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

Wednesday, November 02, 2016

What is wrong with America?

According to the Men of the West, that is the wrong question for most of us:
Once our homes were changed, it was only a matter of time before everything changed.  But if you think this is a defeatist message, you are mistaken.  No.  It could not be less so.  Because as we look at all the problems of America and we ask ourselves, “What can I do?”  I want you to know that you can save it all.  You can fix it.  All of it.   Because you and I are what is wrong with America.   Our homes are what is wrong.

Now… you can’t fix the federal government.  You can’t fix the crime rates.   You can’t fix the school system or the justice system.  You can’t fix any of that.  That isn’t under your control.

But your home is under your control.  You can fix your home.   And if you fix your home, and I fix my home, then all of these other problems?  They fix themselves.

The battle is right in front of you.  The war for civilization is your family.

Do not ask what is wrong with America.

Ask what is wrong with your home.
Or to put it another way, the journey of a thousand leagues starts with a single step. Don't worry about the destination for now. Take the first step.

And I have to admit, while I have contemplated the decline of the West from an architectural perspective - I utterly loathe all glass, steel, and box design - I've never once thought about it with regards to the single-family home.

In any event, before you can make America great again, you have to make yourself great again. I'm told Mike Cernovich has a few thoughts on how to go about doing that.

The Men of the West also identify what is wrong with most modern Christianity:
It is interesting and somewhat amusing to me that a vast majority of so-called Christians miss the most fundamental aspect of Christianity. And when you tell them what that is, many of them go off on indignant rants or flat out refuse to “believe” it.

They will sooner accuse you of lying or being wrong than bother to verify this simple fact, which takes ten seconds on google or using any Bible you may have at hand.

And what is this fundamental fact that is so shocking to these faux Christians? Simply this:

This planet, and in my opinion the entirety of what we refer to as the material, physical universe, falls under the domain of the Prince of the Air. The Father of Lies. The Prince of Darkness. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden. The Enemy. The Eternal Psychopath. First of the fallen Angels. Satan. Lucifer. Take your pick, after all, his names are Legion.
They are absolutely correct. There is no Problem of Evil with regards to Christianity. Quite the opposite, actually. Christianity is the explicit answer to the philosophical Problem of Evil. And there is no other religious or philosophical or scientific answer that even begins to address it as coherently, or as completely, as Christianity.

That, of course, is why the rational atheist, or indeed, any other logically consistent thinker who is not a Christian, has to deny that evil exists.

Labels: ,

94 Comments:

Blogger Son of Issachar November 02, 2016 4:13 PM  

Complicating this, however, is the fact that the good guys aren't having as many children today. Each can restore and control his own home, but the orcs are outbreeding us too.

Something to remind our children: having many children is a good thing.

Anonymous kfg November 02, 2016 4:19 PM  

" . . . what is wrong with your home."

The government levies and codes. Otherwise, no problem.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 4:20 PM  

This is what I find so entertainingly paradoxical about Progressivism. Its roots are in Christianity, yet it seeks to eliminate evil from the mankind using kingdoms of Man to do it.

Did not Satan offer Jesus any or all of the kingdoms of man as temptation? Yet to broach this with most people today is tantamount to claiming the Earth is flat.

Like children, they want what they want, and they want it NOW! Not in the next life, NOW!!

True believers would have nothing, not one thing, to do with politics. Instead of being focused on everything BUT their own salvation, they preen and virtue-signal on how hard they're saving others (like it or not.)

Anonymous Sam the Man November 02, 2016 4:23 PM  

VD

That, of course, is why the rational atheist, or indeed, any other logically consistent thinker who is not a Christian, has to deny that evil exists.

I do not get that. Muslims and Jews believe in evil. Is it because, to some extent both Muslims and Jews sort of believe in the perfectibility of this temporal space that we live in? Not trying to put words into your mouth, I just do not get the last line completely and am trying to avoid jumping to a incorrect association.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 02, 2016 4:26 PM  

Being focused on this life, I am not a practicing Christian. Content to leave unanswerable questions unanswered, I try to do the best I can in my own home, observing the inverse of the Golden Rule.

Whatever awaits the other side of the veil (if there is another side, that is), I'm still a better ally in this life than any Churchian. You may recall that a lot of the leading lights of the American Revolution were Deists.

Blogger Starbuck November 02, 2016 4:27 PM  

I can say with all honesty that evil does exist in this world. I am confronted with it everyday. I can't truly get away from it because no matter where I go, there it is. All I have to do is look in the mirror.

Blogger Starbuck November 02, 2016 4:29 PM  

You may recall that a lot of the leading lights of the American Revolution were Deists.-dc.sunsets

You sure that is true? I don't know for sure. Just out of curiosity, who did these deists believe was God?

Blogger Timmy3 November 02, 2016 4:30 PM  

I do agree you can fix what's in your home, but many men won't sign up for that. Men can marry, but the women you bring into the household is definitely Eve who tries to convince you to eat the apple with a serpent whispering into her ear. Any women with women friends are actively looking to divide the family unless she is anti-social, which is a better option.

Christianity is another problem. It is den for gossip. Pastors are out of control. Everyone is afraid of telling the truth. You don't hear any sermons about homosexuality anymore. Who knows who might be sitting in the pews taking notes and reporting on them. Christians rely on fatalism (God's Plan) as wishful thinking as society further deteriorates. The church can't risk offending the women in their congregation. Their donations need to come from somewhere. Fixing the churches takes too much time away from your families that need you as first priorty. Decide who is more important. Maybe just attend the best church you can find and tell other friends to go there too. Let the bad churches rot.

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 4:32 PM  

"That, of course, is why the rational atheist, or indeed, any other logically consistent thinker who is not a Christian, has to deny that evil exists."

Eastern pantheistic mystics do this by considering this whole universe to be just "Maya" or illusion, and opposition between good and evil is then of course maya as well.

http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_287

"However, it was to the Mahāyāna trend that Nāgārjuna belonged (he lived at a time around the beginning of the Christian era). His followers, the Mādhyamikas, are sometimes called nihilists.

Nāgārjuna proceeds on the assumption that that which is not understandable is not real. He then proves that the following are neither understandable nor explicable: motion and rest, time, causality, the notion of the part and the whole, the soul, the "I," Buddha, God and the universe. "There is no God apart from the universe, and there is no universe apart from God, and they both are equally appearances." (159: p. 655) "There is no death, no birth, no distinction, no persistence, no oneness, no manyness, no coming in, no going forth." (159: p. 655) "All things have the character of emptiness, they have no beginning, no end, they are faultless and not faultless, they are not imperfect and not perfect, therefore, O Sariputta, here in this emptiness there is no form, no perception, no name, no concept, no knowledge." (159: p. 656)"

Blogger Nick S November 02, 2016 4:35 PM  

Sounds familiar...
I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
And no message could have been any clearer
If you wanna make the world a better place
Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

Hrmmm, it didn't really work out all that well for Michael. I don't think he was doing it right.

Blogger tz November 02, 2016 4:37 PM  

TL;DR classics:
GK Chesterton when asked to pen an essay about what is wrong with the world responded:
"I am". (YHVH?).

I'm trying to remember the joke "My friend bet me you wouldn't say three words to me". "You Lose".

Anonymous One Deplorable DT November 02, 2016 4:46 PM  

the Prince of the Air. The Father of Lies. The Prince of Darkness. The Serpent in the Garden of Eden. The Enemy. The Eternal Psychopath. First of the fallen Angels. Satan. Lucifer.

You know I don't like to talk about dark forces Randal.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother November 02, 2016 4:52 PM  

@11 That was Calvin Coolidge replying to two socialites who tried to win bets with their husbands.

Silent Cal wins.

Anonymous Basket of Deplorables November 02, 2016 4:59 PM  

VD,
I couldn't help but make the connection from rational atheist to Ayn Rand. Unless I am mistaken she very much saw evil, and to the best of my knowledge did not deny evils existence. Is there a less than book length answer not to the whole of her philosophy or atheism, but to why/how you think she denied the existence of evil? Denied its supernatural nature, certainly, but its existence?

Blogger bob kek mando ( I are Spartacus ... and you can too! C'mon, give it a try, these crosses are way more comfy than they look ) November 02, 2016 5:08 PM  

14. Basket of Deplorables November 02, 2016 4:59 PM
Is there a less than book length answer not to the whole of her philosophy or atheism, but to why/how you think she denied the existence of evil? Denied its supernatural nature, certainly, but its existence?



why do you assume that Ayn was wholly rational?

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 5:10 PM  

" Is there a less than book length answer not to the whole of her philosophy or atheism, but to why/how you think she denied the existence of evil? Denied its supernatural nature, certainly, but its existence? "

Yes.

In fact the answer is actually a single word.

Pride.

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 5:11 PM  

"Complicating this, however, is the fact that the good guys aren't having as many children today. Each can restore and control his own home, but the orcs are outbreeding us too."

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that MOTW will deal with this.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 5:12 PM  

First fashion and now interior decorating. Josh's influence?

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 5:13 PM  

"I do agree you can fix what's in your home, but many men won't sign up for that."

A man that can't be bothered to keep his own house in order is not going to bother fixing his country.

He'll just bitch on the internet for others to do it for him.

Anonymous ThomasSaS November 02, 2016 5:29 PM  

"Evil" is simple to define whether Christian or not: "that which I believe is really, really detrimental to my clan."

Beyond that, the idea means Nothing.

Anonymous daddynichol November 02, 2016 5:30 PM  

Nick S wrote:Sounds familiar...

I’m starting with the man in the mirror

I’m asking him to change his ways

And no message could have been any clearer

If you wanna make the world a better place

Take a look at yourself, and then make a change

Hrmmm, it didn't really work out all that well for Michael. I don't think he was doing it right.


Knowing and taking action are two different matters. Mr. Jackson failed to act on what he knew.

Blogger Arthur Isaac November 02, 2016 5:30 PM  

He said home, not house.

What men used to be king of. No the wife makes all the purchases, decisions, tone setting, decorating, entertaining......

Because "they are better at it".

Where do men get to lead?

Society: Nowhere.

We have to lead whether we "get to" or not.

Blogger Quadko November 02, 2016 5:32 PM  

Question on this topic of "Satan is currently the world's ruler, prince & 'god'". It was the interpretation I was taught growing up, but there seems both Biblical contradition and support, and I've been reading up on it here and there recently to get clarity.

And initial assumptions: I have no doubt that he was in the past, pre-Christ. And I have no doubt that evil exists in the world today. It's more the timing of when he did or will stop being the ruler of the world.

Did his rule end at the cross (maybe through the death of that generation and fall of the temple), or not until some future Armageddon time? It seems unclear comparing verses - seems like the question is whether we're in the same "age" as Jesus talking to his disciples before the cross, because satan loses at the (an?) age's end. (Though Paul mentions it too...)

To some extent it doesn't matter, since even if Satan's not, we're still in his rearguard action / civil war period of evil before the final judgment. It's just been on my brain and researching lately, and I'd love input.

Anonymous p-dawg November 02, 2016 5:37 PM  

@8 Not really. There were 28 different punishments (so said George Gordon, and I don't feel like looking it up right now). Stoning was used in the majority of death penalty crimes, though. That's for sure. But there were lesser penalties like "twice what you stole" or "three times what you stole" and then there were special cases like perjury, where the penalty is based on what you were trying to convict the person you lied about of. I believe the reason for that is because stoning always lets blood, and without blood there can be no redemption (as the story of the Messiah teaches). Witches were to be allowed a shot at redemption. Others, like Pharoh's chief baker and the king of Ai were to be 'accursed' of the Creator, so they were hung specifically to avoid shedding blood. But that was rare, and burning was rarer still. It was reserved for men who slept with both a mother and her daughter, the daughters of preachers who become prostitutes, and certain occultists once, but not general witches. I think the confusion came from Joshua 7:15. So again, if we're going back to the Scripture, let's come together as a congregation and stone the witches, so all can hear and fear. That's my advice.

Blogger Clint November 02, 2016 5:46 PM  

ThomasSaS wrote:"Evil" is simple to define whether Christian or not: "that which I believe is really, really detrimental to my clan."

Beyond that, the idea means Nothing.


That is wrong. There are many evil things that have nothing to do with me or my clan. A child that is raped in China has nothing to with me, but it is still evil.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett November 02, 2016 5:46 PM  

'the entirety of what we refer to as the material, physical universe, falls under the domain of the Prince of the Air.'

The Incarnation.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 5:49 PM  

Q: What did Edward Snowden, Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik not have in common?

A: Kids.

"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." — Francis Bacon

It is difficult to take seriously any plan for reinstating patriarchy which does not center on bloodying the soft villains who concentrate state power against it.

Anonymous Basket of Deplorables November 02, 2016 6:22 PM  

Nate, if I understand what you are trying to say, Rand denied the existence of evil because of pride.

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
-Ayn Rand
That just doesn't sound like denying the existence of evil to me. Pride to a degree of mortal sin, sure, but not denial of the existence of evil.

Bob Kek, I think it is moving Vox's goal posts from any rational to 'wholly' aka perfectly rational. His point was anyone rational not anyone who wholly agrees with him. Rand's fault was elevating rationality above its station, not the absence of rationality. And she hammered on morality and good and evil.

Anonymous ThomasSaS November 02, 2016 6:26 PM  

"That is wrong. There are many evil things that have nothing to do with me or my clan. A child that is raped in China has nothing to with me, but it is still evil"

Is a rape of a child in your clan an issue for you or your clan? I think it is. So, my point stands.

Anonymous AbsalomDak November 02, 2016 6:29 PM  

I read their intro post. Pretty good. Then I read their Christianity post. Not good. Satan is bound in the pit. He is most definitely not ruler of the earth.

Blogger FrankNorman November 02, 2016 6:44 PM  

30. AbsalomDak November 02, 2016 6:29 PM

I read their intro post. Pretty good. Then I read their Christianity post. Not good. Satan is bound in the pit. He is most definitely not ruler of the earth.


Satan only gets "bound in the pit" when Jesus returns. While the forces of darkness do not have the same degree of control they had in BC times, they are still active.
The idea that we are now living in Revelation chapter 20 is farcical.

Blogger tz November 02, 2016 6:49 PM  

Ayn Rand's thoughts tended toward self and self interest - ego - not pride (hubris).
Jesus came to redeem us and our ego, not to annihilate it.
She would let Reality itself arbitrate who was correct and what was true. It is the bureaucrat who knows best for others.

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 7:05 PM  

"Ayn Rand's thoughts tended toward self and self interest - ego - not pride (hubris)."

Ayn Rand, the great Objectivist prophetess of selfish individualism, was almost to a comical extent opposed to "mysticism" as the enemy of her worldview. (Murray Rothbard parodied this attitude of hers in a short play "Mozart Was a Red".)

But actually her fears were partly justified; Oriental mysticism is indeed a consistent, no-quarter-giving enemy of Western sense of individualism:

"In the Upanishads, the fall signals individuation: once imprisoned in the body, the spirit recognizes itself as a self, as an ego, and begins to attribute to himself - falsely - qualities that distinguish him from other selves. The reign of evil, of worries, and of wretchedness begins, man now says "I am such and such," or "this or that belongs to ME." The soul has now established contact with the non-I (nonself; object-world) and has become wretched.

The created world and (individualized) man stand thoroughly condemned in these systems. "Whereas Jewish and Christian tradition," writes Claude Tresmontant, "establishes personal and ethical relationships between the transcendental Absolute and the human persons, the Upanishads persuade the sage to surmount the illusion of personal existence as well as the ethical demands which it entails."33 The Brahmans alone may rise to the knowledge of the Light that is God, after having rejected the vanity of physical existence."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1142112#post1142112

I myself consider Christianity to be like "golden mean" between hyper-egoism and pagan anti-egoism.

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 7:08 PM  

The Buddha simply denied the very existence of Ego:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kimball/130727

"Six centuries before Jesus Christ, the Buddha already knew that if all that exists is matter then the human self cannot exist either:

'Therefore, he deconstructed the Hindu idea of the soul. When one starts peeling the onion skin of one's psyche, he discovers that there is no solid core at the center of one's being. Your sense of self is an illusion. Reality is nonself (anatman). You don't exist. Liberation, the Buddha taught, is realizing the unreality of your existence.' (The Book That Made Your World: How the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilization, Vishal Mangalwadi, p. 6)"

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 7:13 PM  

Buddhism could provide at last theoretical basis for the most extreme shitlib altruism:

http://www.josephwaligore.com/greek-philosophy/joy-of-torture-chapter-4/#_edn201

"First Mahayana Buddhism maintained that early Buddhism was selfish as it encouraged monks to strive for their own individual liberation. Mahayana Buddhism said that the Buddhist sage should strive to enlighten all beings. They said it was selfish to be striving for one’s own individual enlightenment, especially when Buddhism taught there was not such entity as the self. By accenting the central Buddhist notion that there was no self, the later Mahayana Buddhists transformed the notion of the Buddhist sage into a totally altruistic being.
...

The bodhisattva, like the good utilitarian, is concerned for all persons equally. The bodhisattva “must educate his mind that he may feel in each case the same affection for all creatures that naturally centres in his son, or in himself.”[clvi] There is no privileging of the bodhisattva’s personal sorrows or personal concerns over the concerns of other people. “Another’s sorrow is to be destroyed by me because it is sorrow like my own sorrow…Since a neighbor and I are equal in desiring happiness, what is the unique quality of the ‘self’ which requires an effort for happiness?”[clvii] This is what the bodhisattva continually says to herself: “All sorrows, without distinction are ownerless; and because of misery they are to be prevented…Not just in myself. Everywhere!”[clviii]
...

Not only should the bodhisattva accept torture from humans in a loving manner, he should also accept painful treatment from animals. For if he is attacked and eaten by wild animals “he should react with the thought: ‘If these wild beasts should devour me, then just that will be my gift to them.”[clxvii]"

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 7:15 PM  

"You don't exist. Liberation, the Buddha taught, is realizing the unreality of your existence."

This notion could be secularized thus: "Your race does not exist. Liberation is realizing the unreality of White race."

Anonymous Goodnight November 02, 2016 7:18 PM  

And I have to admit, while I have contemplated the decline of the West from an architectural perspective - I utterly loathe all glass, steel, and box design - I've never once thought about it with regards to the single-family home.

Tom Wolfe's "From Bauhaus to Our House" is fantastic on this topic. He describes how a couple of proto-SJW architects made the glass boxes trendy in a push to return to zero. In the process they killed off human-scale livable buildings for generations - like a Pol Pot of building design.

Blogger Viisaus November 02, 2016 7:19 PM  

I believe that George Orwell sought to depict, or imitate, in his famous ending of 1984 the ecstatic pantheistic experience where the spiritual initiate gives up struggling for his own small personal ego, and surrenders to the Absolute being - the "Unio Mystica" with the Big Brother:

'He was back in the Ministry of Love, with everything forgiven, his soul white as snow. He was in the public dock, confessing everything, implicating everybody. He was walking down the white-tiled corridor, with the feeling of walking in sunlight, and an armed guard at his back. The longhoped-for bullet was entering his brain.

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.'

Anonymous Moonbear November 02, 2016 7:31 PM  

"Men of the west" my ass, top tier subversion, ego's of the west more like it.
Mass media, hollywood and the state will drown out any such attempt, this does nothing other than redirect the focus of people who wants to change the direction the civilization is heading and pitting them into a futile and ultimately losing battle, this has no more potential than the suicidal MGTOW movement.
If they somehow overcome the societal condition then their victory is one of the ego, ultimately a few thousand, even a million such victories would mean nothing against hundreds of millions of losses.
It would be symbolic certainly, but so was the victories of Michael Wittmann.
Quantity always beats quality unless the conditions are harsh enough such that low quality merely dies out on it's own accord.

Blogger Jack November 02, 2016 7:39 PM  

That the prince of this world is the father of lies is actually the easiest part of Christian doctrine to believe. Anyone can verify this by simply paying attention to the shear magnitude of lies big and small that make the world go round every day, from the lies that governments and media tell people to the lies that men and women tell to each other and to themselves.

And if you then decide that you value truth over lies, you find out that truth is not so easy to come by, that you have to struggle for it. The Christian doctrine that Jesus Christ is the truth - not that he KNOWS the truth like a prophet or wise man, but IS the truth, incarnate - is, to me, one of the most compelling aspects of the whole religion.

Blogger Elder Son November 02, 2016 7:45 PM  

AbsalomDak wrote:I read their intro post. Pretty good. Then I read their Christianity post. Not good. Satan is bound in the pit. He is most definitely not ruler of the earth.

