Kreeft’s Impertinent FAQ
October 20, 2005
This is the strangest thing to come down the pipe in a long while: Peter Kreeft’s incredible answers to a barrage of popular impertinent questions about heaven. Reading this, I end up cheering for the “smart idiot” who asks “How do you know?” Well Kreeft knows because he applies scripture and reason with a little cheating based on absurd logical conjectures and even out-of-body near-death experience anecdotes! I have been dimly aware of Kreeft as a slightly less embarrassing version of Scott Hahn, but now I don’t know. Kreeft claims Dutch heritage, so perhaps like Hahn, residual Calvinism is to blame for his whacky rationalism that would fit well with an Umberto Eco character–usually a deranged Jesuit or monk in his novels–who reaps all the worst results from a mish-mash of modern and pre-modern epistemes. According to Kreeft, in heaven God will have wiped your memory clear of damned loved ones to eliminate that source of sorrow. This is the most offensive part. And then he also says something about how God would have to save our loved ones if they are so much a part of us that we couldn’t be ourselves without them in heaven! What else–heaven is a bunch of naked communists running around doing “magic” and “miracles” but calling it “work” so they don’t get bored! Yes we’ll have sex, but we won’t “have sex.” It’s a gnostic happily-ever-after tale, fill in your own specifics. Truly incredible!This is Kreeft’s Impertinent FAQ in The Japery, a part of The New Pantagruel. Previously: Machiavelli and the Trauma of 1494 | Next: Vestiges | TrackBack (1) | Comments (0)
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.newpantagruel.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/311
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kreeft's Impertinent FAQ:
» The Japery Critiques Kreeft’s Vision Of Heaven from Detente
. The Japery has taken Peter Kreeft to task for his answers to the question What Will Heaven Be Like? Rick and I have both admire Mr. Kreeft’s work, and so it’s interesting to see such a negative take on this piece… [Read More]
Tracked on October 23, 2005 01:22 AM