RED PILL CULTISTS PROCLAIM CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY A SHAM

     One of the minor Red Pill Cult blogs, Saving Eve, concocted another blacklist for their disciples titled The Seven Signs of a Religious Charlatan. These kinds of indexes are useful for the cultists. They are designed to keep their followers from listening to others who might question too closely things that the Cult teaches. By examining such rules, however, we can understand better the tactics cults employ. Let's look at these seven points:

     1. Uses imprecise Biblical terms. 

     2. Does not quote the Scripture accurately.

     3. Uses theological jargon to answer simple questions.

     4. Uses systematic theology and catechisms to justify his positions.

      5. Quotes Bible-teachers and theologians instead of Scriptures.

       6. Ignores the context.

       7. Talks about the value of 'theological training' over knowing the Scriptures. 

      Notice that there is an admixture here purposely designed to be misleading. For example, #7 would be an obvious red-flag; even though I don't think that any reputable religious teacher outside of some of the Rainbow-Church Cults ever do this. Numbers 1, 2, 6 are usually less signs of dishonesty than they are of lack of education. Of course, the Cultists do these things all the time themselves: but by accusing others of doing it, they divert attention away from their own falsehoods. 

     #3 is unclear; it could apply to many situations. There are often theological concepts which require theological 'jargon' to define them. Think of explaining a concept like 'Divine Providence' in non-theological terms for example.

     Numbers 4 and 5 are where we see the Cultist exposed. These define the teachers of nearly any organized Christian denomination. 

      What these Cultists are doing here is engaging in a propaganda tactic called by some cognitive distortion; a type of what Logicians refer to as 'Association Fallacies.' The idea in such a list is to get consensus on a self-evident point, add some points that are subjective but plausible; and connect them with such associations to the targeted group. Thus a superficial reader will assume that if one or more points on this list define a religious charlatan; then all points listed must define them. Cultists and other propagandists depend on their readers and hearers jumping to such conclusions. 

      The author gives an example with his 4th point, which gives the game away. He says: "Religious charlatans utilize the Coherence Theory of truth (do the ideas logically fit together?) rather than the Correspondence Theory of truth (does the idea accurately describe what I can observe?) Systematic theologies and catechisms are the most effective way to make blatant errors acceptable." 

     What the Red Pill way of determining spiritual truth is saying: There is no such thing as faith; belief is predicated upon our subjective observations. Subjective Perception, therefore, is the criterion of truth and not the Holy Spirit. This why the Red Pill Cultists believe that pseudosciences like Evolutionary Psychology and Game are great revelations of Absolute Truth suppressed by International Jewry, Cuckservatives, Churchians, Social Justice Warriors, etc. This is also why their theology is typically Unitarian and is based upon Gnostic systems of personal insights and secret revelations.

      The fact that Systematic Theology has existed throughout most of mankind's entire history and forms the basis of all major world religions means nothing to the Red Pills. They know better; because they've taken the Red Pill and escaped the falsehoods of things like the Christian Church. So were the Sethians, the Marcionites, Basilideans and numerous other cults who've sunk into well-deserved oblivion. The Red Pill is nothing new. 

      In Christianity, Systematic Theology relies upon confirming Christian truths to the extent that Human Reason can. Beyond the point of reason lie Incomprehensible Truths which must be understood only by Faith. In praising the Saving Eve article, Vox Day pontificated that "the teaching of Divine Omniscience completely and necessarily rules out the Divinity of Jesus Christ." And as evidence of this, he cherry-picks Scripture wherein Christ said: "But of that day and hour nobody knows, not even the angels in Heaven, but the Father alone." (St. Matt. xxiv:36). Which he thinks means that Christ was saying that He did not know. What Christ obviously meant though was that the 'day and hour' was known only in Heaven and not to be revealed on Earth; and the fact that the angels did not know was because they. in their Faith believed that God's Will would be fulfilled and that was sufficient. Christ is saying that our Faith in God's Providence should be like the angels; i.e. continue doing what is pleasing to God without regard to what may happen tomorrow.

      Vox bragged that such an argument would tie theologians in knots, but the Sunday-School teachers at whom he sneers could explain it in a paragraph, as we just did. Most of these characters would do a lot better if they spent more time in Sunday Schools and reading Catechisms themselves.