Modern media and public policy has reached a point where it cannot be understood except in the light of spiritual warfare: Good versus evil, God v the demons, Heaven v hell...
Creation versus the Transhumanism - i.e Man claiming to have-become God-the-creator, and to offer (Here! Now!) an 'Alternative' and better 'Reality'.
Satan has a big problem - which is that he and we and everything are part of God's creation: how then can they be rejected?
The answer is to create what is claimed to be an immaterial Alternative Reality; to choose to inhabit that AR, and by denying that we have made such a choice to claim that the Alternative is really real. In other words, Satan is the lead architect of the transhumanist agenda.
There is no need for you to do a thought experiment and imagine this situation - we are already there (albeit not yet fully so) - with the transgender agenda that has been very rapidly and aggressively imposed by the entirety of the Western ruling Establishment over the past decade.
The transgender agenda (by which self-defined gender incrementally-replaces, completely replaces, sexuality) needs to be recognised as a component of the transhumanist agenda; and both as the major strategy of the demonic agenda in the spiritual war.
Because most of this analysis (God, Good, Creation) is denied; dissenters and realists in The West have been helpless to prevent the imposed-reality of transgenderism - which is now assumed by law, and dissent from which is punished by law (and, worse, by mass media and bureaucratic employers).
The trans-agenda should be seen as a perfectly rational step towards the kind of Alternative Reality that the demonic powers need to be successful in the context of God's creation. It is part of a world picture that has been building-up over several generations; which has denied God, Creation and Reality - and asserted that this world is humanly constructed ('socially' constructed). The 'Reality' in the phrase itself assumes that reality is man-made, at will.
The appeal of the AR is the promise of freedom and pleasure - since, IF the AR really-was equivalent to created-reality, then in principle we might make Reality any way we pleased; without constraint. For instance; people could choose to be men or women, and swap back and forth at whim! Differences between sexes, classes, races, nations, individual people could be made or abolished!
If all that was true and possible (which of course it is not) there would still be the question of Who Exactly Is In Charge? - and the overwhelming probability that they would be evil-motivated people, who would shape reality to their own selfish ends.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that it is evil demons that are in charge of AR - it is their project; and demonic motivations are different and worse than human motivations; and their agenda goes beyond the gratification of their their own short-term selfishness into the long-term desire for universal damnation.
And - finally - the the very desire to create and dwell in an Alternative Reality on the assumption it is the Only Reality is itself intrinsically evil; because dishonest, because prideful, because of its hedonic hence self-centred/ self-ish motivations.
At some level, perhaps deep, we all know this to be true; which serves only to make its denial more shrill and spiteful.
In a world that denies Good, the Creation and God; the desire for life inside a 'reality' built-around our own pleasures and preferences, yet wholly convincing, is so great that all objections are swept aside by this desperate craving.
And so, Ladies and Gentlemen (to use forbidden terminology): This is the modern world!
Here. Now. Compulsory!
The attempt to create this anti-spiritual alternative reality has been in full swing for at least 50 years though its origins go back much further than that. It took a while to lay the foundations but the construction is being built very quickly now. One is almost curious to see what the next stage will be after transgenderism. You can be sure there will be another stage.
Two questions come to mind. What will it take for human beings to rebel against the lies they are being asked to swallow? Young women appear to be the most easily duped because they fall for the line of compassion more readily and also because they are told they are victims and so are more likely to sympathise with other so-called victims. They also follow their feelings above reason and common sense. And where they go, the men follow.
And, two, where do the individuals who promote these lies come from? They clearly have a spiritual sickness. Are they born with it or do they develop it in a world that encourages it while in a sane and spiritually healthy world their symptoms might not develop, not to the extent they do anyway?
Culture lies downstream of economics and finance.
It is the debt-based economy that is the real enticement of Alternate Reality. Instead of building up your capital prior to investing it, you can simply borrow it from a hazy neverland controlled by the various central banks, then pay it back through the greater profitability of your leveraged capital improvements.
But the truth is that all such schemes involve robbing someone who really did build up the capital. Otherwise the wealth that you are 'borrowing' wouldn't correspond to real goods and services to make actual capital improvements. And even if the money does get paid back, the actual wealth is usually squandered because people who are investing with money that came from literally nowhere are not sufficiently prudent. The money being used to buy goods and services, and then to pay back the borrowing, is all imaginary.
But the losses of wealth due to overly risky and sometimes just nonsensical investment in capital 'improvements' are all real losses, real human labor and harvested goods squandered foolishly by people who can't tell the difference between real and pretend.
Yes, the Transhumanist/transgender/transpecies fantasies are an element of the fiction that man has ascended to power over creation. But they are, on the whole, rather harmless delusions by comparison to the lie that central banks can create wealth, rather than just issue something that they persuade everyone to pretend is real money.
Of course the big lie is Marxism, the assertion that need justifies all, and ability must prostrate before it. It is the common source from which all the other deceptions flow. Every untruth that tempts us basically is that same promise, that because we desire something, we deserve it and those who have created it have no right to withhold it from us. It was Cain's sin, and Lucifer's before him.
Every unlawful taking, whether of respect, life, property, chastity, or even candy...it all begins with the lie that we deserve whatever we want, rather than what our own actions bring to pass.
@William - You ask "Where do the individuals who promote these lies come from? They clearly have a spiritual sickness. Are they born with it or do they develop it in a world that encourages it while in a sane and spiritually healthy world their symptoms might not develop, not to the extent they do anyway? "
I don't find this difficult to understand - perhaps because I have seen so many go this way (or at least a significant part of the way) through my professional life over about 35 years (in medicine, universities, science) - I mean, seen people just get more and more corrupt and actively evil, usually while preening themselves on their morality as defined narrowly and self-servingly.
Mostly, I think it is negatively a combination of atheism/ fake-Christianity; and positively careerism/ status-seeking/ hedonism/ lust etc.
The irony is that, in a society where prayer was habitual, transsexualism and dysphoria would be a very weak temptation, since any person experiencing it would pray to God to either grant their desire (in reality rather than through pretend-successful medical intervention) or reveal the source of the confusion. This is probably why this route has not been attempted by the side of spiritual evil before now.
Only people who are no-longer-able to pray in humility (for whom it's literally inconceivable even as a thought experiment -- which even many historical atheists were willing to concede) are able to so easily turn an impossible or foolish desire into a basis for reality-defying damnation. For a traditional/Orthodox Christian impossible desire would be seen as a testing ground for faith and for a William Blake style Christian it would be seen as both ongoing proof that Man is in need of Christ and that Man is destined in the image of Christ for a divine and not mortal existence.
(I encountered some obscurely worded lines in Blake's "There is No Natural Religion" suggesting that desiring particular things is wrongheaded because Man is a creature intended to desire all kinds of things: "If the Many become the same as the Few, when possess’d, ‘More! More!’ is the cry of a mistaken soul: less than All cannot satisfy Man. If any could desire what he is incapable of possessing, Despair must be his Eternal lot. The Desire of Man being Infinite, the possession is Infinite, and himself Infinite.")
Blake also seems to have desired some strange and wrongheaded things, intertwined with desires for many of the right things. So he seems like he ought to make a good model for anyone who suffers from desire -- alas it is not so because Blake is also highly open to misinterpretation if the supernatural dimension of what he's saying is filtered out by a standpoint of pure materialism.
This is a comment less on dysphoria as on the transhumanism culture in general. There are people who are justifiably more concerned about their body being destined to die and rot away than they are concerned about it being the wrong shape, but their response to the dissatisfaction has become equally delusional. Transsexualism is not particularly needed when mere refusal to accept aging will do the same job.
Either way the cultivation of a critical mass of spiritually insensible people was the main prerequisite of the current state of things.
