“Christian Libertarian” Excerpt #6: Allegory of Castle Defense, God, and The Deeper Tradition   Leave a comment

Introduction

In this part of the paper I give my reasons for why Christians should change there outlook in light of the previous excerpts that I posted earlier. This particular reason was called “Castle Defense,” and it had to do largely with experience and wisdom needed in defending a castle, which was analogous to the ideas and perspectives one is called to defend. There are reasons I give, and I am only giving my fourth and final reason for why I believe it is important for Christians to change the way they think. I have done this because, I just felt that my other reasons might have come off to brash, and this one is the most creative analogy I could come up with.

The Document

“The Fourth and Final Reason Why I believe we should make these previously mentioned changes also resides in the fact that, If We Do Change, We Can Learn So Much More! To start this final reason I will give you an analogy: There were once three men enlisted to defend a Castle, each equally great in skill and talent when it came to warfare. However, the first man never was in a castle until today. The second man knew what a castle was and its structure generally. However the third and final man, not only knew what a castle was, he had spent his life in a castle! Who will be a better defender of the castle? The first man is too ignorant to know how to lead in a castle defense, so he will most likely follow, learn and hopefully [if not too cut off by fear] will take in the experience for the future. The second man is too general in his understanding and can only contribute based on a general understanding, so he like the first man will most likely follow and take in the experience for the future. The final man however knows intimately well the nature, the structure, and the layout of the castle because; he spent a good portion of his life in a castle. Like all castles, each is unique and each possesses its own secrets.”

This is the Analogy and below is a further expansion to this analogy.

“The first man represents those who never had any type of Religio-spiritual experience with the Divine, the majority of most peoples. They are those Christians who become atheists or those Christian Literalists who become stuck in the routine debates against atheists. How can those who do not know, defend what they know? They cannot. Well in truth, they are not defending what is known but what they think they know, so they have confused their ego-subjectivity for objectivity. They ultimately defend their own preconceived notions thinking that this is good enough, when it is these preconceived notions that are causing the problem. These people will listen to the experts in a passive manner and challenge them in a vicious cycle if it goes against their preconceived notions; this desire to challenge comes from fear of being in the new environment (e.g. Defending a Castle, having never known what a castle was).”

The first man is the most difficult of men to instruct. They are like the confused and disoriented recruits in a war-zone. Their is so much happening all at once that they curl up into a defensive shell against everyone, they know what they want to do defend but they do not know how to do so. They become so focused on the violence that they cannot remember to pursue, value, and interact with what they are defending. They are the impassioned zealots, whom which if they tamed their passion, there zealotry would be righteous, but until then it is brutish.

“The second man represents those who have had some run-in with a Religio-spiritual experience of their own or associate with those in the realm of God. How much can they who have a general knowledge of Castles contribute in defending the castle? A lot more than those who have no knowledge whatsoever. These peoples know there is more than what the surface shows and will probably become better defenders of the castle, defending the part of the castle they are most familiar with. They are not defending their preconceived notions; so much as they are defending their experiences and learned wisdom. These people will learn from the experts but will also have their own general understandings and experiences to add to the discussion, they are not combative in the defense of their understandings, because unlike the first man, they are keenly aware that there is more than what the surface shows to the defense of the castle.”

The only danger that exists for someone with general understandings and experiences is thinking that they know all that is needed to be known. Other than that this description is pretty self-explanatory and I see no need to comment further.

“The final man represents those who have dedicated their lives to God, they have had several, steady, or near-constant communion of God, few reach this place in this life, but it is achievable. How much can they contribute in the defense of the castle? Abundantly! Like the second person who is keenly aware of the fact that there is more to the surface than meets the eye, the third person went in to explore these depths. They can defend all sides of the castle, because wherever they go they know all too well what to do wherever they are. They are not defending preconceived notions, nor experience, nor learned wisdom, rather they are defending their own being, having spent a good portion of their life growing and living in a castle they have become so identified to the castle that they know all too well how it is a part of them. They will never stop learning and they are fine with this, one minute they are expert the next they are the student and they are able to perceive the good in the previous two men. Should the previous two men survive in the castle defense, they will be lead to a better understanding of the castle through this third person.”

