Tag: Christianity

Dostoevsky understood that when the Church becomes the State, it ceases to be the Church, as he described in The Brothers Karamazov:

In many cases there are no churches there at all, for though ecclesiastics and splendid church buildings remain, the churches themselves have long ago striven to pass from Church into State and to disappear in it completely. So it seems at least in Lutheran countries. As for Rome, it was proclaimed a State instead of a Church a thousand years ago.

The State Churches of Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden bear testimony to this perspective. Temporal power has always been the great temptation of the Christian, as it was of Jesus Christ himself.

The devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.  “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’” 

Of course, Dostoevsky very well understood that others accepted the offer that Jesus Christ rejected.

All that I can say is known to Thee already. And is it for me to conceal from Thee our mystery? Perhaps it is Thy will to hear it from my lips. Listen, then. We are not working with Thee, but with him–that is our mystery. It’s long–eight centuries–since we have been on his side and not on Thine. Just eight centuries ago, we took from him what Thou didst reject with scorn, that last gift he offered Thee, showing Thee all the kingdoms of the earth. We took from him Rome and the sword of Cæsar, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, though hitherto we have not been able to complete our work. But whose fault is that? Oh, the work is only beginning, but it has begun. It has long to await completion and the earth has yet much to suffer, but we shall triumph and shall be Cæsars, and then we shall plan the universal happiness of man.

Beware those who preach the unity of Man and the healing of the world. Those who do have taken the Grand Ticket.

Our suggested devotional for Lent is by John Piper. What an absolute trainwreck. He starts by making sure that everyone knows that Jesus death was through Divine determination before creation and who killed him is irrelevant as he chose to die. But then turns around and scolds Christians for the Holocaust and the Crusades.

If it’s all decreed without human choice being involved then all of it, including the aforementioned, was just as decreed as every other atom. 

What a joke. 

It’s always easy to detect the inversionists. They cannot tell the truth because, knowingly or not, they serve the Father of Lies. Piper’s words directly belie the words of Jesus Christ himself. That tells you everything you need to know about the man and his teachings.

The Kurgan addresses John Salza’s The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law in detail:

As a result of Vox Day mentioning my earlier blog post challenge to nominal Catholics concerning the fact that we have only had antipopes since 1958, one of the commenters there brought up some supposed studied theologians who claim to have fully refuted the position they call Sedevacantism (but I call SedePrivationism for precision, since words matter). My post on the antipopes and the legal reasoning why is here and it is rooted in the fact that we, as obedient catholics, must believe the fake Popes are fake, and have been at the very least since 1963, for certain, because that is what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 necessarily states, which being put together by the Magisterium of the Church, we, as Catholics could never and should never had ignored when Vatican 2 raised its evil and apostate head from the darkness. Nor can we ignore it now. Remember that the only current and valid code of canon law is the one of 1917, since the one of 1983 was put together by the same impostors, non-clerics and non-catholics that usurped the Chair of Peter in the first place, and it was also specifically designed to try and invalidate the truth of the code of 1917 and obfuscate its clarity and precision.

Not having read or known anything about the two individuals mentioned by the commenter at VP calling himself MisesMat, who later emailed me and assured me both these gentlemen would be happy to debate me, in writing, I did a quick search for one the names that he mentioned and found Salza’s document online, which I reproduce below with my commentary. His words are in black and mine in red.

Not being Roman Catholic, I only scanned both documents in passing. So, I won’t pass any judgement on either man’s case, except to say that I am extremely dubious of anyone who, in light of the observable misrule of the present Fake Pope, could possibly reach the following conclusion.

Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope.

Extremely dubious is, of course, a significant understatement.

The Kurgan lays out a logical case for Sede Privationism for nominal Roman Catholics:

In order to make this very simple and to show that there is literally not a single valid refutation to the position of Sede Privationism, I have constructed the below logical argument.

Please note there are several resources at the end of the post to find legitimate Mass Centers and clerics

Axiom: The Catholic Church is the true and Valid Church instituted by Jesus Christ on Earth. This is the assumed starting axiomatic point. That is, regardless of if you personally agree or not with it, for the purposes of this argument it is assumed to be true and correct as our starting point.

Question 1. Is the Pio-Benedictine code of canon law of 1917 the legitimate code of Catholic Canon Law that was legitimately and correctly put together by the Church?

If Yes, go on to question 2.

If No, demonstrate this with specificity and exhaustive proof.

Question 2. The Vatican II documents are 16 documents produced between 1963 and 1965. Do you agree that in every case these documents contain heresy that is not in keeping with the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the start to at least 1958?
Reference:The Heresies of Vatican II

If Yes, go on to question 3.

If No, you’re probably a vile heretic yourself, but go, on, try and refute even just the linked reference document IN DETAIL and specifics. Honestly, you can’t because facts are facts and objective truth exists.

Those are just the first two questions. There are four in all. Read the whole thing there, if it is a matter of concern to you. Being a non-denominational Christian, I’m not particularly interested one way or the other; it seems readily apparent to me that the current so-called “Pope Francis” is about as genuinely a legitimate Christian bishop as I am the President of the Milky Way Galaxy.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end.

He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.
– Isaiah 9:6-7

Merry Christmas, everyone!

I was asked to provide the quote from TS Eliot’s introduction to Blaise Pascal’s Pensées, to which referred in a recent Darkstream. I thought was intriguing in light of how perfectly it foreshadowed my own approach to The Irrational Atheist as well as the arguments presented by the New Atheists themselves.

To understand the method which Pascal employs, the reader must be prepared to follow the process of the mind of the intelligent believer. The Christian thinker—and I mean the man who is trying consciously and conscientiously to explain to himself the sequence which culminated in faith, rather than the public apologist—proceeds by rejection and elimination. He finds the world to be so and so; he finds its character inexplicable by any non-religious theory; among religions he finds Christianity, and Catholic Christianity, to account most satisfactorily for the world and especially for the moral world within; and thus, by what Newman calls “powerful and concurrent” reasons, he finds himself inexorably committed to the dogma of the Incarnation.

To the unbeliever, this method seems disingenuous and perverse; for the unbeliever is, as a rule, not so greatly troubled to explain the world to himself, nor so greatly distressed by its disorder; nor is he generally concerned (in modern terms) to “preserve values.” He does not consider that if certain emotional states, certain developments of character, and what in the highest sense can be called “saintliness” are inherently and by inspection known to be good, then the satisfactory explanation of the world must be an explanation which will admit the “reality” of these values. Nor does he consider such reasoning admissible; he would, so to speak, trim his values according to his cloth, because to him such values are of no great value. The unbeliever starts from the other end, and as likely as not with the question: Is a case of human parthenogenesis credible? and this he would call going straight to the heart of the matter.

Now Pascal’s method is, on the whole, the method natural and right for the Christian; and the opposite method is that taken by Voltaire. It is worthwhile to remember that Voltaire, in his attempt to refute Pascal, has given once and for all the type of such refutation; and that later opponents of Pascal’s Apology for the Christian Faith have contributed little beyond psychological irrelevancies. For Voltaire has presented, better than any one since, what is the unbelieving point of view; and in the end we must all choose for ourselves between one point of view and another.

I’m pleased to be able to announce that The Kurgan and Jay Dyer will be debating, among other things, in the near future. Jay threw down the gauntlet and The Kurgan accepted on the Darkstream tonight. More to come after we set things up tomorrow. Should be very interesting!

Of course, some of Jay’s gamma fans can’t control themselves. This comment from a recent Jay Dyer tweet was amusing.

Vox banned me in the chat for asking if he would debate jay personally, Vox always runs away when challenged by someone more educated than him.

Yeah, so, about that. Anyhow, I would no more debate anyone about the intricacies of Roman Catholic Church law and doctrine than I would debate them about the ritually correct way to offer sacrifices to Tezcatlipoca and Xipe Totec. I simply don’t possess the relevant information to even begin discussing the subject.

It’s also a bit remarkable to see how many of these semi-illiterate midwits believe that I am going to watch a freaking video or listen to a talk. If someone can’t bother to write a book on the subject, or at least write out their complete argument in full, I’m not going to bother to spend any time analyzing it. There is no need, because their speech, whatever it might happen to be, is fundamentally ephemeral.

UPDATE: The debate will go however it goes, of course, but these tweets don’t appear to bode well.

Vox Day says if you don’t write a book on the topic in question, you’re not worth listening to – as he declares me a loser of a debate he didn’t listen to. LOL  Is this guy for real?

Vox day declined a debate but passed on the challenge to the nobody rip-off Vox day, the kurgan. Lol.

Kurgan – 0 public debates
-to directly debating live for 7-10k people on the Ralph retort LoL

While I have no dog in this particular hunt, I have to admit that I don’t have a lot of confidence in anyone who believes “LOL” is a form of punctuation.

To ban Jesuits and Catholicism in Japan.

Pope Francis met with young people at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Tokyo on Monday, where he called on the country to “open your arms and welcome those who come, often after great suffering, to seek refuge in your country”, said Caritas Japan.

It said that due to the country’s restrictive laws, only 42 people obtained refugee status in 2018.

Any purportedly “Christian” organization that attempts to destroy nations is in service to the Devil. This Fake Pope is obviously a man of evil. As his concerns demonstrate, he is both in and of the world.

Matt muses over what I would call “churchianity” rather than “Middle Class Christianity”, but the point is essentially the same:

A lot of what is called Christian morality today is not necessarily Christian, but more accurately described as Middle Class Christianity. It is the Christianity influenced by the Victorian era politeness and the rather quiet in door working spaces of many Christians, who tend heavily towards the middle class.

Here are examples of the difference:

Middle Class Christianity: Don’t be harsh and use mean words to those who come to you, especially if they are in need.

Christianity: Jesus said to the Syrophoenician woman: You don’t give the children’s food to the dogs (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30).

Middle Class Christianity: It is wrong to even insult those who reject the message of Jesus.

Christianity: Jesus said to the disciples to shake the dust of their feet when leaving an unbelieving town or even home (Matt 10:14). A visible and very offensive gesture in his day. Use your imagination to think of similar offensive gestures

Middle Class Christianity: Quiet kindness and addressing your audience in calm smooth tones is the way to address people. Don’t use ad-hominins, stereotypes, or harsh language.

Christianity: Jesus in the gospel of Matthew: Woe to you Pharisees, you brood of vipers, you snakes, you white-washed tombs, you rotten corpses twice dead, you sons of hell (Matt 23).

Your average Churchian is the modern equivalent of a Pharisee, wrongly thinking himself superior to Jesus Christ and shaking his head in judgement of what he sees as the Son of Man’s inferior comportment.

The Vatican is discussing the possibility of married priests… and other things:

This Sunday kicks off a three-week meeting of bishops at the Vatican to discuss, among other things, ordaining some married men as priests to help alleviate a shortage of Catholic clergy in the nine countries of the Amazon region.

Pope Francis convened the meeting, called a synod, to discuss environmental and religious issues in the Amazon and give special attention to the needs of indigenous communities there. The region includes parts of Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Guyana, Surinam and French Guiana. The Vatican has invited 184 bishops and priests from those countries and from around the world to participate in the synod and vote on measures. Thirty-five women, mostly religious sisters and nuns, have been invited but will not have voting rights.

There will be 17 representatives of the Amazon’s indigenous populations, including 9 women, will attend as well.

But before it even begins, the synod has become the center of controversy for both conservatives and liberals.

The Pope told bishops from the region to “be bold” in their proposals for the meeting and Bishop Erwin Krautler, the church’s Secretary for the Commission on the Pan-Amazon Region, says he hopes the meeting will address not only ordaining married men, but women too.

“We don’t just speak about men because it’s exclusionary,” Krautler told CNN. “We also want to include women.”

The possibility that centuries of Catholic tradition of a celibate priesthood might be overturned has caused conservative outrage.

Since I’m not a Catholic, I don’t believe my opinion matters here. But, for those who happen to be interested, I don’t think the abandonment of the traditional celibacy requirement for priests would be a bad thing. Married priests, even with the concomitant risk of nepotism, are vastly to be preferred to gay priests, which has been the reality since at least Vatican II.

Furthermore, the Biblical requirements for a deacon not only don’t preclude marriage, they actually require it, and the fruits of priestly celibacy have not been generally positive.

Considerably more troubling is the possibility that this Amazonian synod will be used to push the ordainment of women, which would mark the beginning of the end of the Roman Catholic Church.