The audio version of this post likely differs some from the actual text in the original post

As we continue this series, we’re going to take a look at the destructive curriculum that seems to be poisoning our culture, poisoning the well of our educational system. Poisoning the well we’ve been all too eager to have our children drink from or quite possibly drink from ourselves.

I know there is likely an interesting and at least somewhat complex history of these things we could go into, examining how through history logic courses have been removed from curriculums, how the rise of psychology and other such practices have affected the education of children, and so on. I do not have much knowledge on these things, but I can present to you what I know and what I have seen first hand as a student. This will most likely be my fairly feeble attempt at trying to comprehend and explain what seems to be some sort of vast ideological attack or invasion occurring in the West. Please bear with me as I try to explain what seems to be happening; I may jump around a bit and may not seem to elaborate on correlations I see very well. Forgive me in advance. I don’t intend this to be entirely exhaustive in the least. 

There has been a total rewiring (or simply wiring) of the brain that has been undertaken by our secular institutions of education, it seems, to do away with comprehension of basic logic and rationality. It seems to me that this has very much to do with the relativistic approach and worldview, and goes very nicely with the frightening agenda to unite our world as one big, happy family that loves everyone and what they believe and all that garbage.

I will tell you, taking the courses I do, it can be frustrating at times understanding the teaching. And I’ll just say, I think I’m at least decently intelligent and can generally understand stuff in the terms I’m talking in pretty well. I honestly don’t think I worked all that hard, and I had over a 4.0 in high school. This isn’t to brag, just to say, I don’t think the issue is so much with me. The problem with me and understanding some of what is taught sometimes, I think, is because the fundamental, functioning logic of others at my college is vastly different than mine. And I use the term logic here fairly loosely. I don’t mean everyone is like this, but this is how curriculum is taught: ungrounded in reality.

My problem sometimes seems to be that I try to understand the curriculum in terms of reality and actual life. But, there’s a movement away from teaching minds to function in such a way. There is a move to understand things in a very disconnected way. This is demonstrated through part of my World Mythology teacher’s comments on one of my papers.

That week we had been reading through a bunch of creation “myths.” We’ll revisit this later probably, but the word “myth” is redefined so the word is used in a way it usually isn’t. Everything is taken metaphorically. In my textbook, The World of Myth by David A. Leeming, the introduction lays out the way in which myths must be understood. The focus is on psychology and also some kind of universalism or omnism. It’s like this overarching goal of the curriculum to understand “truths,” but these “truths” are simply things concerned with human experience. The emotions of humans.

In my paper on creation myths, I responded to a question that asked me to identify some universal truths I think I could draw based off similarities between different creation “myths.” Remember, myths in these terms are considered “conveyors of information rather than odd examples of pagan superstitions” (2). Furthermore, “[W]orld mythology, considered as a whole, is the story of humanity’s eternal quest for self-fulfillment in the face of entropy, the universal tendency toward disorder” (4). The whole point of understanding the class is a humanist point, because secular colleges ground their curriculum in humanist and secularist ideals. For, it’s about “a universal human quest for identity and individuation, as Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade, two of our most influential modern mythologists, have so eloquently [I’d say stupidly] taught us” (4). To frame for you a better understanding of the approach taken, here’s a bit more of the text:

As we explore the world of myth, we should remember that we are journeying not through a maze of falsehood but through a marvelous world of metaphor that breathes life into the essential human story: the story of the relationship between the known and the unknown, both around and within us, the story of the search for identity in the context of the universal struggle between order and chaos.

(6)

The approach is not one taken in much reality. As you go through the textbook there is not only “myths” of the Bible given, but “myths” of science, such as the Big Bang Theory and entropy ultimately resulting in heat death of the universe. But it’s not a world of falsehood, but really just about metaphor and understanding humanity on a psychological level. And, it’s humanity as a whole, and humanity is of course the focus. Why? Because it’s humanist.

And our “most influential modern mythologists” are the ones we look to? Well, Joseph Campbell has this ideology. If you take a look particularly at his last statement on this web page, you see him discuss “Sanskrit,” which is a language I think is most often associated with Eastern religions, especially Hinduism. How Campbell figures since he is uncertain about his being and consciousness, that if he finds happiness, he’s got the former two things figured out.

A strange concoction of different religious or “spiritual” notions become some of the background of our secular curriculums. Most prevalent, though, are the humanist ideals. They are anti-Christian and anti-God.

But, back to the demonstration of this strange metaphysical understanding of things in my teacher’s comments.

I said as part of my reflection responses,

I think we could draw the “universal truths” out that there is a Creating Being, and waters present in the beginning at some point. The cosmic egg and life coming from earth are common themes people might see as possibilities perhaps just because of the repetition of this belief. Making some objective conclusion about universal truths just from similarities between some different myths is not a very accurate, good method whatsoever to use to do this I do not believe.

