ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, October 06, 2016

Mailvox: standing with atheists

An atheist explains his contempt for cuckservative Churchianity:
I am a man living in Alabama who has never believed in Santa Clause or God. My family and most of my peers are rabid evangelicals.

For 28 years I have been preached to in a desperate attempt to save me from hell. The only thing I have seen is a legion of cowards using soft rhetoric to make their ideas more palatable to the ignorant fools who begin throwing their money at the Church. The people who beg me to follow their creed are mocked by children with the most rudimentary logic as they abandon the commands of their God and whore themselves to anyone who will pay them.

I will never count myself among such feckless cowards.

This does not change my decision to stand by Christians and fight the filth this cesspool of a nation is surrendering itself to. I have one thing to offer my Christian brothers, I will die next to them inflicting this on this enemy: an animal hatred of of the trash you have allowed to undermine the country which has allowed me to live my life without repression.

If you do not succeed in your goal it will not only be me who perishes. You will cry out to your God as the evil you believed he would save you from brutally shows you what it is to be ruined.
I'd rather stand by an atheist like him than the Churchians who sell out their neighbors for worldly approbation in the name of a counterfeit Gospel. But he really should know better than to try to characterize Christian theology on our behalf. Jesus saves souls. He doesn't save nations. If men want to save their nations, or their civilization, I expect they'll have to do it on their own.

In such matters, God appears to be most inclined to help those who follow His laws and help themselves.

Labels: , ,

155 Comments:

Blogger The Kurgan October 06, 2016 11:09 AM  

Absolutely.
Sounds like this guy would make a decent Christian if someone actually bothered to explain to him ACTUAL Christianity.
Reminds me much of myself really, except a bit more open minded to Christianity than I was.

Anonymous Scotsman October 06, 2016 11:11 AM  

Off Topic, do a search for scott adams/dilbert/dilbert comic strip on yahoo...nothing comes up.

Blogger Thomas Davidsmeier October 06, 2016 11:13 AM  

His physical life is his only life. To him, it only makes sense that God would save the physical lives of His Christian followers if He truly loved them. I know, I used to think I was an atheist.

The New Jerusalem and eternity in his Lord and Savior's presence means nothing to him.

I'd rather stand with fellow Christians than anyone else.

Vox, I understand and actually agree with your opinion that nations must be fairly genetically homogeneous to succeed as actual nations in this world. But, do you think the success of their people as a nation is the most important goal for a Christian individual to pursue? I'm not asking if it is an admirable or good goal (both of which I believe and Churchians don't), but is it the most important? If it is not, what is?

Blogger Doom October 06, 2016 11:14 AM  

Amen.

Anonymous Thales October 06, 2016 11:15 AM  

Yep. I will admit that my disgust with cucks (and Protestants in general) in my youth was at least secondary among my reasons for remaining agnostic.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 06, 2016 11:16 AM  

Maybe he knows what Islam offers to atheists: conversion or death.

Afghan Army trainees go missing inside the US. But not to worry, it's only 40 or so in the last couple of years.

What could possibly happen? Probably just "economic migrants". Couldn't be jihadis, surely.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 11:40 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 11:40 AM  

Even G-d has no stomach for Churchian sell-outs.

I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—

(cf. Revelation 3:14-17)

Anonymous CC October 06, 2016 11:52 AM  

This does not change my decision to stand by Christians and fight the filth this cesspool of a nation is surrendering itself to. I have one thing to offer my Christian brothers, I will die next to them inflicting this on this enemy: an animal hatred of of the trash you have allowed to undermine the country which has allowed me to live my life without repression.

Amen to this!

Anonymous Stickwick October 06, 2016 11:52 AM  

I'd rather stand by an atheist like him than the Churchians who sell out their neighbors for worldly approbation in the name of a counterfeit Gospel.

But someone might call you racist! That's the worst!!

I find the amount of contempt phony Christians elicit from atheists to be very interesting. Nobody cares much if Jews, Muslims, or Hindus do things that are contradictory to what their religions teach, but boy do they get incensed when Christians fail to live up to Christian values, even though atheists claim to reject the basis for them. To me, this strongly points to the universal truth of Christianity, written on the hearts of men.

Blogger Alexamenos October 06, 2016 11:55 AM  

Heck yeah, I'm ethnically southern Baptist no matter what I may or may not believe. (also, I find Joel Olsteen type heresies deeply offensive as a non-practicing, non-believing but otherwise orthodox ethnic Christian, but that's another matter).

Anonymous fop October 06, 2016 11:55 AM  

To hell with atheists.

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2016 11:57 AM  

Scotsman wrote:Off Topic, do a search for scott adams/dilbert/dilbert comic strip on yahoo...nothing comes up.

Off topic again, but in case you don't know it Scott Adams has gone rogue and is paying the price.
-------------
http://blog.dilbert.com/

This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter.
(stuff deleted)
But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public.
-------------
I some ways I like it they are taking this approach. Could be worse and maybe this will satisfy.

One way out of the nonsense (for now?) is to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine. I used Dogpile for a while and it is not much.

Blogger Rusty Fife October 06, 2016 12:01 PM  

Thomas Davidsmeier wrote:But, do you think the success of their people as a nation is the most important goal for a Christian individual to pursue? I'm not asking if it is an admirable or good goal (both of which I believe and Churchians don't), but is it the most important? If it is not, what is?

Try looking at the souce material - Matthew 22:36-40

Then ask who your neighbor is.

Blogger tz October 06, 2016 12:05 PM  

Sunday is for socializing and praisercize, there is no room for Jesus. So their souls aren't saved.

Give me a Protestant who will vehemently disagree with my Catholicism than this non-denominational do-gooder virtue signaling that is excellence in only lukewarmth.

Saving souls - which requires taking strong moral stands - is the more important work of mercy. The bodies are only the vessel.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 12:05 PM  

While its true God doesn't save nations he does deal with them as unique entities. And in fact the nations will stand before the throne of God.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2016 12:09 PM  

Reminds me of Salem's Lot, where the vampire lets a very courageous small boy go with a craven priest and says "this boy is worth a thousand of you, false priest."

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 06, 2016 12:11 PM  

Eloquent statements from both the Alabama Atheist and from VD. This is an atheist who at least viscerally understands that we cannot show up at the coming gunfight unarmed. The more I read and learn, the more I would rate Churchianism as the most serious and potentially fatal problem facing the west - even worse than feminism (keep in mind that Churchians always surrender to the feminists in the end, since any opposition initially expressed to priestesses and the like are merely unprincipled exceptions to their underlying leftoid ideology).

There are actual Christians left - this site seems to have the highest concentration (go over to Spencer's place sometime to see how Christianity is viewed elsewhere) - but the problem seems to be that they are a) a definite minority in overall number among those counted as 'Christians'; and b) scattered; and c) often yoked to converged churches. There's also a continuing denial of reality - chiefly a refusal to excommunicate the Churchians or leave the converged church. This is a smiler failed argument as the one made about sending your kids to public school to serve as a witness.

The National Council of Churches provides a good starting list of converged churches. All of the members are giving money to what can only be termed a Satanic SJW organization whose purpose is one-world religion to go hand-in-hand with one-world government. Anyone who remains a member of any church connected to that organization needs to be warned, then cut off if they refuse the warning - handed over to Satan (actually just acknowledgement that they've delivered themselves body and soul into Satan's hands).

Blogger John Collinson October 06, 2016 12:22 PM  

Vox, your individualist Christianity has no ground in history, in scripture, or in the writings of the Church fathers or saints. You complain so much about "Churchianity" that I begin to think you're anxious about your own lack of a church; which is fine, seeing as the whole history of Christianity points to the reality and necessity of a Church of the faithful. The idea that you can be a Christian without the Church is about 150 years old, and it springs from the Protestant Reformation which is only about 500 years old. Before the Protestant Reformation, belonging to the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of the Creed was seen as a necessity for salvation by every Christian, and even the early Protestants agreed, it's just that they distorted the concept of the Church and made it invisible, and broke it up into a thousand pieces.

Blogger tz October 06, 2016 12:23 PM  

Cultural Marxism is also known as multiculturalism. To attempt to have a multi-national uniculture doesn't seem possible, but it would require draconian steps at this point.

The white nationalists at least have a plank to impose the proposition - the old rules, the rule of law, if you don't like it leave. It is less about racial purity than duties of citizenship for most. The propositionists have nothing proposed about the half of the country that actively fights the proposition. Being nice has been a losing proposition.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer October 06, 2016 12:23 PM  

I consider myself in this category. I know this is probably insane but I consider myself an atheist Christian. The two greatest philosophers that lead me are Immanuel Kant and Albert Schweitzer: both Christian philosophers. I look forward to reading VD's book and relish the thought of being converted with a good dialectic argument. But I have issues like the Euthyphro question and the Problem of Evil, neither of which have been answered to my satisfaction.

I recognize what Christianity has given us: I.e. the Enlightenment, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights. For example, it was Christian philosophers like Samuel Pufendorf who had the temerity to suggest that Native Americans were decedents of Noah and, therefore, entitled to the natural rights accrued therein.

Jesus represents a watershed demarcation in ethics. I wish more churchians were willing to stand up for him.

Blogger mushroom October 06, 2016 12:24 PM  

Hot or cold. Jesus Christ spits out and spits on the lukewarm (Rev. 3:16) Laodocian churchians.

Also read, 1 Corinthians 5 wherein Paul says we can fellowship with the unbeliever but not the hypocrite.

Get out of Babylon while there is still time.

Blogger tz October 06, 2016 12:31 PM  

Don't worry about individualistic v.s. corporate Christianity. Either you know Jesus, have the holy spirit where you are or don't. I can argue it but Jesus didn't say you are saved in the name of scripture, history, or the church. Children easily come to Jesus. Adults outsmart themselves.

The Roman Catholic church, especially under Pope Francis, is one of the most converged institutions. Buchanan, Milo, Kaine and Pelosi claim to be good Catholics.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 12:31 PM  

@19 John Collison

Vox, your individualist Christianity has no ground in history, in scripture,

Neither does your comment.

Before the Protestant Reformation, belonging to the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" of the Creed was seen as a necessity for salvation by every Christian . . .

"Necessity for salvation ..." Would love to see the Scriptural foundation for this assertion.

I guess that means the apostles and everyone else prior to the 4th century are simply SOL? (cf. Hebrews 11)

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2016 12:36 PM  

@19 whole history of Christianity points to the reality and necessity of a Church of the faithful.

I label the above good Christianity. The community of the faithful. That is why when Rome fell the remnants of the empire did not fall and we did not all go Islamic, a dramatically inferior doctrine. That is also why the good old time religions sponsored cemeteries. It is the link with the past, the sense that the community of the faithful is part of a biological process. Sound thinking in terms of outcome if you happen to be familiar with Darwin.

Blogger YIH October 06, 2016 12:39 PM  

From The Right Stuff: Evangelicalism's Offer to America is Same Offer Devil Made Christ.
Response to: Christian Post

As a Christian who has struggled with his belief in the face of a Christianity that seems to grow ever more hostile to reality, I was grimly unsurprised to be linked to this recent op-ed by a shitlib with an MDiv, comparing Trump to Satan.

Eric Sapp sees three options for evangelicals in this election: wasting a vote for Egg McMuffin or the other forgettable weirdos, not voting, or “join[ing] the 30%+ of evangelicals saying they’ll vote for Hillary Clinton.” Judging by his Twitter pics showing him at Clinton rallies, and the obvious low T expressed in his face, it’s not hard at all guessing which choice he made.

Blogger Rusty Fife October 06, 2016 12:42 PM  

John Collinson wrote:You complain so much about "Churchianity" that I begin to think you're anxious about your own lack of a church;

So the two or three believers gathered together here at VP isn't church? Gonna have to up my gain because John Vollinson says so.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 06, 2016 12:44 PM  

Agnostics (to me) are we who lack faith, but accept others who have it. Allies in this fight simply have to know from where our civilization comes, and to recognize our civilization's centrality to our lives, our families and to our posterity. Our 5th columnist adversaries think the lifestyles to which they are accustomed grow on trees or fall from the sky. They're IDIOTS.

The problems we have today largely stem from the same poisoned well as the invading hordes: The unholy elimination of barriers between revolutionary faith and politics.

The Left's war on Badthink is perfectly analogous to an Islamic State's war on apostasy. Both stem from aggressive actions by the faithful to eliminate blasphemy and heretics. Both are implacable enemies of the Western Tradition. Today's West is besieged from within by Cultists of the Gnostic Heresy, Utopians bent on making "new man" via the judicious application of force and violence. Importing Muslims is akin to allying with ones enemy to destroy a larger enemy, except Utopian Cultists are blinded by their own dogma. They can't see the endgame.

We can. When this illusion of debt-based prosperity ends, people will pick sides. Then will come a house-cleaning of great vigor, ejecting or eliminating the 5th columnists in our midst without whom our enemies would be but annoying nuisances.

Blogger Student in Blue October 06, 2016 12:44 PM  

@John Collinson
You complain so much about "Churchianity" that I begin to think you're anxious about your own lack of a church

Vox is by far not the only one to have been complaining about Churchianity by any means, so quit with the psychoanalyzing because it's completely off base.

There is a real problem here, and that problem sooner or later needs to get fixed. We need more people aware of it however.

Blogger Rusty Fife October 06, 2016 12:47 PM  

Student in Blue wrote:

There is a real problem here, and that problem sooner or later needs to get fixed. We need more people aware of it however


A weekly scheduled bread and wine post?

Blogger dc.sunsets October 06, 2016 12:48 PM  

@18 nyone who remains a member of any church connected to that organization needs to be warned, then cut off if they refuse the warning - handed over to Satan (actually just acknowledgement that they've delivered themselves body and soul into Satan's hands).

I'd say the same thing about Refugee Resettlement Agencies in the USA. Pretty much that puts every significant Christian denomination (including Roman Catholics) into "fully converged." Since I think this is true, I'm good with the definition.

I wonder if those people taking their 30 pieces of silver to dump 3rd worlders on their neighbor's lawns realize that their names will be on the top of the lists in a few years. I don't think "Hey, I was just making a living" will be much of a defense if there are trials before the executions.

Anonymous mature craig October 06, 2016 12:52 PM  

Atheists didnt get enough love in their life. You should see what you can do to help them find and know love if their heart is still open and receptive to it

Blogger Rusty Fife October 06, 2016 12:53 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I don't think "Hey, I was just making a living" will be much of a defense if there are trials before the executions.

Laconians said "if".

Blogger Scott Birch October 06, 2016 12:55 PM  

In 1991, as Gulf War 1 was happening, an Iraqi Christian friend of mine went to live in America. He is so militant Christian and so MAGA all over his FB feed. Always brings a smile to my face. Who would know better than he?

Blogger Mountain Man October 06, 2016 12:57 PM  

"the more I would rate Churchianism as the most serious and potentially fatal problem facing the west "

Of course it is. Its only the Christian faith that gives humanity answers so it doesnt fully self destruct. Its also the only faith that gives enough of a sound framework so that the overthrow of a godless system doesn't end up going full retard.

During our fight for Independence the clergy took the brunt of the British hard. ! They were specifically targeted because the Sunday sermons they preached were used to implore and incite the colonists to throw off the shackles of their overlords. It was drilled into them that it was their Godly duty to do so.
There was a famous quote made by one of the preachers of that time ( name escapes me) who, when the men had run out of wadding during a firefight that erupted while a Sunday service was in session ,directed them to "give them the Psalter ".... The prayer books were then wadded up and used to continue pounding the Red Coats.

My prayer is that God raises up preachers for a time such as this.

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 12:58 PM  

@27 - no, it isn't. Neither does Olive Garden become a church because a couple of Christians like cheesy pasta. Christ is present to an unusual degree when 2 or 3 are gathered "in his name". But a) that requires some intentionality on the part of the believers, b) that isn't a sufficient definition of a church.

@ 24 - The ordinary passage is from Hebrews 10, commanding believers not to forsake assembling together. That, and the clear hierarchical assumption of the NT letters (installing elders and the like) imply that Christians are to belong to a community - cf. Jesus remark that "by this they shall know you, that you love each other." It's not, generally speaking, a definitional matter (do you stop being a Christian if you get marooned on a desert island?) so much as one of faith and morals: if you love Christ, why do you regard his bride with contempt?

I would hazard a guess that there's also just a bit of common-sense humility in there as well - if you find yourself on the interstate and everyone is driving in the wrong direction... well that's one hypothesis.

Blogger VD October 06, 2016 1:02 PM  

But, do you think the success of their people as a nation is the most important goal for a Christian individual to pursue?

I think it is as important as any other activity in which I have observed Christians engaging. I certainly think it is more important than fighting wars on poverty, drugs, or spreading democracy to the Middle East.

OpenID karmakelli2000 October 06, 2016 1:06 PM  

"Jesus saves souls. He doesn't save nations."

There you have it ... the reason Obama gets his Christian justification for welfare wrong, every single time. And reason #1364 why PBUH ain't no Christian.

Oh, and that "feckless" atheist is a dick. No thank you, brother, your sword's not needed in this fight.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2016 1:07 PM  

Without Nations, Christianity will not survive...

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 1:09 PM  

@38 - you're joking, right? We did okay without a nation for 400 years.

Blogger The Hammer October 06, 2016 1:10 PM  

@19. Just because one finds fault with the individualism and the free-for-all with regard to Church Government (ecclesiology) in Protestantism doesn't therefore mean one must accept the Catholic Church's authority or the Orthodox's.

Which brings up a thought. Any Ilk interested in forming churches that have Apostolic Succession and a more episcopal form of church government as opposed to congregational?

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 1:14 PM  

@ 40 - curious! Is it possible to appoint an apostolic successor? Doesn't that contradict itself?

Blogger Earl October 06, 2016 1:15 PM  

I've lived in a very secular progressive blue state, and in the bible belt. I have kids. I expect them to marry. I'd rather live in the bible belt with churchians.

Blogger The Hammer October 06, 2016 1:23 PM  

@41, you sound like you may not understand what I refer to by the phrase. Practically, it means we must find an already ordained priest (probably Anglican, which has a very conservative wing too) who is Alt-West. Then grow that church, then aggressively plant more churches. It's a long game then to see if we can reform the greater communion or if we need schism off.

Anonymous ZhukovG October 06, 2016 1:25 PM  

The Atheist may persecute your flesh; the churchian attempts to murder the soul.

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2016 1:31 PM  

O/T Twitter's brilliant strategy of harassing popular commentators working well.....http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-deep-twitters-share-slide-could-get-with-reported-loss-of-google-other-big-bidders-2016-10-06

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2016 1:33 PM  

" you're joking, right? We did okay without a nation for 400 years."

What 400 years were those?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan October 06, 2016 1:34 PM  

I generally concur with the agnostic subject of the thread, and I agree it is not my place to lecture Christians on their religion. Churchians don't count their religion is Political Correctness and that is evil

Blogger pyrrhus October 06, 2016 1:34 PM  

Middle eastern Christians haven't had a nation, or the protection of another nation, since the 1950s.....They are being exterminated as a result.

Anonymous fop October 06, 2016 1:36 PM  

Without Nations, Christianity will not survive...

Perhaps, but man’s sole “jabringing” object disfigure religion trauma and nubs.

Anonymous ZhukovG October 06, 2016 1:47 PM  

Nation-State - A geopolitical entity.

Nation - A people sharing a common Culture, Religion and Ethnicity.

A Nation may or may not possess their own Nation-State but that doesn't make them any less a Nation.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus October 06, 2016 1:48 PM  

This is great and all, but what exactly does he *mean* - specifically - when he throws these generalities around?

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2016 1:55 PM  

@46 You're joking, right? We did okay without a nation for 400 years."

Ideologies go through periods of enthusiasm. Islam is very plainly going into a period of renewed vigor. That is why the relative tolerance of a tax and submission no longer is good enough in those areas where Islam dominates. And if they ever do really beat the west of course they will go crazy. If nominal or real Christian nations are taken, their citizens can expect to be routinely treated with contempt. They can expect to pay a special tax. They can expect to not have personal safety. And they can expect that their females will be targets of opportunity whenever left unattended. Sex on the spot or kidnapping will be the choices. And hey, these will be the lucky ones, they will still be alive.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 2:11 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger darrenl October 06, 2016 2:19 PM  

"am a man living in Alabama who has never believed in Santa Clause or God"

/sigh

My kingdom for this category error to go the way of the dodo.

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 2:20 PM  

@50 - Christians in the early Church had a common religion. They did not share an ethnicity; clearly there were a lot of cultural differences as well, as we see from the New Testament. At some point I suppose you could regard the vast, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual late Roman empire as coming to constitute a nation to some degree - perhaps in the West, where Latin wasn't in such competition from Greek? But that certainly wasn't the case initially.

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2016 2:27 PM  

@55

The hundreds of years of Roman control did not eliminate the nationalities, apparently more based on language then biology. But it did produce common methods of behavior, and it left behind the Roman methods of administration. That, apparently, assisted in producing nation states among the different nationalities because that is what happened. The ex Roman areas consolidated first.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 2:27 PM  

YIH I just read that and thought it was excellent.

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 2:33 PM  

@56 - Right. So eventually you wind up with identifiable nations (e.g. the Franks) who have Christian as an element of their identity. Not really before that. The next question to pose would be: did identification with various national polities prove beneficial to the purity and peace of Christianity?

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett October 06, 2016 2:34 PM  

Even watered down, authentic Christianity can boil the modern world to rags.

Blogger Student in Blue October 06, 2016 2:43 PM  

@Rusty Fife
A weekly scheduled bread and wine post?

I was thinking more along the lines of spreading the concept and label of Churchianity to friends and family.

Anonymous europeasant October 06, 2016 2:43 PM  

Yes it seems a whole lotta people have forgotten that Christianity is not of this world. The socialist Gospel has got a stranglehold over white people. So much so that they give money for building water wells in Sub-Saharan Africa. I guess they don't know about the current and future demographics in that region.

Blogger hank.jim October 06, 2016 2:55 PM  

Imperfect Christians trump Atheists. I hesitate to question the genuine faith of Christians. If I had to pick, rabid Evangelical is better than Liberal Christians or Catholic.

Blogger guest October 06, 2016 3:00 PM  

Count me out. I've learned enough about atheists by arguing with them over the internet to know that they lie incessantly. I don't believe for one minute that the only argument for Christianity he has heard has been "soft rhetoric." He has heard evidence from fulfilled prophesy, evidence from the resurrection, evidence from molecular biologists, or I will eat my hat. His mode of operandi is to engage in intellectual dishonesty. "consensus of scientists" and "mass hallucination." and other balderdash. Atheists don't know basic biology or chemistry. That goes double of the I F------ Love Science" group.

America might go down in a blaze of glory, or it might go down with a fizzle. But atheist liars aren't going to prevent it. I lost track of the atheists who have told me that men can have boobs, and women can have penises.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 3:02 PM  

I just want to point this out. It's not necessarily churchians, or their church, that are making an effort to lead people, or souls, astray. It is, however, the Ruler of this world, the deceiver, Satan.

Blogger guest October 06, 2016 3:06 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Athor Pel October 06, 2016 3:08 PM  

"24. Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 12:31 PM
...
"Necessity for salvation ..." Would love to see the Scriptural foundation for this assertion.

I guess that means the apostles and everyone else prior to the 4th century are simply SOL? (cf. Hebrews 11)
"


I did a little research on the meaning of the word Nicolaitan a little while ago. It has roots in two other words. Nike and laity. In other words, victory over the laity, or authoritarian control of the laity.

Nicolaitans expelled folks from the church for merely bucking Nicolaitan authority rather than for sin. Another way to put it, Nicolaitans expelled folks for pointing out Nicolaitan sin.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 3:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nick S October 06, 2016 3:11 PM  

I see some of my young self in this headstrong Bamanite. He's not willing to fight and die for some amorphous set of subjective moral values. That would be stupid. Somehow, he knows, even if it's subconsciously, that it's the objective truths of Christianity, i.e. the values western civilization was founded on, that are worth fighting and dying for as so many before him have done.

I, for one, will welcome this misguided Bamanite, pray for him and endeavor to provide him an alternate example to the self-righteous socialist churchians claiming to be Christians that have clouded his perspective. If he hangs with us, I have faith he'll give God more consideration in the near future.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 3:14 PM  

@64 Greg C.

I just want to point this out. It's not necessarily churchians, or their church, that are making an effort to lead people, or souls, astray. It is, however, the Ruler of this world, the deceiver, Satan.

And yet that does in no way excuse those who have been taken captive to do the will of the Adversary. "The Devil made me do it" is not a defense.

“I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. (cf. Revelation 3)

Anonymous vfm 4117 October 06, 2016 3:14 PM  

@66 - the apostles had a church. They were the instruments of its establishment - and even Paul sought ordination from a congregation of believers before he started touring. To claim that early Christians behaved like individualistic moderns is quite false.

Anonymous RabidRatel October 06, 2016 3:16 PM  

@21
The most important thing to understand, and the part which I see most people get wrong, is that the most important thing that happened to Jesus Christ is the resurrection. Either you understand that His resurrection is a matter of historical fact and you believe in his promises to us from His Father, or you stand against God and His church.

This is what , to me, differentiate true believers from the rest of the world. This is also what led to me abandoning the church I grew up in at the age of 17. The churchians is all about the fable of a mystical Jesus, that never took a whip to the money-changers and sellers in the Temple. They never mention the war with evil we have in this world.

OT: it look as if we should start a virtual church within this group of commentators. However, we cannot hijack Vox's blog, so any alternative will be welcome - there is work for us amongst ourselves.

Anonymous JI October 06, 2016 3:16 PM  

As with most atheists I've encountered, the young man who wrote that to Vox is apparently having an adolescent temper tantrum against authority figures. But at least his moral compass points north.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 3:27 PM  

Cheers Mountain Man! May God raise up such men.

Anonymous RabidRatel October 06, 2016 3:31 PM  

Athor Pel wrote:
I did a little research on the meaning of the word Nicolaitan a little while ago. It has roots in two other words. Nike and laity. In other words, victory over the laity, or authoritarian control of the laity.

Nicolaitans expelled folks from the church for merely bucking Nicolaitan authority rather than for sin. Another way to put it, Nicolaitans expelled folks for pointing out Nicolaitan sin.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?



A lot of the original heresies that Peter and Paul wrote about, are now openly flaunted by churches. It should be a warning to each of us that we do not accept such heresies. This blog has made me more aware of the dangers than ever before. Churchians indeed!

To those that are currently searching for a place or church, remember the road to God is narrow and difficult, and Satan lies in wait around every turn. Our only hope and strength is God.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 3:32 PM  

There are those here who insist that so-called Churchians are not actually Christians. I'd like to know where you get the authority to say that? Do you know these men? Whatever follies they may practice or profess, most of them would confess that Christ died for their sins. Who are you to say otherwise?

Sure, "by their fruit you will know them." But at least going by the objections I see here, their "bad fruit" mostly consists of supporting idiotic social policies. It isn't as though Southern Baptists are going around denying the Incarnation. Indeed, many here seem much more keen to make common cause with those who actually do deny the Incarnation, and even God's very existence, simply because they get the social policy right.

So: my question is, what about the so-called Churchians would constitute grounds for excommunication? I would like to hear a case against them that a) doesn't require telepathy, b) includes actual sins, c) is heretical with respect to key doctrines.

Anonymous Rodger Dodger October 06, 2016 3:40 PM  

"For 28 years I have been preached to in a desperate attempt to save me from hell. The only thing I have seen is a legion of cowards using soft rhetoric to make their ideas more palatable to the ignorant fools who begin throwing their money at the Church. The people who beg me to follow their creed are mocked by children with the most rudimentary logic as they abandon the commands of their God and whore themselves to anyone who will pay them."

The factual existence of a deity is cannot be inferred from the frailties and foibles of theists.

I remain convinced from years of argument that atheists are far more persistent than any evangelist, they are more assured of their own rectitude and superiority and I remain convinced most are misotheists than atheists.



Blogger w yerkes October 06, 2016 3:42 PM  

The Alt- Right big tent has lots of WASPy atheists inside. My fellow travelers accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior does not bother me in the slightest. There will be plenty of time to argue about the formation of moral codes after our country is reclaimed from the invaders.

Blogger w yerkes October 06, 2016 3:43 PM  

The Alt- Right big tent has lots of WASPy atheists inside. My fellow travelers accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior does not bother me in the slightest. There will be plenty of time to argue about the formation of moral codes after our country is reclaimed from the invaders.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 3:44 PM  

@75 Joel Pastor

G-d knows who they are (and who are His), and they can only hide under a form of Godliness while denying its power for so long. The wheat will be separated from the tares.

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’. (cf. Matthew 7)

Anonymous RabidRatel October 06, 2016 3:47 PM  

Nick S wrote:I see some of my young self in this headstrong Bamanite. ...

I, for one, will welcome this misguided Bamanite, pray for him and endeavor to provide him an alternate example to the self-righteous socialist churchians claiming to be Christians that have clouded his perspective. If he hangs with us, I have faith he'll give God more consideration in the near future.


Nick, I had the same experience when I was young. You are so right in praying for him. We as a community need to look after him, and people like him. It is too easy to become permanently lost due to all the churchian heresies ( and that is what they are ). This is doubly true for the young men, because mere fables will never sate their hunger for the truth.

Anonymous #8601 October 06, 2016 3:50 PM  

@21 Christianity gave us the Enlightenment

No.

Blogger Nick S October 06, 2016 3:50 PM  

We make value judgements based on peoples' words and actions, Joel, just as our Father expects us to do. If you could narrow your enquiry to a specific case, it could probably shorten this exchange considerably.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 3:52 PM  

@79 - God knows, but that's not my question. You seem to be acting as if you already know which is which. What is your basis for making that assumption?

Anonymous RabidRatel October 06, 2016 3:56 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:T
So: my question is, what about the so-called Churchians would constitute grounds for excommunication? I would like to hear a case against them that a) doesn't require telepathy, b) includes actual sins, c) is heretical with respect to key doctrines.


https://voxday.blogspot.co.za/2016/08/mailvox-what-is-churchianity.html
Tl;dr - you may not be tall enough for this ride

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 3:57 PM  

Hezekiah GarrettOctober 06, 2016 2:34 PM
Even watered down, authentic Christianity can boil the modern world to rags.


The problem Hezekiah is that watered down Christianity cannot withstand the world. Hence the profound convergence of the Church today.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:00 PM  

@ 82 - I am actually not sure who is meant to be included in the term. I had the impression it was meant to apply to the evangelical denominations generally. But since the term "Churchian" appears to mean "someone who thinks unrestricted immigration is okay," which, if false, is hardly a damnable sentiment, it doesn't seem like an adequate standard for judgment.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 4:04 PM  

Joel Pastor in every Church I attend I find a deep and abiding hostility to Christ. That work for you?

Anonymous RabidRatel October 06, 2016 4:04 PM  

w yerkes wrote:The Alt- Right big tent has lots of WASPy atheists inside. My fellow travelers accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior does not bother me in the slightest. There will be plenty of time to argue about the formation of moral codes after our country is reclaimed from the invaders.

All that is needed now is a hate for the world as it is now, and the direction it is going in. All of us are red-pilled enough to realise that there is evil about, and it is destroying the world. Debating the causes of this evil can wait, battling it, not so much, as you said.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:12 PM  

I just want to point this out. It's not necessarily churchians, or their church, that are making an effort to lead people, or souls, astray. It is, however, the Ruler of this world, the deceiver, Satan.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 4:12 PM  

@83 Joel Pastor

You seem to be acting as if you already know which is which. What is your basis for making that assumption?

I am not sure why you are so bent out of shape about people highlighting observable characteristics of "Churchians".

My basis? Simple. Measuring their behavior and positions against Biblical principles. It has nothing to do with whether I think so-and-so is "saved" or whatever. That's G-d's business and I'll happily leave that to Him.

However, the Matthew 7 passage I referenced is quite relevant. So are countless other passages which describe the behavior of those whom we would do well to avoid.

At least I know what an open atheist is all about. It's the wolves masquerading as sheep pose an insidious danger against which we ought to be vigilant.

Anonymous Gene October 06, 2016 4:13 PM  

Hi Vox, I used to be a regular on your VoxDay blog about 10 years ago. I just typed a long comment hoping to convince you to scan through the book "The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences: Socialist Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" and I am afraid it vaporized. It exposes the Fabian Society antics going back hundreds of years yeilding us this "atheism" we have as a dialectic tool.

It's contents is such a smoking gun that it should be shouted from the housetops before the presidential election. It is worthy of a "Voxiversity" study. The text is posted here: https://archive.org/details/TheGreatDeceitSocialPseudo-sciencesSocialistWolvesInSheepsClothing

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:14 PM  

@87 - I am sorry to hear that. Sure, so-called Christians who hate Christ are right out. But I am curious: does this deep and abiding hostility come up in conversation, or are you inferring it from some other fact?

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:22 PM  

One great example is the churchians worship of Jezebel/Feminism, which teaches the false gospel of egalitarian marriage. In addition to that, there is the false teaching of divorce and remarriage.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:24 PM  

I am not bent out of shape. I am asking a question. And my question is, what is the principle on the basis of which you feel justified in declaring someone a Churchian? "You know, Biblical stuff" is not much of an answer - we all, at various moments, violate the Bible in our thoughts and actions. Let me give you an example of what I am trying to find out.

I don't have any difficulty with the view that Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christians. They deny Christ's divinity. I don't have to read their minds to arrive at this information, just talk with one or read some of their literature. And the issue is important - it's not like a question over eschatology. You can't have Christianity if Christ isn't God.

What's the key element, in your mind? Is it simply a matter of emphasis? "This church spends a lot more time on overseas charity than evangelism?" Or is there some particular doctrine a Churchian would openly reject?

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:27 PM  

@93 - see, that's my point. That's an unbiblical viewpoint, clearly, and you should prefer to be in a church where the elders teach accurately. But being wrong about something biblical is not the same as being apostate. That's what I'm taking issue with.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 4:30 PM  

vfm 4117October 06, 2016 3:14 PM
@66 - the apostles had a church. They were the instruments of its establishment - and even Paul sought ordination from a congregation of believers before he started touring. To claim that early Christians behaved like individualistic moderns is quite false.


I'm reasonably confident Scripture says the exact opposite but by all means make your case.

Blogger Nick S October 06, 2016 4:31 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:@ 82 - I am actually not sure who is meant to be included in the term. I had the impression it was meant to apply to the evangelical denominations generally. But since the term "Churchian" appears to mean "someone who thinks unrestricted immigration is okay," which, if false, is hardly a damnable sentiment, it doesn't seem like an adequate standard for judgment.

This has become such a big subject, it's hard to define it in a sentence or two, but I'll try. Churchians are more concerned with appearances and the in-group status acquired through posturing rather than making any substantive personal sacrifices and actually walking the walk. You know these people.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:31 PM  

A churchian openly accepts Feminism.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:34 PM  

A churchian openly accepts divorce and remarriage.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 4:34 PM  

Joel PastorOctober 06, 2016 4:14 PM
@87 - I am sorry to hear that. Sure, so-called Christians who hate Christ are right out. But I am curious: does this deep and abiding hostility come up in conversation, or are you inferring it from some other fact?


Um, sure Joel it happens every single time I prefer Scripture over the narrative. You should try it sometime you might find it instructive.

Also I'm not saying there are no believers at these dead Churches but that the organizations have become converged and those who love Christ should come out of them.

Blogger szopen October 06, 2016 4:34 PM  

The funny thing: I don't like a lot of content here on vd and I have constant urge to write "no, you are wrong" directed both at most of the commenters and the VD himself. Yet, I have a feeling that I'd rather disagree with you guys here that agree with other, more "enligthened" people. It's like a tribal feeling of belonging I do not feel when I discuss with a lot of my more liberal friends.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:35 PM  

Did I say Feminism yet?

Blogger Matt Davis October 06, 2016 4:41 PM  

As the atheist who wrote that email, let me first thank those who understand that my way of life is in just as much danger as your own.

Please allow this adolescent atheist dick to suggest that impotent insults do more to tarnish the image of the alt-right than the typical neck bearded justice warrior. It's not that bad being a dick and these comments seem to indicate we could probably use a few more.

"'am a man living in Alabama who has never believed in Santa Clause or God'"

/sigh

My kingdom for this category error to go the way of the dodo."

Ironic that you will have your wish if your kingdom goes the way of the dodo and there is no one left capable of defining this fallacy. Perhaps consider saving your substantial intelligence to mock someone who isn't on your side.

I'm sure that the idea of an atheist who shares the same values and is willing to fight for them triggers some people. My unsaved Grandfather lied to get on a ship in the Pacific at 16. He became a minister after the war and remained one for 70 years until his death. Picture yourself telling this man he was an "atheist liar" bringing down America. The kindness he would show you isn't common today.

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 4:41 PM  

Joel can you tell when the Spirit of God has left a Church? Because at its corecthat is what we're talking about. Also you might want to read the letters to the Churches in Revelations. Lots of relevance to this conversation.

Blogger Bruce Lee October 06, 2016 4:47 PM  

@John Collinson
The Reformers understood the concept of the church correctly. The Invisible Church is the true church
consisting of all believers of all ages elected in eternity to salvation by God. Rome claims to be the
"sole authorized distributor" of grace, but all her claims to apostolic lineage have been proven to be
spurious, and neither she, nor any other church, have actual control over the number and the gathering of
the Elect. Membership in the Invisible Church is the sole prerogative of the Sovereign Triune God. The
Invisible Church is not broken into a thousand pieces. It is spiritually single and united in Christ.

The true understanding of salvation is Augustinian. Rome, and most contemporary mainline Protestants, are
Pelagian to varying degrees.

"Churchianity" is one result of unregenerate tares being brought into the visible church, leading to
declension and apostasy. It manifests itself in active and passive socialism, which is the secular analog of
Pelagianism. Both churchianity and Pelagianism stand for an equality and fairness that is neither realistic
nor Biblical. The world is not "equal" or "fair". Not all peoples, race, tribes, etc., are the same. God
does not love, nor is He gracious to all people! Possibly the greatest danger to the souls of men is the
belief that providential gifts are a sign of God's love. Not so—He loves and gives grace only those that He
sovereignly elected to salvation in the only true and worthy object of His love, His only begotten Son Jesus
Christ.

The struggle of Man to establish his own idea of equality and fairness goes back all the way to the Fall,
and is rising to a climax. We fight evil by earthly and spiritual means, but the ultimate victory is in the
spiritual realm. The Invisible Church is guaranteed victory because Christ has overcome the world.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:48 PM  

@96 - I am thinking about Acts 13, when Paul and Barnabas are worshiping in Antioch. I don't suppose you object to me saying that there were churches in the NT (e.g. at Galatia, Colossae, Phillipi, Crete...)?

@97 - so it means a hypocrite. The hypocrite I know best is myself. As for everyone else - well, how am I judge?

@98 - yet I know people who say they accept feminism, and also say that Jesus died to save them from their sins. Does the one statement exclude the other?

General: is the big idea that a Churchian basically means a Marxist Christian, and that there are a bunch of leftist tendencies (feminism, multiculturalism) that serve as warning signs? So whereas one is insufficient, enough together is grounds for deep suspicion?

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 4:50 PM  

For example, Revelation 2:20

Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 06, 2016 4:50 PM  

Stickwick wrote:I find the amount of contempt phony Christians elicit from atheists to be very interesting. Nobody cares much if Jews, Muslims, or Hindus do things that are contradictory to what their religions teach, but boy do they get incensed when Christians fail to live up to Christian values, even though atheists claim to reject the basis for them.
How many atheists in your sample?  How many who weren't raised among and even by soi-disant Christians?

To me, this strongly points to the universal truth of Christianity, written on the hearts of men.
It strongly points to the truth that the people with the deepest contempt for a particular strain of hypocrisy are those with the greatest familiarity with it.

Johnny wrote:One way out of the nonsense (for now?) is to use DuckDuckGo as a search engine.
I have found both DuckDuckGo and ixquick lacking results from my searches that I knew were there and was specifically looking for.  Using Bing or Google directly brought them up.  Whether this is the fault of the aggregators or the majors tweaking results to wrong-foot them, they are unreliable.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 06, 2016 4:53 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:There are those here who insist that so-called Churchians are not actually Christians. I'd like to know where you get the authority to say that?

If they consistently say the right thing (divine nature of Christ, salvation by faith alone and so on), but consistently do the wrong thing (supporting feminism, supporting adultery, importing mohammedan murders and so on), should we believe their words or their actions? For example, a Christian church is going to shun a woman who divorces her husband. A Churchian church is going to celebrate her single-motherhood.

Authority? We are told to shun those who will not accept correction. God knows what their relationship with Him is, and I don't, but I can see that their walk is not with God. I have no authority to damn churchians, but I have the responsibility to shame and shun them.

Deliberately misunderstanding ``Judge not, lest ye be judged'' is a classic liberal/churchian ploy.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 4:55 PM  

@104 - your snarky responses notwithstanding, I expect you know that Revelation was written by an apostle, who saw a vision of Christ announcing the invisible (or at least not readily apparent) spiritual conditions of his various addressees. How do you propose to employ this method of discernment yourself?

For myself, I can tell if a church preaches the gospel or heresy. I can tell if it seems to embody love of the brethren. I do not know how to discern the Spirit of God apart from these elements.

Blogger Roger Hill October 06, 2016 4:59 PM  

"In such matters, God appears to be most inclined to help those who follow His laws and help themselves."

That is just sound theology... or, perhaps Vox would prefer I say, "That is just a deduction from an accurate view of human history." And if that is putting words in his mouth, my sincere apology. But I think he would agree.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 5:03 PM  

@109 - importing mohammedan murderers is not a moral failure. It's bad policy, it's foolish, but it isn't a sin. It's important to distinguish one from the other. As to celebrating adultery - well, I'm with you, there. A church that conspicuously rejects Scripture is probably not doing well.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 5:04 PM  

@106 Joel Pastor

Churchians are willing to tolerate what G-d and His Word will not abide and preach the Gospel of "Let's go along to get along" to varying degrees. They are concerned with being loved and praised by all men and are often willing to compromise the hard truths of the Scriptures in order to achieve this end, again to varying degrees.

Some you recognize immediately, while others may take years to recognize, and still others will be sorted at the end of the age. They are fooling no one but themselves and certainly not the Master of the universe.

The "who-am-I-to-judge" line is a lame excuse, and as a pastor (as your handle may imply), I would think you would know better.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? (cf. I Corinthians 6)

Funny. The more you post, the more Churchian you sound.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 06, 2016 5:05 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:. That's an unbiblical viewpoint, clearly, and you should prefer to be in a church where the elders teach accurately. But being wrong about something biblical is not the same as being apostate.

How deliberately wrong can you be without becoming apostate? If you truely love Jesus, are you going to consistently look for ways to undermine His message? Can you preach that no-fault divorce isn't sin? Jesus said that divorce is wrong, period, and that Moses' law on divorce was to minimize the harm that the hard-hearted, sinful Israelites would do when they divorced against God's will.

Hypocrisy isn't a sin: it's a result of sin. Repentance is our optimal response to our sin, hypocrisy is a worse response, calling our sin good is the worst possible response, even though it is not hypocritical.

Blogger Student in Blue October 06, 2016 5:17 PM  

@Joel Pastor
importing mohammedan murderers is not a moral failure. It's bad policy, it's foolish, but it isn't a sin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't enabling someone in their sin, also a sin?

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 5:17 PM  

@113 - Then I suppose this is a useful and informative experience for everyone. I disagree that being unwilling to apply the label "hypocrite" to a mass of people I don't know is an excuse. I'd call it a recognition of the difference between things I know, and things I don't know. Sure, there are some obvious examples we could think of, like the pastor who's also a committed adulterer. But many of the attitudes that are being pressed into service as evidence for the imputed hypocrisy in these cases are not themselves sinful.

I am not objecting to the existence of Churchians. I am trying to gauge how widespread everyone here thinks the problem is.

@114 - deliberately being wrong is a problem, of course. But you're trying to be clever - most people aren't wrong deliberately. Divorce-wise, Jesus includes an exception for unchastity, and the historic church has followed his practice.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 5:20 PM  

No. Everyone stands alone before God. Sin is a matter of the will - if you don't will the sin, you aren't guilty for it.

There's a line, of course, where gross negligence could perhaps become sinful - like reckless driving. I'd be open to an argument like that, although I'd want to see some definition.

Blogger Rabbi B October 06, 2016 5:22 PM  

I am trying to gauge how widespread everyone here thinks the problem is.

More widespread than anyone here or anywhere else could ever possibly imagine. Narrow and cramped is the way, and few find it.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 5:24 PM  

And yet the seed of Abraham shall be numbered as the stars of heaven.

Blogger Sean Carnegie October 06, 2016 5:26 PM  

Can we please stop using the hot and cold reference of Colossae? To say that Christ is pro-cold Christians flies in the face of everything He said. Lukewarm was the mixture of the cold water and the hot springs.

As a former atheist who also mocked Churchianity before answering His call, the Falsepel of Charismatics, Red Letters and the Church of No God are not helping.

Blogger Student in Blue October 06, 2016 5:48 PM  

@Joel Pastor
No. Everyone stands alone before God. Sin is a matter of the will - if you don't will the sin, you aren't guilty for it.

That doesn't jive with what I've been taught, and a quick search on what the Bible says on enabling sin says essentially "don't do it". Nothing about "well I didn't intend to do it".

And by definition, sin is going against God's commands.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/enabling

Blogger Escoffier October 06, 2016 6:01 PM  

Joel I'm having a hard time believing you are arguing in good faith. You asked how big this problem is? Here's my answer if I led someone to Christ I would be unable to suggest to them a Church that I think is not utterly converged and simply not in the Jesus business anymore, if they ever were in the first place.

And I'd the snark comment was directed at me you are mistaken.

Blogger Sean Carnegie October 06, 2016 6:04 PM  

It's pretty clear someone's never read Romans before if he thinks sin isn't willful.

Blogger Nick S October 06, 2016 6:06 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:No. Everyone stands alone before God. Sin is a matter of the will - if you don't will the sin, you aren't guilty for it.

So nobody has a personal responsibility to keep themselves from being led astray by false teachers and perpetuating false teachings?

Blogger Andrew Taylor October 06, 2016 6:32 PM  

@pyrrhus
The first 400 years.

Blogger Greg C. October 06, 2016 6:33 PM  

Nick S. You have it right. One of the main problems churchians have, is not reading the Bible for themselves. Too many, are relying on all the "spiritual type books" out there in the world, rather than the actual word of God.

Blogger Johnny October 06, 2016 6:44 PM  

@108 I have taken to hopping back and forth between Google and DuckDuckGo. If one does not produce when I think it should I go to the other. Plus Google is PC correct and I dislike feeding them clicks.

Anonymous Altways Right October 06, 2016 6:49 PM  

"Atheists didnt get enough love in their life."

Actually Christians don't have any insight into what love is or means.

Wait! Does that sound unfounded and without evidence to support it?

Blogger Chiva October 06, 2016 6:49 PM  

The hypocrite I know best is myself. As for everyone else - well, how am I judge?

The scriptures and prayer.

1 Corinthians 5:12-13

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd October 06, 2016 6:55 PM  

@115: "But you're trying to be clever - most people aren't wrong deliberately."

No one admits to being wrong deliberately. Some few are consciously, deliberately wrong. I suspect that many deliberately don't think too deeply so they don't have to be conscious they are wrong. A great many have wrong ideas they cling to desperately despite all evidence to the contrary.

When does being wrong become deliberate? God knows, and I don't have to. I just have to call it out when I see it, and shun and shame those who won't accept correction.

Blogger Lazarus October 06, 2016 9:11 PM  

Joel Pastor wrote:No. Everyone stands alone before God. Sin is a matter of the will - if you don't will the sin, you aren't guilty for it.

1 Cor. 15
21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Original sin, Mr. Pastor. You should read your Bible. You are denying the power of the crucifixion and resurrection.

Are your sheep's robes a little tight?

Blogger Mark Butterworth October 06, 2016 9:53 PM  

Churchianity is bad, but you have to have something better if you want to replace it. What do others have in mind? A better religion, better doctrines, better adherence, better ministers, better scripture? Remember, people are mostly average at everything they do and think.

I insist the religion of the Faith needs reform, but that will never quite suffice.

Vox mentions, “the Churchians who sell out their neighbors for worldly approbation in the name of a counterfeit Gospel”

But aren’t there many counterfeit Gospels preached and practiced through two millennia? Am I or Vox certain mine or his isn’t a counterfeit?

Vox faults the atheist in how he characterizes “Christian theology on our behalf.” But even Mere Christianity couldn’t and doesn’t really ameliorate the hundreds of sects (denominations), each with its own brand of orthodoxy and theology.

So, it seems we’re at an impasse of sorts. We can’t go back to a former kind of Church, and we can’t go forward without some kind of fundamental transformation (revelation, insight), and even then, will enough average people fall in line, adopt it, for it to be effective?

People under attack harden their defenses, but we’ve seen those defenses have been overwhelmed. People on the ascendant tend to absorb as they conquer, which the Church once did in transferring pagan rites into Christian symbols or analogs.

But now we have a Christianity that can’t defend itself, and is being absorbed into a secular state globalist religion that is on the brink of financial ruin and chaos. Western people will be forced to re-organize around basic survival principles that always include some kind of Cult, Christian most likely (it’s what we know, are more at home with).

The fall back position for average people is that which comforts the most, and sacramental religion has an advantage in that regard. It feels more numinous, mystical, and communal to the participant. But if most leaders are like Richard Spencer, dismissive and hostile to faith, or like Trump, insincere, nominal, or opportunistic about it, they won’t connect with those they wish to lead.

Who knows how it will all fall out? I’ll be dead, and have the comfort of my religion in any event. For young people, fear, anxiety, terror, and discombobulation will be their lot, I suppose. Heaven help them.

Blogger Joel Pastor October 06, 2016 10:07 PM  

@121 - What do you mean by "enabling sin"? Perhaps I misunderstand you. What do you mean by "enabling"? I supposed you meant "not stopping someone else from sinning". At any rate, the passages you cite are not addressing unintended consequences. Sin means disobeying God’s commands, and God’s commands are “love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor”. I submit you can be mistaken about a lot of things and still fulfill those.

@122 – The bit about snark was directed your way. I apologize for misconstruing your comment. I’ve lived in four states in various parts of the country and that hasn’t been my experience. There are flawed churches, certainly, many are poorly led and poorly taught. There is also, in most of them, a reasonable core of good people who love the Lord and who are a good deal holier than I am. I don’t know where you live, so don’t take this as a dismissal of your experiences. It isn’t meant that way. But I do wonder if your dislike for the particular strain of folly to which our age is given leads you to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

@124 - getting tricked is not immoral, which is why Adam is condemned, not Eve. At the same time, God did give us brains, and I expect he meant for us to use them. So perhaps there is some culpability on the part of the sheep who is led astray. But the bulk of the responsibility is clear, I think, from the metaphor.

@129 - those verses are talking about the process of excommunication. It requires flagrant and unrepentant sin, and a judicial process within the church. If those conditions are met, I'm totally on board with you.

@130 –“I just have to call it out when I see it.” Do you mean call out false doctrine, or call out deliberate mistakes? I’ve no objection to telling people they are wrong. But if you take it upon yourself to read their minds and condemn them on that basis, you will have left the path of charity and good sense.

@131 – Madonna santa! I’m not even Catholic, and you’ve got me swearing like a papist. Yes, absolutely: to say that sin is located in the will is to deny the resurrection and original sin. But you left a few out. Why not say that I reject the Incarnation and the Trinity, while you’re at it?

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 06, 2016 11:21 PM  

guest wrote:Atheists don't know basic biology or chemistry.
I smell a YECreatonut.

I lost track of the atheists who have told me that men can have boobs, and women can have penises.
Those are tenets of the left-cult, True Believers in the latest nonsense pronouncement.  Buddhists are atheist, more or less.  They don't believe that crap, and neither do I.

Real atheists are skeptics.  You recognize them by their question, "how do you know that?"  Revelation isn't evidence.  Mathematicians have revelations, but until they get everything on paper and checked it isn't accepted as proven.  Look how long it took to prove Fermat's Last Theorem.

As for re-uniting Christianity's myriad of sects... good luck.  You can't even get people to look at solid, scientific evidence which disproves some bit of doctrine.  How are you going to get them to throw away all their particularisms with just hand-waving?

Blogger Aeoli Pera October 07, 2016 12:14 AM  

I have very little respect for the intellects of atheists, but I can respect virtue and balls.

Blogger Technomad October 07, 2016 1:56 AM  

Personally, I'd be a lot less hostile to churches if they quit wanting to mind my business for me. Living up to all their rhetoric about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked would also help a lot.

I am no fan of the nationalist movement that seems to have crowded out worship of God among a lot of Jews, but at least they don't try to prevent me eating non-kosher food. And while I think the Amish are very silly in a lot of ways, they don't lift a finger to stop me using technology.

Blogger M Cephas October 07, 2016 2:37 AM  

The beginning sounded like the usual uninformed atheist who makes a comparison to Santa Claus as if the two are in a similar league.

But he ended well enough.

Anonymous SciVo October 07, 2016 4:17 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:As for re-uniting Christianity's myriad of sects... good luck.  You can't even get people to look at solid, scientific evidence which disproves some bit of doctrine.  How are you going to get them to throw away all their particularisms with just hand-waving?

Once they all realize it's Christians against non: compliment in public and criticize in private, or you're a social retard. (Also put white buns in a white oven and shoot left, or you're a cuck.)

Anonymous SciVo October 07, 2016 4:29 AM  

Expect of course the so-called Christians that favor non, because they're not just in the world but of the world and getting paid (for "resettlement"). Criticize the stuffing out of them.

Anonymous SciVo October 07, 2016 4:46 AM  

Student in Blue wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't enabling someone in their sin, also a sin?

Yes. That is common sense, for the same reason that being an accomplice to a crime is also a crime. Even SJWs admit that it is wrong to be a rape apologist. (While importing hostile leeches from actual rape cultures. Their actions show they disbelieve it.)

Anonymous SciVo October 07, 2016 5:03 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:When does being wrong become deliberate? God knows, and I don't have to. I just have to call it out when I see it, and shun and shame those who won't accept correction.

Exactly. Is it the transnational managerial class and its insular cultural norms? Or is it the Equal Sign cult and its sadistic punishments of violations of its precepts and creeds?

Who knows and who cares? I'm not Miss Cleo, and I won't pay a psychic hotline to tell me which is which. They overlap anyway.

Anonymous JAG October 07, 2016 5:44 AM  

Buddhists are not atheists. Leftists applied that term to Buddhists in the past as part of one of their previous attempts to destroy Christianity.

Buddhists do believe in deities, they just don't view them as a path to Nirvana. To Buddhists, deities are stuck in the world of desire every bit as much as mortals. Deities have even less of a chance of reaching Nirvana according to certain Buddhist sub philosophies.

Note - by "deities" I am referring to the Vedic and later Hindu deities. Buddhism is a spin off of Hinduism which itself spun off from Vedic philosophy.

Unfortunately for Buddhism it has some very troubling contradictions in its philosophy and both are based upon desire.

Desire is according to Buddhism what keeps us locked in the world of suffering. The world of suffering is not limited to the physical cosmos, but also includes various heavens, hells, and limbos as they were known to Hinduism and the earlier Vedism. The elimination of desire is the only way to Buddhist Nirvana.

But, there is a serious flaw here. By it's own definitions the Buddha himself was guilty of two desires that were never resolved. The first is the desire for Nirvana itself. The second is the Buddha's desire to stay and help the rest of humankind. The desire to reach a state of no desire is a contradiction that cannot be solved even with appeals to koans.

Side note - lol, Mr "Rational" is triggered again. His religion of scientism cannot tolerate heretics.

Blogger Bruce Lee October 07, 2016 7:25 AM  

Student in Blue wrote:@Joel Pastor

importing mohammedan murderers is not a moral failure. It's bad policy, it's foolish, but it isn't a sin.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't enabling someone in their sin, also a sin?


Christian support for Muslim immigration is a sin.

In the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God, "Of Publick Prayer before the Sermon, " it is recommended

... To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the TURK (emphasis mine); for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches,...

Calvin, Zwingli and Cromwell would not have regarded kindly the immigration of Muslims ("Turks"), whose religion is bound to Sharia which claims supremacy over all other systems of law (including of course the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United Kingdom, and the constitutional documents of other free republics).

To do so would be seditious to the State and injurious to the church, and is thus a violation of the First and the Second Greatest Commandment. How is this not a sin, and not exceedingly foolish and wicked? Let us not forget that that there are sins of omission and commision, and sins that we commit unwittingly (Lev. 5:15).

"Churchianity" is anti-Christian in its very being. It is forged in the depths of Hell, and consumes all who practice and support it.

Blogger Nick S October 07, 2016 10:56 AM  

Joel Pastor wrote:@124 - getting tricked is not immoral, which is why Adam is condemned, not Eve. At the same time, God did give us brains, and I expect he meant for us to use them. So perhaps there is some culpability on the part of the sheep who is led astray. But the bulk of the responsibility is clear, I think, from the metaphor.

Like I said in the beginning, this has become a very large subject and much has been researched, studied and written about it. Vox gives it some attention in Chapter 9 of Cuckservative: How "Conservatives" Betrayed America, but we're not simply talking about hypocrites and useful idiots. We are also talking about counterfeit Christians infiltrating the churches with agendas. There is a plethora of documentation regarding this and I would encourage you to seek it out. Here's a short anecdotal primer

Blogger Nick S October 07, 2016 11:03 AM  

BTW, if you want to really dig into researching the matter, Walter Rauschenbusch might be a good place to start.

Blogger Nick S October 07, 2016 11:16 AM  

From Infogalactic:

"Rauschenbusch also devoted considerable effort to explicating the problem of evil, which he saw embodied not in individuals, but in "suprapersonal entities", which were socio-economic and political institutions. He found four major loci of suprapersonal evil: militarism, individualism, capitalism and nationalism. To these he juxtaposed four institutional embodiments of good: pacifism, collectivism, socialism and internationalism."

There's the crux of the problem.

Anonymous Anonymous October 07, 2016 11:31 AM  

I'm a libertarian and I disagree with Vox when it comes to economic issues but I'm also a nationalist so I love this site. I have been in church my entire life and my southern Baptist church in Kentucky has not fell to Churchianism, but the Southern Baptist Convention has. If you are a real Christian and not a false prophet I would advise you to listen to pastors like Paul Washer and David Platt. No, accept Jesus Christ to your heart message (which is never uttered in the Bible ever) and walk down the aisle and you will be saved. Real meaningful Christianity.

Blogger Can't wait October 07, 2016 6:56 PM  

The one thing I would address in this atheist's position is his statement, "The people who beg me to follow their creed are mocked by children with the most rudimentary logic as they abandon the commands of their God and whore themselves to anyone who will pay them." Note God doesn't beg, man does...beware!

Anonymous 1337 October 07, 2016 9:33 PM  

The world will continue to have nonbelievers on it because men love sin. Blaming the church is Lolllzzzzyyy for this.

Of course we work with them to save the nations.

Anonymous Joel Pastor October 07, 2016 9:41 PM  

@Nick - thanks for your comments. I was a bit dissatisfied with the amount of detail in Cuckservative - it's fine to say define Churchians as those bad guys corrupting the church, but the sticking point comes when you have to name names. I'll read some of those links you suggest.

@140 - being an accomplice to a crime is not the same as "not stopping someone from sinning." You can't be a real accomplice accidentally.

@143 - your argument is ridiculous. First off, if you want to label something a sin, you need Scriptural warrant. Not Calvin, God rest his soul, not Augustine, but Scripture. Or, (as your Westminster would agree) you need an action covered under some Scriptural warrant. It must be tied by good and necessary consequence. This cannot be opinion - it has to be a necessary, non-contingent relationship. If the Bible forbids stealing, then we can also say it's wrong to steal bicycles. That's an example of a solid argument of htis kind. Your argument is otherwise. It seems to go like this:

P1 - muslims hold their religious law above human laws
P2 - that is sedition
P3 - the Greatest Commandment (Love the Lord your God with heart soul mind and strength) forbids sedition. Or Muslims, possibly? Not how that ties in.
P4 - the Second Greatest Commandment forbids sedition. That one might be accurate - at least is not obviously false, although hardly a necessary implication. Sedition is a broad category of behavior.
P5 - violating the commandments is sinful.
C - permitting muslims to move here is sinful.

Premise 1 applies to every religion worthy of the name. Premise 2 is false. Premise 3 is... tangential. Premise 4 could be accurate, but it begs the question in this case. Premise 5 is in good shape.

I've been drinking, so I'll give it a D for effort...

Blogger Nick S October 08, 2016 10:29 AM  

When Your done with those, you might also want to research Washington Gladden and Social Gospel.

This didn't start out as an intrinsically evil movement. These people, over the last century or so, for the most part, believe they are right, but the Adversary knows how to tempt with twisted logic and perverted gospel better than anyone. It's kind of his thing. And he has his own who are strategically and intentionally trying to subvert Christianity and it's followers.

This is bigger than the pharisaical hypocrites browbeating and essentially hardening the hearts of people like Matt Davis. It's about Lesbian pastors, et al, pretending to represent the true faith as they deride the concept of a slippery slope while influencing the vulnerable with supposed teachings that are clearly contrary to God's biblical precepts.

However well intentioned this so called social gospel may have started out as, it has been hijacked and perverted by our adversary and people are falling for it en masse.

Blogger Bruce Lee October 08, 2016 8:40 PM  

@149

Sedition is of course against the state, not the church.

A lawful government must be obeyed and supported by Christians.
Therefore Muslim sedition (as built into Sharia, which is confessed by Muslim immigrants) must not be aided and abetted by Christians. To do so is disobeying God and not loving him, a violation of the Greatest Commandment.

Sharia imposes tyranny and violence over liberty- and peace-loving people. To aid and abet the immigration of supporters of Sharia (a.k.a. Muslims) is to promote evil against one's countrymen (neighbors) and therefore is a violation of the Second Greatest Commandment.

Any violation of the commandments is sin.

Please―it is not hard to connect the dots by good and necessary consequence. You could have done it yourself!

It takes no stretch of the imagination to believe that Calvin, Zwingli and Cromwell would have considered supporting Muslim immigration to be a grievous sin.

The reason that I picked these men as examples is because they were men of principle and action. The first provided the intellectual foundation for the work that Luther began, and lived an austere life in service of God. The other two bore arms as Christians. Most modern Christians, crippled by the foolish notion that God "loves" all men, are neutralized in their witness for their faith.

Consistently Reformed Christians cannot deny that supporting Muslim immigration is a sin. In fact, no Christian who understands the basics of his faith can deny it. It is almost self-evident.

The Reformed Faith is a confessional faith. Her Confession is a subordinate standard (subordinate to Scripture) but nevertheless a binding one that defines her physical communion, similar to how a constitution defines a republic. The classic attack against a confessional church is to drive a wedge between her subordinate and primary standards in order to discredit the basis of her physical institution―the "divide and conquer" strategy that you are using. The irony is that Christians who claim to have no creed but the Bible have no real basis for their physical communion; like a democracy that is effectively the rule of the mob (in contrast to a constitutional republic), they cannot weather the hostility of the world and the malice of Satan, and their churches are typically short-lived.

And they often cannot even discern the manifest sinfulness of supporting Muslim immigration.



Blogger Nick S October 08, 2016 10:13 PM  

Lastly, I would recommend reading Norwegian, Berit Kjos. She has gotten hammered by proponents of the modern social gospel, but I've been reading her for years and her research is on solid ground. I have a habit of corroborating links and footnotes. It's time consuming, but necessary and worth it. She's right. They're wrong.

We need some Vox Popoli forums to continue hashing out topics that are about to scroll off the main page.

Blogger Nick S October 08, 2016 10:24 PM  

And finally (Really, this time.), Biblical vs. Cultural Christianity

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts