Let the Hour Come Soon

Let the Hour Come Soon

Translated from the Rumanian
by Lasha Darkmoon

Impossible Stranger, where, tell me where
are you? Tell me, Stranger, where are you hiding? 
You are everywhere and you are nowhere.
The faithful guide is gone. No one is guiding
us now, lost in the maze. Sorrow consumes
me, devours me, dissolves me in tears.
I tear my hair out in solitary rooms.
I look in the mirror and see—years, years
wasted. Time, like an express train, has run
over me, ground my bones fine, and left me
mangled. Is this your doing? I am done
whimpering, marinated in misery.
Ah, dangerous Stranger, terrifying friend!—
let the hour come soon, let this sick joke end! 

Bela Mondo, Let the Hour Come Soon  

28 thoughts to “Let the Hour Come Soon”

  1. I have been reading lately the poems you have published on this site. And yes I can say I like them even if they depict the gloomy atmosphere we are living in and ‘ maybe’ depicts also our inner world.
    I love the paintings, surrealistic and even hypnotic.

  2. I believe this poem is actually written by Lasha Darkmoon and is not a translation from the Rumanian. This is because, as far as I know, Lasha doesn’t know a word of Rumanian.

    She is using an old literary convention whereby writers try to distance themselves from their own creations by pretending they are translations of other people’s works. Elizabeth Barrett Browning did this in her collection “Sonnets from the Portuguese.” These sonnets were in fact her own poems but private circumstances made it necessary for her to disguise this fact by attributing these brilliant and highly personal creations to unknown and unspecified Portuguese sources.

    I think this is the case with this particular poem, which also happens to be a sonnet. It is a cri de coeur which is intensely personal like Gerard Manley Hopkins’ “terrible sonnets”, which were written for a readership of perhaps half a dozen people and never intended for mass circulation. By coincidence, LD is not only extremely fond of both Hopkins and Elizabeth Barrett Browning but also of the (14-line) sonnet form she uses here.

    1. @ Ctesippus the Paeanian

      Thank you for the long and friendly comment you submitted in response to LD’s sonnet. I won’t post your comment, at your own request, because you write: “Please do not post this. It is a letter to Lasha Darkmoon. Grist for the mill.” And you end with the kindly words: “And, so, God bless you, Lasha Darkmoon, God bless you.”

      If you wish your letter to be posted, just let me know. No problem!

      This is the first (and probably last) long comment we’ve ever had in which the writer has requested that his comment should NOT be posted! 🙂

      1. I’d love to read what Ctesippus the Paeanian has to say for himself. Anyone with a name like that is probably well worth reading. Especially a mystery man who insists that his comments remain unpublished! 🙂

        I don’t know what TROJ is complaining about. Ctesippus is making Spamblinka look attractive, as if it’s the trendy place to be! 🙂

      2. Dear Sister Monica:
        As I seem to have unwittingly caused a bit of a mystery, which was certainly not my intention, for I initially simply wrote my comment to Lasha Darkmoon thinking it might strike a cord with her, well, so I now reluctantly agree to having it posted, if that is okay with you, Sister Monica? For, what do I know, as I was urged to write it, maybe Sardonicus was supposed to be the recipient, especially since he has requested to read it. Anyway, I certainly do not wish to stir up any false illusions around it. And, so, as the door has already unwittingly, or wittingly, been opened, please feel free to post my comment if it suits you.
        And God bless you, too, Sister Monica.

        Ctesippus the Paeanian

        1. @ C the P

          Apologies for the delay in posting your response. We have been denied access to the internet since yesterday owing to serious technical difficulties which we are still having.

          It is hoped that your long (article length) comment will appear soon, but we are not altogether sure that this would be appropriate in view of the fact that this extremely long and scholastic comment, if published, might jeopardise the long friendship of Lasha Darkmoon with Les Visible.

          Your comment, after all, is a direct attack on Les Visible and his cherished religious views — his very faith in the God he believes in so passionately. You should therefore, I strongly believe, have sent this detailed polemical onslaught on Visible’s Weltanschauung directly to Les Visible so that he could deal with this directly.

