EmperorofIceCream EmperorofIceCream

On conversion, and why I did it twice...or was it once?

On conversion, and why I did it twice...or was it once?

Or, you know you've found your God when It knocks you on your ass

I have insomnia right now... something that happens virtually every time I'm between jobs, hence the two articles in one day. I'm writing this one at the request of island_gurl12, who asked me to talk about my conversion experience(s).

A 'crisis conversion' is exactly what's implied by the term - some radical change (perhaps religious, usually 'spiritual') that occurs as a consequence of some stressful situation in life. My crisis conversion occurred when I was 24 and its immediate consequence, my becoming a 'Christian', lasted approximately fourteen years. I am no longer a 'Christian' and haven't identified myself as such for at least the last ten years - but I continue to live with the legacy of that event, and with the development of that legacy that occurred in response to another, eerily similar event, that took place a little over three years ago - just prior to my coming to America.

1984, the UK. At that time I'm once again living in Scunthorpe, my home town, lodging with my mother and sister in the house they then shared. At that time I was drowning in despair, without having a concrete reason for the misery I then felt. It seemed to me that I was 'out-of-joint' with everything in the world. Wherever I looked I saw no way forward for myself; only mere continuance, without purpose, in an endlessly grey world. I had been told, by those in the Social Services, that I was unemployable in their opinion and that I should resign myself to a life of dependency on the state. Within myself I felt entirely alone, isolated behind some impenetrable wall of my own devising, and permanently locked away from any kind of meaningful human contact. The voices in my head (not literal voices that I regarded as outside myself but the voices of my evil nature) that sang sweetly to me of suicide began to seem ever more seductive and rational and only my profound repugnance for such an act (a repugnance I take no credit for - to me the horror of suicide seems as natural as breathing) kept me from actually making the attempt.

I liked the idea of being dead - but not by my own hand. Never by my own hand.

Once every two weeks I got a check from the government. With it I paid my mother some small amount for my lodging with her; I paid installments on what other minor debts I then had; I made sure I had enough hand-rolling tobacco to last another two weeks - and the rest of the money I drank away, usually that same day. Had I had enough money I would have been an alcoholic - just like my father, and my father's brother.

I had a routine that I followed on my bi-weekly trips, involving drinking in certain pubs in the town in a set order. First stop, the Parkinson Arms. Then on to the Oswald Hotel - possibly the roughest pub in Scunthorpe and by far and away my favourite. From there to the Brumby, and finally back home by way of the Priory Hotel and the Beacon. Sometimes I'd vary the routine slightly, going to the Lincoln Imp for several pints of Old Tom, for example; or to a pub locally known as 'The Pig' but the actual name of which I've long since forgotten. In essence, though I sometimes changed the names on the list, these bi-weekly trips were exactly the same: disappear into a pint glass for as long as the money lasted, then stagger home to sleep in drunken stupefaction. Two weeks later I'd do it again.

That was what passed for my life, then: a pointless round of inebriation without hope or meaning, that did nothing but reinforce my sense of disconnection from the world and other people. During the rest of those two weeks I locked myself away in my bedroom, smoked countless hand-made cigarettes, and lived in a fantasy world fuelled and reinforced by endless reading of science fiction and 'sword and sorcery' novels. I lived a life as arid and empty as it's possible to imagine, hating it all the while, and myself, while seemingly utterly powerless to change.

Change eventually came to me, however, and from an unlikely source. One night, sat in the Oswald, watching the whores pair off with men fresh from the fishing-boats newly docked in Winterton, I fell into conversation with a young man who was almost supernaturally emaciated and possessed of the largest, most flamboyant ears I'd ever seen. In the middle of the Oswald, surrounded by whores, pimps, drug-dealers and drug users, this skinny bat-eared creature was reading a Bible while contemplatively drinking a pint. I found him utterly incongruous and therefore interesting and so did what I almost never did by choice - began a conversation with a stranger.

This young man was called Steve, and that conversation was the first of very many that took place over the next year. Steve, it soon transpired, was a recent and very militant convert to Christianity - the kind of Christianity then referred to as 'happy clappy': Pentecostal in origin, zealously evangelical in outlook, and 'charismatic' in nature - emphasising the gifts of the Spirit - in particular the gift of tongues.

For six months he talked to me about his newly-found God, and I asked him questions that I hoped he wouldn't be able to answer. I was drawn to him, and to what he had to say, and to the people he eventually introduced me to - a charismatic 'cell' of believers within a local Methodist chapel. And at the same time I was repulsed. I found the notion of being 'washed in the blood of the Lamb' deeply repugnant - not because blood was involved but because the blood in question belonged to a lamb, possibly the most pathetic and unimpressive of all creatures.

I found the passivity of Steve's Jesus repugnant: a passivity that led to the eager embrace of a death both revolting in itself, ignoble and completely fatuous. I found the notions of the Trinity and the perpetual virginity of Mary an insult to my intelligence; and the Christian's horror of sex (and the rampant paranoia it induced) an affront to my nature. And yet still: I talked, I listened, and I debated. Because behind these conversations there was something real - and in all the rest of what passed for my life there was no reality at all.

October 24th, 1984, 2.00am. That night I had attended, for the first time, a meeting of a 'house-church' - a gathering of believers in a private home, devoid of any of the trappings and rituals usually associated with Churches - except for the breaking of bread together and the drinking of wine. It was there that I heard people speaking in tongues for the first time (something I then found to be utterly freakish), witnessed ecstatic prayer for the first time, saw people collapse on the floor as they were 'slain in the Spirit' for the first time. And once again, but far more vividly, I experienced the sense of reality that haunted my conversations with Steve.

It didn't occur to me to question whether or not, or in what way, a connection existed between what these people said and did and this sense of reality. I simply assumed that there was, and that this connection was direct, straightforward and simple. And despite myself, I was impressed by what I saw, what I heard - and by the acceptance of each other that was evident between these people.

Disturbed, my thoughts and emotions in turmoil, I left early in order to walk home without being interrogated by Steve as to my impressions of the meeting. I wanted to think, not talk. As I left, a little old lady (very little and very old) presented me with a card on which was printed the parable of the Good Shepherd and the Lost Sheep. In the bitterness of my loneliness the thought of someone actively seeking me out because of concern for me touched me very deeply. "Do you know Jesus?" the little old lady said as I walked out the door. "I'm afraid not" I replied. She looked deeply and honestly saddened and replied in her turn "He's waiting for you, you know. All you have to do is ask." I had nothing to say to that, and left in silence.

So home I went, to an empty house, both my mother and sister being away, arriving there a little after midnight.

What I'd witnessed and felt had moved me deeply. I found myself actually wanting to believe.... but unable to do so. And then, at 2.00am precisely, that sense of profound reality swept over me - but now magnified into an actual presence. And with this sense of presence came communication. In the moments of consciousness that remained to me I was aware of being offered a choice - to remain as I was, or to follow whatever it was that confronted me. I remember my decision, I remember, quite clearly, making this decision - which was to follow, from that moment on, this presence which had come to me. And I remember nothing after that, for the next five hours. When I came back to myself I was in the shower, yelling 'hallelujah' as loudly as I could and grinning like a lunatic.

To this day I have no certain knowledge of what passed during those five hours. But I'm left with the very strong impression that negotiations were entered into and a bargain concluded. And it's in the shadow of this unknown bargain that I live even now.

And that should have been my first clue that what had happened to me was not what I thought (and was told many times over by the members of the house-church which I shortly thereafter entered) had happened to me since, so far as I know, Jesus doesn't make deals with those who believe in him. I hold to that bargain still, whatever it was, because it's fundamentally and inextricably associated in my mind with that overwhelming sense of reality that swept over and through me before I blacked out: which caused me to black out.

*********************
Jump forward almost twenty years, to another late winter's night, several years after my divorce (years I've spent in intense exploration of my sexuality and my beliefs) and not long after the ruin and loss of another deeply valued relationship. In the months before this night I've met Sabrina online and come to feel for her an affinity that dwarfs any I've felt before, which consoles me for the loss of that long term and real time relationship. She and I have talked at length about her beliefs, her experience as a Chaote, and about Magick generally. She's sent me the Book, and an obsidian dagger she had created especially for use in the Rituals I'm beginning to develop in conjunction with the lessons of the Book. And in consequence of those early ritual sessions I can already feel everything I thought I knew about 'religion' and 'spirituality' slipping away from me and turning to dust.

Over these preceding months my mind has returned, again and again, to my original conversion experience. And a fundamental question has emerged: where and what, in that experience, was the definitively 'Christian' element? And in all honesty, I could not then and cannot now, find such a definitively 'Christian' element. Thinking as honestly and clearly as I can I realise, that night, that such an element was never present in my 'conversion'. Whatever of 'Christianity' was present that night was something I brought to the experience, something I attributed to it: not something which it brought to me.

Years before this night I had effectively ceased to practice my supposed 'Christianity'. The particular reasons for doing so are not relevant here; but in effect what had happened was that I had, slowly, returned to that sense of hopelessness and futility that had characterized my life prior to my conversion - only now my despair had a specifically religious quality. It was in that moment of final realisation that I was literally forced to my knees by the return of that overwhelming sense of the real that I had known once before and not felt again for years.

I found myself, once again, drowning in the attention of the real, and in the knowledge that it was my faltering first steps in Ritual practice that had drawn this attention to myself. This time there was no confusion as to whether or not this was a Christian experience. Though the presence that confronted me for the second time was in no way different to that I had met in my 'conversion', there was not the remotest suggestion that what looked at me, what recognised me, was in any sense a Lamb. It was, in some plainly obvious but incomprehensible way, far more dreadful, far more awesome, and far more dangerous than any Lamb could be. And in the last instants of consciousness left to me I was reminded, forcefully, of the Angels described by the prophet Ezekiel, and of his account of their effect upon him - which left him stunned for seven days.

Do I have a name for the presence I encountered that second time? Yes. A Name to which I've alluded in articles such as 'My Mother made me my own Jesus' and 'How to induce auto-erotic schizophrenia'.

Is there a connection between my supposed 'Christianity' and what I now worship? Yes, in the same way that there's a connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Do I recognise my God in the words of the prophets? Yes. As in the Psalms and Proverbs, and in the Song of Solomon, and in Ecclesiastes. As also, but to a lesser degree, in the words of Hebrews, Romans, and Revelation.

Is there any trace of Jesus the Good Shepherd left in my spiritual life? No, not remotely. Sweet Jesus, meek Jesus, mild Jesus the Lamb, the Christ of God.... has withered away entirely in the flame of another revelation altogether.

Do I regret his passing? Occasionally, in the way an adult, in a moment of nostalgic weakness, might regret the passing of childhood into adulthood and with it the loss of innocence. But only rarely, and such moments become still rarer, as I contemplate the endless vistas of what I would once have called 'darkness' that have opened to me, beckoning me onward to things I would once have thought unimaginable.

Am I fearful now, as I was then during the years of my Christianity? No. I no longer fear the things that I did. Why?

1Jo 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
9,445 views 51 replies
Reply #26 Top
To KFC:

none of what you mentioned here are instrumental to one's salvation. Not one. You are talking man made traditions. Jesus had alot to say about traditions.


I think you'll find that everyone from John the Baptist on has asserted that Baptism is necessary for salvation. Or is that something else you were unaware of? The traditions you presume to criticise, especially in relation to Catholicism, have been developed by people of faith, urgently seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for very nearly 2000 years. And yet, out of the immense depth of your utter folly, you presume to dismiss them because they do not conform to the narrow bigotry of your definition of what it is to be a Christian. I begin to find you deeply offensive.

Over the course of these exchanges it's become apparent to me that you are woefully, deplorably, ignorant - both in relation to the contents of the Bible, and in relation to the most basic tenets of the theology of your faith. You know nothing. You understand nothing. And yet you presume to teach others.

And in that you are like almost every other 'Christian' I have ever met.

Reply #27 Top
To island_gurl12:

I'd like to suggest that you don't place too much faith in the works of Aleister Crowley. He fell too deeply in love with a myth of himself, which he himself had created, for him to be a reliable guide. Instead, consult the book and author my wife told you of. That has been to me a constantly reliable guide in these things and a source of inspiration. I disagree with the author's moralising tone, but he's undoubtedly exceptionally skilled in both describing and elucidating Ritual - far more so than the self-aggrandizing works of Crowley.

A lot of things ressemble the tribal practices in my native country, Vanuatu. Maybe what you call rituals is what we call "custom", but only a few use it. And once you start using it, it can turn on you. Like once you've used it to kill someone you have to keep killing to feed it, because otherwize it'll kill you. These are things that I believe, I've seen some really weird things happen, but that I believe are from Satan. It is evil. You can sense evil like you can sense purity when you enter a place.


Magick has no morality, and the uses to which it can be put can be dreadful, and have dreadful consequences for the Magickian who makes use of it for evil ends. But that's the choice of the individual Magickian - there is no necessity that evil should be worked.

As for the appetites and proclivities of the Entities invoked... I will say to you what I have said to others. Be careful what you wake - lest you be unable to make it sleep again.
Reply #28 Top
I think you'll find that everyone from John the Baptist on has asserted that Baptism is necessary for salvation


Water Baptism saves no one. John the Baptist did not say that his baptism saves anyone. In that case, the thief on the cross did not enter the kindgom of Heaven as Christ promised he would. No there is nothing WE do that saves us. It's not about us. We do not save ourselves. While I don't believe in x,y & z...I do believe in the simple A,B,C. Admit, believe, confess. That's it. That's all Christ spoke of in regards to salvation.

And I do wonder why you totally ignored every bit of that response in favor of being a smart ass. Could you explain that to me, please?


I can't respond to every single point LW without monopolizing the thread. And I did respond but maybe not to your liking?

Over the course of these exchanges it's become apparent to me that you are woefully, deplorably, ignorant - both in relation to the contents of the Bible, and in relation to the most basic tenets of the theology of your faith


Would you like to give me a bit more here on this? Where am I missing the mark in your estimation? Instead of going after my character, give me something I can answer you on not something so vague as the above statement.

Show me where in scripture requirement for salvation is based on tradition or rituals. Show me where the necessity of altar calls, penance, and speaking in tongues come from. Show me.

Where in the world do you get last rites from? The CC? Ok now show me where they got that from scripture.
Reply #29 Top
To KFC:

Water Baptism saves no one. John the Baptist did not say that his baptism saves anyone.


In all honesty, you appear to me to be some sort of bizarre theological masochist... Have you not yet had enough of being beaten about the head and shoulders with the same rod you use to belabor others? Evidently not.

The first Baptism, also known as the Baptism of John, was given for the remission of sin. Baptism itself is the outward, and therefore necessary, sign to the world of repentance and transformation. But the true point to take note of is that without Baptism there is no remission of sin - and that therefore there can be no salvation without it, since salvation is, entirely and completely, the remission of and the blotting out of, the guilty verdict which, according to Christianity, is the fate of all men from Adam onwards.

In all truth, it astounds me that I have to teach you these things, 'Christian'. I had thought that even the most nonsensically liberal of churches would be sure that their congregations were aware of these simple fundamentals. But then I ought not to complain - even the tentmaker was faced with the same task.

1Cr 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.

Hbr 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

You disappoint not only me, but the God you profess to worship, since you worship in ignorance, pride and vanity. However, on with the lesson.

Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Emphasis in italics added.

Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Is this testimony, taken from the Book you profess to believe in, not enough to demonstrate that there is no grace, that there is no charism of the Spirit, without there being first of all Baptism in water? Probably not, so...

Mar 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

I imagine that by now even you are beginning to get the gist. There is no remission of sin without Baptism, no charism of the Holy Spirit, no likeness of Jesus Christ in the unbaptized and... no salvation. Not only is this so, but baptism is something the believer must do, he or she must take the initiative and seek it out. Because, you unmitigated and intolerable fool, salvation is by the grace of Christ attested to both by the believers faith and by his works - first among which and cardinal to them all is baptism.

If you are one of those contemporary 'Christians' who believes baptism in water to be unnecessary, as your quoted words appear to attest, then by the simplest tenets of your own faith you walk on the edge of hell and are unsaved - 'Christian'.

As to the rest of your nonsense concerning the necessity of Christian ritual to salvation, my comments were not addressed to that point at all but to the simple-minded notion that there is no complexity in Christianity, and were designed to demonstrate that in many Christian practices there is a great abundance of complexity - in some cases rivalling that of the practice of Ritual Magick. And once again, the point proved too difficult for you to grasp.

