It could be a repetitive meme.  Where Huxley's great truth of "1,000 repetitions equal 1 truth" is put into play. In that case, it's a matter of trying to get you to feel a certain way.  Like how Blue Lives Matter inundate the web with pictures of cops giving milk to a housewife, cops giving boots to a homeless man, cops hosting a soup line for orphans, etc.  And meanwhile, Black Lives Matter is inundating the web with pictures of cops shooting dogs, cops beating women, cops killing unarmed minorities, etc.  

The first time you see either, you don't automatically think all cops are good or bad.  But if you only see the Blue Lives memes, or tend to see them mostly, you'll come around to most cops being good.  And if you only - or at least mostly - see the Black Lives memes, you'll come around to seeing most cops as bad.

Which is Red Level and which is Green Level between those two?  Ahh, that's the question, isn't it?  Each side will think they are the Green and the other the Red.  And they're both right - from each of their perspectives.  Propaganda is funny that way - remember, I said that it could be good or bad.  Propaganda is neutral - it's how you use it.  And what you use it for.

Okay, so I could go on all day, because it's a large topic, but I'm going to get to the specific that I came across today in church.

It's that old ruse that I think of as the "Harrison Ford Trick".  You know, where the guy did so many good movies, you figure that they all must be good, then you go and pay $16 to take you and your girl out to see "Six Days and Seven Nights" and realize that Harrison betrayed you!  That the movie sucked!  They put his name on it because they knew you'd come see it!

Well, some churches are real pros at that trick.  Except that they hope that once you're in, you won't think they suck.  I refer to the practice of quoting their own leaders instead of the Bible.  Why do they do that?

It's because while quoting the Bible is great, that promotes Christianity in general, and nothing further.  Which isn't bad, but is it as good as it could be?  What if you could promote Christianity AND your own church? Wouldn't that be better?  Most think so.  I know that I do.

Now, perspective comes into play here.  As far as neutral people are concerned, simple and wholesome quotes that are true, and come from a named person, is Green Level propaganda.  The statement is true, and the source is truthfully named.  So no one in the neutral camp minds.

But those of us a bit more partisan do mind.  For instance, is John Wesley so well known as the founder of Methodism that a neutral would know that?  If so, then that they've cited a known source makes it Green Level.  But if it is not true, if most do not know him that way, then it has shaded rather fast into Red - as it is designed not for the putative purpose of teaching a single moral truth that is contained in the quote, but for the hidden purpose of getting someone habituated to Methodism.

See, if they keep seeing quotes from John Wesley, and each keeps resonating, then it would tend to have them favorably inclined to try a Methodist church first, should they ever be in a church trying mood.  And churches depend on two things - the number of children born to the already faithful, and the number of neutrals who seek them out first when they do decide to go to church. 

While that is very bad of the Methodists to do that, it is very good when I salt the various groups that I have say in with Ellen G. White quotes.  Mostly Bible verses, but always some few from her.  Nor am I being funny or hypocritical.  True, I do hope that the quotes resonate and that if a person who is neutral ever decides to try church, that he'll try ours.  For me, I am posting Green Level Propaganda.  

But I fully acknowledge that to a partisan Methodist, it would be Red Level.  I have a motive besides the goodness of the quote itself.  Green if you agree with the unnamed motive.  Red if you do not.  There's nothing particular wrong in this, it's simply that I am not going to include a bio of Ellen White every time I quote her, and nor will the Methodist include a bio of John Wesley every time he is quoted.

Again, this is how the spread of ideas works, it is not good or bad in itself, it is all in what you use it for.  

Now comes the greatest source of memes in the world of religion.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  While other faiths quote Christ and Church leaders in a mix and match fashion, the Mormons almost exclusively quote their leaders who they call Prophets and Apostles.  By this I mean that Adventists and Methodists and many others lean towards scriptural quotes.  Bible verses.  And add only a bit of salt in the form of an Ellen White or John Wesley or Thomas Aquinas quote here or there.

With Mormons, the Bible is rarely quoted, but the leaders are quoted extensively.  I could not emphasize this enough.  The Bible quotes barely rise to the level of a "salting", the entire course is Church Leader quotes, perhaps a dash of the Book of Mormon, and rarely a Bible verse.

This is due to which is central to which church.  If the Bible is central, then that gets quoted most.  If the leaders are central, they'll be quoted the most.

Tons of beautiful memes are made by Mormon sources, pretty pictures, nice back drops, artistically very well done, with quotes from their various Apostles and Prophets, past and present.  Boyd K. Packer, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and on and on.  They have 15 Prophets and Apostles at any one time, the three in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  

They do not, as a rule, tend to quote Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  Mainly as most of the neutrals know who those are thus would be turned off immediately.  But they'll quote a lot of the 20th century prophets and apostles who the neutrals are less likely to know.

And the quotes will fall into three categories.  

First, completely true ones.  Such as this:

How sweet!  Let's try his church!

These are mostly used to habituate you to their leaders, and to see those leaders as men of inspiration and wisdom.  There is a chance that if you were to ever go to church you might choose to go to the one that produced all these men who's quotes you have found solace in.  If you think I exaggerate, then you have no idea of the sheer number of Mormon memes there are.  Thousands.  Literally.  

And each speech gave by these men, four times a year, is specifically wrote to have quotable phrases in them, which then the rank and file online will dutifully turn into memes and spread far and wide.  It's a deliberate campaign, and frankly, quite successful.  In conjunction with their missionary efforts, they bring in a quarter of a million new baptisms each year.

Second, there are the ones that are seemingly true, but have hidden landmines in them.  Such as this:

How sweet!  Let's try his church!

This one is a twofer.  It still helps habituate you to their leaders, but it also has a bit of unique Mormon doctrine slipped in.  Where they believe that Christ did not die for our sins, but atoned for them earlier when He bled from every pore.  The death afterward was simply a postscript, not really needful as He had already atoned for us.  

And if you think I am parsing a fine theological point, then all I can say is that is the least of the differences between this faith and the rest of Christianity. 

Thirdly, there are the ones that you are likely to NEVER see, unless you are in the culture and in their specifically Mormon themed groups.  And even then, they are very rare, as they tend to be secretive about the "real" beliefs until you've been there a few years. Such as this:

Jesus and some of His wives!  How sweet!
Let's try this - wait, what?

And that's about it.  Three levels, only two you'll ever see.  The quality?  Superb.  The quantity?  Massive. What's to be done?

Two things.  

One, post as many pro-Adventist memes in as many groups as you can.  Two, do not remain silent when you come upon any non-Adventist memes in Adventist groups.  I used the Mormons as an example as I am most familiar with their type of memes, and they do the most.  I could have equally showed various liberal Protestant memes, like this:

How sweet!  A church I can take "that one cousin" to!

Which tend to habituate the neutrals to a belief that Christianity is accepting of an actively homosexual lifestyle, such that if they ever decide to try church, they should find a "real" church that does accept gays, not one of the mean and intolerant ones that says that such is a sin!

And again, to those in churches with actively homosexual ministers, that example would be Green Level, though to us it is Red Level.  Christians do support equality...but do also know that sin is sin.  

While my focus is online, this also applies off line.  Bumper stickers, pamphlets and posters.  It is not so much that such need to be "fought", but more simply "named".  The "naming" of it takes the sting out.  Every time.  But without it being named...it's an accumulative poison.  Or refreshment.

Depends upon your tastes.

Secular Fundies

If there is one thing the anti-Fundamentalist Christian liberal loves, it is their supposed intellectual superiority over who they call the Christian Fundies.  "Fundies" being the derisive term these supposed tolerant ones love to label them.  It stands opposed to the "good" kind of "Christian" that agrees with all the liberal positions - abortion okay, LBGTQ okay, evolution okay, "Jesus as a Social Reformer", and "God as the Love that Permeates the Universe".

Secular fundies thus love the liberal Christians, because by the time you believe that God is just a feeling and Jesus was just a hippy goofing up the Roman Empire by indulging in the ultimate act of Civil Disobedience, you're really no Christian at all.

Secular fundies love to point to how intolerant and anti-reason those they call "Christian fundies" are, but really, from where I've sat, I've seen no intellectual difference.  If anything, I've found they are usually worse and more intolerant and less prone to reason than most Christian fundamentalists I've met.

I encountered this type of ignorant bigotry just yesterday, online, where one of them had posted up a copy of a child's homework.  It was from a Christian mother who was upset over how the public school tried to indoctrinate her child with notions and viewpoints of Islam that she found offensive and inappropriate.

These secular zealots thought they were safe in mocking her, calling her "dope" and just having a great time in general at how stupid she was to want to home school her child.  They no doubt figured they were safe, as they were unaware that a Christian Fundamentalist was around.

Yeah, me.

Boo!

Which is a surprise to most secularists, as I'm college educated, well read, have forgot more Bertram Russell and Ayn Rand then most of them are likely to learn, and share some politically liberal positions.

I looked at the paper the Christian mom had been concerned about.  I knew the game.  Teach the kid all about Islam, not in an overtly "pro" way, but by simply speaking "not critically" of it, like it was no big thing and as valid for that culture as Christianity for ours and see how their history was so intellectual and see this accomplishment and that accomplishment - no, they'd never overtly tell a child "be Islamic", but this type of thing would go far to making the child "not so Christian".

Particularly "not so Fundamentalist Christian".  "Liberal Christians" have no trouble with their kids learning about how great Islam is at all.  The typically liberal Christian will, in fact, look for almost any thing that let's their child see how many other ways that there are, all equally valid, of course.

This is why liberal Christianity - such as the Methodists - have seen their numbers falling since the 1960s, while the fundamentalist faiths have held steadier.  You don't persuade your kid to your beliefs by letting him know they aren't that big a deal.

Now, such teachings of Islam will, at the least, put the mother's dislike, even hatred, of Islam in question. And if old fuddy duddy mom was wrong on that, what else would she be wrong on?  And since church might be boring to the kid anyway, and uncool, and none of the other kids have to go, this would be just another reason to not want to go.  Etc.  Thus a non-Christian, or at least a more wishy-washy Christian is born.

Or so some strongly Christian parents might reasonably think.  While others might think that such is an over-reaction and all the public school was trying to do was teach the essentials of a faith that plays large in the history and affairs of the world.  But notice what the mother wrote on the paper at the bottom - where is the homework where they are testing children on their knowledge of Christianity?

No where.

The "Five Pillars of Islam", yes, but the "Apostles Creed"?  No.  Explain the beliefs of Islam, yes.  Explain the purpose of Christ's sacrifice?  No.

Kind of makes the propaganda explanation even more credible.  Unless Islam is of more significance in American history than Christianity.

So.  She's been called a "dope" online, not where she can see, the paper she put up in concern and as a warning to other parents, they've seized on and are using as a thing to show that she's a fool.  In their eyes, anyway.  I wrote the following:

"It doesn't count as being a 'dope' not wanting your kid to be taught that your beliefs are wrong.  She's not asking that the school change, and other kids be made to learn how she believes, she is simply noting that one view is being taught, but not hers, and pulling her own child out so as to teach him as she thinks best. How does any of that make her a dope?"

The name caller, who had personally attacked a woman who he did not even know, immediately ducked with a "I should know better than to comment on any religious post."  The implication being that his opinion of the woman was okay, but his expressing it where a fundy could see it was his error, me being the "fundy" simply for having stuck up for her.

I pointed that out.  That it was my experience that secularists and skeptics did not wish to discuss reasonably the blindingly obvious issue of "who's kid is it?" and thus "who has the right to teach the child?"

This got another jumping in, and this woman, the original poster, sanctimoniously pointed out that she just believes that all kids have a right to an education.  The implication being that I, and Christian Fundamentalists, do not believe that.

I answered that the mother was not denying her child education, she simply did not want that "education" to be that "she's a dope" and "Islam is cool".  I asked again - who's child is it?  If she doesn't have the right to decide the child's education - who does?  Those here calling her a dope?

She wanted to then imply that the child needed to learn "facts" about the world, including about Islam.  I asked who had the right to decide which facts, as apparently not all faiths were being discussed.  I pointed out that if a secular liberal had their kid made to learn the "facts" about how unhealthy and harmful homosexuality was, that they would be quite likely to desire to take their child out of school.

I pointed out that the only difference between the Secular Fundamentalists and a Christian Fundamentalist was in which they believed - but that they BOTH would pull their kid out of a school that taught their own child that they were dopes.

She disagreed, still thinking that somehow in her case it was different, as her beliefs were "true".  I asked who got to decide what was "true" for a child - the parents?  Or her?

She got all wound up and angry - typical Secular Fundy response, just all-cap it, no rationality needed - and "yelled" "THE SCHOOL BOARD".

I said, "Oh, so if I bribe the School Board, or if me and my friends out number you and your friends in a vote, then it's okay to teach your kid anything we like?"

She, apparently so wound up as to not have seen my reply yet, was busy posting another comment, just a repeat.  "The School Board decides it, not you or me, just them, that's fair, that's how it's done."

I calmly answered, "So back in 1934 when the Nazis taught all the kids that the Jews were inferior, that was okay because the Board said so, right?  And those Native Americans who had their kids took away, and made to learn English and Christianity, you agree with that as it was decided by school boards, right?"

I clicked over to look at another group while waiting for her reply, but when I clicked back, "The page you are looking for is no longer available."

Yep.  No rational discussion to be had with a fundy.  Particulary the Secular Fundies!

And no, she - and that guy who called a Christian mother a "dope" - were not random exceptions.  Secular Fundamentalism is a thing, where they take a set of given tenets on faith, and no reason enters into it at all. The Christian Fundamentalist - rank and file - at least know they are taking much of their beliefs on faith, and that is, with them, the whole point.

Some Christian Fundamentalists, such as myself, and a variety of others who have read the scholars like Aquinas and Locke and Kant and even C.S. Lewis, can provide rational backing to the doctrines.  Rational backing that is in no way essential to faith, but handy when these Secular Fundies stroll by.

But there is little scholarly backing to Secular Fundamentalism, and such as it is comes from Marx and his heirs who believe in the Collective, and Class Consciousness and children being of the State.  Most of the rank and file secularists no more know that though, any more than many sincere church goers can discuss Aquinas.

So the Secular Fundies blather.  They blather their personal insults and their "argument from intimidation" where they try to imply by tone or passive aggressive comments that they hold the intellectual position, and all the Christian has is "faith".

Nope.  All each side has is faith, with a bit of scholarship at the bottom, hardly known by either side.  The only question then is, not, as the Secular Fundies love to think, "Reason or Faith?" with they choosing Reason, but rather, as I full well know, "Faith in God or Faith in Men?", with they choosing men.

Some may think - do I say then it is equal?  Both using faith?  Nope.  For you see, the Christian Fundamentalist is using faith because he is supposed to, it is what God wants him to use, and when he uses his faith to discover, know and follow God, he is doing well.

But pity the poor Secular Fundies.  They take faith - which according to them they are NOT supposed to use - and then in using it undercut their own position.  Professing to rely on Reason, they instead rely on faith, faith in men, and violate the very Law of Reason they claim to adhere to which among other things says, "Argument from Authority" is wrong.

Thus the Christian Fundamentalist acknowledges as good the tool he uses and uses it to know his Creator who never changes.  But the Secular Fundamentalist disavows the very tool he uses, and then misuses the tool he pretends to shun to believe upon men - who change each and every generation!

I don't call them "dopes", though.  I call them "victims".  For they are the way they are for their own poor upraising, and that for their parents having been poorly raised.  Usually by public schools, sometimes by backslid parents, sometimes by a liberalized "mainstream" church, but always by a sinful world ever ready to undercut Christ's teachings, the Bible and God's will at every turn.

They are willing to be the victimizers of the next generation - but only because first they were the victims of the previous one.