Tag: Christianity

Mailvox: the election and the non-problem of evil

11/4 notes a conceptual connection:

Vox, in your AMA you said you became Christian after discovering Evil exists.

This shit just about has me reading a damn Bible, which even 2 years ago I would have scoffed at.

No formal definition is necessary. You see the pattern and know.

I wonder, if all of this comes out, will many other Americans react the same way. Could there be a religious revival under Trump?

It’s not impossible. I’ve stated in the past that one reason I left the USA was due to my momentary glimpse into the social circles of power there. I met Donald Trump in passing back in 1988, as a consequence of a brief relationship with someone who was on the outskirts of those circles. And I had an amount of other exposure to various people in positions of not-insignificant power.

I didn’t, and I don’t, actually KNOW anything of substance in this regard. But, as the readers here know, my intelligence tends to run towards logic and pattern recognition. And what I sensed more than saw was an intrinsic and fundamental wrongness on the part of everyone involved. It literally made me feel a pressing urge to run, not walk, away from all of it. If you consider that I was not at all bothered being around the gay Chicago industrial scene that surrounded Wax Trax! at the same time, that may put the strength of that impression of wrongness in perspective.

The reason I have come to believe Christianity is true, that Jesus Christ is the hard and narrow path out of a fallen world, that the model of good and evil described in the Bible is real, is because it, and only it, explains the behavior of various people I have met in the course of my life to my satisfaction.

And it’s also why I suspect that Donald Trump, the man who once described pedophile procurer Jeffrey Epstein as “a great guy”, may have experienced a similar enlightenment at some point in time. As another commenter, leukosfash, observed:

I think The Golden Don found out about those poor kids years ago and he’s been plotting all this time to avenge their suffering, even if it cost him his last nickle. There is a flinty grimness in his pursuit of the White House that I noticed, even when he’s smiling, but I couldn’t understand it until now. He literally loathes all of those evil fuckers; which also explains his refusal to go along with the yukks at that roast thingy.


I’ve noticed that grimness too. And more than that, I’ve noticed it in his family and in his entire circle. Nothing fazes them. Nothing even causes them to blink. And nothing can disguise their obvious loathing and contempt for his opponent and everyone around her. Watch Donald Trump Jr. in particular. He looks like he’s itching to personally waterboard every single member of the Clinton inner circle.

It all comes together

In one glorious, feminist cuckservative anti-racist dyscivilizational Churchian heresy:

An old friend of mine has a sister who decided to go back to college and get a degree in “ministry.” This was on her hard-working husband’s dime, obviously. She has four young-children at home, including one she adopted from Africa and uses as a virtue signal all over social media.

Anyway, she “preached a sermon” at an area church last Sunday. Of course, she plastered it all over the various relevant social media apps so she can emotionally masturbate in the “Christian” feminist echo chamber. My wife showed me the title of the sermon:

“Exploring the justice of the Holy Spirit, which often shows up as a holy disruption and upsets the status quo of an unjust empire.”

The thrilling frontier of female preaching.

Satan is fortunate to not possess a material body, or he would be at regular risk of rupturing something inside, seeing as how much what passes for the modern Church regularly provides for him to laugh at.

William S. Lind is right. The West really needs to revive the practice of burning witches.

When life is like Blasphemous Rumors

I don’t fault those who find it difficult to believe in God due to tragic events, particularly those that tend to smack of the Divine having a sick sense of humor:

Dennis Byrd, a former Jets defensive lineman best known for battling back from a serious spinal injury and recovering to walk again, has died at the age of 50. Byrd was killed in a car crash in Claremore, Oklahoma, today.

According to Fox 23, Byrd was driving down the highway when his vehicle was struck head on by another vehicle, which had crossed the center line. A 12-year-old passenger in Byrd’s vehicle was hospitalized, as was the 17-year-old boy driving the vehicle that hit Byrd’s vehicle. Byrd was pronounced dead at the scene.

A second-round draft pick of the Jets in 1989, Byrd played four NFL seasons before suffering a serious neck injury in a collision with a teammate. Byrd was paralyzed and his career was over, but after lengthy physical therapy he was able to walk again. At the Jets’ home opener in 1993, Byrd walked to the middle of the field to represent his team in the pregame coin toss, and there he was given the team’s Most Inspirational Player Award, which is now known as the Dennis Byrd Award.

In the 1980s, Depeche Mode wrote what may be the greatest philosophical lyric ever written in pop music.

I don’t want to start any blasphemous rumors
But I think that God’s got a sick sense of humor
And when I die
I expect to find Him laughing

As an indifferent agnostic, that fairly well described my religious perspective before I became a Christian. But that is why it is so important to understand the correct application of the Problem of Evil, and to grasp what it means for the world to be fallen, why it is necessary for Christians to be in the world, but not of it, and why the Word became flesh and died on the Cross.

Depeche Mode was right, in a sense, though it is not God who has the sick and sadistic sense of humor, but the Prince of this world. Neither God nor Jesus Christ rule over the Silent Planet, and they are not the architects of human misfortune.

I do, however, contra Umberto Eco, firmly believe that God possesses a sense of humor. I have sensed it. And one cannot read the New Testament without recognizing that Jesus was almost brutally sarcastic.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord.

Retreat is pointless

Christian organizations might as well learn to start standing firmly on their principles, because you either use them or you lose them:

One of the largest evangelical organizations on college campuses nationwide has told its 1,300 staff members they will be fired if they personally support gay marriage or otherwise disagree with its newly detailed positions on sexuality starting on Nov. 11.


InterVarsity Christian Fellowship USA says that it will start a process for “involuntary terminations” for any staffer who comes forward to disagree with its positions on human sexuality, which holds that any sexual activity outside of a husband and wife is immoral.

One of Rod Dreher’s commenters adds an observation.


Federal law makes it pretty much impossible to take a stance along the lines of, “This is what we believe, but out of compassion and pragmatism we’re willing to be flexible for a certain amount of time, with certain people, and/or in certain situations.” Either you have a blanket policy that applies to all people in all instances, or federal courts will rule that you don’t “really” have a principled position and invalidate the broader policy because of the exceptions.

So, do the right thing. Don’t make exceptions. Tolerance is not a Christian virtue, it is the first step along the path to destruction.

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.

The mantra of inclusiveness

The fact that this church even feels the need to hold a hearing on this matter is an indication of how hopelessly converged it is. And in answer to the question posed by the headline, no, an atheist cannot lead a Christian church:

The Rev. Gretta Vosper is a dynamic, activist minister with a loyal following at her Protestant congregation in suburban Toronto. She is also an outspoken atheist.

“We don’t talk about God,” Vosper said in an interview, describing services at her West Hill United Church, adding that it’s time the church gave up on “the idolatry of a theistic god.”

Vosper’s decision to reject God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit and to turn her church into a haven for nonbelievers “looking for a community that will help them create meaningful lives without God” has become too much even for the liberal-minded United Church of Canada.

The United Church, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, has begun an extraordinary process that could end up stripping Vosper of her rights to continue as a minister. Last week, a special committee of the Toronto Conference of the United Church requested that a formal hearing be convened by the General Council of the United Church to determine her fate as a minister. That followed a review of  Vosper’s actions by a separate committee.

“In our opinion, she is not suitable to continue in ordained ministry because she does not believe in God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. Ms. Vosper does not recognize the primacy of scripture, she will not conduct the sacraments, and she is no longer in essential agreement with the statement of doctrine of The United Church of Canada,” the committee said in a report released recently….

Like other mainstream denominations, the United Church of Canada, founded in 1925 as a merger of several denominations, has seen its numbers fall sharply in recent years. It reported having 436,292 members at the end of 2014, less than half the 1,063,951 it had at its peak in 1964. But a spokeswoman notes that the Canadian census of 2011, which has a broader definition, counted more than 2 million “adherents” of the United Church.

“It’s become a question of the church’s public integrity,” the Rev. Don Schweitzer, a professor of theology at St. Andrew’s College in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and editor of a history of the United Church, said of the dispute with Vosper. “It’s tough on the United Church because we’ve created this mantra of inclusiveness and now it’s been tested. It goes against the grain to tell somebody that you have to leave.”

Inclusivity and tolerance are NOT Christian principles. They are quite literally the opposite of Christian principles. They are social justice principles, which is to say, they are among the many principles acceptable to Hell.

The Devil is most inclusive and extraordinarily tolerant. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want. And all it will cost you is your soul.

Empty-handed at the OK Corral

Not bringing a religion to a clash of civilizations is like not bringing a gun to a gunfight. Every major civilization has had its basis in a core religion.

Consider these three quotes from Sam Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations:

  1. The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel conflict between Islam and the West.
  2. Blood, language, religion, way of life, were what the Greeks had in common and what distinguished them from the Persians and other non-Greeks. Of all the objective elements which define civilizations, however, the most important usually is religion, as the Athenians emphasized. To a very large degree, the major civilizations in human history have been closely identified with the world’s great religions; and people who share ethnicity and language but differ in religion may slaughter each other, as happened in Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, and the Subcontinent.
  3. Religion is a central defining characteristic of civilizations, and, as Christopher Dawson said, “the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest.” Of Weber’s five “world religions,” four—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism—are associated with major civilizations. The fifth, Buddhism, is not.
Now, one can blithely try to wave away Huntington’s civilizational perspective and his thesis, but considering how The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order was published in 1996 and has proven to be not merely far more insightful and predictive than Fukuyama’s End of History thesis or any other conceptual model, one would have to be grossly ignorant to do so.
So, if we accept the idea that Western civilization and Islamic civilization are in conflict, what must we logically conclude from the three quotes provided?
  1. The decline of the West is the direct result of the decline of Christianity in the West, both religious and institutional.
  2. The growing power of Islam in the West cannot be halted by secularism, white nationalism, or any sub-civilization-level force.
  3. The preservation of the West requires a revival of Christianity.
  4. The preservation of the West requires the abandonment of some, though not all, secular values, beginning with the freedom of religion, that conflict with the restoration of Christianity
There is considerably more that can be concluded from this particular perspective, but I expect most people, even of an Alt-West persuasion, will struggle to accept just those four inescapable conclusions.

The essential evil of globalism

The Church is finally beginning to speak out against the religion of Anti-Christ:

Prominent theologians and scholars are saying this week that while globalism may be a buzzword this election season, too few understand the demonic forces driving this ideology.

As The New York Times reported Monday, until relatively recently it was rare to hear people referred to as “globalists” but the label is more common now. And while many globalists claim to have the interests of the entire world at heart, the irony is that they have become a tribe of sorts; and they are a wealthy, elite, and powerful tribe for whom national borders are an impediment to their agenda.

While many definitions for globalism exist, a wide chasm separates 1) necessary global exchanges in an increasingly interconnected world, like trade, legal immigration, and the cooperation and sharing of ideas across borders, and 2) globalism as a secular humanistic religion of sorts that envisons a one-world government.

For the second definition of globalism, such views are antithetical to a Christian worldview, according to some, even as the Church itself is global and the Kingdom of God is not constrained by national borders.

“A major objection to globalism from a spiritual and biblical point of view is that many of the globalists are pushing for a global value system,” said Wallace Henley, senior associate pastor of 2nd Baptist Church in Houston, Texas in a Tuesday phone interview with The Christian Post.

Henley, who has written recently on CP about national borders further explained that there is an anti-Christ spirit at work in the world that opposes the Kingdom of Christ, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

“The Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ is the highest form of civilization. The anti-civilization represented by anti-Christ is the opposite of that. So if the kingdom of Christ is righteousness, the anti-civilization is evil and injustice. If the kingdom of Christ is peace, the Kingdom of anti-Christ is conflict. If the Kingdom of Christ is joy in the Holy Spirit, anti-civilization is misery.”

In a September 4 American Thinker article titled, “Globalism: the Religion of Empire” theologian Fay Voshell noted similarly that “[l]ike the Christian vision of the universal Kingdom of God, the religion of secular globalism claims universality, but is an earthly minded substitute for the Church universal. The Christian vision sees the Church universal as God’s kingdom ruling the earth. The religion of globalism sees an earthly, utopian world order in which all men pay allegiance to elite priests who rule over a World City without national borders.”

Globalism is the heart of all that is wicked. Free trade, economic growth, the free movement of peoples, the United Nations, the international agreements, Davos Man, world peace, coexistence, immigration, and the New World Order, all of it is part of the evil sum total. Remember, if it didn’t come in an attractive package, very few would fall for it.

“Self-righteous Churchian Pharisaism”

Scott Morefield annihilates the feeble anti-Trump arguments of the Republican Party’s Prince of Cucks, Erick Erickson on WND:

Erick doubles down on the insanity as the column devolves into self-righteous Churchian Pharisaism while ultimately rejecting both of the choices God Himself has obviously put before us.

And the logic he uses to do so is horribly, fatally flawed.