Cease to teach others, thou fool, go home and learn some of the basics of your faith - and if you haven't already, get baptized. And then, perhaps, you will be able to call yourself a Christian.
Reply #30 Top
First of all you still have not shown me where John advocated baptism for SALVATION.

Second. There is a difference between water baptism and spiritual baptism. One is very necessary the other is not but is only an act of obedience.

Water baptism is only the outward show of what went on inside. You picked one verse the Pentecostals like by the way and I did notice. So I suppose you are familiar with that group?



Eph 2:8-9 about says it all.....

2 Peter 3:16 for you especially. Even demons can quote scripture.

There is no remission of sin without Baptism,


you are right here but it's not water baptism, it's spiritual baptism. Read John 3:8 where it says you don't know when and where it will come, it will be like the wind. We can't know or see the wind but we see the effects of it. Like a sailboat moving along the water.

That's the baptism that saves....NOT WATER. We don't save ourselves. Christ saves us from ourselves with the baptism of the HS. Our water baptism only is the outward show of whom we belong to and the start of our ministry just as Christ himself was baptized at the start of his. It's our first act of obedience.

Besides if it's as you say....water baptism saves, then everyone should get dunked cuz we're all going to heaven. Check the baptism records of the mafia. I'll bet they were all baptized.
Reply #31 Top
Check the baptism records of the mafia. I'll bet they were all baptized.


HAHAHA.

Just so long as the Sopranos make it...then all will be well!
Reply #32 Top
Well, this was my first blog article that I've read on this site, and it made me think.
I thank you for that.
I now have to wonder if I'm ever going to have an enlightening experience with what could be 'my God' (who/that has eluded me thus far in life).

-me.
Reply #33 Top
To KFC:

Well, I begin to understand you at last. You are wilfully, deliberately obtuse - you make the most blatant errors, simply in the hope that you will eventually wear out anyone whom you cannot out argue; or whom you can't browbeat with scriptures you yourself don't understand; or whom you can'y bully into believing you are some sort of theological superstar.

For instance your response to a set of scriptures that quite clearly shows the necessity for water baptism before spirit baptism can occur, such spirit baptism being taken among Pentecostals as the only convincing sign of salvation, is to ignore the scriptural evidence and shift the ground to something else entirely - but something which appears quite similar to the original topic, similar enough to deceive the unwary into thinking that you are both still talking about the same thing.

Water Baptism saves no one. John the Baptist did not say that his baptism saves anyone.


There is a difference between water baptism and spiritual baptism. One is very necessary the other is not but is only an act of obedience.


you are right here but it's not water baptism, it's spiritual baptism. Read John 3:8 where it says you don't know when and where it will come, it will be like the wind. We can't know or see the wind but we see the effects of it. Like a sailboat moving along the water.


In each of my responses so far I have shown you a schema of Biblical scripture (all from purely canonical books) which clearly demonstrates that water baptism is a necessary precursor to baptism in the Spirit. In no instance in the scriptures does baptism in the Spirit precede baptism in water. Nor can it, since its through baptism in water that the inner man (the Old Man as the tentmaker has it; the archetypal Adam) is transformed so making the believier fit for the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. You may choose to say in response that God's election precedes everything so that though water baptism appears to occur first transformation has already occurred and indwelling already begun. Which would be pure sophistry: a denial of free-will, and a complete failure to address the Biblical account which testifies with great clarity that, for Christians, water baptism always precedes spiritual baptism - as it did in my own case.

And each time your response has been to continue your own line of argument while simply ignoring everything that demonstrably contradics it, as if that contradiction had never been posted.

So, 'Christian': here is a challenge for you. I explicitly deny, on the basis of the scriptural schema already shown you, that baptism in the spirit precedes babtism in water as the sign that the Old Man has been transformed. Don't cite John 3:8 which deals with baptism in the Spirit because you are required to demonstrate not what spiritual baptism is (the indwelling of the Spirit), nor why it's desirable (for the flowering of the gifts of the Spirit and for the manifestation of the fruits of the Spirit) but that this indwelling is given as a first sign of salvation.

In other words, stop telling me what you want me to agree to and demonstrate that what you say is Biblically so.

As to my being unlearned and unstable (2Pe 3:16) - unlearned I'm not, and as to stability... I think I'm at least as stable as your average neurotic American housewife laboring with the terror that her faith is nonsense and her supposed salvation an illusion born out of her egregious vanity and self-satisfaction. But you're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. By all means think me unstable.

Even demons can quote scripture.


Thank you, nicest thing any one has said to me all day.

And finally... one more example of your wilful misunderstanding.

We don't save ourselves. Christ saves us from ourselves with the baptism of the HS. Our water baptism only is the outward show of whom we belong to and the start of our ministry just as Christ himself was baptized at the start of his. It's our first act of obedience.


Let me ask you a question, 'Christian': at the time of Jesus' baptism in water, when did the dove (another insipid image of God) descend upon him and when was the voice heard that testified that this was the Son of God? Before or after his baptism in water? And, in case you can't find the relevant verses, I'll save you the work of looking for them.

Mat 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
Mat 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mat 3:15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it to be so] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

After, as I think you can see. And if it was sufficient for Jesus that he be baptized in water first, to fulfil all righteousness, and then to be baptized in the Spirit, it ought really to be sufficient for you also.
Reply #34 Top
To I'mJustMe:

I now have to wonder if I'm ever going to have an enlightening experience with what could be 'my God' (who/that has eluded me thus far in life).


The more you want such an experience the less likely you are to receive it. The effect is called the 'lust for results'. Simply put, desire interfers with will. Stop wanting, start willing, and put all thought of what you want out of your mind. You'll be astonished at how quickly you'll be able to squeeze through the doors of the Throne Room and catch the eye of God.