          1. @ Ctesippus the Paeanian

            I have been instructed to post your long article comment by John Scott Montecristo on the understanding that we do not necessarily approve of it. If Les Visible wishes to respond to your comment, he is welcome.

            Lasha Darkmoon is in hospital right now with a sprained ankle, having been thrown from a horse for the third time this year. (She never gives up!) She has not yet had time to read your extremely well-written and fascinating comment, but I can tell you in advance that she would probably disagree with it. Her sympathies would be with Les Visible, the heretic you have failed to understand. She would not, like you, be swayed by logic. She would be swayed, like Les Visible, by personal experience of the ineffable.

            Stand by for your comment — which will appear next! You have put great effort into this and we wish to thank you and hope you will hang around and offer us further pearls of wisdom from your eloquent pen! 🙂

            1. Please do not post this. It is a letter to Lasha Darkmoon. Grist for the mill.

              Dear Lasha Darkmoon:

              The following comments are in regard to the article on your site titled, Les Visible — ‘For Those who Believe, Some Direct Evidence of what Lies Beyond and Within’, By LES VISIBLE, With an end note by LD and an added 6-minute video, dated February 9, 2019, wherein Les Visible says, “I KNOW that eventually every soul will be reunited with the everlasting ineffable. God is not complete without all of his parts. In my case, I have accomplished, what is to me, the greatest achievement that there is. I am content with this and care not a wit what anyone thinks about it. As I said, “I have only, ever, had to convince myself.” I will further add that I am rigorous in proving out what is true before I believe to be true. I am an eternal, lives long member of the ‘trust but verify’ brotherhood.”

              Now, when Les states that he “KNOWS that eventually every soul will be reunited with the everlasting ineffable” because “God is not complete without all of his parts”, well, is it not such that Les immediately reveals that he does not know? For, in the first place, just how is it possible for God to be God if God is not complete? For, if God were incomplete, God would not be perfect then, and just how could God ever be imperfect? Well, he couldn’t be, could he? For, if God were incomplete, and, hence, imperfect, well, something that was complete and perfect would then be better than God, and, so, just how could God be God when there could be something that was better than God?

              Now, too, if God were incomplete and then became complete through every soul reuniting with him, it would be such then that God changed, which surely is impossible. For, if God did change, he would then either have to be better than he was or worse than he was; and, if he became worse, well, he would not be God then, for how could God who is perfect ever become worse and still be God? But, then, too, if God became better by becoming complete, well, it would then mean that God was worse before, which again is impossible if God is perfect. And, hence, so God can not change from one state or thing to another. And, last, how, too, can God be made up of parts? For the whole that is composed of parts is both inferior to and posterior to the whole that is without parts, just as the number one is superior to and prior to all the other numbers, for one is complete and whole and singular unto itself, without any parts whatsoever.

              Now, too, there is this statement from Les Visible, which I had just come across on The Truthseeker (which, then, in turn, led me in turn to your site and your article), in which he says, “On a beach, years ago, a master said to me, “God is sleeping and this is his dream.” I then replied, several times, “But he’s going to wake up, right?” Each time I was told, “I don’t know.” I’m guessing that depends on us each, every one, whether we make the effort to awaken the indwelling from his slumber in this dream of our life.” Now, I ask, are you not shocked on reading this? For it says that God is sleeping, and that God is dreaming. And, if God is sleeping, and if God is dreaming, well, how is God different from a person, or even a child, or a dog, or any animal that sleeps and dreams? And, worse, does it not imply that God is of the corporeal realm, and that he not only partakes of images, but is also carried away by images, just as we are when we are asleep and dreaming? And, so, again, is this not shocking to read, for it is so demeaning and so disrespectful of God.

              Now, from this it is clear that not only did Les never read Plato, but, too, so in his youth he also never even looked at Gurdjieff. For how is it not such that the one stating this, and, too, the ones believing this, whence, that God is sleeping and that God is dreaming, are not but themselves the ones that are asleep and in the dream dreaming. For, again, all sleeping and dreaming are the result of partaking of a physical body and the endless images that are ingenerated as a result of associating with it; for so the corporeal realm only deals in images, for as it is always changing without end and so is never the same even from moment to moment, so it can then never be of the true and the real, for so the true and the real neither comes nor goes and so is itself never itself an image.

              Now, too, when Les says that he is “rigorous in proving out what is true before he believes it to be true”, well, again, his words are suspect, for if he has truly rigorously proved out what is true, what need then is there to believe it? For, in proving what is true, just how is it then that he does not have understanding and knowing, and, hence, has risen above all belief? But, as he still ends up with belief, well, he obviously did not rigorously prove anything, did he? For belief is always inferior to reason and understanding and knowing, and, as such, the only reason one believes is because one does not know.

              For, in truth, believing is itself the power of dreaming, isn’t it? I mean, just ask yourself why you wake up from a nightmare terrified? Well, isn’t it because you believe the dream to be real? For all dreams are believed to be real, aren’t they? For is it not such that to dream means to believe the image to be the thing itself, whence, to believe the image to be real? But, then, too, all beliefs are believed to be true, even though the one believing them does not know them to be true at all, and, even worse, most of them are not true in the first place. Yet, still, it is such that one can not believe anything without believing it to be true. And, so, how is believing not but dreaming?

              And, so, do you believe the body to be real? For, if you do, you have lost the true and the real. For, just as in night’s dream, when one believes the image to be real, whence, believing to be real that what is changing from moment to moment and so is never the same from moment to moment, so the truly real is lost. And, so, again, just like in night’s dream when you are partaking of images, whence, not partaking of anything that is truly real, well, what path to God do you have then? For, just how can belief, which is always based on images, and which is the power of dreaming, ever be a path to the true and the real, whence, ever be a path to God? For is not God but the true and the real? And, too, does not like partake of like?

              Now, this is why the inscription at the Delphi Oracle was “Know Thyself”, for this is the true beginning of the path to God, for as God is the true and the real, so we are able to partake of God through the true and the real that we ourselves are of, for, again, like partakes of like. But, if one knows not the true and the real that one truly is, but rather believes the endlessly changing images and the endlessly changing body to be that what they are, well, how will they ever come to God? For dreaming is not a path to God, but rather it is the structure of the prison that locks us into the corporeal realm, for the corporeal realm is the realm of belief, and, hence, through believing it to be real, and so forgetting that what is truly real, so we unknowingly and even willingly imprison ourselves through believing our bellies and our genitals to be real. Yet, truly, if one is in the presence of God, what need to believe anything?

              And, so, is God real? And, if God is real, surely we ourselves must then be as real as we can possibly be if we truly wish to partake of God. And, so, is believing of the real, or is knowing of the real? And, so, what of you is real? Do you know? Or, do you believe the body to be real? And, hence, so believe to be real that what is never the same even from moment to moment?

              And, so, do you think God is incomplete?
              And, do you think God changes?
              And, do you think God is made up of parts?
              And, do you think God sleeps?
              And, do you think God dreams?
              And, so, do think God snores?
              I mean, this is all absurd, isn’t it?
              And, yet, all you have to do is but believe,
              and then it is as if it all were true, isn’t it?
              Just like in night’s dream.
              Just like in night’s dream.
              For all believing is make-believing,
              just like when we were children,
              for belief is inseparable from
              the image-making power,
              for belief and the image-making power are
              the fundamental powers of the Titannic realm.

              Now, though I send this to you, Lasha Darkmoon, in hope that it may strike a chord within you, still, I am not overly optimistic, for being a Christian, Neo or otherwise, it is unlikely you distinguish between believing and knowing, for Christianity is a Titannic religion, for it is based on belief and the body and the resurrection of the body, meaning Christians get to take their bellies and their genitals to heaven, and thus will be forced to satisfy them without end forever and ever. But, doesn’t that sound like hell? For how can you come to God and partake of the true and the real when your body is continuously intruding and demanding to be satisfied? For the body is the source of the dream, for the body is the source of all the images. And, so are not Christians saying that they are taking the dream factory, whence, the magic theatre, to heaven? Whence, taking to heaven the very thing that now blocks them from partaking of God.

              Anyway, as I say, I wrote this for you, for so I was urged to do so. But I have no wish for anything beyond that, for, as Pythagoras says:
              Not to every man speak of God.
              For to speak to one who does not care about God
              only demeans the words of God, and, further, then,
              too, so demeans what the words themselves are about, which is God.
              And, then, this, too, from Pythagoras:
              There is danger, and no negligible one even,
              to speak of God even of things that are true.
              And, yes, even of things that are true;
              for, not only does it depend on who is hearing,
              but, further, the problem is even of words themselves,
              for so it is such that they can only be (o)uttered in the Titannic realm.
              In other words, no word is ever, nor can ever be, the true and the real,
              for no word is ever, nor can ever be, the thing itself.

              And, so, too, as the little verse says:
              When I am with God,
              no word is needed.
              When I am without God,
              no word can suffice.

              And, yet, who doesn’t get carried away by the words?

              Believing And Knowing

              So, even though one can believe a lie to be false
              and, too, one can know a lie to be false, still,
              even though one can believe a lie to be true,
              one can never know a lie to be true.

              So, though believing regularly believes lies to be true,
              knowing can never know a lie to be true;
              for, if a lie were true, well, it would not be a lie then.
              But, what is worse, believing then even makes a lie appear true,
              for all beliefs are held to be true whether they are true or not; for,
              a belief can not be believed in the fist place unless it is believed true.

              We only believe that
              what we don’t know.
              For, if we truly know, well, then,
              there is no need of any believing.

              So, what is the difference
              between AA and Christianity?

              Well, AA is a twelve-step program;
              Christianity, but a one-step program.

              For though Christianity gives rise to alcoholism,
              as Catholic priests and Christian ministers will testify,
              still, it is unable to cure them, and, hence, so the proliferation
              of AA group meetings in church basements.

              And, so, God bless you, Lasha Darkmoon, God bless you.

              Ctesippus the Paeanian

              1. A brilliant comment well worth publishing as a feature article. Though Lasha would not necessarily agree with it, she could not fail to admire the writer’s exceptionally high intelligence and sincerity. The person who wrote this is modest, benignant and likeable and Lasha would simply adore his conversation at the dinner table.

                May I ask the inimitable Ctesippus the Paeanian what made him choose such an odd name?

      3. Ctesippus, not to be impertinent but you say … “In other words, no word is ever, nor can ever be, the true and the real, for no word is ever, nor can ever be, the thing itself.”

        Krishna says (Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10)
        “of vibrations I am the transcendental om”

        “An unusual attribute of om is that it has no direct translation from Sanskrit into English.”

      4. Sardonicus, thank you for your kind words. Ctesippus the Paeanian is a minor character who appears in three of Plato’s dialogues. Now, though he does speak as a minor character in two of them, he is silent in the Phaedo, as are others who are not main characters; but, even so, though they are silent, Plato is still very specific in mentioning the name of each and every one of those who were present on that fateful day, for so they were the truly faithful companions of Socrates that were with him on that final day in the prison, when, through the light of reason, Socrates exhibits the immortality of the soul; and, then, at sunset, with his companions watching in turmoil and grief, he calmly drinks the hemlock and dies peacefully in religious silence. And, so, Sardonicus, I chose that name because it is of a minor character, and, yet, one who is true and faithful to the end; and, second, because he was not only with Socrates on that final day, and so not only witnessed first-hand the death of his teacher, but, further, I’m sure, carried that last encounter with him all the days of his life until God sounded the recall and so he himself returned to whence he came. But, then, too, besides having somewhat of an affinity with the man, I also like the name because it is obscure and somewhat hard to pronounce. And, so, has not the door opened a bit wider? Anyway, take care, Sardonicus, and God bless you.

        1. Many thanks, Ctesippus the Paeanian, for your learned comment couched in meticulously constructed prose. Our fellow commenter on is site, who calls himself “Grammar Fiend”, will be disappointed to find that your perfect prose does not give him an opportunity to find fault with it! He steps in usually to correct people guilty of solecisms and poor punctuation! 🙂

          Two questions:

          (1) Are you a classicist, with a knowledge of Ancient Greek and Latin? (You seem to have a specialist knowledge of Plato’s Dialogues, especially the Phaedo, and are obviously familiar with Jowett’s translations.)

          (2) How on earth does one pronounce “Ctessipus”? Is the “C” unpronounced?

          1. Interestingly, Plato is sometimes known as “the first Christian”, though he lived 400 years before Christ. I am deeply impressed by his Doctrine of Recollection (which is found in the Phaedo), i.e. the teaching that we come into the world already knowing many things we discovered in a past existence. All knowledge is not empirical, in other words; some of it is innate. Christians are not supposed to believe in reincarnation, a so-called “heresy”, and yet the idea is mooted by Plato and more than once hinted at by Christ in the Gospels.

      5. Sard –

        There were many saviors before Christ. Sixteen were also crucified.

        Thulis of Egypt in 1700 BC was before Plato and was crucified.
        Krishna Zeus of India in 1200 BC was also crucified, as was Crite of Chaldea.
        Thammuz of Syria in 1160 BC.

        Many more are listed:
        The Worlds Sixteen Crucified Saviors – Or Christianity Before Christ
        By Kersey Graves(1875)

        Here are a few more:
        1. Chrishna of Hindostan.
        2. Budha Sakia of India.
        3. Salivahana of Bermuda.
        4. Zulis, or Zhule, also Osiris and Orus, of Egypt.
        5. Odin of the Scaudinavians.
        6. Crite of Chaldea.
        7. Zoroaster and Mithra of Persia.
        8. Baal and Taut, ”the only Begotten of God,” of Phenicia.
        9. Indra of Thibet.
        10. Bali of Afghanistan.
        11. Jao of Nepaul.
        12. Wittoba of the Bilingonese.
        13. Thammuz of Syria.
        14. Atys of Phrygia.
        15. Xaniolxis of Thrace.
        16. Zoar of the Bonzes.
        17. Adad of Assyria.
        18. Deva Tat, and Sammonocadam of Siam.
        19. Alcides of Thebes.
        20. Mikado of the Sintoos.

        1. @ Pat

          Sard – There were many saviors before Christ. Sixteen were also crucified.

          So what? Hate them all if you like! Stamp on their bones if it makes you feel any better. No one’s stopping you! 🙂

          The 16 Christs you claim were crucified before Christ have one thing in common, dear Pat. They did not give us the immortal words of the Christ who is quoted in the Four Gospels. They do not form the basis of the New Testament. They did not help to found Christianity which, despite all your frantic attempts to rubbish it, is still going strong after 2000 years of anti-Christian vilification.

          Good try, Christ Hater!

          All that remains for you now is to regurgitate the tired old conspiracy theory that no such character as the historical Jesus ever existed, as per the Jewish historian Josephus! By all means play the Useful Idiot for the Jews. You do your best, I notice, to undermine the Christian faith on this website and spit in the faces of Lasha Darkmoon, Sister Monica, and the other Christians who run this website and who have given you hospitality here.

          Frankly, Pat, your attempt to turn this neo-Christian website into an anti-Christian hate forum (called antichrist.com) is not going to succeed. Most people who understand Christianity and love it are unlikely to be swayed by your malicious attempts to rob them of their cherished faith and reduce them to your own level of sneering cluelessness.

          1. Excellent comment, Sardonicus!
            Expect to be showered with smiley faces.
            The last resort of this clueless scoundrel. 🙂

            1. @ PAT

              That there are a lot of ancient cultures who had a Christ in their religion/culture could be seen as more proof that Christ exists and Lives and has been around from the very beginning.

              That there were a lot of ancient cultures who had a Christ in their religion/culture does NOT automatically disprove the Christian Christ.

      6. Sard –

        I see you are still preaching tolerance of ideas!! 🙂

        It was you who brought up Plato being – “sometimes known as “the first Christian”, though he lived 400 years before Christ.” OK for you…. but NOT for ME!!?? 🙂 🙂

        MB – For you…. 3!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

        TROJ – I never wrote that Christ did not exist. Turn up the lights there in the dungeon!! 🙂

        1. @ Pat

          If you think you have the god-given right to spit on Jesus Christ on this site, I claim an equal right to defend him. That’s my definition of tolerance. I tolerate you. And you have no option but to tolerate me. That is, as long as you remain on this website.

          The fact is: you are an ignoramus who takes pride in your ignorance. You don’t have a clue about Plato’s influence on Christianity:


          Nor are you aware of the famous adage by Alfred North Whitehead that all Western philosophy is “a footnote to Plato” — who has been described as “the first Christian”, though born centuries before Christ.

          P.S. As for you saying “I never wrote that Christ did not exist”, you lie. A blatant lie. You said it long ago when you you cited various Jewish conspiracy theory websites arguing that the historical Jesus never existed and was a myth. I distinctly remember you saying that because it was my first major clash with you. It was then, I remember,that you began to patronize me by suggesting I “calm down” and “drink some green tea”.

          You now add a crude mendacity to your long list of other dubious virtues.

          1. Madame Butterfly was right about you: smiley faces are “the last resort of the scoundrel”. In you case, it’s the only resort, since you have neither logic nor common sense. Even TROJ deploys superior logic to you when he points out that 16 previous fake Christs do not prove that the 17th Christ is a fake.

            Apart from your poor logic and your mendacity, you also lack emotional intelligence. Because if you had any emotional intelligence, you would not urinate so gloatingly on the Christian faith on a pro-Christian website. You would be tolerant and tactful and hold your tongue respectfully, given that we dealing here with mere opinions and “guesses”, not with objectively proven scientific truths.

            But it seems you are incapable of exercising even the simplest self-restraint in that regard.

            1. Well said, Sardonicus! Put this opinionated a**hole in his place!
              And get ready for another sh**load of smiley faces!
              🙂 🙂 🙂

              1. Thanks, but I don’t need your support. The fact is I actually have a soft spot for Pat, though admittedly my recent critique of his comments might suggest otherwise. I admire his imperturbability. Most of his posts are well-informed and we are on the same page about Jews, the Holocaust, and countless other topics.

                I also happen to know that Lasha has always liked Pat. And if Lasha likes someone, that’s enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.

                So stop knocking Pat, okay? What would he be without his smiley faces? He’d a be a lost soul! 🙂

      7. SR –
        Being “opinionated” a crime here – HERE!!?? HA!!! See Harold Smith!
        I laugh at YOU!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Sard – Yes, friends do push each other somewhat at times. Have some more green tea… 🙂

        1. @ Pat

          Pay no attention to ‘Silent Reader’. I suspect SR is a frustrated spinster eating her heart out in some lonely basement, dying for a bit of love. If only she knew the benefits of green tea! 🙂

      8. ADMIN: Found in ‘SPAM” and approved.
        Have no idea why your comment ended up in Spam.

        And, so, Sardonicus, in answer to your two questions:

        (1) Are you a classicist, with a knowledge of Ancient Greek and Latin? (You seem to have a specialist knowledge of Plato’s Dialogues, especially the Phaedo, and are obviously familiar with Jowett’s translations.)

        Now, though I am familiar with Jowett’s translation, for I looked at it many years ago, I never use his translation, for, like many translations, it is not very tight in the translation, and, so, often is more Jowett than Plato.
        If you want a decent translation, download the Bohn edition, for though there are two translators in this old, late 1890’s edition, it is still the best. And, though Cary is good, Burges is the best that I have found, and he translates maybe seventy percent of the dialogues. Though he is occasionally off on certain words or certain passages, still, over-all, he is the best, for he is very literal and holds close to the Greek as much as possible, which is very rare in the translators of Plato. For as Plato is very specific in nearly every word that he uses, so must the translator be just as specific, which, unfortunately, is very rare. And, hence, though much more work, the best path is through the original Greek. And, no, I am not a classicist, but simply a self-taught Platonist who learned enough Greek so as to access Plato directly, for so I live with Plato and no longer go anywhere else.

        (2) How on earth does one pronounce “Ctessipus”? Is the “C” unpronounced?

        Now, in the Greek, “Ctessipus” is with a “K”, and, yes, it is pronounced. Hence, think of plankton or lactose, whence, Kt, and, thus, Ctes-si-pus, for Greek likes to start the syllables with the consonants. And, too, no syllable stress.

        But, now, too, Sardonicus, as you have mentioned Alfred North Whitehead, here are a few quotes from him as recorded by Lucien Price in his book Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead, which Price wrote down each time he went to the Whitehead’s for evening meals and conversations, for so he had a graphic memory and recorded them. But, too, he also had Whitehead himself review them later to make sure they were accurate and not misleading.

        Now, although the title Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead is very suitable, for it suggests an alignment of this book with the dialogues of Plato, still, it might also have easily been titled Table Talk of Alfred North Whitehead.

        And, so, the quotes, from page, 53:
        And the view in the Bible which has coloured all subsequent European history “is much more Paul’s than that of Jesus. There is no evidence that Paul ever saw Jesus, and he seems to have had rather a patronizing view of his entourage.”

        “Yes, one would have thought Paul would have gone to the apostles and said, “come now, tell me all you can remember about him.” But, no: instead he says, “Now you sit there and I’ll tell you what it all meant.””

        p. 79
        “It is the sense of sin,” said Whitehead. “It is the worst blight that ever fell on man.”

        p. 111
        “The trouble with the Bible has been its interpreters, who have scaled and whittled down that sense of the infinite into finite and limited concepts, and the first interpreter of the New Testament was the worst, Paul.”

        p. 143.
        “…and I consider Christian theology to be one of the greatest disasters of the human race.”

        p. 144-145.
        “I have said before, probably to you, that the trouble starts with the interpreters of Christianity. The disciples were admirably solid people.”
        But then the disaster starts. You get it in all the following interpreters of Christianity from Augustine, even Francis of Assisi; the gentleness and mercy of one side of Christianity, but based logically on the most appalling system of concepts. The old ferocious God is back, the Oriental despot, the Pharaoh, the Hitler; with everything to enforce obedience, from infant damnation to eternal punishment. In Augustine you get admirable ideas, he is full of light; then you enquire into the ultimate bases of the doctrines and you find this abyss of horror. Their hearts were right but their heads were wrong. And there was no appeal from their heads. In Saint Francis, for example, it is hardly credible that the two worlds, that of grace and mercy, and that of eternal damnation, could exist in one and the same breast. This theological disaster is what I meant when I speak of the mischief which follows from banishing novelty, from trying to formalize your truth, from setting up to declare: ‘This is all there is to be known on the subject, and the discussion is closed.’”

        And, so, Sardonicus, from putting this together, I was reminded of a conversation I had with my brother near forty-five yeas ago now, where he was trying to covert his lost brother, me, to Christianity, so as to save me from eternal damnation. Now, at that time, as he had a young son, I asked my brother if he personally could ever send his son to hell to be tortured forever and ever, and not only for not believing, but even for any reason whatsoever. And he did not take long to reply, but said that he could not personally send his son to hell no matter what he did. And so I looked at my brother then, and said to him that he obviously had more compassion than the God that he worshipped.

        And, so, yes, he was more God-like in his compassion than the God that he worshipped. But, would this not probably be true for nearly every Christian? For, of course, this is the only truly human reply, isn’t it? Or, what, are there Christians who would send their child, or any loved one, to eternal damnation, not only for a lack of belief, but, say, even for any reason whatsoever?

        But, now, too, Sardonicus, as I have gotten older, it is clear that I have grown far more compassionate towards others, and, too, to all life, for so my understanding has deepened in regard to just how difficult life really is, and so just how easy it is to get lost, and, then, once lost, just how hard it is, if not nearly impossible, to find one’s way back to the true and the real. And, as such, so I do not think that the alcoholic chooses to become an alcoholic, nor do I think the drug addict chooses to become a drug addict, and, hence, nor do I think any one chooses to become lost; but rather, in the words of Plato, it is more like “the wanderer in-between is seized by the power in-between” (Republic 479d), just like each night when we simply and unknowingly descend into the dream. And, so, may God have mercy on us all.

    2. Thanks for the insight, Sister Monica! Yes, it DOES appear to be the eloquent Miss Lasha’s work. 🙂

  3. “Ctesippus the Paeanian” sounds like the name of an alien in a 1960s Star Trek episode.

Comments are closed.