The Damnation Of The Mirror

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013 by ytrsdafsdhfjyftdrs
 The thief cometh not, but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. – Webster’s Bible  So Messiah takes great pains to explain what the thief represents, and how different his mission should go, in a perfect world. This is Christ the Lamb, the gentle, the meek, the righteous, the simple, the lightbringer, the deliverer, in essence, the Savior.

But as with all Eastern paradoxical concepts, there is the opposite likeness to consider. Thusly, we are then presented with Messiah as Revenging Lion (putting aside for the moment parallel assertions found elsewhere that Lucifer is the Angel of Light, as well as the roaring, raging Lion seeking to snare us). And to muddy the water even more, we are told that this Revenging Lion more than likely is to strike like a thief at an hour that will catch us by surprise in order to steal and to destroy. Much like a tornado, don’t you see?

If we were dealing with basic mathematics, I’d call this a wash, an equality, a class act x=y, y=x syllogism. No fallacy here. At least none that the human species can be expected to discern with the necessary degree of certainty, given the general vagueness of the stated propositions. Even the book states the grand delusion, and mistaken identities inherent in this search for distinguishing marks. There’s critically no way to distinguish the difference between the Messianic and the demonic in most cases, no matter how clever we are in postulating faith or social progress. Even cold stringent humanistic atheism has risen to heights only to lose ground in the next era.

When we are told that the crippled and the leprosy-scarred along the daily path of the Preacher were allowed that way by God so that the Messianic purpose of profound healing could be carried out, so this idea of the purity of God suddenly becomes questionable to many, unless we can actually know who these leprous beings were (many seemed to be whiners, and gave no thanks to their healer, and thus were hardly holy emissaries arrived to sorry flesh from a holy place).

Does any of this prove or disprove the existence of a personal God? I should say not. But there is much more to consider before we throw our full weight into an unambiguous response to that so called “ultimate” question.

Yes, we are reduced to pursue other tests and methods of reckoning because faith, logic and natural selection appear to fail us on this account…

Leave a Reply