"There is a difference with E's experience, those children were
deliberately mean."
How do you know they were mean?
E gave her side of the story, but the anonymous Christian children she condemns in her anecdotes have no chance of defending themselves. They can never present their perspective in E's well tailored tales. She puts dark words in their mouths and subtly gives them evil Christian motives. For the reader, they are secret imaginary villains to be enlarged or diminished as the need arises. The reader could, of course, accept her tale as infallible truth, but I'm a sceptic when it comes to pagan tales. I was once one, and know about their comprehensive license when it comes to dressing up a point for argument. It's easy to take the moral high ground when the opponents can never speak for themselves. It is also easy to win an argument when the opponent can only speak the words you put in their mouth. Her settings are always arranged to exalt the pagan heroine of the story, herself, as the innocent suffering victim, while her antagonists are evil cruel Christians who lack all moral and ethical values. Even the parents of the Christian children make brief appearances as evil demons driving the children. She is simply writing fictitious stories from an anti-christian perspective. Fact and truth are irrelevant in her mission. Her stories are designed to defame Christ and heap calumny upon his followers.
Look at their religious, historical and political perspectives. They make a big show of being opposed to religion, but their criticisms are always directed against only one religion, Christianity. When they speak of modern Judaism, they are almost always positive and supportive of every aspect of that religion and history. They can do no wrong, and the glaring atrocities committed by Judaism under Communism, during the first three centuries of Christianity and currently being committed against Palestinians are quickly glossed over with psychobabel or victim psychology. The ethical tumors of Judaism are reduced to pimples and they are always understandable and justifiable when viewed in the context of innately evil Palestinians and Christians. They are inordinate apologists for Judaism, and are willing to twist every historical and social event to fit their pro-Jewish perspective. They refect the spirit of Hollywood and TV networks. When you look at their writings carefully, one dominant moral theme suffocates all others: what's good for modern Judaism and Zionism is good, and what's bad for modern Judaism is bad; what's good for Christ and Christianity is bad, and what's bad for Christ and Christianity, is good. This is the essence of their ethical vision and the depth of their intellect; Zionist apologists weaving the myths and fables of the Babylonian Talmud into a shining tapestry reflecting their dark vision.
Emile |