@Seijio - Interesting line of thinking. Unrequited love is another, and deeper, example of a desire that cannot be gratified - but can only be relinquished, and another gratification substituted to displace it. Or, at least, make it bearable - although saying this, I realise that the divine love of God is often, perhaps usually, of this unrequited type - and perhaps the pain of it never goes away. Perhaps it is the capacity to accept this situation, rather than do anything to 'take away' the desire, is one of the most valuable fruits of spiritual growth.
Aside, I suspect something similar may apply to some other earthly trials, such as chronic and incurable ill-health. This reflects some realities of existence.
How then do we distinguish between the yearning (Sehnsucht, CS Lewis's Joy) for the real but Heavenly - and these unrequited loves of unfulfillable desires? As I write, it strikes me that they are different in quality and that we know the difference. In a qualitative sense, we know what could be cured, and what must be endured - although in *mortal* life there are things which *could* be cured but will-not, and must in practice be endured. A harder discernment, and one that can never be forced-upon the unwilling.
E.g. with the transgender agenda - Mormonism is clear that beneath mortal gender and sex lies an ultimate human division between man and woman, a relation that is the basis of all creation; but I recognise an ambiguity in mainstream traditional theology about sex being ultimately arbitrary, and that is being exploited by the demonic agenda.
Aside from my personal revelation of the Mormon understanding of sex - I feel that it is being vindicated by the way that the demonic powers are working in modernity.
I think you're right, Bruce. Once you deny God the next step is that there is no absolute reality and after that anything goes. It really is a slippery slope once you've lost the centre, all exacerbated by the self-centredness that prompts this denial and which increases in the wake of it.
Unrequited love has been particularly interesting to me for a couple years, and I've done some experimenting within myself. I've found that the moment I accept unrequited-ness, I cease to love. I think this is because it is corrupting to be loved and not to love in return, and so the lover must continually hope that the beloved will love in return when they are loved. Indeed, a true lover must make it clear that he expects to be loved in return.
This seems to me to be the case with God's love. He doesn't gain anything by our love for Him except for our own good. Knowing how profoundly and unconditionally God loves us...doesn't seem to help many people really learn to love God in return, which is very sad. In many cases, people take the fact as license to be even more unloving toward God.
I think this is why an over-emphasis on God's unconditional love is often misguided. I cannot think of God's enjoying to see His children be so grossly ungrateful and self-damning, and so I think in some cases, He may protect people from really knowing about the depth of His love. Or maybe it's just the way of reality, that a person cannot understand love who does not love.
So for me, I've found this aspect of unrequited love to be the most difficult. It would be easier to just accept that love won't be returned. But the continual hoping for love, looking for signs of returned love, the openness to repeated disappointment... it all requires a kind of toughness without detachment that I'm not sure I can attain.
Thanks for that Lucinda.
I doubt that there is a need to actually protect anyone from knowing how much they are loved, since those that do not return love can never genuinely understand that they were loved. I do think that it is necessary to protect people from misunderstanding being loved as a kind of license to wickedness, I especially believe this to be crucial to parenting of children, at least after infancy (before and during infancy wickedness isn't apparently so much of an issue).
And that is the danger of telling people how much God suffers for love of them. At the same time, God insists on proclaiming it. I think that, ultimately, people just have to choose how they're going to respond to that. If they really are so devoid of love for God that they can only see in His suffering for them a chance at emotional blackmail...well, then they were always beyond saving anyway. Instead, the emotional blackmail should go the other way for anyone that has the least capacity for love. Though I guess it isn't appropriate to call it blackmail, since it is only the demand for justice (rather than the demand to be exempted from it). Those who are loved should love in return, just out of duty.
Though I love God less out of duty than for other reasons, the just duty being limited by the nature (not the will, but capacity) of the beloved to reciprocate love received (which is also limited by perception and desire) rather than the nature of the lover.
In fact, I think I love God more for being unwilling to trick people into 'loving' Him by playing 'hard to get' than for loving them (including me).
Though that is a different kind of love, since it does not justly demand being requited.
Post a Comment