Screwtaping the Inscrutable: DarkSyd
Posted by RazorsKissFeb 19
(Note: I have no intention of explaining how the correspondence which I now offer to the public fell into my hands.)
My Dear Wormwood,
I note that you seem to bear the unmistakable marks of a sort of glee – if infernal beings can be said to express such. I would caution you – no matter how mistakenly adamant they are – no matter how infernal they become – they are all still, sadly, redeemable. Kindly refrain from such activity in the future. It mirrors too closely the “joy” with which the Enemy welcomes these creatures into His supposed “rest”. It makes me cringe just to think about it.
I did, in fact, read the message the human wrote. It is, in many respects, quite worthy of many who walk the hallowed halls of Our Father Below. However, I once again remind you; they are changeable creatures, and given to the loathsome activity called “repentance”. This letter grows more distasteful, the more I write. However, your instruction results in my appetite being assuaged – so I shall overcome my natural repugnance of discussing the Enemy’s ways and strategies. You do well to assume this creature is well on his way to Our Father’s House. It is a thrilling feeling, is it not? To watch some sniveling mortal scamper his way to his own demise, with not a thought to his eternal state. It is almost too easy, with some of them. There is the delectable crunch of “moral authority”, of “outraged sensibilities”, and “repugnance for the restriction of natural freedom” just wafting off the pages of this exquisite missive. It is truly a masterpiece of self-deceit and ambiguous outrage against he knows not what. I can almost taste this one. Let me do you a small favor, my dear, most esteemed Wormwood, and describe the sensations emanating in waves from it, so that you may get a full picture of the depths he has fallen – and how much you have to lose, if you manage to lose this one.
Joe I think you you misunderstand; I’m glad you’re ruining the reputation of your faith. I’m happy you working hard to prevent anyone from saving it. Just as I’m glad Osama bin Laden is ruining the rep of his faith. There’s no way anyone from outside your cult could have managed to screw it up like those inside can. My hope is that both the Neo-Islamic and Neo-Christian violent extremists continue to screw it up.
I love his use of rhetoric and comparison! He not only vilifies the Enemy, and his slavering minions as the real “Enemy” – he manages to work in a half dozen negatively connotative words to describe the Enemy’s forces! Not only that, he lumps the Islamics (and, let me tell you – they are one of Our Father’s greatest achievements!) along with the Christians – while simultaneously implying that violence and Christianity are one and the same! Truly a masterwork, my dear Wormwood. In the opening sentence, he establishes his thesis – and instead of attempting to prove it – he simply attacks, and attacks! (As I have told you before – arguments will never win souls for Our Father. The trouble about argument is that it moves the struggle onto the Enemy’s ground.)
This is a worldwide struggle against the forces of ignorance and superstition Vs those of reason and rationality. You’re doing your part to insure low recruitment in the industrialized world for Neo-Christianity, and Al Qaeda is doing the same for violent Islamic fanaticism. By acting the way your both are, you’re helping the rest of humanity see you for the immoral violent fanatics you all are. And being an atheist, I see that as a good thing. (Throwing in a Gay Military Hooker working for you at the White House was beyond my wildest hopes!)
Ah, I see here that he is trotting out several of our finest works, all in succession. You truly have done great things. He frames the question as a battle (which, of course, we have made “acceptable, if you are fighting against the Enemy – but not if you are fighting for Him. Another great advance by our philologists!), while simultaneously frames the enemy as “superstitious”, “ignorant”, and throws in the egregious “violent”, in application to what he is comparing our Enemy’s forces to. Brilliant! He then throws in the blanket “immoral”, drops the hammer with “fanatics” (a wonderful word, “fanatic!), and then brings in some temporal failing to “prove” the immorality of a political leader affiliated with them! No worry that he disagrees with whether what this person did was immoral – as long as the people which he is being appellative considers it so! Of course, if challenged, he will respond only that he was pointing out hypocrisy. Such is the nature of our game.
When you signed off on torture and death (And by ‘you’ I mean both Islamicists and Neo-Christians) and the whole violent religious kick, you lost any and all claims to morality. You’re done, in the eyes of the world. Finished. And I can now honestly say that my atheist subjective quirky morality far outstrips the horrid set of ethics the Islamo-Christian fanatics demonstrate everytime they open their mouths.
