“…and our enemies never disarmed for a moment.”

There’s no such thing as a non-religious person, therefore there’s no such thing as a non-religious Nation, therefore there’s no such thing as Separation of Church and State. This is from Jim:

Violence, repression, and freedom

 

Advertisements

The State of Dis-Grace

While I’m on a roll today, this has been rolling around in my head for a while. A nod to ZMan for this line of thinking. I should link to his article, but I’m too lazy to find it right now. Anyway, a lot of this is plagiarized from him, so I’m an honest thief.

A comparison between Christianity and Gnosticism:

The Church holds that grace is passive, and sin in active. This means that the believer rests in a state of grace (or that grace rests upon the believer), and unless he actively sins, he remains in good standing with the Church. Kind of like innocent until proven guilty. Once he confesses, does penance, etc. he is back in good standing with the Church

Gnosticism is the opposite. Grace is active and sin is passive. It is sin that rests on the believer (a state of dis-grace), and to be in good standing with the Cathedral he must actively commit pious deeds (renouncing racism, sexism, etc., or denouncing racists, sexists, etc.).

Now, since grace to them is active, and sinfulness rests upon them, they have to constantly prove themselves worthy. This explains the incessant striving of Gnostics. They never quit, because they can’t quit. Furthermore, every time someone goes further (progresses) in an act of piety, that becomes the new bar for good standing with the Cathedral. This explains why in 50 short years we went from civil rights to feminism to gay marriage to mentally ill men in sundresses having a constitutional right to piss in front of your daughters in public (that was also stolen from ZMan).

It’s easy to think of the Left as irrational, but when you understand Gnosticism and it’s moral orthodoxy, everything they do makes perfect sense. They act the way they do because they have to act the way they do.

Why The Christian Church Is Weak

I posted a comment on the Chateau recently in response to this: Christcuckery: “I need a young black man”

“An argument for why the Christian Church is weak in our culture:
Christians believe that Christ has been given all authority by the Father (Matthew 28:18), and this includes, but is not limited to, moral authority. Christian doctrine also holds that Christians are the body of Christ, inseparably connected to Him, so His authority extends to us, at least concerning spiritual, moral concerns (also, Christ conferred spiritual authority to the Church, see Matthew 16:19). It follows then that a Christian, if he is to be consistent in his faith, has to believe that the Christian faith system will always be morally superior to any other faith system, and superior in every way. Remember, ALL authority has been given to Christ.

It’s obvious that the dominant faith system in the West is no longer Christian. I say it’s Gnosticism, but call it what you want; secularism, humanism, Shitlibistan, we know it ain’t Christian. It’s moral orthodoxy is not a Christian moral orthodoxy. Here’s where it gets interesting.

Ask an ordinary Christian this question: Is our culture today more moral about race than our culture in the 19th century. If he’s smart, he’ll see the trap. The 19th century in the West was a Christian culture, and it tolerated slavery (at least during the 1st half), discrimination, discouraged miscegenation, etc. If he says that we’re more moral today about race in a non-Christian culture than in the former Christian culture, then he’s denying that Christ has ALL moral authority. If he says the 19th century was more moral about race, then he’s either already woke, or he has to start the painful process of waking up, and accepting all sorts of forbidden truths.

If he’s not woke, his first argument will probably be that the current moral orthodoxy of race equalism is actually a Christian doctrine, but this is easily refuted from Scripture. If the dominant Gnostic/Secularist orthodoxy proclaims a Christian doctrine, then it is a house divided and cannot stand (see Luke 11:17-18). But that’s not what we see, is it? It’s very much in power and not weakening. In fact, it’s the Church that’s weak to the point of irrelevance. I believe that is because WE are a house divided. WE are proclaiming a doctrine that is not Christian, and we’re suffering the consequences.

Finally, it follows then that if the Church is ever to regain power and reclaim our culture, it has to not just stop denying the Church of the 19th century (or any previous century), but fully embrace it, and then proclaim it as morally superior. They (the Church Triumphant) are the Body of Christ just as fully as we are, and a much larger portion of it. How do we expect to have any effect in the world if we turn our backs on them?

P.S. That video makes me sick.”

Two things: first, that video really did make me sick to my stomach. It’s one of those things that doesn’t exaggerate the phrase cringe-inducing. I don’t have time to write all that’s wrong with it, and couldn’t eviscerate it nearly as well as Roissy did if I tried.

Secondly, there was a warm response from the readers of Chateau Heartiste to my comment. Like I wrote before, I’ll take Pagans over Gnostics any day.