Fighting Talk

The Battle of Mansura: First Crusade

I don’t spend any time on Fakebook these days, but still occasionally get drawn into conversations that one would normally only have to endure on such platforms. A couple of weeks ago, a reader contacted me; giving all the signs of someone with strong enough opinions to go straight onto anyone’s “ignore” list. Needless to say, this is exactly the sort of person I am most interested in.

The lady in question is a Confederate American. I do not believe in labelling people like this, so please just consider that statement a shortcut to set the scene. She first contacted me, incandescent about the contents of my book “Teacakes and Damnation”. I explained my background (a mathematician/physicist brought up as a British Catholic with a Hindu heritage) and allowed her to explain why my teachers had been wrong.

She is obviously intelligent, well read and strongly guided by principles that she believes to be Good. Her tendency to use the word “paganism” for anything that isn’t Maplesville Alabama’s version of Baptist Christianity was slightly galling, but I fully appreciate it as signalling her belief that there is only one truth – hers. She was even willing to consider my theory that, from a mathematical point of view, such an acceptance of a personal God can only result in either zero or an infinite number of gods (workings in margin, not a theme in “Teacakes”). But she, quite rightly, pointed out that mathematics cannot be used to analyse god(s). We started to be less defensive once the absence of malice on both sides was obvious.

So inevitably, our conversation turned to John of Patmos and his most famous work “Revelations”. We agreed that the whole “Number of the Beast” fiasco proved that his Antichrist was meant to represent the then new Roman emperor. 666 is a numeralogical code for “Nero”, whereas his original 616 (from Papyrus 115) is the equivalent code for “Nerva”. But my new friend pointed out that God’s revelations are always true – if John misinterpreted them, it doesn’t change the facts.

And then our discussion took a strange turn. She said that The Orange Toad (I won’t use his real name so as not to offend anyone) is the real 616 Antichrist. I got lost in the logic a bit, but her proof was something about the ’16 US elections (when he got that well paid golfing job) and 6/1 when his first insurrection happened. She said she voted for him in ’16 and ’20, hating him and knowing that he was the Antichrist. She continues to support the “Big Lie” (her words) because overthrowing the Yankee government is necessary to bring on the Revelation. Yes, I checked: “Revelation”, not “revolution”.

We have just started a continuation around whether it is our place to do God’s work or whether he is powerful enough to do it himself, but I have a concern in the back of my mind. When someone with fundamental beliefs is willing to put aside their morals for a preferred outcome, can they really be treated as morally based? God is, by definition, all powerful, so how does he feel about us putting aside truth and Good for something that he could achieve with a Word?