But don't blame me if the attention you receive becomes more than you can bear.
Reply #35 Top
"Simon was the Penultimate, tongue-speaking, foot-stomping, slain-in-the-spirit Pentacostal for five years, and that was after He spent FOUR years as a Fire-Breathing Street Evangelist, accosting unsuspecting sinners wherever He could find them and telling them ALL about their condemned asses. One poor sap was cowed, teary eyed, into a corner after being the victim of His evangelistic derision for.....wearing a crucifix as an earring. (I'll leave Him to expound on why He found it so offensive at the time, as I have domestic drudgery to attend to before it gets too hot.)"

So he was a nut Christian and became a nut heretic. Scary.
And not to be an English major, but you're misusing penultimate unless you're trying to say he was a shitty Pentecostal.

"He was a zealots zealot, or at least He was until other zealots found Him too intimidating to associate with, he was you, KFC, magnified a thousand times, and He didn't waste His efforts hanging out in chat rooms and internet forums, He took it to the STREETS."

His efforts were wasted though if he was as much of a nut as you describe him to be.

"You won't win by quoting scripture with Him, He knows the bible (chapter and verse, entire huge tracts of it BY HEART) more intimately than any ordained minister I've ever met, His memory and retention is almost idiot-savant like in it's enormity, but where His true advantage lies (in any interaction with you, or people like you) is that He was once JUST like you, only to a much greater extreme."

I don't know KFC personally, but I doubt she is the Jack Chick wannabe your husband was. I do agree that she won't beat him in a Bible-quoting match. He does seem to be quite knowledgeable in that area, although I don't think his interpretations infallible (even though I agree with many of them). Regarding the necessity of baptism for salvation, from the Catechism: "For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament." That said, I do agree that people who refuse to get baptized are not saved, because faith without works is dead and according to the Semitic Totality Concept, thoughts that don't lead to actions are vain, and if they truly loved the Lord, they would do what He asks. Perhaps EoIC was only talking about people who refuse to get baptized even though they can be and not those who intend to get baptized but cannot, so we might actually agree completely on this.
Anyway, off that tangent. Point is, he was not like KFC. Unless Christianity is only an outlet for some insane zealotry to her.
Reply #36 Top
I'm still reading.
Reply #37 Top
I'm still reading.

Me too.
Reply #38 Top
In no instance in the scriptures does baptism in the Spirit precede baptism in water. Nor can it,


OH REALLY? No instance? And you're the expert? Ok here we go. From Acts 10:44-48

While Peter yet spoke these words the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with the gift of tongues and magnify God. They answered Peter. Can any man forbid water that these shall not be baptized in the name of the Lord.

I will repeat. The HS is the only thing needed for Salvation. Water is not a requirement. Now if one refuses as SA wrote then I too would be suspicious of their salvation only because that is the first act of obedience.

Thank you SA. I am NOT anything like EOIC here. I do not force myself or my belief on no one. I like to debate but not if the other is not willing. I'm not a bully or a name caller. If someone says..back off....I'm gone. No problem. I've had that happen here on JU and I respect that. No problem.

It's by the hearing and believing HIS WORD we are saved, not by the water. Ps 119:9 says..

"How can a young man be cleansed? by taking care and heeding his word."

Jesus is the Word. He is the logos. The world started with his WORD "And God said..."Let there be light and there was light." Gen 1:3

and will end with it

Rev 19:15 "And out of his mouth came a sharp sword that with it he would smite the nations and he shall rule them with a rod of iron....

what is the sharp sword?

"For the word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
Heb 4:12

I am not about being right but all about pointing to the one who is. It's not about me. It's all about Jesus.

BTW LW...slain in the spirit? Would you like to explain that one? The only one in scripture I see slain in the spirit is Judas. He fell backwards so what you're saying is your husband followed after this example?
Reply #39 Top
Simon was the Penultimate, tongue-speaking, foot-stomping, slain-in-the-spirit Pentacostal for five years, and that was after He spent FOUR years as a Fire-Breathing Street Evangelist, accosting unsuspecting sinners wherever He could find them and telling them ALL about their condemned asses. One poor sap was cowed, teary eyed, into a corner after being the victim of His evangelistic derision for.....wearing a crucifix as an earring.


thanks for the info Lw but you're telling me what? How not to be like Christ here? Does this sound like Christ? How effective did this make him?

Let me ask you a question, 'Christian': at the time of Jesus' baptism in water, when did the dove (another insipid image of God) descend upon him and when was the voice heard that testified that this was the Son of God? Before or after his baptism in water? And, in case you can't find the relevant verses, I'll save you the work of looking for them.


Well if this is all you went by when reading the scriptures I'd agree with you. But we need to put all of the scriptures on the table and look a bit more closly.

First of all. Are you telling me that Jesus was not filled with the spirit before this? Hmmmm? Do you remember when he was still in the womb and John the Baptist lept in his mother's womb? What was that all about?

Also how about as a child, he was left behind in the temple teaching the learned Rabbis of the day. They were astonished at his doctrine. You know that scripture tells us it's the God's spirit that is the teacher of his word right? Well how'd this happen if he had no spirit in him before baptism?

Here all 3 Persons of the Trinity are clearly delineated. This is the Father’s command to hear His Son and the Spirit’s vindication and empowerment officially inaugurated Christ’s ministry.


Also John was told in 1:33 "And I knew him not but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, 'Upon whom you shall see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.' And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God."


This dove was more to bear witness and show the relationship of all three here than anything else. This is where the trinity is first seen.

That's what our water baptism does. it bears witness, it doesn't save us. It doesn't jive with the rest of scripture.

You may know the scriptures EOIC, but you haven't put them all together yet so they make sense. Your pieces are all jumbled. Maybe that's why you don't believe it?

You may want to read John 8 particulary pay attention to v30-31 and compare to v41-42. They believed all right. But it was all Head knowledge and the heart was left unaffected.
Reply #40 Top
He was a zealots zealot,


Judas was a zealot also. Look what happened to him.
Reply #41 Top
To KFC:

First of all. Are you telling me that Jesus was not filled with the spirit before this? Hmmmm? Do you remember when he was still in the womb and John the Baptist lept in his mother's womb? What was that all about?


This was the testimony of John's spirit concerning the presence of the Christ, vouchsafed to him by grace through the Holy Spirit as a special instance and testimony of the power of God, and having no relevance to what we have discussed. Your introduction of it here is no man than a diversion, a straw man.

Also how about as a child, he was left behind in the temple teaching the learned Rabbis of the day. They were astonished at his doctrine. You know that scripture tells us it's the God's spirit that is the teacher of his word right? Well how'd this happen if he had no spirit in him before baptism?


The fruits of the Spirit have nothing whatever to do with knowledge of the law - which, as the son of Joseph, a God-fearing man, he would have had taught to him day by day by his earthly father. In case you're unconvinced...

Galations 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

This is yet another staw man.

John 1:33 And I knew him not but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you shall see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God.

These are the words of John bearing witness to his faith and attesting his experience. The dove, as any Sunday School kindergartner will tell you, is the Holy Ghost.

"This dove was more to bear witness and show the relationship of all three here than anything else. This is where the trinity is first seen."

And this is straightforward, knowing, corruption of the scriptures you profess faith in.You may read back into this your trinitarian nonsense, but to those who heard and saw the events concerned they were nothing of the sort. Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD. Have you forgotten that Jews were and are monotheists, and that it was to Jews that John, and Jesus, and all the ancient Prophets spoke? Four hundred years ago they'd have burnt you at the stake for this - a custom now lamentably out of fashion.

That's what our water baptism does. it bears witness, it doesn't save us. It doesn't jive with the rest of scripture.


What you think of it is irrelevant - if you really are a Christian. The message of the scriptures, as I've amply demonstrated, is that there is no salvation without Baptism. You think God cares what you like or dislike?

You may want to read John 8 particulary pay attention to v30-31 and compare to v41-42. They believed all right. But it was all Head knowledge and the heart was left unaffected.


So. You want to cast me in the role of an unbelieving Jew and a member of the Synagogue of Satan? And after I've already, readily and happily, announced to the world that I'm an Apostate and Heretic? I no more believe in your Jesus than I do in the spiritual powers of the Eternal Artichoke, or in the Unavoidable Return of Our Holy Moonbat, so telling me that if I was one of the children of your 'Father God' I would believe in his mewling milksop Son is hardly going to be the revelatory and shocking news to me you hoped it would be, is it?

You may know the scriptures EOIC, but you haven't put them all together yet so they make sense. Your pieces are all jumbled. Maybe that's why you don't believe it?


I don't believe it because it's untrue. The 'Christ' you think you worship derives, in the end, from a failure to undertstand ancient Hebrew and the role and meaning of vowel symbols within it. The name 'Jesus' is not a name at all, but the Pentagrammaton, a title. A title that can belong to any man or woman who has the courage to crown himself or herself with it. I am my own 'Jesus', just as I am my own 'Adam'. As to what I believe for myself? I am a Ritual Magickian and I give honor to all the gods; to all the gods that, though they be dead, yet live. And that's more than enough explanation of my faith for the likes of you, little 'Christian'.
Reply #42 Top
To KFC:

Judas was a zealot also. Look what happened to him.


I am no longer a zealot (save when it comes to chastising unmitigated ignorance, overweening vanity and bloated ego on the part of self-proclaimed 'Christians who don't know the most basic principles of the faith they profess) - so the comparison is hardly apt, is it?

Reply #43 Top
To KFC:

While Peter yet spoke these words the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, for they heard them speak with the gift of tongues and magnify God. They answered Peter. Can any man forbid water that these shall not be baptized in the name of the Lord.


OK, so I gave in to irritation and got one wrong. Which hardly detracts from the main argument, but feel free to enjoy the sensation of being right - for once.

BTW LW...slain in the spirit? Would you like to explain that one? The only one in scripture I see slain in the spirit is Judas. He fell backwards so what you're saying is your husband followed after this example?


'Slain in the Spirit' is common nomenclature among Pentecostals for the rapture that descends on individual believers when they are possessed by the Holy Spirit in worship, usually causing the legs of the believer to collapse and he or she to pass into a quiet, trance-like state. If you aren't a Pentecostal it's not a term you are likely to recognise.
Reply #44 Top
If you aren't a Pentecostal it's not a term you are likely to recognise.


oh I recognize it all right. I don't think being slain in anything is a good thing. I beieve it's really coming from the occult. Possessed is an intersting term you used. It's not a "God thing." I don't think you've made a huge leap from one group to another as much as you think you did. Same thing...different name.


So. You want to cast me in the role of an unbelieving Jew and a member of the Synagogue of Satan? And after I've already, readily and happily, announced to the world that I'm an Apostate and Heretic? I no more believe in your Jesus than I do in the spiritual powers of the Eternal Artichoke, or in the Unavoidable Return of Our Holy Moonbat, so telling me that if I was one of the children of your 'Father God' I would believe in his mewling milksop Son is hardly going to be the revelatory and shocking news to me you hoped it would be, is it?


now you're making sense. This I agree with. Then why do you quote scripture all the time if you don't believe it?

oh and BTW it's not a contradiction to believe in one God and believe in the trinity as well. It's ONE God revealed in three persons. You see all in the OT as well. Browsw thru Isaiah sometime.

As always, EOIC...I enjoy chatting with you...but wish you'd leave some of the drama behind.
Reply #45 Top
"What you think of it is irrelevant - if you really are a Christian. The message of the scriptures, as I've amply demonstrated, is that there is no salvation without Baptism. You think God cares what you like or dislike?"

And what you think of it is irrelevant - if you are wrong. But then, you're of such arrogance that I guess you must be right, eh? Even when you're wrong, eh?

I have to admit though I was wrong when I said that KFC wouldn't beat you in a Bible-quoting match (and I hope to clarify that I did not mean that in an insulting way because I'm sure you would beat me in a Bible-quoting match because I don't have as much of the Bible memorized as you probably do). I think Acts 10:44-48 proves you wrong enough. It's clear that the Spirit preceded the baptism in this case. I see you didn't respond to that.

"And this is straightforward, knowing, corruption of the scriptures you profess faith in.You may read back into this your trinitarian nonsense, but to those who heard and saw the events concerned they were nothing of the sort. Deu 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God [is] one LORD. Have you forgotten that Jews were and are monotheists, and that it was to Jews that John, and Jesus, and all the ancient Prophets spoke?"

It should be clear to even the most naive apostate that Jesus believed in the trinity. He didn't speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for nothing! And, I'll admit this is a bit of an assumption, I'm going to take John's reverence of Christ and his submission to Him as a sign that he did too. I even see signs of trinitarianism in the OT: Genesis 1, the three men who met with Abraham, the Angel of the Lord who was God and was sent by God). As for Deuteronomy 6:4, note the word used for one (echad). Also note that the verse was a declaration of allegiance and not a declaration of monotheism. You should've known that already, super theologian. To say that the OT doesn't speak of God as a composite unity because of one single verse that merely has the Israelites vowing allegiance only to YHWH is quite silly.
Reply #46 Top
To KFC:

As always, EOIC...I enjoy chatting with you...but wish you'd leave some of the drama behind.


You're at liberty to wish for anything that takes your fancy. But as I've said before, this is my blog and no one here has to follow your rules.

And I'm done exposing your utter folly to the world. Believe as you believe, since it's apparent to anyone that has followed this thread that you're incapable of learning. I remain convinced that your faith is nonsense, even in its own terms, and tht you are a self-aggrandizing victim of your own ego (nice to see that you have a friend though, one who no doubt will reinforce your addiction to quoting scriptures you don't understand - just as you will reinforce his). Time to move on to other things.
Reply #47 Top
To: all who have so far responded, and those who might respond -

"Time to move on", I said. Well that's what you get for writing comments after cutting grass (I can't call what we have here 'a lawn') in almost 100 degree heat - an addled brain.

I find that after all I'm not yet done with the intransigence of Jesus's pet idiot, nor her new-found buddy: so I recant (how's that for dramatic? Right up there with Galilleo...) my last comment (sleep in an air-conditioned room is a wonderful thing...).

Now on to the fray, once more.
Reply #48 Top
To Satan's Advocate (like he needs one...)

I have to admit though I was wrong when I said that KFC wouldn't beat you in a Bible-quoting match (and I hope to clarify that I did not mean that in an insulting way because I'm sure you would beat me in a Bible-quoting match because I don't have as much of the Bible memorized as you probably do). I think Acts 10:44-48 proves you wrong enough. It's clear that the Spirit preceded the baptism in this case. I see you didn't respond to that.


Go back through the thread, while paying attention to what's on the screen rather than to what you would like to see there... and you will find this in response to her citation -

"OK, so I gave in to irritation and got one wrong. Which hardly detracts from the main argument, but feel free to enjoy the sensation of being right - for once."

Think again, Satan's little helper, think again.

It should be clear to even the most naive apostate that Jesus believed in the trinity. He didn't speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost for nothing! And, I'll admit this is a bit of an assumption,


Since I have made clear from the beginning that I place no value on the words of the man Jesus in relation to questions of theology because I regard his 'message' as no more than another hopeful delusion, why would you expect me to give any credence to his concept of a trinity, if indeed he had such? As you yourself admit, such a thing is an assumption based on your reading back into the text what you want to see in it. You're at liberty to believe the 3 in 1 folly if you want. I've said all along that I regard it as nonsense.

Also note that the verse was a declaration of allegiance and not a declaration of monotheism.


This is disingenuous at best and a conscience attempt to deceive at worst. Certainly the verse cited is a declaration of allegiance - but far more importantly it's a statement of the cardinal fact of Hebrew theology: that God is one. That you attempt to portray it as a simple declaration of loyalty is a product of inexperience; or a product of you own vain imaginings and desire to score points; or is simply an out and out lie. Perhaps there's more to your chosen name than first appears - since Christians regard their 'satan' as the originator of all dishonesty.

And so we go on. For each of your laboriously constructed mis-interpretations and mis-representations of what is apparent from the simple text of the scriptures there is a much more apparent, much more straightforward, counter-argument that plainly reveals your desperation (as well as that of Jesus's pet idiot) to substantiate your own sub-standard thinking. Both of you are at liberty to continue presenting your anile demagoguery here. Nothing could be a better or more illuminating example of the futility and vanity of the faith you profess.

Continue to erect your straw men. I'll continue burning them to ash.

Reply #49 Top
To KFC:

Possessed is an intersting term you used. It's not a "God thing." I don't think you've made a huge leap from one group to another as much as you think you did. Same thing...different name.


This is an example of what I referred to as the terrors that overtake Christians who are unsure in their faith. I'm reminded very strongly of the members of the original charismatic 'cell' that I joined immediately after my conversion. People so unsure of themselves and their God that they would go out of their way to avoid a certain field which a group of Gypsies had once occupied - because one of their women had practiced divination for money and these bold charismatics, who one and all regarded themselves as 'spiritual warriors', were afraid of spiritual 'contamination'.

Your knee-jerk reaction to the term possessed is revealing - and what it reveals is fear. How do you think the ancient Prophets would have spoken of their visionary encounters with God - if not as being 'taken up' by God, or 'carried away in the spirit' by God? These are only poetic substitutions for the concept of being possessed; solely owned, solely filled by, or solely consumed by God.

But no. Your immediate response is to mutter darkly about it not being a 'God thing'. Let me illuminate your darkness, little Christian: during my Ritual work I deliberately seek out and open myself to Angelic/Demonic powers that do indeed possess me. Do I spew green vomit and turn my head through 360 degrees? No. Because that's Hollywood at work, not the reality of Magickal occurrences. When I sing in tongues (yes, I was baptised in the Spirit - or, if you prefer, the Holy Ghost - shortly after my baptism in water) during these states my wife hears multiple voices, not just my own, because I am not the only Person present - but does the house burst into flames or blood fall from the sky? No. Again, such imagery and such fears are the responsibility of Hollywood and its foolish exaggeration, not of the reality of Magickal work.

And as to your opinion of how far I have come, the point from which I started , and the point at which I now am - you're welcome to it. But your opinion bears as much relation to the reality of my life as your ability to interpret scripture does to the actual content of scripture, which is to say - none at all.

why do you quote scripture all the time if you don't believe it?


If you go back through the thread you'll find I've already answered you. I believe all scripture, no matter the tradition of revelation it emanates from, to be God-breathed and able to teach, illuminate, and correct. I include even the Gospels: their ethical content is not to be denied - merely the message of salvation that Christians believe accompanies them.

C. S. Lewis, in one of his books (I have completely forgotten which - though I suspect it to be either the Screwtape Letters or one of his more overtly apologetic books - 'apologetic' in the strictly technical theological sense of providing a defence for God's nature and works - said that one must either accept the Gospel message as it stands or regard Jesus as either mad or bad. I regard him as mad, as a Prophet driven to make blasphemous statements concerning the ADONAI of his forefathers by his sympathy for the human condition as he then encountered it. There is nothing wrong in that - except insofar as the charisma that was undoubtedly his has induced countless millions to join him in his blasphemy - and perhaps even something of a doomed and tragic nobility. As I said at the beginning, what respect I have for the words of Jesus is governed solely by the degree to which they address the purely human; that is, I have respect for the ethical content of his message. But do I follow him in his blasphemy? Not any more. Having once (and, by now, many times more than once) tasted reality, why would I return to the smug, self-satisfied delusion that is all contemporary Christianity is?

Your words overall remind me just as strongly of the attitudes prevalent in the church to which I finally devoted the myself as a Christian. One possessed (and this time I use the word deliberately to evoke those Hollywoodesque images of vomit and spinning heads) by pride, intransigence, self-satisfaction and arrogance. On the day that I left I prophesied in the presence of the three most senior elders of the church that, unless they changed their ways, their church would no longer exist in a year's time from that date. A year later the church had vanished, wrecked by internal division, fractured by schism, its congregation (then the largest by far of any church in the town) scattered and broken up.

I don't mention this to boast but because I see the same qualities in you, KFC. Pride of intellect, vanity in teaching, intransigence in the certainty of your own rectitude, and arrogance in judging those who refuse to accept what you say simply because you say it. Do I have some prophetic word for you? No, not at all. I'm a Magickian by conviction and a prophet by way of accidental circumstance. At the time there was no one else willing to say what needed to be said. But such things have their own natural end. It will be interesting to watch you being swept away by qualities you refuse to recognise as possessing you.

Which is why, despite the tedium of constantly having to repeat myself, despite the annoyance of finding different ways of saying the same things over and over again, I refuse to blacklist you as I was tempted to do - since, after all, there is the prospect of watching your own nature overwhelm you to sustain me.
Reply #50 Top
I missed your admittance, and I apologize for that. Lots of text to go through.

"Since I have made clear from the beginning that I place no value on the words of the man Jesus in relation to questions of theology because I regard his 'message' as no more than another hopeful delusion, why would you expect me to give any credence to his concept of a trinity, if indeed he had such? As you yourself admit, such a thing is an assumption based on your reading back into the text what you want to see in it. You're at liberty to believe the 3 in 1 folly if you want. I've said all along that I regard it as nonsense."

Yet you said this: "Have you forgotten that Jews were and are monotheists, and that it was to Jews that John, and Jesus, and all the ancient Prophets spoke?" I guess you only care about Jesus and John the Baptist when it suits your own purposes. But go ahead. Disregard John, Jesus, and all the Christians who were Jews. Disregard the Wisdom of Solomon too if you like.

"This is disingenuous at best and a conscience attempt to deceive at worst."

Make more of it than it is then. Deny the evidence of the composite unity that is God in the rest of the OT. I must say that I overestimated you. Then again, I should've known that you weren't as smart as you think you are when you were defending your wife's claim that the Gospels were written in 300 A.D.

"Continue to erect your straw men. I'll continue burning them to ash."

Wow. Talk about a pot calling kettle black!

"Time to move on to other things."

The first wise words you spoke. This is becoming senseless. Still, it was a nice bout. I enjoyed using Google productively once again.