Ah, such a wonderfully delightful outrage! What makes it better still is that he doesn’t know what exactly he is outraged against! He claims that Islam and Christianity are equivalent – yet makes no equivalence apparent. From there, he makes the leap from “since I have said you lost all moral claims” to “thus, you have no claim to morality”. Infernal! Do you see what fruits our patient work in the “subjectivism” field have brought? There is no “ethics” – there is “a” set of ethics! Not only that – he doesn’t even mention which supposed ethics are the horrid ones! General, unprovable claims are the best. Our “natural selection” efforts have prove this quite effectively, have they not?
When evil rears its ugly head, you’re either with it or against it. And until you renounce that association with violence, you’re with it. So I’m glad you did it, because now I can handily dispel any illusions you may have once had about being ‘more moral’ than the next guy. I’m glad because now I revel in my vastly superior set of ethics while your own faith gets dragged into the gutter of bloodshed and violence. Anytime one of you brings up morality, all we need do is mention Alebrto Gonzales and the moral argument is over, and I win.
Ah, such a wonderfully convoluted thought process he has! With no inconvenient definition for evil – just a fuzzy, ill-defined label which brings all of the connotations, with none of the specific side-effects, like guilt, he removes any way to argue specifically against him. By couching everything in amorphous terms, he can attain heights of authority inconsistent with fact. By continually hammering home the fact that “moral” consists of “being more moral then the next guy” (completely contrary to any sort of Enemy standards), he can totally redefine the argument to his own wishes. He can also “revel” – because he has destroyed absolute – and can determine whatever standard of “morality” anyone has – and always have his own reign supreme. He is the only judge of it, after all. (Ah, the taste will be exquisite. “Righteous Indignation” – sauteed in the juice of “unalloyed gall”. Delectable. But I digress.)
American Evangelical Neo-Christianity and violent Islamis Fascism is so now percieved as so foul, so immoral, so distasteful to the civilized world, that you’ve helped end religion’s hold over humanity down the road by poisoning the well. I duobt you can crawl out of that pit in the eyes of the world at this point any time soon, no matter what good deeds you do.
Aha! He not only fails to give any specifics of this so-called immorality, which might be refuted – he doesn’t even bother to even obliquely refer to them! He simply states that the Enemy’s forces are (once again) equivalent to the Islamic branch of our farming operations! Irony can be infernal. Not even we, if we were so inclined, could think the irony here is funny. It’s just… too infernal. He uses emotionally connotative words, yet again – which only reinforce the illogic, and irresistibility of the non-argument, to the easily swayed. A work of ugliness, most definitely – and I am a connoisseur. He then totally dismisses any concept of good – in his quest for “smoking out evil”! Ah, it is so… refreshing (do I dare use that word?) to see the log removal services getting so little business these days. Don’t you agree?
And that’s wonderful for mankind! The funniest thing is … all the world’s religious nutcases are so engrossed in their thirst for blood, violence, and hatred, I can openly crow over their lack of ethics and make hold them up to ridicule like I’m doing now … with no chance of you stopping or even taking me seriously! Hehe, it’s pretty cool! Ultimately, religious revival is always its own worst enemy, becuase it always goes too far and sickens decent people in the end.
This is so excessive, that I would be proud of it. It is a simple roll in the muck – with an attempt to call itself clean. Truly masterful. There is no attempt to hide the blatant illogic, the rampant misdirections, the hateful relish with which he spews his vileness in their direction – and he makes it all seem as if it is virtue! It is almost too much – he states that revival – the worst possible outcome – is sickening – to… wait… can it be? Decent people! This whimpering mortal is magnificently caught. He truly believes his own lies – to the extent where his white is black, and his black is truly white – in his own mind! He really believes this drivel! If I weren’t such a pragmatist, I would disbelieve that you had effected such a metamorphosis. It seems you have done it, however. My palate will salute you.
So, while the christian and Islamic crazies might not like what they’re producing in the long run … they can be counted on to never stop. And I’m enjoying it immenesly with every life you take, with every person you torture, with every moral code your demolish, with every child your surrogates rape. Please, for Odin’s sake, Osama, Tim Lahoye, Pat Robertson, Ameyn Zarawori: DO NOT STOP! Keep it up! The Rapture will be coming any day now! [EG].
For the final relish: He enjoys what he cannot understand – because he no longer has any conception of what the difference is between right and wrong anymore. Which have you inculcated, Wormwood? “Tolerance” as the highest “good”, or “personal freedom”? We may have to question you further, to ascertain the answer – if you succeed in keeping this one in your clutches. He is currently in a veritable pinnacle of moral equivalence – but you must ensure it lasts. If you lose this one – I will be unimaginably hungry. I may eat you instead.
