Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Since it isn't even clear what the term means, it seems like it also serves the purpose of keeping anyone from arguing with statements like that, because how can people address or argue a statement that has no concrete meaning?
|
This is really true. And when they wrap their errors in spiritual adjectives — everything has a reference to the "all-inclusive Christ" or something like that — it seems impossible to argue with it because you can't argue with the all-inclusive Christ.
But if you remove the gratuitous spirituality, you are left with their error. Suddenly it stands out like a sore thumb.
It is also a little like misusing the parable of the leaven. When Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven was like leaven that was mixed into a measure of flour, the leaven was the kingdom. It changed the world around it. But Lee reversed the meanings and said that the kingdom was the flour and the leaven was something bad mixed into it that changed it into something bad (like poor, pitiful Christianity). Yet if you turn the metaphor back to the way Jesus spoke it, Lee used that same concept over and over. Take a measure of bad theology, throw in some irrelevant verses that get everyone shouting "amen," coupled with some spiritual platitudes like "the all-inclusive Christ" and you can turn bad theology into high peaks manure and sell it to the LRC masses.
And they eat it and come back for more.