Erickson contrasts Clinton’s “tyranny of the minority” with Trump’s “tyranny of the majority” and his “corrupting the virtuous and fostering hatred, racism, and dangerous strains of nationalism.”

Since when, Erick, is putting America and Americans above globalist interests a “dangerous strain of nationalism”?

Trumpism, the movement Trump represents, can essentially be defined as taking our country back from foreign, globalist, corporate and establishment interests by securing our border and limiting immigration, establishing a fair, sensible trade policy that protects American jobs, and limiting foreign interventions overseas, among other things.

What could possibly be wrong with that?

By constantly bringing up the “racist” canard, people like Erickson not only lose credibility – because there is not one single shred of evidence that Donald Trump is a racist – but they insult, like Hillary Clinton did, the millions of Americans who passionately support Trump. It’s tired, old and increasingly ineffective, and yet just like the left, who see a “raaacist” behind every tree, hand-wringers like Erickson continue to deploy it to serve their rhetorical ends.

Further, the attacks on the supposed hypocrisy of prominent Christian theologian Wayne Grudem are beyond the pale, especially given the fact that Grudem made it clear that he did not support Trump in the primaries, just as he didn’t support Giuliani in 2012. However, he most certainly would have supported Giuliani over Obama had he won the primaries, just as he is supporting Trump now, with good reason.

Erickson uses the fact that a fellow parishioner at his church tried to make the argument for Trump based on other flawed men in the Bible God has used, like David, Abraham and Samson, as evidence that Trump has “poisoned” the church from within. He believes that while Clinton will do “long-term damage to the country,” Trump will “do far more damage to the church.”

Ironically, Erickson later writes of the church, “But Christ has already risen, so the true church is in no danger of falling. The gates of hell shall not prevail.”

So, which is it, Erick? If you believe that Christ will protect and keep His church, surely you aren’t worried about a mortal human like Donald Trump wrecking it, are you?

You see, unlike our country, the church IS, at root, a spiritual institution impervious to the machinations of man.

It’s really remarkable what a horrible, and horribly dishonest individual Erick Erickson is. It does not speak well of those Christians who insist on continuing to pay attention to the man and his incessant posturing.

Better late than never

Ted Cruz endorses Donald Trump:

This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

One can imagine the tear tracks being carved through the Cheetohs grime covering Glenn Beck’s face. I wonder how long it will take the cuckiest of cucks, Erick Erickson, to follow Cruz’s lead and reverse course considering that he just planted his flag again earlier today.

The polling has drawn ever closer. More and more people wonder if those of us who are NeverTrump should finally yield knowing that we can beat Hillary Clinton. I am in an odd position. I am mindful that should Trump win, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump. Likewise, I know if Trump loses, the Republican establishment will blame people like me for giving rise to Trump and Trump supporters will blame people like me for his loss. I suppose I should say not that I’m in an odd position, but that I am in a no-win position.

With Donald Trump’s rise in the polls and the increasingly competitive nature of the race, it is time to reconsider my opposition to Trump. After all, I view Hillary Clinton’s candidacy as anti-American….

I think Hillary Clinton will do lasting damage to the country. I cannot vote for her.

Having reconsidered my opposition to Trump, I think Donald Trump will do lasting damage to the witness of the Church in America and I therefore cannot vote for him.

I am without a candidate. I just cannot vote for either one. Whichever is elected, it is God’s will and as his holy and inerrant scripture commands, I will pray for my President as I pray for the current President. But I will not harm my witness nor risk Trump’s soul to serve my political desires.

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. I do not believe a vote for either candidate glorifies God and I am certain neither advances his kingdom.

Dude, you voted for Captain Underoos. You voted for a bloody MORMON. You don’t get to play the “oh, I’m an evangelical, I’m too holy to care about my country, I’m voting for God” card after that. What the fuck is “the witness of the Church in America” anyhow? Lesbian Unitarians performing gay marriages while the gay Catholic seminarians chase the altar boys and women talk about their mutually submitted husbands in the pulpits of the Protestant churches as the only male pastors left are too busy apologizing for slavery to preach the Gospel?

Erick Erickson is exactly the sort of Christian that gave me an allergy to Christianity growing up. All that passive-aggressive, faux-righteous babble designed to justify himself reminds me of every smarmy high school guy who was going to a Bible college to pursue a career in youth ministry because it was the only way he could hang around high school girls.