FQ: You speak a great deal about the issues that are facing the world today and the frightening realities of prejudice, anger, and war; do you believe that perhaps the U.S will fall the way the original Rome did? Or do you still believe that
Mankind can be saved?
Mankind is saved. All that remains is for each person to realize this inviolable fact and through love for and of God achieve their own personal salvation. I do not know if the U.S. will fall the way Rome did but the fate of any country or empire is ultimately immaterial because God's grace cannot fall or fail. My best guess is that the rest of the globe will rise and that will mean America comes to no longer retain its protagonist role upon the world stage. More importantly I believe that international borders will become more and more irrelevant such that history itself moves past nation-states as the world's primary actors.
FQ: There are many true “believers” in the world regarding the life and times of Jesus Christ as they are written. You do acknowledge that some may be offended by this book, and that if they are they’ve “clearly made up your own conception of me that is in total disregard of any and all historical evidence.” (page 363). Would you label this then as a type of “correction” to the accepted doctrine?
The work never states that if people are offended by the book then they have "clearly made up your own conception of me that is in total disregard of any and all historical evidence." That line was used solely to note that Jesus Chris'?s preaching is well recorded in the gospels as having gotten people and powers upset at him and if you don't believe that to be so (because who wouldn't love what Jesus has to say!) you are effectively denying he was ever crucified. Basically the paragraph that line finds itself within states that if you do not think people ever got upset at what Jesus Christ said in ancient Judea how do you explain the fact that the First Coming ended upon a Roman cross. Offense to this book is not
dismissed as unfounded but entirely expected and natural. I fully and completely acknowledge the fact that the greatest -if not overwhelming- majority of initial readers will be greatly offended by the work. Addressing whether the work is a "correction" to accepted doctrine the answer is a definite no. Speaking generally I do not think that the beliefs people have of Christ and the doctrine that has sprung forth from them are incorrect. The broad perception of Jesus Christ is entirely accurate and this work is not an attempt to alter it. It is not to be altered but it is capable of being added upon and this work does exactly that. Truth does not cancel truth and this work was only created to provide more of it for people to more clearly see the most important truth that is the reality of God's love for them.
FQ: On that same note, there is a strong belief that the Second Coming is when the Lord comes back as the King of Kings and not a child once again. In your writings, you begin as a child in this particular time period. Any comments on this?
That is just not the way the Second Coming has unfolded. I think the reason why is that such an alternate reality would be too dramatic. By that I mean it would call for the 'End of Times' or some epic sundering. One of the great purposes of the work is to note that things are good and getting better. God does not need to descent down upon the world riding within a chariot of thunder while swinging lightning bolts because God is already fully immanent with the world and continually directing the universe towards its ultimate destiny. A reality of Christ reigning mightily as the 'King of Kings' would take away from the truth that the life of Jesus Christ is solely to demonstrate and exhibit God's selfless love for Mankind. Christ's life ultimately exists not to reign but to serve.
FQ: You break many of the “rules” in this book as far as swearing, and speaking about some illicit romantic desires. You also use the word hate…don’t you believe that perhaps this will also call into question your adamant label of Christ?
I think there is only the one swear written in the book that is an independent offering. That is to say there are swear words in the work
but only once are they not a repeat of what others have said or written.
So for the vast majority of instances they are included in the book in
reflection and discussion of the world. As such the argument that
regardless they should be censored because they are unholy words would be
like arguing because murder is an unholy act the Bible cannot properly
include any instance of it. This thinking would demand that Cain's crime
must be struck from the Biblical record. As to the one independent
offering it is present because it was present. It too is an honest
repeat; if of a different sort. I thought long and hard about it but
decided the scale was weighted towards its inclusion as an emotional
marker. Rules are not made to be broken but they are made to serve and
guide people and not reign utterly independent above them as disconnected
ideals in and of themselves. There is a 'rule' against lying but as the
book states I would have no problem lying to misdirect a murderer and save
an innocent child's life in consequence. I do not believe in categorical
imperatives reigning above human realities and my personal reality does
not lie utterly dependent upon me never saying fudge in substitute for its
more well known four letter counterpart just as not grabbing a few stalks
of grain and violating the Sabbath was alleged to once do the same.
The romantic desires were not truly illicit but merely present and that is
a problem because Jesus is not normally presented as having them.
While the existence of swears and sexual desire merely show that even
Jesus is a man in the real world the inclusion of the word 'hate' is done
for precisely the opposite purpose and its use is so abundant in the work
for the express purpose of asserting a divine truth. It is precisely
because of God's perfect love for Mankind that I spout so often about my
utter hate for the Serpent.
FQ: You say you are non-confrontational yet there are parts of the book that speak about war and you seem almost…elated that the losers were eradicated? Could you comment?
War is a vile scourge that afflicts Mankind but that doesn't mean all war
has been sinful and God has always been indifferent to the outcome of
Man's carnage. God is well recorded in the Bible as ordering the
Israelites into battle and to slaughter even the children of the young
tribe's enemies. This is a very complex question that the work attempts
to deal with in some detail but I can say that when good and evil have met
on the battlefield and good and God have emerged triumphant it is a happy
historical picture for me.
I am elated that the Israelites were not wiped out and the truth of God's
I am elated that a great Christian conquest ended the abhorrent practice
of human sacrifice.
I am elated that the Axis powers were utterly defeated in the world's
worst and most encompassing war and as a result Europe is no longer under
Nazi rule and massive human gas chambers exist only as museums.
I have no problem with these feelings even though I have such utter enmity
for war itself that seeking its end is a primary focus of the work.
And I am not ethically or theologically non-confrontational in the slightest.
FQ: You have seen “Heaven & Hell" – the worst and best of humanity. Is there anything you regret from this journey? Or something you would change?
I don't know how the possibility of regret can be applied to my experience that night. It just happened and to erase it as having happened would be to erase who I am. While such a change in my past is not possible I wish I were more skilled
with my words in the present so that I could more powerfully explain myself such that everyone could more clearly see my story as the story of divine love it truly exists as.