This returns back again to my notions of Popular, Grounded, and Deeper Concepts of Knowledge. We see this applied now in allegory form and this person of the Deeper Knowledge and Wisdom can use this to fortify the castle and the people living inside those walls. I have a video that I believe is of tremendous importance from Father Barron Catholicism Project, I would like to point out that the time I wrote of this excerpt and the time I found this video were months in between, this excerpt was written first and then the video was found:

“It becomes clear that the Castle is God, without making any association between a created object and the subject of God. Those who do not know God cannot defend him, and all do not know God fully. The statement of each Castle being unique and possessing its own secrets reflects a degree of unknowability. However those who are more connected and grow in intimate awareness of Him are better able to explain what God really is [in our limited human way] to those who either had some run-ins with God, associate with Godly people, or hold preconceived notions of God. The first person feels uncomfortable around God and feels compelled to create some type of image of God that will help him feel comfortable, rather than embrace the tension in all humility that he is in a new environment that he knows nothing about. Little does he know, this ‘image of God’ is polluted by his own egoic desire for safety, if he holds too tightly to his own image of God he may not be open to seeing other ways of defending the Castle, thus closed off to integrating the experience and never learning.”

In the excerpt I stated that the Castle is God, but upon further reflection I would say also that The Castle is the very Inner Tradition that was established by God to be shared with all people. The Tradition is what truly needs defending, it is not God who is defeated, but we who defeat ourselves if we attempt to destroy the Image of God. This is why I spoke many times about the need to CHANGE the God-Image rather than destroy it or maintain what the popular notions are of God today. If the Tradition is mocked and neglected, if it is seized by evil people and manipulated by evil people that is when the Castle no longer belongs to those whom God has ordained. The Castle is under constant siege by the forces of darkness: Ignorance, Despair, Envy, Fear, and Hatred.

“The second person does not feel uncomfortable around God but feels uncomfortable around parts that he never experienced before or had lacked a clear understanding of. He defends God by holding on tighter to past experiences and learned wisdom, unlike the first person he has something more real to hold on to and contribute. However keep in mind the fact even the second person wants to feel comfortable too. Since he is willing to defend the part of the castle he is most familiar with, he will be less inclined to gain experiences of defending certain parts of the castle he is less familiar with or had misunderstandings over. Should the second person be willing to embrace these uncertainties he could grow into a better defender even if he gets beat up a bit in the defense of the castle. Should he not be willing to go to these unfamiliar places, even if he is great a defending the familiarities, he will end up like the first person and, ‘hold too tightly to his own image of God [and] he may not be open to seeing other ways of defending the Castle, thus closed off to integrating the experience and never learning.'”

To be clear, death in the line of castle defense would include simultaneously, spiritual death from holding too tightly to their own small notions of God which could lead even to full betrayal of that person thus joining the forces of darkness: Ignorance, Despair, Envy, Fear, and Hatred. This has happened in the past, as symbolized by Judas Iscariot in the Gospels, but even in modern times as well by the growing people believing that Christianity is a damning and ignoramus religion.

“The Third Person does not feel uncomfortable around God, nor does he feel uncomfortable in a new place that is unfamiliar to him or unknown to him. Like a child he is overcome by his curiosity to know every inch of the castle in order to, explore these depths. However, like a Child he puts his Trust in God, knowing that even in these unfamiliar and not yet clearly perceived environments, all will be revealed by God in time. His defense is not of worldly understandings; it is not of learned wisdom, nor experiences, nor of perceived notions apprehended by ‘rational theologies’ either. The Third Person however is not a master either, for he will be all too keenly aware of how little he knows and is in a perpetual state of receptivity to learning what is inside the Castle. His defense is with his own being, for he is dedicated to its defense understanding the most. Compared to the other two people, but this is not something to boast about rather he must see to it that his curiosity of the depths and secrets of the castle can save the lives who do not know its depths and secrets.”

I believe this is self-explanatory.

“The Beauty to this allegory is that it is not static, if you are currently the first person you can start now to become the third person; if you are the third person you can reject it all and go back into the first person, but this will be hard by that time. Many of us are held down by fear of change, we fear letting go of our comforts and pushing the boundaries we have either put around us or grew into. However there is no life in worldly fear, keep in mind my own background from the beginning of this book. People who are fearful of change/letting go are like the people in the New Testament who Christ called to follow The Way, The Truth, and The Life all they did is give excuses and justification why they cannot let go of their current affairs. Keep in mind, Christ is what is new, without Christ the world would be the same old boring thing that it is, there would be no ‘world’ because we would not have something to compare it to, and we would be blissfully unaware of it making assumptions that this is just the way things are. What is an assumption mind you but a preconceived notion, an unconscious or conscious security blanket that we hold on to in order to create some false certainty or safety. If you are told there is a god by someone, can you be sure that there is? No, not until you experience that which is called ‘God’ for yourself. I think it is time now to relinquish the security blankets, the assumptions, the presumptions, the false sense of certainty and safety, and grow up willingly, before some person [perhaps a non-believer] comes into your life and makes you bitter and angry toward everyone and in that angry and bitter chaos we do not even give God a chance to be known.”

I believe this conclusion is self-explanatory, and will serve as my conclusion even to this excerpt.

Advertisements

What Do You Think?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: