Wednesday, June 16, 2010


Neil, back in the good ol' days

I really do miss the kind of give-and-take in the thread to this post of Neil's -- "Spong is Wrong" -- from 2007! Interaction with Neil and a few others over there really did start me on my way to seminary.

Then Neil banned me, which is OK, since he's gone so far hard-right on so many issues, and painted himself into so many corners he's become irrational to the point of needing some kind of intervention.

It reminds me of the Dwarf-Ghost (the real Neil) and the Tragedian (blogging Neil) in C.S. Lewis's "The Great Divorce." The real Neil is going to blink out of existence one day, and the snarling, judgmental, mean-spirited blogging Neil is all that will be left.


"Gone so far hard-right"? Dude, there is literally no difference between what he wrote in that post three years ago and the kind of stuff he is doing now. He just allowed you and Dan to comment. And I had forgotten dear old mom2. . .

The problem with Neil's position on Scripture (as with so much else) is that it isn't reasoned, as he thinks. It's rhetorical. He has the points he wants to drive home, and uses reductive categories - "Jesus is God", "God is the Author of Scripture or it's full of lies" - that are actually heretical, even though he neither realizes nor cares this to be the case.

His oft-repeated "Jesus is God" statement is a marvelous case in point. This is an example of modalism, denying the Trinitarian nature of the Christian God. It is true to say that Jesus was fully human and fully Divine. Yet, to reduce this to "Jesus is God" is wrong. Jesus is the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, beloved of the Father, in the full presence and power and love the Holy Spirit (because all Three Persons are always united in love in all acts of God). Saying "Jesus is God" denies the Trinitarian reality that is the Christian God.

One could go on, but I think the point is pretty clear. Neil has no interest in anything other than shouting loud enough and long enough so that every individual who disagrees with him is silenced. With his on-going obsessive behavior toward Rev. Currie, and his truly hate-filled turn toward any disagreement and those who express them, he is, as Currie said, barely hanging on.
Yeah. I guess that's what I mean by "hard" right. Right is one thing. "Hard" right means he won't listen, won't interact -- won't actually COMMUNICATE -- he just slings words and vitriol.

My theory as a communications perfessional is that as long as communication is goin' on, there is at least a chance for peace.

But, yer right: He doedn't want peace, because he's RIGHT. He just wants to win - or worse yet, he thinks he's already won.

Which is just so much temporal, human, fearful, selfish, stupid, prideful, mean, anti-Christian bullshit it boggles the mind.

But it does, also, grieve the heart. At least mine, a little.

As I said, the real Neil is a small Dwarf-Ghost -- getting smaller by the day.

And, since I know we are admonished not to judge -- because we are incapable of any fair assessment -- don't consider this a judgment. It's my own observation is all, which anyone can take or leave.

But dang. The boy needs help.
BTW, that was a pretty decent off-the-hip shot at the "Jesus is God" thing.
Thank you. My masters is in theology, after all. . .
What I find fascinating is his labeling me cowardly. Yet, were I to hazard a guess, I would say that he is afraid of me. Not that I care either way, and he has only to fear that I call what he does what it is - rhetoric, not reason; that banging gong and clanging cymbal without love. I have no desire to "prove" my point with him, precisely because he knows I'm right. That's why he deleted my last comment over there (which I preserved in a post the other day in full and in context). He has also reprinted a year and a half old post that he insists suggests all sorts of things, but is really nothing more than a discussion we had, which ended when I realized what game he was playing.

I do not care what names he calls me. A point I made - that there is an actual record of our interactions and anyone even remotely interested can consult it - probably frightens him more than anything. I expressed no fear whatsoever from anyone considering all I've written over and against all he's written.

What bothers me, more than a little, is libeling Rev. Currie with the whole "serial liar" thing. If Chuck were less gracious, he would probably go after Neil. That he continues to try communicating with Neil at Neil's website, I think, means that Currie needs a little more prompting from the rest of us as to how futile it is.
Well, maybe it's never futile. I myself personally, in exasperation, told the Rev. Currie he should just sue Neil. And he asked why -- which kind of flabbergasted me. I said, well, for the obvious slander and libel. And he said: "He's just a bit crazy, I think. But I understand your feeling. Thanks!" Currie has more grace about him than either Neil or me!


Interesting lessons. #12 is particularly appropriate and clearly something no one ever told the amerikkkan descent crowd. ;)
Good stuff! I like No. 10 a lot; No. 6 nails it; and No. 1 is a Truth.
Awesome wisdom. With cartoon.

I would only amend Currie's notion that Neil is "a bit" crazy. Honestly - I think he's all the way around the bend, and has set up camp in crazy, just waiting on the contractor lay the foundation for his house there.
Neil just goes in tighter and tighter circles. Like those old-time tigers in the old-fashioned zoos...neurologically crippled into wearing tracks in the stone as he wanders the same old patterns...and lashing out impotently at anyone who wanders past and can't help staring.
Great description!
Thanks! :-)
OK. I've been staying quiet on this blog while reading it for months if not years. Got tired of being the conservative challenging the liberals, and then got tired being the conservative...
ER, your stance in that thread is both brave, impressive and also made a big impression on me...
If we're to believe every world in the Bible is the authoritative guidance for how we are to live our lives and follow God's will, then how do we balance it with the passage that the only perfection is God in Heaven? Wouldn't that then mean that the Gospels, written by man, are less than perfect? As someone trying to find his way back to church and struggling to balance what I was taught growing up versus what I know as an adult, all of this has me re-thinking things quite a bit...
Not sure what to ultimately do with it all. But what really comes through to me is that I really don't think God wants us to go around finding ways to hate each other...
Maybe some day I'll have the guts to approach you in person and hit you up with more questions about what all this means...
Very gracious of you to say such things, Anon. If you know me, you know how to find me. Anytime. :-)

Good write-up. I definitely love this site. Keep it up

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?