Your affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
————-
If you like this one… let me know. I may do more. Let me know if I can improve on them at all, and in what way. (It is HARD to write without using any “good” descriptives. I need to bone up on Screwtape a bit.)
~ RK
9 comments
Comment by mumon on February 20, 2005 at 10:00 am
As I not on my blog today, it’s a masterpiece of projection and denial.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 20, 2005 at 10:19 pm
I’ll just reply to your post here.
Remind me not to reply on your “1000 character gimped” blog đ
No, actually – it tears a huge chunk out of the “moral authority” blather I hear from the relative moralists. That was the point. Screwtape is a demon. He is praising, rejoicing in the likeness to, and otherwise effusive of the likeness he sees in DS – to himself.
Yes, I do. It is a mirror for DS to look in. if he doesn’t like what he sees – he should realize what it is we see in the kind of thing he was saying. We see the sort of words that are in direct antithesis to the tenets of Christianity. That is why so many were angered at his comments. I wasn’t one of them. I was very, very sad to see such self-deception – which was why I wrote this. As a mirror for our friend to look in. That is the sinister connotation that Screwtape brings.
The fact that you recognized it so quickly should tell you something about how easy it is to recognize evil when you see it. This is the point of the Screwtape persona. To point out the similarity between a demon’s perspective, and one we see in the world of today.
In the preface to Screwtape, Lewis writes: “But though it was easy to twist one’s mind into the diabolical attitude, it was not fun, or not for long. The strain produced a sort of spiritual cramp. The work into which I had to project myself through Screwtape was all dust, grit, thirst, and itch. Every trace of beauty, freshness, and geniality had to be excluded. It almost smothered me before I was done. It would have smothered my readers before I was done.”
It was chilling. I wrote it as a direct “demonic” interpretation of what DS said.. Reading the original reply was what induced me to write it – because DS’ rant sounded like something Screwtape would say.. While I was in school, we did a study – 6 months long – on the Screwtape Letters. I have read it, easily, a dozen times. To know evil – you must read it as it is. DS’ post was not _as_ evil as Screwtape – but it approached it. I thought about replying to him 5-6 times. I finally decided to do so in a form I had studied, was familiar with, and had the experience with Lewis to attempt.
As Lewis also said: “Reviews were either laudatory, or filled with that sort of anger which tells an author he has hit his mark.”
Thanks for letting me know đ
Yep. That was exactly what I had Screwtape say about DS’ post – because that was what it was.
He never specified the target. He never specified much of anything at all. He simply made some blanket claims, and went on a typing rampage.
He did not name specific ones he was angry with – he included everyone. Every Christian. It was very, very, very sweeping – and not in the least “sparing” of any form of Christianity. Everyone is the “enemy”. I can imagine a demon smiling, when someone says that. That was what motivated me to write it.
It was full of some of the most hate-filled, bilious statements I have ever, ever seen in a debate – and I’m an apologist who does a lot of debating. I’ve seen a lot. Quite a lot. The level of hatred directed at Christians in general was what struck me as curiously intense. He really, really hates us. It was almost unreasoning. The more I read it, the more I knew there was no reasoned defense that could ever, ever change his mind. So, I held up a mirror.
Once again – Kierkegaard and Barth are not “heroes” of Fundamentalists – the very types he, and you are railing against. They are the ones who compromise the fundamentals that give us our name. So how this matters, in the slightest, escapes me. Do you think I regard subjectivist Christianity as any less a problem than subjectivist humanism? I certainly think they are just as dangerous to the tenets of our faith. I’m still waiting for you to read my series on Schaeffer. That is exactly what I am addressing in it.
Exactly. Which is why neither are particularly prominent with “fundamentalists” – and ever-so-popular with “liberals” (theologians). Because they destroy the basic, bedrock tenets of Christianity. I don’t think you’re as familiar with “fundamentalists” as you claim to be. All Christians are not “fundamentalists”. Fundamentalists believe that the “fundamentals” of the faith are what must, and have to be, the central doctrines/tenets of our faith. Those who do not – have nothing to do with “fundamentalists”. they are nothing alike.
What? The inerrancy and authority of the Bible? (which subjectivists deny or degrade?) The Trinity? (which subjectivists deny or degrade?) The Resurrection? (which subjectivists deny or degrade?) The authority of the Bible over every part of their lives? (which subjectivists deny or degrade?)
Really? I think that every major tenet of Christian faith and doctrine is under attack by subjectivists. If you think that subjectivism is “true” Christianity – you are gravely, gravely, mistaken. Christianity is dyed-in-the-wool objectivism – which believes in absolute, proposition truth as given by the Triune God through the Word of God, the Bible. Any deviation from that Word is error.
So, please tell me where I’m “straying” from historical, biblical, foundational, fundamental Christianity?
No, by denying and denigrating any breath of subjectivism within the Church, we defend and support what the Bible says is the only Truth. There is no subjective moral truth. All moral Truth is given from God, and there is no other.
Way to quote an explanation of what Screwtape says about DS’s post as my literal opinion. It was dig at the following statement by DS:
Now, I don’t seem to remember signing off on any sort of “torture”. Not the last time I checked. I am not a violent person by any stretch of the imagination. Why on earth am I being compared to terrorist who beheads people? For the shock value. There is no substance to this raving, foaming at the mouth lunacy. It is pure, unadulterated hatred. So, I treated it as such – and the demons praise his bile-filled spewings as music to their infernal ears.
I don’t hate DS – I’m trying to show him how he looks to us. What he says not only looks evil – it looks like exactly the sort of thing a demon would say. It is chock full of moral judgments, based on imaginary deeds we have supposedly done – what relevance do torture and beheadings have to Christian practices or teaching? What possible connection can be made? The only connection is one of blinding hatred. So, I completed the circle. If he doesn’t like it – he’s welcome to reply. So are you. But please – don’t take me out of context like I’m somehow “espousing” what Screwtape endorses. Screwtape echoes those whom he is like.
That, my friend, would be DS’ comments. I meant what I said at EO. I’m praying for DS. I have no hate for him. I’m showing him what his hatred looks like, with a form that is familiar to many – Christian and non-Christian.
What hate am I putting out? Because I compare a statement to what a demon would say? I was called “vile, immoral, disgusting”, and a host of other dirty terms in that rant of his.
I didn’t call him anything. I showed him what his rant looked like – from the perspective of someone who would agree with him. If he doesn’t agree – he’s welcome to respond. In fact – I encourage him to.
Anyway – glad I got a reaction. It’s wasted if noone recognizes it. Glad someone recognized it – even if you mistook it for something else.
Comment by Aaron on February 21, 2005 at 2:52 pm
I don’t say this often, but I think C.S. Lewis would be proud. That was very well written. Keep up the good work!
Trackback by The Greatest Pursuits on February 22, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Starting Lines — February 22, 2005
Vox Apologia VI: Biotechnology Every Though Captive has posted the results of the latest Vox Apologia. This week’s topic is on biotechnology. I must admit that I expected a wide variety of posts ranging from bioethics to how biotech confirms the …
Comment by mumon on February 22, 2005 at 5:52 pm
All I gotta say is you’re pretty deluded if you think, “are the ones who compromise the fundamentals” of Christianity. In fact, by neglecting their message, you’ve pretty much completely thrown out the baby with the bathwater.
You’re no more a Christian than I am.
Go and actually read “Training in Christianity” and get back to me, or better yet, get back to your pastor and enlighten him or whoever.
You haven’t a clue as to what you’re talking about, and I mean that most respectfully, and I really am not kidding.
And as far as “historic” Christianity, the type that you practice has simply never existed before modern times. That’s the long and the short of it.
“Historically” Christianity was practiced by a people who relied on literate people in the clergy to explain the bible to the illiterate people.
You’ve been sold a false narrative, and in your arrogance believe it to be true.
Oh, and btw, it’s amusing you shill for fundamentalism here in a post aping the writing of a guy who believed the bible contained errors, and such…
Comment by mumon on February 22, 2005 at 5:53 pm
that first sentence should say,
“All I gotta say is youâre pretty deluded if you think,Kierkegaard and Barth âare the ones who compromise the fundamentalsâ of Christianity.
Comment by RazorsKiss on February 22, 2005 at 7:38 pm
Barth – “accepted the results of liberal historical-critical scholarship, which viewed the Bible as a book filled with historical inaccuracies.” (doctrine.net)
Schaeffer criticizes him because he separates historical truth from theological truth.
I repeat – if you consider Barth to be “fundamentalist” – you are incorrect. He did constitute a slight turn away from full-bore existential theology – but only a small one, as he didn’t address the basic problem with liberal theology – no respect for the Bible.
Kierkegaard was the one who gave up on reconciling faith and rationality – and opened the door to modern liberal theology.