Dr. Michael Heiser - http://drmsh.com/

Pay attention to: The Unseen Realm

Browse around. Find out what a Elohim(s)is. Divine Council.

UNSEEN REALM SEMINAR w/ Dr. Michael S. Heiser Pts. 1 - 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ-OwSH7IYM&list=PLsqZ2_OCMkUlEnTTp5T1LzLvIBkV6eETx

You're not going to find this in most of your Churches. His BIO - https://www.logos.com/academic/bio/heiser

Blogger Lazarus November 02, 2016 8:07 PM  

Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen wrote:Q: What did Edward Snowden, Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik not have in common?

A: Kids.

"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." — Francis Bacon



You can add St. Paul to that number. He even recommended it.

Blogger Elder Son November 02, 2016 8:09 PM  

Find out what this means AbsalomDak: When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.

... and lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun and the moon and the stars, even all the host of heaven, thou be drawn away and worship them, and serve them, which Jehovah thy God hath allotted unto all the peoples under the whole heaven.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother November 02, 2016 8:09 PM  

Moonbear,

Are you ok? Doc upped your dosage? It's ok you have to let yourself acclimate to the higher dosage levels.

Anonymous Moonbear November 02, 2016 8:24 PM  

@44
What's the matter? Did I hit too close to home?
Something you did not understand that I should clarify for you? :)

Anonymous Oye November 02, 2016 8:26 PM  

"Christianity is the explicit answer to the philosophical Problem of Evil. And there is no other religious or philosophical or scientific answer that even begins to address it as coherently, or as completely, as Christianity."

I'd agree with that if I were epistemologicaly illiterate. History is proof, that claim can be demolished without pain.

Eh.

Blogger Sherwood family November 02, 2016 8:41 PM  

As a good man once said, “The most important of the Lord's work that you will ever do will be the work you do within the walls of your own home.”

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 02, 2016 8:58 PM  

ThomasSaS wrote:"Evil" is simple to define whether Christian or not: "that which I believe is really, really detrimental to my clan."

Beyond that, the idea means Nothing.


Found the Atheist.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 02, 2016 9:11 PM  

Moonbear wrote:If they somehow overcome the societal condition then their victory is one of the ego, ultimately a few thousand, even a million such victories would mean nothing against hundreds of millions of losses.
If they somehow overcome the human condition then their victory is one of the ego, ultimately a few thousand, even a million such victories would mean nothing against hundreds of millions of losses.

But with just 12? How on Earth would you make any difference with so few? Each new convert must be approached individually, made to understand his own participation in sinfulness and evil. Such a movement will go nowhere and mean nothing.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 9:35 PM  

> But with just 12?

The nation engineered to resist Christianity, Judea, was genocided. Today that nation is America. So yes, peaceful New Testament methods are useless if you care to avoid that.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 9:51 PM  

Really, to deny good and evil is to deny any purpose in existence. I've tried so many times to point out to atheists that the only logical conclusions of their creed are either utter nihilism, or utter hedonism. They fall almost universally into the hedonism camp, but so few of them will admit it openly, even though it's so very obvious.

Anonymous Drummergirl November 02, 2016 10:00 PM  

"There is no Problem of Evil with regards to Christianity. Quite the opposite, actually."

Exactly. You'll hear people say, "Why does God allow these awful things to happen?? I can't believe in a God like that...blah,blah, blah. They don't seem to understand that the evils that occur on earth are the result of human rebellion. The more important and frankly, more interesting question is "why does God choose to intervene in the affairs of man and stop evil things from happening sometimes, but not others"? In addition, I don't think God owes us pipsqueak human beings an explanation about why he does or does not do anything and it's incredibly irritating to see people (churchians in particular) acting like they have a "right" to question the decisions of God Almighty.

Blogger Diego Destiny November 02, 2016 10:22 PM  

Lazarus wrote:Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen wrote:Q: What did Edward Snowden, Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik not have in common?

A: Kids.

"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." — Francis Bacon



You can add St. Paul to that number. He even recommended it.


Unless you're St. Paul, the most important part of making history is showing up for it. If you don't have sons or daughters, you're irrelevant to the future. You should be ignored just like the feminists with their cats and the gays. Why should anyone listen to someone who has no plans to make a lasting mark on the world other than whining and bloviating on the internet? Get in the game or piss off.

Anonymous Moonbear November 02, 2016 10:33 PM  

@49
But with just 12? How on Earth would you make any difference with so few? Each new convert must be approached individually, made to understand his own participation in sinfulness and evil. Such a movement will go nowhere and mean nothing.

And they were under divine guidance.
Are you claiming "Men of the west" are under divine guidance?
If so how is it different than Jehovah's witnesses?

Help me understand how this is the correct direction, why you are changing the team when the team is winning.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 10:50 PM  

> Why should anyone listen to someone who has no plans to make a lasting mark on the world other than whining and bloviating on the internet?

"The future belongs to those who show up" can be modified by both addition and subtraction:

> Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning

Lasting mark indeed.

Blogger Nate November 02, 2016 10:52 PM  

"Nate, if I understand what you are trying to say, Rand denied the existence of evil because of pride. "

no... you misunderstand.

She doesn't deny evil exists out of pride. As you note.. she doesn't deny evil at all.

She denies that God exists out of pride.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 02, 2016 10:56 PM  

@Moodbear, the argument was that even millions of homes rebuilt in the model given us by God could not fix the situation, because it was too few.
My answer was the answer of Gamaliel.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 11:11 PM  

@14. Really, Ayn Rand saw the evils of social parasitism, but that's all she really saw. She did not (from reading Atlas Shrugged) apparently, see the problem with marital infidelity. I tried to toe the line through that part of the book as hard as I could, but what it boiled down to was that to her, the good relationship and good intentions were more valid than fidelity.

She scorned charity (understandably, given its mainline as the core and foundation of communist ideology. Communist ideology chooses charity above any other virtue or any other consideration, and is a heresy of the fruits of the Spirit, take Charity alone, abandon everything else) as well.

I'm not even sure she really understood love very well. What she posited seemed to me to be mutual respect more than anything else. There was no giving, no taking, nothing else.

@16. Agreed. I don't really think "Pride" (as we understand the word today) is a good translation, though. "Vainglory" would be much better. Put simply, she fought one sin with the next, most easily accessible, and likely most dangerous one.

@20. Hell no. That's just hardcore, taken to the ultimate extreme nationalism writ small. Good is good, and it transcends all such simple scales. Better to go with the biblical condensation of the law and the prophets: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself."

Your definition is quite the sneaky one though. It emphasizes the individual vs unitary perspective, in that people are individuals, and the only logical course for an individual to pursue good is by fixing everything closest to you first before moving outward.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 11:11 PM  

@23. Satan was cast out, and took up dominion in the world as the prince of the power of the air. This would imply he has influence over everything that goes on that is touched by air, or the physical sky (possibly including part or much of outer space as well).

The Bible also heavily implies (not sure if it outright states it or not) that man ceded his own control over the earth to Satan when he made the choice to disobey God and eat of the forbidden fruit. It changed all of nature. Entropy became a law of nature. Everything decays, everything ends, everything dies. Everything became almost entirely material rather than Spirit.

Jesus, as the "second" and perfect Spiritual Adam ("Adam Kadmon" if you will) who pre-existed the first one in a spiritual mystery (an apparent paradox that cannot be understood by men, because God is outside of time, and men are not) took the power of death and decay from death itself. The idea is that while the physical world is still subject to entropy, the salvation that was previously only available either by perfectly following the spirit of the law (virtually impossible) or by strength of faith in the true God, became available simply and easily to all (and because God is outside of time, logically this salvation extends backwards as well as forwards inside the cage we call time [actually Abraham's "his faith was accounted unto him as righteous" is often explained in terms of this temporal post-salvation, as well as several other instances]) through faith in Joshua (Jesus) son of Joseph, who was sacrificed, died, paid the price for our sins, and was resurrected, because death itself cannot kill the incarnate way, truth, and life.

He freed the Spirit which God had given to men from the constraints of the flesh and the soul (the body and mind), those being eventual eternal death due to submission to Satan.

The Bible also identifies Christians as "Aliens and Strangers" in this land (the world), that we are not from this place, of this place, or to this place. Make no mistake, Satan still rules the Earth, but we are ambassadors and exemplars of the Spirit of God himself, and as such are the "salt of the Earth" maintaining, as best we may, the world against the concerted power of Satan.

According to Revelations, at some point, Jesus will return, and Satan and all his angels will be bound for a millennium, at the end of which he will be freed utterly to exert his full power on the world, at which point he will be broken and bound completely for eternity in a final Spiritual battle. Revelations says that once he, and all who serve him, both angelic and mortal, are bound eternally, the entropic world will be annihilated and recreated at the same time, utterly perfect and undying as it was before the fall of the "first" Adam, a "New Heaven and a New Earth".

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 11:11 PM  

@27. There are people who will die to save their country, however, at the same time, children are your quiver of arrows to aim and fire into the future. Some people will sacrifice before, or after they have children, but you can't just not have children because you are afraid you will be called to sacrifice your life at some point.

@29. Ignorance is bliss, eh? I won't begrudge you your ignorance, but I also will not permit you to call it the only good. Both rapes are evil. The fact that you cannot do something about evil does not remove its evil nature, it only means that you yourself are not responsible for said evil. Rescuing either would be good, regardless that you are not capable of the further rescue.

@30. On the contrary, Satan prowls like a roaring lion, "seeking whom he may devour." He is not bound yet, not until the millennium immediately following the second coming.

@32. No, vainglory was most definitely one of her failings. Just look at her characters, every single one of the main characters is either an impossible genius, or diligent to the point of suicide (actually they are mostly both). The only remotely normal people are left to die. Granted, it's implied there were some more normal or productive people that survived, but they were never directly shown. @33. definitely has it right. She viewed all religion, all faith, all tradition as bad, effectively. She was a nearly perfect analogue to the modern atheists who are "too smart to believe in your silly Christian superstitions".

@39. So instruct the quality to create such conditions, that they might thrive. The quality are the ones that do everything, it's not like the rest can truly stop them. I get the distinct impression that you are thoroughly defeatist. Get off your lazy self-rationalizing ass and change shit.

@42. He (Paul) didn't exactly recommend it (the single life), he said to those who are inclined such, be such, to those who are inclined to marriage, be married. I myself struggled for years under the same misunderstanding of his words, thinking that "it would be better for me to not marry" until the thought's contradiction of my nature all but destroyed me. The thought is, like MGTOW, just a cowardly assent to blue-pill-ism ultimately. If you are asexual, be asexual, but if you aren't (and the vast majority aren't) don't be.

The way he put it also deeply implied that the fact that he was such was an effect of his "thorn in the flesh". I take the "thorn in the flesh" to be either an evil that is so ingrained that we ourselves are mortally (permanently) incapable of seeing, understanding, or fixing it, or something alien and thoroughly outside common experience, both of which would fit this understanding better than yours.

@46. Other than it being a philosophical problem only, and not a mortal problem as well, I disagree with you utterly. If disproof is so easy, show it, otherwise shut up and stop positing vapid claims.

@50. More like the first nation hardened against Christianity, and they weren't entirely genocided. Are you trying to pretend that Judea was the only people who were reached? It's not as if Paul, and ultimately all Christians alive today came from that source, now is it? O WAIT.

Blogger Diego Destiny November 02, 2016 11:24 PM  

Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen wrote:> Why should anyone listen to someone who has no plans to make a lasting mark on the world other than whining and bloviating on the internet?

"The future belongs to those who show up" can be modified by both addition and subtraction:

> Thus it would appear to be more adaptive for an Englishman to risk life or property resisting the immigration of two Bantu immigrants to England than his taking the same risk to rescue one of his own children from drowning

Lasting mark indeed.


Binary thinker. Well why didn't you say so in the first place? It would have saved time. I am in complete agreement that you and every single evolutionary dead end like you should sacrifice everything for our children, leaving the men who actually have shown up to run things after you're gone. The rest of us with children and grandchildren can multitask knowing that what we have contributed to the Men of the West, our children, will see our vision to completion. Sucks to be you.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 11:24 PM  

Ups and downs happen, society happens, human nature continues its sickness, Chaos IS.

Doesn't meant you cannot, or should not fight it by every means and to the ultimate extent available. And yes, we can go and physically confront problems now, but that's treating the symptoms. One method of cure would be to fix the families themselves, and the only one you have direct influence in is yous, so...

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 02, 2016 11:49 PM  

> Are you trying to pretend that Judea was the only people who were reached?

It's amazing how much stupid bluster erupts when one punctures the dad beration balloon. A sort of whoopi-cushion fighting retreat.

> Binary thinker.

Projection from someone whose midwit posturing consists of a false dichotomy on loop.

You assume, because I contradict a false narrative, that I must be childless. Because why advance an argument unless it serves to justify one's life choices?

So, what percentage non-white are you?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 02, 2016 11:52 PM  

@63. "I can't deny it, and I have no argument without my lie, so I'll just insult the opposition."

Yeah, thought so, shut up.

Anonymous ThomasSaS November 03, 2016 12:04 AM  

"Really, to deny good and evil is to deny any purpose in existence. I've tried so many times to point out to atheists that the only logical conclusions of their creed are either utter nihilism, or utter hedonism."

What a silly position to take. Life has no objective meaning. However, that does not mean that an individual can't determine what their own life should mean.

Sure a person may believe their life is meant to be dedicated to hedonistic pursuit. Another person may believe their life is meant to raise productive children.

Blogger Elder Son November 03, 2016 12:05 AM  

Drummergirl wrote:"There is no Problem of Evil with regards to Christianity. Quite the opposite, actually."

In addition, I don't think God owes us pipsqueak human beings an explanation about why he does or does not do anything and it's incredibly irritating to see people (churchians in particular) acting like they have a "right" to question the decisions of God Almighty.


Actually, God tells us why we have the problems that we have. God also said you are His sons and daughters. We are to act accordingly as His sons and daughters. After all, you will judge angels.

...how much more, things that pertain to this life?

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl November 03, 2016 12:13 AM  

My big surprise? Nobody's brought up Nietzsche yet...

Anonymous Isotalo November 03, 2016 12:29 AM  

"That, of course, is why the rational atheist, or indeed, any other logically consistent thinker who is not a Christian, has to deny that evil exists."

I don't understand this, but then, there's a lot I don't understand.

I can't claim to be a Christian, and I can't claim to believe in any god or anything supernatural. But I know evil exists, and there's a lot of it out there.

I don't know how exactly to define evil, but I know it when I see it. Those people shooting prisoners in the head in concentration camps? Evil. Those "youths" gang-raping English girls and then selling them to friends? Evil. Those politicians who endanger their own people by supporting harmful ideologies like communism, colonialism or multiculturalism? Evil. (I've sometimes wondered, what would Jews in Israel call a local politician who advocates mass immigration of authentic German Nazis into Israel?) But I don't see how evil requires a more complex explanation than human beings... being small, self-centered dicks.

Maybe it's just pessimism, but I've always thought that if something like Satan rules this world, there would be a hell of a lot more evil and it would be a lot more impressive. Most of the evil out there is just... pathetic, really. Small, slimy things that have found an even smaller thing they can safely abuse, and that's what they proceed to do, only to crawl back into their hole to hide when something less small passes anywhere near. You'd think supernatural evil had more balls.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 03, 2016 12:30 AM  

ThomasSaS wrote:What a silly position to take. Life has no objective meaning. However, that does not mean that an individual can't determine what their own life should mean.

Sure a person may believe their life is meant to be dedicated to hedonistic pursuit. Another person may believe their life is meant to raise productive children.

There's a HUGE assumption in your assertion. Can you spot it?
Imposed meaning is the opposite of meaning.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 12:37 AM  

@65. Without objective meaning, life is either meaningless, or carries the meaning of fulfilling one's desires.

"determine what their own life should mean" = do what they feel like, and whatever they feel like they are and will be is obviously correct. This falls cleanly under hedonism, believe it or not, although you may not agree with my definition of hedonism.

If you deny objective meaning in life, then your own statements here are meaningless to me if I should wish them to be so. By the same standard, logically my statements have meaning to you, because you took the time to reply to them.

You do not believe in the subjectivity of the meaning of life, but you like to think that you do, because if you actually did, it would be impossible to logically contradict you. The only silly one here is you, you failed to think it fully through.

The only difference between the person that decides, of themself, that the purpose of their life is orgies, and the person that decides of themself that the purpose of their life is raising productive children, is that the orgier wishes for pleasure through sex, and the child-rearer wishes for pleasure in the satisfaction of having raised what he perceives to be quality children.

They both seek nothing more than their own desires, they both are hedonists.

@67/ Was it Nietzsche that postulated infinite time, eventually repeating, and doing what you wouldn't mind repeating for all eternity so you are in a sort of heaven instead of a sort of hell? That thought experiment was so broken and shallow from so many different angles it was just sad. But then again, maybe I'm thinking of Freud.

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 03, 2016 12:46 AM  

ITT: Christians explaining to atheists that having children is the purpose of life.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 12:46 AM  

@68. You cannot define evil, except by impulse, because your conception of evil is, in part, nothing more than conditioning from the people who have surrounded you throughout your life.

If your surroundings and/or history are predominantly Christian, you will likely have a mostly Christian perception of evil, but you will have it without God. As such, anything that drives you to find the nature of your perception of evil, will either pressure you to realize that you have none, and break you, or will force you to find your Christian roots and cling to them for dear life.

The other part of your conception of evil would be because of the nature of your being, or, in other words, "from the beginning of the world, God's ephemeral qualities, his eternal power, and divine nature have been clearly seen, that all men are without excuse." You've got an innate conscience, a conception of good and evil that is not due to logic, and defies atheistic logic.

Any, purely secular definition would have to be one of: "Whatever I desire is good/whatever contradicts my desire is evil", or "There is no good, there is no evil."

Logic provides no motive in and of itself, and ironically, pure reason provides no reason to live. Both are simple constructs that are effective due to the reality of absolute truth (objective reality), but ultimately arbitrary and useless absent objective truth (subjective reality).

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 12:48 AM  

@71. No one said that. It is ONE of the purposes. ONE of the objectives. There is, however, a primary objective.

Stop setting up straw men for yourself to knock down, will you? Grow a spine and actually try to debate what we're actually saying.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 12:51 AM  

Crud. I don't know why I wrote "ephemeral" instead of "invisible". Totally wrong quote there. ><. God's qualities are not transient.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 12:55 AM  

"Maybe it's just pessimism, but I've always thought that if something like Satan rules this world, there would be a hell of a lot more evil and it would be a lot more impressive. Most of the evil out there is just... pathetic, really. Small, slimy things that have found an even smaller thing they can safely abuse, and that's what they proceed to do, only to crawl back into their hole to hide when something less small passes anywhere near. You'd think supernatural evil had more balls."

Try living somewhere not created by a couple millennia of Christianity.

Blogger DemonicProfessorEl November 03, 2016 1:00 AM  

@70 Mr. Kraft

That does sound like Freud. He was a weirdo. Nietzche did say this though: “Everyone who has ever built anywhere a new heaven first found the power thereto in his own hell.”

Blogger Noah B November 03, 2016 1:02 AM  

Good article about Christianity, but the other one claiming that "almost all American homes" had parlors in the 1890s, and linking the decline of formality to cultural Marxism, is ridiculous. Wealthy people typically had parlors in their homes, but most people weren't wealthy. Lector has also cherry picked the example of the Victorian Era, an age in which formality was publicly practiced among the upper classes perhaps more than in any other. The message that men need to fix their own homes first is an important one, but can't it be presented without the pseudo-intellectual posturing?

Blogger Leo Littlebook in Shenzhen November 03, 2016 1:07 AM  

If you're going to play joke police, Ben, arrest yourself.

> "almost all American homes" had parlors in the 1890s

Escaped slave white trash still striving to the plantation class? Buckskin, deer and dead Mexicans, please.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 1:20 AM  

@78. My bad. Sometimes I lack a sense of humor. Hard to arrest myself if I make no jokes, now isn't it? If on the other hand, I actually thought for a second you possessed the combined intellect and cognitive dissonance (read: hypocrisy) to make that an implied insult, I'd definitely have to arrest you.

So, I must have missed it, along with your vapid pretensions of substantiality, where is your evidence again?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 1:21 AM  

Crap, you've unleashed my inner justifiably incensed troll persona.

Anonymous Isotalo November 03, 2016 2:08 AM  

S1AL wrote:Try living somewhere not created by a couple millennia of Christianity.

I have spent some time in places that were solidly not Christian. I would not call it "living" certainly, that's something I'd reserve to some place I've spent a lifetime or half at least in. But enough time to get acclimated to the culture. And what evil I saw in these not Christian places... was even less impressive than the evil I saw elsewhere. Even smaller, even weaker. Perhaps my expectations for evil are too high.

@72 You may well be right. There are Christians and always have been around me, but the people closest to me have not been predominantly Christian, unless they're just very skilled at hiding it. And it seems to me that pretty much anything I consider evil now would have been considered evil by my solidly pagan Ancestors from times before Christianity ever came to this cold little piece of earth or even existed anywhere (assuming we can trust historical and folk lore, which we probably should, if we're trusting the Bible too). That seems to support the built-in, perhaps God-given, morality in humans rather than morality as something learned from people around us.

It may also be that I'm just not smart or philosophically-oriented enough to figure it out, but it seems to me some simple but effective morality can come from valid logic. Basically, something to the effect of the golden rule so common in religions. Not doing to others what others don't seem to want you to do to them, or you wouldn't want done to yourself. But as little as I understand about these things, there's at least one thing I understand even less: and that's the type of non-believer that confidently denies the existence of gods. That doesn't make sense to me. They can't possibly know if a god or gods exist or not, so what's the point of denying it? Do they deny it because they don't want there to be gods? If so, what sense does that make? At least if there was some god out there, there would be hope of something that comes after this life. Perhaps justice for those who have been wronged, health for those who have been sick, punishment for those who have been bastards to others. How would that be a bad thing? I mean, unless you're a bastard afraid of being punished by someone stronger than you, that's to say a god. Maybe that's it.

Blogger Kelly November 03, 2016 2:23 AM  

" We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." 1 John 5:19

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 03, 2016 7:33 AM  

@81. To me, there are two kinds of people that deny the existence of god.

A: Those that have successfully avoided having thought about it very hard. Usually below average intelligence, as about 80% or so of those who do not believe in any god are (interestingly they almost never identify as atheist, they almost always identify as part of the "agnosticism rainbow" or even as Christian, or some other religion... right up until you ask them if they believe in God as an actual entity). It's more of a soft denial "I don't believe" with them rather than a hard one.

B: Those of above average intelligence. They are usually exceedingly vainglorious in their intelligence "I don't believe in that Christian nonsense". They are actually quite rare, but the big reason they are drawn to atheism is that they can use it to browbeat and insult the average Christian or Agnostic... most of whom they will win against in a battle of wits. It's not about actually believing it, it's about making themselves feel good about their supposedly superior intelligence by pushing a rare ideology.

That being said though, I haven't looked extremely hard into the old testament, beyond the Jews being super harsh on their oral-tradition accuracy, but the new testament of the bible is a LOT better documented than most folklore. As in, it's more likely to be what it says it is than it is that the Iliad and the Odyssey were written by Homer. (Has better documentation, better accuracy, and many more surviving old copies, as well as fidelity between all the copies).

Blogger dc.sunsets November 03, 2016 8:17 AM  

@53 Unless you're St. Paul, the most important part of making history is showing up for it. If you don't have sons or daughters, you're irrelevant to the future. You should be ignored just like the feminists with their cats and the gays. Why should anyone listen to someone who has no plans to make a lasting mark on the world other than whining and bloviating on the internet? Get in the game or piss off.

In the ideal world (but where democracy still exists) qualification to vote would include all of the following:
1. Having living children or, if childless, active military service (or the equivalent.)
2. Be a net taxpayer.

No one who milks the system without skin in the game, or who has no care about the polity beyond his or her lifespan, should ever exercise the least bit of input to its operation. Such disinterested or dependent parties should have no vote, and should have no soapbox, either.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 03, 2016 8:21 AM  

but the new testament of the bible is a LOT better documented than most folklore.

There are clear "additions" and "subtractions" to the New Testament during its centuries of transcription by monks prior to the invention of the printing press. The faithful have no choice but to believe these modifications were directed by God; others see them as evidence that the Bible is still the work of man. I don't debate religion; I do think that this observation is a fact.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 8:31 AM  

"There are clear "additions" and "subtractions" to the New Testament during its centuries of transcription by monks prior to the invention of the printing press."

No. False. Lies. There are enough ancient manuscripts and copies of the writings of the early church to complete the Bible many times over. It has not changed. The historical validation of the Bible exceeds any other work from the time period by an order of magnitude.

Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 8:38 AM  

"I have spent some time in places that were solidly not Christian. I would not call it "living" certainly, that's something I'd reserve to some place I've spent a lifetime or half at least in. But enough time to get acclimated to the culture. And what evil I saw in these not Christian places... was even less impressive than the evil I saw elsewhere. Even smaller, even weaker. Perhaps my expectations for evil are too high."

Or perhaps you're not paying attention. Keep in mind that most of the modern world was shaped either directly by the Christian faith or indirectly by Christian nations. Now observe what has happened as the faith has been abandoned or its effects removed:

Nazi Germany, the USSR, Mao's China, and Pot's Cambodia.

The Middle East is moving away from the influence of Britain and the United States - and in the process grout Saddam, al Qaeda, and now IS. All horrific in behavior.

South America has been enjoying the fruits of atheism for some time now in various areas - how's that working out?

Anonymous ThomasSaS November 03, 2016 9:27 AM  

"The only difference between the person that decides, of themself, that the purpose of their life is orgies, and the person that decides of themself that the purpose of their life is raising productive children, is that the orgier wishes for pleasure through sex, and the child-rearer wishes for pleasure in the satisfaction of having raised what he perceives to be quality children."

You state this as though it's a problem with which I should be concerned.

"If you deny objective meaning in life, then your own statements here are meaningless to me if I should wish them to be so. By the same standard, logically my statements have meaning to you, because you took the time to reply to them."

I think you worry too much about who is determining the value of something. Of course I find meaning in what you wrote. I can, after all, read and think. But don't mistake what I believe your statements to mean with objective meaning, that is to say, a meaning that is always and eternally existing.

Anonymous Farinata November 03, 2016 10:14 AM  

This doctrine of "the devil is the prince of this world" seems exaggerated. I mean, sure, Satan gets his way sometimes, but there is never a moment when he operates outside God's sovereignty. Cf. the opening chapters of Job, the interaction of Christ and his apostles with demons, the statement by Christ that the Strong Man is bound and may be plundered... If by "prince" you intend that Satan can oppose God in some meaningful way, rather than simply accomplishing the divine plan through his rebellion (as happened at the crucifixion), I think you have the wrong idea; otherwise, it is not clear to me what this means exactly.

Anonymous Desert Rat November 03, 2016 10:19 AM  

That this is even being discussed is very encouraging. The abandonment of true religion leaves people incapable of defense against the very real agents of evil who infest this world. Those who still adhere to true Christian faith understand this battle and just how pervasive it is and how challenging it is to fight. The tidal wave of evil that is sweeping what used to be Christendom has been so successful because the real enemy has been very effective in convincing men that the only truly effective defense against it is invalid, unreal and to be dismissed out of hand as irrational superstition.

But the backlash is building and the revival of real Christianity is a large part of this. More and more people are coming to see that the evil we confront is much deeper than simple disinformation from the media and the academy or self-delusion or ignorance. These all certainly exist but the reason so many hold to them in the face of all logic and reason is that they are being actively persuaded to do so by unseen but very real spiritual enemies whose sole purpose and mission is to blind humans to truth and mislead them to believing that lies, distortions and inversions of truth are what is really true.

Jesus is the most courageous and heroic figure ever to walk this earth. He was most certainly not some shrinking violet or milquetoast preaching that good men should turn the other cheek and let evil walk freely over them and all they hold dear and true. His story is certainly one of meekness and mercy and tenderness and compassion but it is also the story of standing up in the face of murderous opposition and calling them hypocrites and liars. The stories of driving the money lenders from the temple were not just some odd aside but a clear illustration that some things need to be confronted with direct action and put down. That this can and should be done exercising Christian virtue is a hard lesson and very difficult to attain. But true religion has never been easy and never will be.

Anonymous Athor Pel November 03, 2016 11:37 AM  

"81. Anonymous Isotalo November 03, 2016 2:08 AM
S1AL wrote:
Try living somewhere not created by a couple millennia of Christianity.


I have spent some time in places that were solidly not Christian. I would not call it "living" certainly, that's something I'd reserve to some place I've spent a lifetime or half at least in. But enough time to get acclimated to the culture. And what evil I saw in these not Christian places... was even less impressive than the evil I saw elsewhere. Even smaller, even weaker. Perhaps my expectations for evil are too high. "



You see only small evil because you haven't gone looking for the large. That you only sense small evils makes you sound like an optimist. Actually, seeing evil as small could also mean your conception of power levels is informed by exposure to the presence of God.

Anyway, back to global evil. It sounds like you might be ignorant of what is actually going on in the world. You should jump down the rabbit hole and go looking with purpose. You will find plenty of large organized evil. Men designing social and economic systems with the intended purpose of retarding, harming and/or killing the people caught within those systems. I'm not talking about things from history, I'm talking about the world we live in right now. Me, you, your kids if you have any.
Just to get you started:
The history of Public Schools, where they came from
national and global central banks and their debt backed fiat currency
modern medicine and the financial imperative to keep you sick
agri-business/FDA partnership as a prime tool in keeping you sick
I could go on.

Anonymous Athor Pel November 03, 2016 11:59 AM  

" Blogger S1AL November 03, 2016 8:31 AM
"dc.sunsets November 03, 2016 8:21 AM
There are clear "additions" and "subtractions" to the New Testament during its centuries of transcription by monks prior to the invention of the printing press."

No. False. Lies. There are enough ancient manuscripts and copies of the writings of the early church to complete the Bible many times over. It has not changed. The historical validation of the Bible exceeds any other work from the time period by an order of magnitude."


Multiple orders of magnitude. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is the most thoroughly eye-witness documented event in history. Nothing and nobody even comes close until fairly recently when the ability to cheaply create and store mass quantities of information became available.

Anonymous Isotalo November 04, 2016 8:32 AM  

@87 I have been paying attention, you can trust me on that. Maybe I'm using the wrong words here. I'm not trying to say I haven't seen evil things on a large scale, attempts at genocide on an entire tribe or religion or such, evil things done in an organized fashion in large scale. That happens, I've seen it. What I'm trying to say is that the people themselves, the evil people who do these large scale evil things, seem so... small. Frightened. Pathetic. They're strong only when they prey on the weakest. When someone even just a little stronger comes around, they rarely stand their ground to fight, instead they run like little bunny rabbits. Only a small fraction are the kind of fanatics ready to die for the evil shit they believe in, and even they suck at actually fighting. You'd think supernaturally inspired evil would be more impressive. I'd expect the Soldiers of Lucifer to be at least a little... badass. That's where I'm getting at. I'm not sure if it's a reasonable expectation, after all, evil is supposed to be... not good.

@91 Ok, yeah, that proves it was me choosing my words poorly. I should've done that better, but my English isn't nearly as good as I'd like, not in writing. Too many hits to the head, I guess.

There is large organized evil in the world, and sometimes it's really clever, too. Communism is mostly gone on a nation state scale, but the ideology itself is definitely still wielding enormous influence in the world, even in countries that never were officially communist. Then there's those things you used as examples and lots more. It's just that the people who do this, those people seem... small. Less satanic than pathetic - I mean just look at your average communist leader or ideologue, and you'll see some overweight physically and mentally weak pedophile whose only virtues are above average intelligence and speech skill. That's why I've always assumed evil is just humans being humans, expecting supernaturally inspired evil to feel more impressive and a lot more frightening. But this thing you said got me thinking:

"Actually, seeing evil as small could also mean your conception of power levels is informed by exposure to the presence of God."

Could be that. Or maybe exposure to those who believe in God, if that's not the same thing. Because I've seen a few of those people fight, too, and they were impressive. Aggressive, brave and effective, but still not cruel or hateful. Have to respect that. That's one reason why I don't get the ideological atheist's hostility to western Christians (Christians in, say, Africa are very different in my experience - maybe religion does not beat genes). It seems a very impractical hostility. If I need to go to battle, I'd much rather have a devout Christian with me than some urban don't-believe-in-nuthin' nihilist.

I need to do some more thinking on this. Lots more. And with less alcohol. One unfortunately accurate stereotypical Finnish problem is only being able to act philosophical when shit-faced drunk.

Blogger Quadko November 04, 2016 12:57 PM  

@59 Benjamin Kraft - thanks for a reply, sorry for my delay...

I agree about the past and the future, but you glossed over my question in the middle section. If you haven't dealt with it yourself, no worries.

Before the cross, Jesus tells his disciples some stuff about what's coming. After the cross but before the fall of the Temple, Paul writes letters with some stuff about what's coming. Satan's "overthrow" from usurping ruler is in this mix of stuff.

Christians hold lots of different interpretations about end times and historical divisions (eg. dispensational theology vs. non-), of course.

But most of us agree that the cross (with perhaps a transition period through the fall of the temple) changed things, and we transitioned from law to grace, from an Israel focused nataion age to a Church all-peoples age, and we look forward to the second coming.

My question is trying to figure out Biblically why Satan's rulership wouldn't have ended with the 'age' around the triumph of the cross, it's all part of the same discussions of other 'end of the age' changes. But absolutely I may be missing something.

Certainly the father of lies would love to get people believing he has power and control he does not, just for the ego boost or manipulative power or whatever. But if he is still a lame duck ruler, I certainly want to deal with reality as it is.

And it's not like Satan is the sole source of evil in the world, or that without a position of authority he'd have no affect. The common use of "the world, the flesh, and the devil" and the war in heaven even after Lucifer was chained then released show Christians believe that. We oppose evil from all sources, we oppose the devil, but Christ is now king...

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts