Tag: Christianity

Predictive prophecy

Ann Morgan appears to believe that anything she repeats nine times is true.  But she is wrong:

The problem with that is this – nobody has EVER taken a ‘prophecy’
from the bible and used it to accurately predict a future event BEFORE
it happened. What they have done is taken various events that have
happened (in their past) and claimed (post facto) that they fulfilled a
biblical ‘prophecy’.

This is absolutely false.  I’ve seen one example in my own lifetime. There has long been an expectation in fundamentalist Christian circles that the various nations of Europe would unify due to the prophecy in Revelation. This was much pooh-poohed even as the Common Market took shape, since the various national politicians all publicly avowed that there was no intention of any political union.

Lo and behold, the European Union was formed.

There are other examples, of course. But Biblical prophecy has an observably better track record as a predictive model than either climate science or evolution by natural selection.

Mailvox: four erroneous arguments

Ann Morgan appears to have no idea that she’s in completely over her head here. Her anti-Christian reasoning is specious and rests on a foundation of ignorance and error.

Christianity generally fails when one or more of a few things happen:

1.
Those who claim something is ‘sinful’ cannot give any reason why it is,
other than ‘Because God says so’. In the absence of actual proof of
God, functionally, that statement is no different than ‘Because I say
so’.

2. A person is promised various rewards during their life
for being ‘good’, only to have the promise broken, and the rewards
either not given out at all, or given to those who were not good. Sooner
or later, they will conclude that the promise of an afterlife is just
one more promise that is going to be broken.

3. The wealth earned
by a person believing in Christian ethics ends up in the hands of those
promoting the Christian ethics. At some point they are going to
conclude that the entire business of Christianity is a con, to trick
them out of their wealth.

4. The promise of ‘forgiveness’ sounds
nice, but the way it functions is that people who harm others and their
society their whole lives, get to repent at the end of their lives and
go to heaven. This will end up in some sort of ‘tragedy of the commons’.
If you don’t want the commons overgrazed, you need to be vigilant about
those who are overgrazing it; allowing them to overgraze it for years,
ruin the commons for everyone else while getting fat cattle for
themselves, then tell them everything will be fine because they ‘repent’
is a recipe for disaster.

Even her introduction is false.  Christianity does not, and cannot, fail on the basis of any of these points.

  1. There is no other reason than “God says so”.  In the absence of God, sin does not exist.  This is hardly philosophical or theological news.  However, makes the basic error of confusing an objective statement with a subjective one.  For example, it makes no difference whether the Magna Carta exists or not, the statement that “the Magna Carta says you must do X” is materially different than “I say you must do X”.  This should be completely obvious, since when the Christian says “God says Y is a sin” and cites a document that existed before he was born, that statement cannot possibly be considered equal to “because I say so” whether God exists or not.
  2. This is irrelevant.  The Bible says that all are fallen and no one is good, save God.  Her argument is based on a false premise and indicates her ignorance concerning Christian theology.  Luke 18:19: “And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.”
  3. This is observably false, as evidenced by the fact of billions of Christians who have not, in fact, concluded that the entire business of Christianity is a con.  It would be a poor con that settles for ten percent when the federal government takes, on average, twice that.
  4. This is logically fallacious because it rests on a false assumption.  The fact is that there are relatively few deathbed conversions and there are billions of Christians who do not wait to repent of their sins.  Ergo, no tragedy of the commons. Let reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions.

Daring to judge God

I always had my doubts about the legitimacy of Desmond Tutu.  His recent theological posturing confirms my suspicions that he was always more about winning the favor of a fallen world than serving God:

Tutu, who retired as Archbishop of Cape Town in 1996, has long campaigned for gay rights. 

‘I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,’ he said. ‘I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.’

At 81 years old, it would seem Mr. Tutu will soon have the option to experience the consequences of his decision.  Most likely to his surprise, as this is the statement of a deeply silly and superficial man with no reverence for the God he once affected to serve, and, I would argue, neither hope of Heaven nor fear of Hell.  Give him another few years and I have little doubt he’d come out as an atheist.

God is not homophobic. He is not afraid of homosexuals but merely regards them as abominations, perhaps because alone among sinners, they define themselves by their sin and assert their pride in it.

Where is the Left?

I find it fascinating how the ideological Left is far more concerned about slavery that ended nearly 150 years ago than slavery that is taking place today.  It appears that if they can’t blame something on white people, they’re just not interested in it:

From the West Coast of Africa to the deserts of Sinai, Bedouin tribes
are conducting a human trafficking trade on a massive scale… This man is just one victim of this widespread modern-day slavery,
kidnapping, and torture trade in the Sinai desert. There are many
pictures and videos of this horrible practice on the Internet. For this story, this Christian man from the African country of
Eritrea is going by “Philip,” but that’s not his real name. CBN News
covered his identity for his protection.

“In some cases, we were tortured simply because we were Christians,” he told us, his chest trembling slightly as he spoke. “Sinai was always a place for human smuggling, but since around two
years ago — even a bit more — it started also to be a place of human
torture,” Shahar Shoham, director of Physicians for Human Rights, told CBN News.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it is readily apparent that everything, including the truth, is nothing more than a useful weapon to the Left.  With a few noble exceptions, for whom I harbor an amount of respect, they just don’t appear to have any genuine principles beyond whatever they find useful at the moment. 

This is true of some who are nominally on the right, of course.  You don’t need to remind me, I was acquainted with Ken Lay and some members of Bush the Elder’s “Houston Mafia”.  But it appears to be true of nearly everyone, especially at the grass roots, on the Left.

The Harrowing of the Holy See

Pope Francis takes on the Lavender Lobby: 

A tide of lurid speculation, questionable accusations and possible blackmail attempts is buffeting the Vatican following Pope Francis‘s claim that he is preparing to tackle a gay lobby secretly at work behind the Holy See’s walls.

The new pope’s private comments to a group of visiting South American churchmen,
which caused a sensation when they appeared on a religious website last
week, prompted blushes in the Vatican and unleashed feverish gossip in
Rome regarding the contents of a report on Vatican infighting prepared
last year for Francis’s predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger.

On his
retirement in February, Ratzinger handed his Argentine successor the
dossier, which reportedly describes a lobby of gay, senior churchmen
inside the Vatican, running a network of patronage while fighting off
blackmailers. The pope’s unguarded remarks, which appeared to
confirm the speculation, have fuelled a new round of accusations,
beginning with a convicted paedophile priest, Father Patrizio Poggi, who
last week named nine fellow prelates in Rome as part of a secret band
who used a police officer to supply them with eastern European rent
boys.

It’s long been rumored in Italian Catholic circles that the Catholic hierarchy, and the Vatican itself, have been infested with homosexuals and secret Satanists since before Vatican II.  Many believed that while the Pope Emeritus’s resignation was to permit the next pope to take on that lobby, Cardinal Bergoglio was not his chosen successor for the task.  And there are certainly some Catholics, like Ann Barnhardt, who has reservations about Pope Francis’s ability to do what his predecessor could not:

Here’s the deal. Pope Francis, while the Vicar of Christ gloriously reigning, is not a terribly bright man. What brings Jorge Maria Bergoglio’s intellectual shortcomings into even starker relief is the fact that his predecessor, Benedict XVI Ratzinger is not only a bona fide genius, but also … still alive. Francis is a mediocre intellect, poorly educated, and a member of an order (the Jesuits) that is so far gone that it should be suppressed. Layer on top of this the generation of which Francis is a product: perhaps the most godless, evil, blind generation in human history, and add in the fact that while being poorly educated in the age of the hippy, he has also lived his entire life in South America, which has been more steadily and overtly influenced by Marxism, both in the secular world as well as in the Church, than either Europe or North America over the last fifty years.

Jorge Maria Bergoglio is the first “affirmative action” pope – which is a different thing entirely from nepotism. The College of Cardinals, again, not exactly a collection of the smartest men in the world – remember Tracksuit Timmy Dolan, dinner host of antichrists and celebrant of “gay” Masses, a man whose capacity for intellectual nuance is on par with a box of hair, is not only a cardinal, but the head of the U.S. Bishop’s conference – went into the conclave wanting to elect not the best man, not the brightest intellect, not the most competent manager. No. The criteria were racial and geographical. “Um, we need to have a pope from the Western Hemisphere. We need to have a pope from a Spanish-speaking country. We need to make the Latinos feel good and keep the Latino money flowing, because they are the only ones not contracepting themselves into extinction.”

And, if this culture of stupidity persists, then mark my words: they will elect a black African next time for no other reason than “affirmative action”.

Now, back to Francis’ sermonettes, and defending the press. There is a tremendous uproar on the internet with people cursing the Vatican Press Office for not releasing the full transcripts of Francis’ sermonettes but instead only piecemeal summaries consisting of brief quotes from Francis with press-written prose between the quotes to give context. “Give us the full transcripts!”