While he was an influential apologist – and did do good work – his theological stances were occasionally unsound. Much like Lewis, incidentally. Please, mumon – quit telling an apologist about apologists. It’s silly. This is stuff I happen to know, and have studied. This what I do. You are, if you think Barth a paragon of theology, very influenced by the liberal camp of theology – and you obviously consider that to be “nominal”, as far as doctrine goes. While it is true that perhaps a majority of Christians think that this is “normal” – to believe the Bible contains errors – this is not fundamental, nor is it Biblical, nor is it doctrinally sound. As, obviously, it undermines the very authority of the doctrines themselves. It’s silly to claim otherwise – and that’s what you’re doing by citing Barth and Kierkegaard.
Thanks for the opinion – but if you read the rules for commenting directly above the “post comment” area – it says, very simply – “state a position, not an opinion”. Please do so.
Disagreeing with a liberal theologian, and a particular apologist has no bearing on my “Christianity”. It reflects my doctrinal/Scriptural views.
I almost bought that the other day, actually. While Kierkegaard is a good general apologist, he is not a good Scriptural apologist – as he has a low view of Scripture. Furthermore, he often holds that objective truth is not “knowable” by humanity – which is, really, just another way of saying the above. He was the precursor to Barth, but not quite as far down the line. He was very “on the edge” of orthodoxy, although many, many things he had to say were excellent. I don’t consider him a hero, or any kind – but he was a formidable apologist.
My pastor doesn’t speak on Kierkegaard, honestly. He’s an exegetical preacher for the most part.
I hate to disagree – but, respectfully… Kierkegaard, although a good apologist, was no theologian. Barth was not exactly the model of theological exactitude, either. They are the founders of liberal theology. NOT evangelicalism/fundamentalism. If you had said Calvin (and yes, he has flaws), Luther (and yes, he has flaws), Wesley, Spurgeon, Edwards – I would have agreed. The two you used are rather notorious in conservative theological circles – which you *should* know.
Welcome to the Reformation.
Thus, the Reformation, after the advent of the printing press.
Care to back that up with anything of substance? Whatsoever?
“One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle?”
Yeah. First, if you think I’m posing – you’re very, very off base. I put a lot of time and effort into what I write – and I mean everything I say. This isn’t EO – make another comment like that again, you’re gone. Second, you really need to use words you know the definition of. Third, making nebulous claims from your nebulous knowledge of Christian doctrine as some sort of authority really doesn’t impress me, my friend. Sorry.
If you find something factual, let me know. Trying to use Barth as “fundamentalist” (not to mention he was on the scene at least 30 years before the word ever came into use) is asinine.
I don’t use Lewis for biblical defense, thanks. I know Lewis’ stances on biblical authority quite well. It doesn’t make his writing style any less brilliant. I don’t use Lewis as a source for theology – I use him as a source for apologetics. There is a substantial difference between the two disciplines. Kierkegaard, for example is a great apologist. However, he is a poor theologian, in most instances. Lewis never had any pretentions to theology, and is rarely taken as, a theologian. He was an English professor who presented a defense of the Christian faith. I find it amusing you’re so misinformed as to the nature of the theology of the people you cite – and try to criticize me for something which doesn’t even have any theological pretensions whatsoever, as theology, as if they are somehow related. They aren’t.
Comment by bolg on July 2, 2005 at 10:07 am
Your right you need to “bone up” on Screwtape. It didn’t seem as though you were writing from the perspective of someone who wanted the soul, but of someone who enjoyed watching the guy be wrong. The Screwtape from my memory (I only read it once about a year ago) was completly focused on getting the soul pointed in the right direction so that when the body died the soul would fall instead of ascend. Also he was (if memory serves) evil to the bone. So much so that he even seemed put out by helping his nephew. I’m sorry but you seemed to want to point out similarities between two souls who you should have been helping to point in the right (downward) direction.
Comment by RazorsKiss on July 2, 2005 at 11:31 am
You might be right. Remember, though, that Screwtape is encountering someone he considers to be diabolical – and he is almost praising the level of their intellectual depravity.
Something you *don’t* see in the Screwtape Letters, as Screwtape is addressing the tempter of a Christian through almost the entire novel. He almost praises several examples of diabolique in that book, too – so, you never know.
It’s not “classic” Screwtape, true. No one really can do it quite like Clive Staples. It’s not bad for something I hammered out in all of 45 minutes, though. I appreciate the critique, though – let me know if what I just wrote changes your mind somewhat.