And as part of my teacher’s comments, she said,

I can certainly see the validity of going with empirical evidence rather than stories for an “objective” conclusion, but are there some “truths” that we get at in other ways?  And does myth provide a metaphorical connection to our scientific “truths” if we interpret it generously? (and what would that mean?)   It’s not necessary, of course, that any of us accept that generosity!

To be honest, to this last part of her comments, I was kind of like, “What the heck does that even mean? Like what is she even talking about?” There is some hyper-analytical drive towards metaphor and “finding connection” between things driven in schools it seems. I don’t care about finding some alleged universal truth in a Polynesian myth that’s “sexual and genitally oriented” (Leeming 168). Oh, and guess who this myth I read is about? Maui. Yeah, like Maui from Disney’s Moana. You’d probably be at least a little disturbed if you read the story I did and knos how it goes.

Anyway, that’s a little beside the point. The thing is, there’s some complex movement towards a few things, and this list is likely not exhaustive:

  1. Humanist ideologies
  2. Omnist ideologies
  3. Relativist ideologies
  4. Universalist ideologies
  5. Marxist ideologies

I titled this post mentioning two things: shaping the mind to understand nothing and redefining words. We’ve been discussing the former part, training the mind to really understand nothing of much importance. The mind is trained to be relativistic and not think in terms of reality. Our culture has grown softer and more disconnected from reality as we’ve pushed the comprehension of things in omnistic terms. My comparative religions class was pretty blunt with its concern not for learning the truth so much as learning about the similarities between religions and/or appreciating them.

There’s almost some concept of a smorgasbord of religions, where individuals can pick and choose different concepts and notions from different religions and thus improve their lives. I mean, plenty of Americans practice yoga, which is a religious practice. Do some research into it, it’s probably not something you should be doing if you are. Notions from Eastern religions seem to spring up everywhere, whether it’s the idea of being connected with nature, becoming one with the universe, emptying the mind, or whatever else.

The mind has been shaped to understand things in terms of metaphysics, psychology, and a splattering of other things. In being trained to do this, the mind has been trained to understand nothing. Everything is about tolerance, whatever people believe is fine (unless it’s considered intolerant by modern, “progressive,” leftist virtues). Acceptance and appreciation of other beliefs is the key. And, since this is the key and truth is no longer the key, understanding things in terms of reality is done away with.

You see, once the goal is changed, the approach is changed. The whole game plan, the whole way the game is understood, is changed. Like in football, the goal is to score a touchdown. But, even being on a football field with all the right equipment and all that stuff, if the goal becomes something other than scoring a touchdown, gameplay changes. And rules likely must change as well.

If the goal of the game suddenly changes, and the goal is now to hit the ball back and forth over the goal post like volleyball does with a net, then gameplay and rules must dramatically change. If the goal is no longer to run the ball into the touchdown zone, then the game is totally different. The players’ understandings of the game is totally different. How they think about the game is different, and thus their approaches, their practical, real-life gameplay is different. How they actually do things changes.

Likewise, when the goal becomes appreciating and accepting other beliefs, gameplay totally changes. Hence, logic must be done away with. Logic classes must be banished from the modern classroom because logic classes do not support achieving the new goal that has been set.

As an inescapable symptom of this new goal, the befuddlement of practical communication in certain fields arises. Communication is possible, but only in high-and-mighty, metaphysical, abstract exchanges of words that gets no one anywhere very close to something useful. It becomes hard to talk with people about reality, in other words. There’s a disconnect so that I can say, “If you don’t trust in Jesus alone for your salvation, you will go to Hell,” and a person might not even be phased. They don’t care. It’s all just lofty ideas with no basis in reality, because the basis is in feelings and “internal senses,” as described by the “new definition” of gender. So, no one gives a darn because they think that what they believe and feel determines reality. Or something like that.

New gameplay must be taught because the game’s goal has changed. And we might realize that the game is actually a totally different game now.  But the gameplay is changed from understanding things from a logical perspective to understanding things by feelings, internal senses, and personal experiences. There appears to be a further disconnect, though, because some areas of study, or areas of understanding, are accepted in a more academic, logical sense, while other areas are not. For instance, religion. Religion is different that science and math; they cannot be compared, it would be illogical to try comparing them. But why? Why?

As this post stretches on again, we will likely revisit the idea of this “new goal” and its implications in the next post. A much closer look at the redefinition of words will also likely be coming up in the next post.

Again, I encourage you to consider where you go to school and/or where you send your kids to school. Schools can help destroy you and your children. 

Jesus is the King. He is the Lord. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). And if you don’t follow Him, you follow the path to Hell. Omnism and relativism do not have a place in Christianity. Their doctrines are false doctrines, evil doctrines.

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Come find life in Jesus. He is our great hope, our only hope. Love the truth.

All direct denoted verse quotations are taken from the ESV

Leeming, D. A.  (20180715). The World of Myth,  3rd Edition. [[VitalSource Bookshelf version]].  Retrieved from vbk://9780190900144.


You can sign up to join my email list right here!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s