The reason they aren’t releasing the full transcripts is because Francis’ sermonettes are so rambling, so incoherent and sometimes so embarrassing in their delivery (verbal ticks like, “eh?” and “right?”) that the Vatican Press Office is trying to protect both Francis and the dignity of the Holy See by taking Francis’ stream-of-consciousness rhetorical sausage and presenting it as something that could maybe pass as steak.

On the other hand, intellectual genius and superlative rhetorical skill are no substitute for a determination and a willingness to give the necessary orders.  So, I suppose we shall have to wait and see.

That “mythical” war on Christianity

As is so often the case, atheists whine about nonexistent persecution in the West while Christians are facing the real thing in the East and Middle East:

Horrific video shows Syrian Catholic priest being ‘beheaded by jihadist fighters in front of cheering crowd’. Father Francois Murad’s death was confirmed by Vatican news agency. Footage of 49-year-old’s gruesome death was filmed on a camera phone. The Syrian priest was killed last 23 June in Gassanieh, northern Syria.

This is bad enough, but it’s even more troubling that the Obama administration is actively supporting the Syrian jihadists and supplying them with weaponry.  If one simply looks at his actions, his comment about “my Muslim faith” looks less and less like a slip of the tongue, and more and more like an intentional thumbing of his nose at the American people.

Spare a thought for Father Francois Murad today, who showed courage unto death.  Keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to hold your tongue, or look the other way, for fear of what the world might think.

Post-Christian pagan revival

You may recall that a pan-European pagan revival was something I predicted a few years ago ago.  Secularism is not an option because it has nothing to offer philosophically or spiritually; that’s precisely why the humanists are always producing manifestos as well as books attempting to explain why it is possible for someone to square a circle even though no one has managed it yet.  This petty Greek paganism is insignificant today, but if they are successful in marrying it to the powerful nationalist revival represented by Golden Dawn, it could prove surprisingly popular.

In the last few years, though, some have come to
distrust that prism, and to say so in public. While Church membership
is still extremely high (more than 95% of all Greeks are at least
nominally Orthodox) and the leadership is still highly involved in
state affairs, there has been a resurgence of popular interest in the pre-Christian
past. With it has come a small explosion of pagan groups, philosophical
societies, Spartan schools, “Hellenist” magazines and
performances of classical theater….

One of the most visible facets of the revivalist movement has
been the campaign for recognition for the Dodecatheon, or “Religion
of the Twelve Gods.” The campaign has hardly been successful: polytheists have twice applied to the
Greek religion ministry for official status, and twice they have
been ignored. Coverage of the movement in the popular press has
not been flattering. (The word many Greeks use when asked about
the pagans is “funny.”) But the movement has been attracting attention. 

Paganism looks funny from the perspective of the post-Christian, who has the benefit of more than a thousand years of Christian civilization.  It’s not quite so funny if you happen to be sufficiently well-educated about historical paganism; there is a reason why “the Dark Ages” historically refers to the time before the coming of Jesus Christ, The Light of the World.

(The so-called “Enlightenment”, like all Satanic inspirations, is nothing more than a cheap and perverted knock-off of the original concept.)

In any event, the history of the 20th century should demonstrate that pagan nationalists, particularly those with pan-European ambitions, are no laughing matter.

Mailvox: leaving the Scouts behind

DC is standing up for the now-defunct moral code of the late Boy Scouts of America:

I’ve pulled my three sons out of Scouting and brought them over to a church that sponsors an Outpost for Royal Rangers. See…I want my sons to learn to be strong Christian men with morals, not rainbow loving losers that have no fear of the God of the Angel Armies.

Since I’ve clearly stated that I’m doing this, and why, so far I’ve been called intolerant, angry, stupid, and seriously, even Christians (?) that I go to church with don’t agree with me! I was stunned at that one. But today my friend sent me an email saying this:

“I don’t think u should use being a Christian as an excuse to judge gay people.  I thought Christians believed in not judging people. You said you don’t consider it as “judging” but that is exactly what it is. “

I think I was ready to hear all sorts of things from people, but was most surprised by the responses from those directly surrounding me.

You want to know how I feel now?

I am even MORE firm with what I feel is right. I will NOT allow the World to dictate what is right and wrong, period.

My biggest reason is that the kids need to see the clear, defined limit of where Christianity Meets The World. I’m refusing to be part of an organization that has taken a stance regarding homosexuality that is in conflict with my Christian beliefs.

First, removing your children from a corrupt organization is not “judging” anyone.  Discernment is not judgment.  Second, Christians believe that people will be judged, they simply don’t believe it is their responsibility to do the judging.  And one of the things God has judged people for in the past is tolerance of what He has deemed to be wicked.

I doubt your friend would say you should not use being a Christian as an excuse to judge a rapist or a murderer if you were keeping your children away from them.  She’s simply rationalizing her decision to arrogate the line between Christian morality and immorality, which is ridiculous since she doesn’t sound as if she’s even a Christian. Non-Christians have neither the ability nor the right to determine what is correct according to Christian precepts.

DC is absolutely doing the right thing by pulling her sons out of the now-corrupted scouting organization.  Every God-fearing Christian parent should do likewise.

Rejecting the Lie

A few people, both sympathetic and otherwise, have asked me why I am willing to hold and defend such controversial and upsetting opinions as I have done of late.  And providing more evidence that rabbits simply do not have the capacity to understand not-rabbits, the SFWA is absolutely rife with various theories concerning my supposed mental instability.

After all, who but a deranged lunatic would think to challenge the received wisdom of the warren’s long-accepted consensus goodthink?

As it happens, the reason is fairly straightforward.  If you will not stand up for the truth when pressed, you will not stand up for the Truth when persecuted.  Now, I may be wrong about the process of civilizational development and the extended period of time I believe it requires to fully transform tribes of primitive savages into an advanced and civilized culture; I have no problem changing my mind when a compelling case contra my position has been made.  I have, as the regulars here know, done precisely that with regards to free trade and open borders, among other things.  But I have not seen one single person, not one, even attempt to demonstrate that I am incorrect in any way.

I’ve seen rants, I’ve seen outrage, I’ve seen anger, I’ve seen insults, and I’ve seen assertions that certain subjects are beyond debate. What I have not seen is anyone make a case, let alone a coherent or compelling one, that opposes the logic and observations I have presented.  This is because the Lie cannot compete with the Truth, it can only attempt to obscure it and silence those who dare to speak it.

But the Lie never wins in the end.  The ongoing controversy somehow reminded me of this passage from Panzer Commander, a war memoir written by one of Rommel’s favorite officers, Col. Hans von Luck, which I found moving in the way it showed how even enemies at war can find common ground in the light of the Truth.  More importantly, it shows how even a rage that burns hotter and more violently than the rage of the SFWA’s delusional members cannot destroy the hunger of the human spirit for truth and Truth alike.

“Smolensk looked as though it had been abandoned. Destruction in the industrial quarters and of the bridges over the Dnieper was immense. In the midst of the ruins, Smolensk cathedral pointed to the sky. It appeared largely unharmed. I followed the women and the old men and as I entered the cathedral, was deeply impressed by its beauty. It looked intact. The altar was adomed; burning candles and many icons richly embellished with gold bathed the interior in a festive light.

As I went up to the altar with my companions, an old man, poorly dressed and with a flowing beard, spoke to me in broken German.

“Gospodin officer, I am a pope who used to preach here before the Lenin-Stalin era; I have been in hiding now for many years, scraping a living as a shoemaker. Now you have liberated our city. May I say a first mass in this cathedral?”

“How is it,” I asked, “that your cathedral is in such good condition?” His answer surprised me. America in tsarist times bought the church and all its treasures “Immediately after the Revolution, Russians who had emigrated from the Russians who, at the time, were in urgent need of American dollars. The cathedral is American property, which is why everything is-almost-unchanged.” 

I have never been able to verify his statement, but it was not very important to me. Without referring to HQ, I gave the pope permission to celebrate mass the next day, for which he wanted to bring in an additional pope.

The following day, I went to Smolensk again, having informed the divisional commander in the meantime; as a precaution, I took along an armored patrol.

The sight that met our eyes when we arrived was breathtaking.

The square in front of the cathedral was full of people moving slowly toward the entrance. With my orderly officer, I jostled my way forward. Already, there was not a corner left in the cathedral in which people were not standing, sitting, or kneeling. We remained standing to one side to avoid disturbing the service by our presence.

I was not familiar with the Russian Orthodox ritual, but the ceremony that now began drew me more and more under its spell.

Invisible behind the altar, one of the two popes began with a monotone chant, which was answered by a choir of eight voices standing in front of the altar. The chanting of the precentor and the choir filled the vast space of the church. The acoustics gave the impression that the chanting came from above, from heaven.

The people fell on their knees and prayed. All had tears in their eyes. For them, it was the first mass for more than twenty years. My companion and I were greatly moved.”

In rejecting NK Jemisin’s call for reconciliation within the SFWA, I declared there can be no reconciliation between the observant and the delusional.  Still less can there be any compromise between the Truth and the Lie.

The liars can ban the services. They can revoke memberships, they can deny access, they can reject publications, they can close their eyes, and they can put their hands over their ears. But one thing they cannot do is make their lies real.  And sometimes, it is necessary to imitate the marshwiggle, stick one’s hand into the fire, and raise a stink capable of penetrating their illusions.

A Robot doubles down

The remarkable thing about these leftist idiots is how shameless they are.  It doesn’t matter how badly they are caught out, or how completely they are shown to be wrong, they will double-down without hesitation, as A Robot does in defense of his “review” of Men on Strike:

In reviewing scientific literature, which Men On Strike purports to be,
one must review the source material which the author uses to support the
claims and assertions of the author. The source material is the basic
evidence that the author uses to show the person reading the book, “hey,
these things that I’m writing? They’re supported by facts, evidence,
and research. You can trust me and my work because a lot of time and
effort has gone into reviewing this material and making sure the most
accurate depiction of the facts of the matter at hand is presented.”

You
cannot separate reviewing the source material from reviewing the book
at hand, because the source material is the entire reason that one
should believe the assertions of the book. If you’re reading a book that
seriously studies any natural, social, or scientific phenomenon, you
have to check the source material. Theodore Beale is just one of many
sources not worth trusting that are liberally sourced in Helen Smith’s
book: Vox Day taken as a serious source of unbiased, well-researched
material is just the most egregious example and the one that could be
most easily demonstrated due to the great deal of material Beale puts
online.

That said, even without the contributions of Vox Day, Men
On Strike suffers greatly from a serious lack of actual research. The
vast majority of claims that it makes about men and women
(psychologically, socially, or otherwise) are not based on verifiable
data, instead relying on the anecdotes of whoever Smith could find that
supported the view she puts forth in Men On Strike. The book has not
gone through the peer review process that scientific literature goes
through to ensure accuracy. I’ve been totally unable to find any amount
of literature written by Helen Smith from any sort of peer-reviewed
journal or database. The only things I’ve been able to find written by
Helen Smith appear on her personal web site, and on the web sites of
people or organizations who share her political beliefs.

Real
scientists write and research for the purpose of scientific advancement,
and a big part of doing that is making sure that their research stands
up to peer review. The acknowledgements make no mention of any person
who reviewed Men On Strike to make sure it was scientifically accurate.
She mentions “friends and colleagues who have helped and encouraged”
her, but that is the only thing close to acknowledging scientific peer
review. Helen Smith intentionally decided not to bring her book to the
attention of the scientific community while presenting her book as
supported by scientific research and scrutiny. Her footnotes are filled
with references to her own research, and there are more citations of
blogs and of political organizations than of real scientific literature
on any subject even ostensibly related to the subject of sexual
inequality.

Men On Strike is, above all else, a compilation of
anecdote and political bias. It has no basis in research or verifiable
evidence beyond the quotations in her book having actually existed. 

The amusing thing is that this defense proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he didn’t read the book.  Dr. Helen directly addresses this line of criticism in the book, pointing out that she is being held to a standard to which no female writer attacking men is ever held.   Men on Strike isn’t “scientific literature”; it doesn’t pretend to be.

Ironically enough, in his attempt to keep people from reading Dr. Helen’s book, he’s only brought new people to the blog, such as KC:

I just stumbled upon your blog yesterday, ironically through the
1-star Men On Strike review that pointed me to your site.  (“Nobody can possibly be as
wacked-out as this person is saying,” I thought to myself, intent
on verification.) So far, I’ve found your site by turns
interesting, thought-provoking, and mildly infuriating.  (Thanks
for all the fantasy and SF links, by the way.) I just have one
question.  Since your views on Christianity are, well, not the
most mainstream, I’m wondering if you came by them on your own or
if there are any particular theologians or books you’ve drawn on
for inspiration.

KC, didn’t you know you’re always supposed to accept the claims of a leftist, no matter how absurd, without verifying them?  How are they supposed to be taken seriously if you’re actually going to look into what they are saying?  Anyhow, in answer to KC’s question, GK Chesterton and CS Lewis are the two Christian writers I have found most inspiring.