#it's a significant part of why protestantism even exists | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arcticdementor · 4 years

Link

Woke anti-racism certainly appears to have taken on the trappings of religion. White people have been seen washing the feet of black people and asking for forgiveness, a ritual firmly in line with the Christian tradition. And terms like ‘white guilt’ and ‘white privilege’ are treated much as Original Sin used to be – things for which humanity must forever atone.

One person who has long been exploring the religious fervour of today’s increasingly moralistic politics is the essayist and author Joseph Bottum. Indeed, his 2014 book, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America, seems almost prophetic. There he argued that the demise of traditional Protestantism in the US has led liberals to transfer their religious beliefs, habits and passions into the political realm, moralising it in the process. Our age of ‘post-Protestantism’, he concludes, has eroded the boundary between the religious and the political, infusing politics with a religious mindset and discourse.

spiked’s US correspondent, Sean Collins, caught up with Bottum, at his home in the Black Hills of South Dakota, to find out what he makes of the contemporary political moment, woke anti-racism and the phenomenon of cancel culture.

Sean Collins: As you note in An Anxious Age, the collapse of Mainline Protestantism (that is, the older, non-evangelical Protestant denominations) in the US is striking. In 1965, more than 50 per cent of Americans belonged to Protestant congregations. Now it is less than 10 per cent. Why, in your view, is this collapse so significant for broader American society and politics?

Joseph Bottum: In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville identified the central current of America as a current of morals and manners. However much rival sects feuded against one another, there was this central current. And it is the Mainline Protestant churches which provided America with those morals and manners. (‘Mainline’ is a term that was created later, but we can apply it retrospectively.)

The Mainline churches helped define American culture in several ways. First of all, the churches were mostly apolitical, which has had a profound effect on American culture. For instance, there’s never been a great American political novel. The average French streetwalker in a novel by Zola knows more about politics than the heroes of the greatest American novels. What is it to be an American? At the highest artistic level, it is to be concerned about the cosmos and the self. Politics is incidental to Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter and Huckleberry Finn. And that’s because Mainline Protestantism rendered politics secondary to what it deems is most important — namely, salvation and the self.

…

Collins: Right, so we now live in, as you put it, a post-Protestant US. But, if I understand your thesis correctly, you argue that the beliefs, mindsets and manners that animated earlier Protestantism have not been abandoned, but instead have been projected on to the political realm. A key transition you cite is the Social Gospel movement, which becomes more prominent during the 20th century. Then closer to our time Christianity gets stripped out altogether, and you are just left with social activism. Sin remains a preoccupation, but it has been redefined as a social sin, like bigotry and racism. Have I got that right?

Bottum: Yes. There’s an extraordinary point here. Walter Rauschenbusch [an American theologian and a key figure in the Social Gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries] lists six species of social sin. If you go through the list, they are exactly what radicals are objecting to now: bigotry, the ignorance of the uneducated, power, corruption, militarism and oppression. It lines up so perfectly with today’s agitation.

What we’re seeing now is an amplification of what I wrote about five years ago: an intense spiritual hunger that has no outlet. There’s no way to see people kneeling, or singing ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’, or swaying while they hold up candles, and avoid acknowledging that it’s driven by a spiritual desire. I perceived this when I wrote about Occupy Wall Street, and it’s become even more like this. It is an intense spiritual hunger that is manifesting itself more violently. Because to the post-Protestants, the world is an outrage and we are all sinners.

…

Similarly, there is ostracising and shunning. Cancel culture is just the latest and most virulent form of the religious notion of shunning, in which people are chased into further appreciation of their guiltiness. Two years ago, the Nation published a poem about an older panhandler giving advice to a younger one, about how to get people to give you money. The Twittermob went after that poem, on the grounds that the poet was a white man from Minnesota. And the magazine apologised, and the poet apologised for writing the poem. That’s what the shunning is looking for. If you profane, if you’re shunned outside the Temple, the only way back is to become fanatic, to convince people that you understand how guilty you are. And even then I’m not sure there’s any way back.

At the very least, one of the effects of the shunning is to frighten everyone into silence. Its purpose is to get people fired, to put people beyond the pale, to get them out of our sight. This is for a couple reasons. First, it is to ensure we are not infected by this sinfulness. And second, it is a public declaration of our power. It says, look how powerful we are, that we can do this to people.

…

We live in just the strangest times. But understanding the historical roots of these radicals as post-Protestant, and understanding the spiritual hunger which has no outlet for them, helps us to explain it. This is what happens when you have a Mainline outlook that is broken loose from all of its prior constraints. These ideas used to be corralled in the churches. If you let an idea like Original Sin – that’s a dangerous and powerful idea – loose from its corral, it goes to a place where it can exist, which is politics. One of the great dangers is that religious ideas are in politics. The line that I use is that, if you believe that your ordinary political opponents are not merely mistaken, but are evil, you have ceased to do politics and begun to do religion.

…

Suppose you analyse this class in terms of its members’ answer to the question, ‘How do you know that you are saved?’. In the past, people would say ‘because I believe in Christ’ and the rest of it. But the modern version of this question is, ‘How do you know you are a good person? And how can you have assurance of your goodness?’. Which is Max Weber’s question in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism – and Weber says this anxiety about salvation actually has economic and political consequences. Let’s apply that Weberian analysis and ask what are the consequences of being worried about your salvation, phrased in today’s terms of being worried about being a good person. If it’s all about social ills, then you know you are a good person if you are opposed to those social ills, if you are anti-racist, even if you don’t do anything. You are convinced of your own salvation. You are one of the Elect if you adopt this stance of being opposed to the great sins.

Now, younger people are not going to put up with the hypocrisy of knowing you are a good person but not actually doing anything. And they are starting to be violent. Members of the Elect are much more economically and socially insecure than the elite, but they have the same education, they’ve got the same social markers. In some ways, we are seeing an intra-class warfare between the Elect and the elite.

…

Collins: Yes, today’s leaders in cultural institutions and universities seem to lack backbone. They have espoused this politically correct rhetoric for years, but it’s like they didn’t truly believe it or act on it, and now the younger generation are calling them on it.

Bottum: Right, the younger generation are not going to put up with the hypocrisy. That’s part of it. The second part is, when they see the old power figures tremble, they start thinking, why aren’t we in the positions of power? Then class elements, elitism, start to creep back in. But the original impulse came from seeing leaders like college presidents being hypocrites. They were just mouthing what they thought was just the latest line of the old liberal consensus. What they didn’t fully intuit is that the old liberal consensus was completely gone, and the new line had become something very radical. If today you were to put forward any of the shibboleths of high liberalism of the 1950s, you would be denounced as a terrible conservative.

…

Collins: I’ve also noticed a tendency to avoid detailed analysis of economic and social conditions, or concrete policy reforms. Instead, the issue of race after George Floyd is a simple moral denunciation, or a vague reference to ‘systemic racism’. You hear ‘Why do I have to keep explaining this?’, ‘I’m so exhausted’, and so on, as if the issue was beyond debate.

Bottum: Right. But also it’s defining the Church. It’s a way of saying you either have this feeling or you don’t. And if you don’t, you’re evil, and if you do, you’re good. Christian theology, and Christian spiritual practice, has dealt with this for millennia. This is the distinction Calvin would make between justification and sanctification. The idea here is that we no longer need to argue it, because any argument of it is engaging with people beyond the pale. They are outside the Church, they are the profane. They are just wrong. What are they wrong about? They are wrong in the central feeling of moral goodness. This is the attempt to get others to shut up.

We are living in the age of the ad hominem. The fundamental way to answer a claim is to say something about the person who said it. Whether it’s a tu quoque, or an abusive ad hominem, or poisoning the well – the ad hominem is a whole genus of different species of fallacy. How do we know others are wrong? They are wrong because some bad people have said it too. Bari Weiss [the former New York Times op-ed editor] must be wrong [about the illiberal environment at the Times], because Ted Cruz forwarded her tweet. That’s a wonderful ad hominem – guilt by association. It’s not about the content of what is said, it’s about the people who said it.

Why should Trader Joe’s give in, and say how stupid and guilty it was for not realising the error of its ways? Because otherwise its managers and staff are not good people. It doesn’t matter if there is any objective truth to it. The only thing that matters is where you stand. Are you one of us, or are you one of them?

If I can show that you are one of them, then your only response is to apologise abjectly, even though you didn’t know. You didn’t know that touching your middle finger to your thumb is making a white power symbol. It doesn’t matter whether you knew that. A Hispanic driver for a power company in California got fired because his hand was hanging out the window, with his finger touching his thumb. A women photographed it and declared it was the white power symbol, and the power company fired him. It’s really astonishing.

…

It’s not enough to be one of the good guys, to be on the right side. You have to be bulletproof against any charge. You have to be constantly abject. You have to agree with your condemners, or you’re evil. The [French philosopher] Merleau-Ponty wrote about this in terms of the Moscow showtrials – about the psychological process by which people can come to confess their own guilt about something that, at some level, they know they are not guilty of. So the psychological aspect is interesting. But this mode of permanent abject contrition is best understood in its religious modes. This is what you get when the Church of Christ becomes the Church without Christ, and these old Protestant concerns enter the public square, enter politics, divorced from and freed from their old constraints. To paraphrase GK Chesterton, the world is full of Christian ideas gone mad.

Collins: Why does the Elect have to go as far as to ‘cancel’? You could imagine a movement promulgating certain moral ideas in society, and hoping to win converts. Such a movement wouldn’t necessarily feel the need to purge others, who didn’t agree with them, from their workplaces and colleges. What drives the Elect to go to those lengths?

Bottum: Look, you wouldn’t want a Satan worshipper turning up at your Church on a Sunday. You would drive them out. But of course these people don’t live in churches any more. This is what happens when those old ideas break loose and become modes of behaviour in politics. They don’t want these people in their church, but their church is politics. Their congregation is Twitter. They want these people not to exist, they want them banished. There are the power reasons for this: look at how powerful I am; I am a 17-year-old kid, and I had a major US corporation kow-towing to me. But there’s also this kind of religious sense that we can’t let sinners into the church. That’s what shunning was for, to get people to confess their sins, to realise their sinfulness. That’s what we’re doing now – it’s just that the church, the locus of faith, is no longer your congregation on Sunday. It’s public life.

This demand that politics somehow solve everything is an apocalyptic, religious sense of politics. For hundreds of years American jurisprudence has worried about the impact of religion on politics. What’s really extraordinary is that it is finally happening – politics is becoming religionised – but it’s being done in the name of anti-religion.

#sean collins #spiked online #interview #joseph bottum #puritan hypothesis #puritans gonna puritan #great awokening #read the whole thing

5 notes · View notes

kabane52 · 5 years

Text

The Paradox of Christian Division

In response to a question

I don’t mean to minimize your personal story or the impact of my personal history on my own ecclesial setting. Ultimately, though, the question should be considered in terms of truth: is the tradition of the Orthodox Church true? Is the Orthodox Church what it identifies as? I think so, and that is why I remain Orthodox. But even in terms of that, I think the question you raise is an important one. One does have to develop a credible account of Christians not in communion with the Orthodox Church, and such an account demands not only that it be internally consistent, but that it really engages the existence of Christianity which seems to authentically reflect the work of the Holy Spirit, including in miraculous ways.

I take Florovsky’s view to give essentially the truth of it: the Church of Christ, strictly speaking, manifested in its being an identifiable gathering-of-peoples marked out by particular signs of continuity: this is the Orthodox Church. But here, we approach what I mentioned above. We have to give a believable account of the life of other Christian peoples which is rooted in our tradition. At first glance, the Cyprianic or “rigorist” (I don’t use the term polemically and I know that rigorists are not saying that an evangelical Protestant with genuine love of Jesus is going to burn) approach seems the most sound. There is this ontological thing called the Church, it is constituted by its sacraments, and that is to be identified with the Orthodox Church. Non-Orthodox Christians, while often having true spiritual benefit in their profession of Christ, are not ontologically a different kind of thing than a Muslim.

Here I do not think it reflects the consistent practice of the Church, and I think that many aspects of the Church’s historical practice as well as the writings of its faithful and reliable theologians (Florovsky, Staniloae) and even Saints (Philaret, Sophrony if the content of his letters with Florovsky have been reported accurately) speak against it. There are many good Orthodox brothers who hold this position (and I once held it, which I mean as personal trivia and not “street cred” as a “debunker” of rigorism or something) and indeed, a good number of Saints. But it is by no means universal nor, I would argue, the majority opinion. Much more could be said on this front but I will leave the precedent issue here.

So as to what one can say about other Christians, here’s my view, following Staniloae (who had prayer of the heart and was an extremely holy individual): in the strict sense of the word, the Church refers only to the Orthodox Church. But in a different sense- though neither unreal nor metaphorical- the Church comprises in her bonds the entirety of the baptized, as in baptism, God objectively constitutes a person as a member of His family, as a son, and as covenantally bound through grace. The proton contains the eschaton, and baptism contains in itself the entirety of Christian faith and the fullness of the risen Lord. So when a person is baptized outside of Orthodox faith, the Baptism is disordered in that it has been severed from its corporate context identified by the transmission of the entire faith and Eucharistic communion woven together in that common confession (note the link in Liturgy between Creed and Eucharist).

So here is where I think you have raised the issue. Given that Jesus Christ is indivisible, if one is joined to Christ objectively through baptism, how can one then speak consistently of degrees of ecclesiality? The Lamb is broken but never divided, so your argument suggests, and thus ecclesiality is that which admits no degrees, no more than a Eucharist could be only 50% the Body of Christ.

This was raised to me independently the other night, and it’s a good point. But I think my warrant for both 1) belief in the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church and 2) belief in ontologically real Christian life under the new covenant outside the Church’s canonical boundaries is so strong that it demands I work to find a resolution. So as a preface to my suggestion, I would urge you to consider the relative weight of the arguments for Orthodox truth in comparison to the (good and thoughtful) argument you just made about the intrinsic indivisibility of the Church. After all, one can hold a model to be true and be warranted in doing so without knowing how to resolve each of its issues. One can even have warrant in believing that a specific issue **will** be resolved without having the resolution in hand. What matters is the relative weight of the arguments compared to that of the problem.

So consider how radical a change Protestantism and low-church Protestantism was from the tradition which it followed. The liturgy or Mass is gone, as is its theology. The Eucharist was understood to be central to Christian life from its earliest ages. Rather than being a reminder of Jesus at the outskirts of Christian life, the Eucharist was understood as the summit of the whole work of creation and redemption, the preeminent act of man in his fulfilling God’s creative purpose for man and through man, to the entire world. It constituted the Church as the Church.

It really joined one to the Body and Blood of Jesus in a very concrete and direct fashion. Likewise, for those who have not participated in Catholic or Orthodox liturgical or spiritual life, the earth-shaking way in which the end of the veneration and invocation of Saints would shatter the whole structure of our corporate Christian life is hard to comprehend. I don’t mean that as an insult, I only mean that to emphasize just how radical a break most of Protestantism is. The amazing stories evangelicals tell of how God answered their prayers- stories in which I myself find joy and see the work of the Spirit- active Orthodox Christians share these kinds of stories, but we also have them in relation to particular Saints. Saints are an active part of the corporate life of the Church for its entire story, as they participate through prayer and assistance in the upbuilding of the Kingdom of God. I could make a biblical argument for that from the structure of the canon and covenant, but I just want to emphasize how significant it is to us.

Ultimately, I think, to find warrant for not becoming Orthodox or Catholic, one has to articulate not just a difficulty with Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology, but a positive and constructive interpretation of Christian history and doctrine where the Reformation is a genuine recovery of apostolic truth, at which point one can have that debate. And you may well have a very well thought out answer- not saying you don’t. But in my view, the problem you’ve articulated, even as it’s a great question, simply does not confer anywhere near the relative warrant necessary for continuing to live within Protestantism without those additional arguments.

So here’s my attempt to synthesize what you’ve just said. The Church is an intrinsic and indivisible unity. That is the first point that must be set forth and acknowledged. But I say that there are Christians who, being joined to the Church which is indivisible, are divided from it yet. This is a paradox. If I left it there, I would be lazy and foolish. But the paradoxical nature of it is important, because our life in the Spirit presently exemplifies paradox. We are wholly incorporated into the resurrected Jesus in baptism, gathered ontologically into His indivisible church. And even as this belongs to the entirety of our person, nevertheless there are many ways in which our lives seem to flatly contradict this union. We rebel. We sin. We continue to wrestle with the flesh. This is a paradox.

We are wholly incorporated into Christ, and yet the logically consequent restructuring of our inner and outer life can be muted and dimmed. The union, ontologically speaking, has been achieved. It is not that Christ has only partially joined Himself to us. Rather, it is that we continue to exercise our will and habits in ways which actively prevent its realization in a particular aspect of our being. Two things cannot occupy the same point of space. It is as if we were a candle which burnt eternally and never needed lighting again- but it was placed under a waterfall. The candle would immediately blaze the moment it was removed from the waterfall, but as long as it is under the water it ceases to actualize what it has in principle.

This, I think, is a potential way to consider Christian division in relation to the Orthodox claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, a claim I cannot shrink from- since I believe it is true. But a person baptized into Christ has, in principle, everything that orders him or her in relation to the whole ecclesial body. But the wounds in the life of these other Christian confessions prevent that ecclesiality from being realized in its proper relations and in the sacramental and confessional life to which Baptism objectively binds a person. So this is perhaps how we can understand Staniloae’s statement. Baptism objectively marks a person with the four marks of the Church. We say that the Church is in one sense identical to the Orthodox Church because it is in the Orthodox Church and it alone that these four marks are visibly present in integrated form (which doesn’t mean we don’t have other very serious problems- these problems demand a far more lengthy treatment than I can provide here) and thereby constitute that concretely manifest and identifiable reality with a concrete history stretching back to the Apostles. But in that other sense, the Church refers to the whole family of the baptized, many of whom are linked to the four-marked Body objectively and irrevocably but whose context, theology, and so on actively inhibit the realization of the Four Marks.

One might make an analogy between this and the hierarchical order of capacities. Each human person has the entirety of human nature, which is indivisible. But birth defects and genetic disorders can inhibit, in a way accidental to the nature of the particular person, the actualization of a potential by inhibiting the exercise of a lower-order capacity which would develop organically (i.e. in a way that unfolds teleologically from nature) into a higher-order capacity. So human nature is in its intrinsic character rational but a human person with serious brain defects will be unable to actualize what they possess in principle and what their human nature is irrevocably ordered towards. But that does not make them fifty percent human.

I know this was long, but it is a very good and pertinent question, and I kind of used it as an opportunity to begin developing a substantive response to it.

Please remember me in your prayers!

6 notes · View notes

phaelosopher · 6 years

Photo

New Post has been published on http://www.phaelosopher.com/2018/06/24/creation-nature-god-life-no-difference/

Creation, Nature, God, Life: No Difference

Achillea millefolium, a.k.a. Yarrow

This commentary began its life as a post on Facebook, but in bringing it to this medium much has been added.

Mt. St. Helens from 47 miles away.

Working through my first year (two-plus seasons ~ fall, winter, and spring) in the Pacific Northwest, I am literally *awed* by Nature: its beauty, intelligence, power and grace. It is humbling to see how *little* this great Gift is appreciated or used intelligently in our society. Indeed, we still act as though Nature is either a conquest to be pursued, or when it knocks us on our asses, a malevolent adversary.

How ironic since we can’t live a life of any real quality without it.

As such, it is appalling how *alien* our social/cultural and technological beliefs, habits and practices have become, when measured against Nature’s Design and Standard Instruction Set.

SOURCE: Naturalnews.com

One example is how we’ve grown accustomed to administering (or receiving) ~ especially to children ~ chemical injections to “fight” future diseases that we don’t have now, as though the human immune system is incapable of responding to *any* real threat.

SOURCE: NaturalBlaze.com

The human body comes standard with full self-repair capability. In the same way that the heart beats on its own and systems work without us having to go to school to learn how to “control” them, a wide range of injuries will repair quite automatically with minimal intervention on our parts.

And if we know and give our body what it needs, it will reciprocate by sustained health, strength, longevity, and more qualities that we have believed were not “standard” fare.

Available at shopphaelos.com

No one told us that throughout primary education (but is included in my book, I Am My Body, NOT!) Apparently, no one tells this simple fact to future doctors during all their years of training in medical school.

Since we don’t think of the body having self-repair abilities built-in, then we’re not inclined to see government-led obsession with vaccination policies and practices as a convenient way to intentionally break down the population’s natural defense systems (and their cognitive abilities), as part of some broader plan of what might be termed, “population duncity” and control.

The net effect is a dumber and more “manageable” population, whose social norms are presumed to reflect their general, and actual level of evolution and intelligence.

But this is a false reading.

How can there be true evolution when devolving social norms have been “programmed” in and are running with our help and defense?

A devolving social norm is any standardized activity that, in an of itself, lowers the quality of life, often under the guise of improving it. In addition to the practice of vaccine use and policy already described, our society today there are many examples:

War (killing and destruction to get one’s way) or the threat thereof

Circumcision ~ easily forgotten and dismissed later in life, but this act creates a major trauma that affects the child’s metabolic and psychological development

Application and use of toxic agents to “fight” (meaning kill) microorganisms in humans and animals that are thought to be causes of “disease”.

Application and use of toxic agents to “fight” (kill) microorganisms in soils to make it more convenient to grow single crops.

Application and use of toxic agents into the water supply and atmosphere.

Extraction of fluid substances from the earth to run our internal combustion engines when other methods are available that are more efficient, produce far more power, with far less adverse effects to the environment.

There are many more examples.

A Mind Game

The Mind: More than we have been led to think.

Yes, the social drivers of society are running a self-destruct program targeted at the mind of every human being, where it can’t be seen, but from whence all beliefs and behaviors are formed.

HOWEVER, since the program itself is unnatural it will degrade on its own if not reinforced regularly. This applies to genetically modified organisms (GMO) as well as psychological operations (PSYOPS). Human Nature would immediately restore itself if we turn off the nefarious suggestions of institutionalized cultural “programming”.

The Natural Human Being is nothing like the crazed animal that is suggested in some “civilized” circles.

By the way, the human mind is not the brain. There is one Mind, from which all that we see, perceive, and imagine, springs. The brain, and every component that makes up the human body, is a product of the Mind. All that exists, both manifested and unmanifested, comes from the Mind. You journey within the Mind whether you have a physical body, or not.

The Mind is “physical” and not physical. ALL that is “physical” come into existence from the Mind as a product, effect, and result of your desire and Will, and through the auspices of vibrational resonance and affinity.

In the non-physical regions of The Mind are the patterns and matrices that make physical organization and change possible. It is due to the existence of these perfect and unalterable templates that a consistently recognizable “you” is possible. The stability of these templates is also why and how the microscopic lifeforms that live within the body are able to repair and renew body parts through the process known as healing.

The practice of administering antibiotics, another of those self-destructive cultural norms, decimates entire populations of lifeforms that would normally and naturally protect, repair or rebuild areas within the body that had been injured, or become dysfunctional.

SOURCE: goodreads.com

We allow these lifeforms populations to be decimated by doctors’ prescriptions without a second thought, and oblivious to the effect that such medications have on overall balance within the ecosystem.

Yet, if left alone, balance would restore itself. This is why opinion managers need humanity’s attention in order to continue the distraction, diversion, and deception through empty promises, fear, misinformation, and outright lies.

Another great title that goes into great detail on the roles that the microbial population plays within the human body, is Spontaneous Evolution: Our Positive Future and a Way to Get There, co-written by Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D and Steve Bhaerman.

SOURCE: hayhouse.com

The degrees and levels of cognitive and metabolic dysfunction that humanity presently experiences and exhibits is the result of the imposition, perpetuation, and intensification of unnatural, unsustainable, destructive behaviors for the apparent gain of a minuscule segment of the population (“rulers” and “leaders”) at the great expense to the vast majority.

A Microbial Holocaust

Indeed, the process of introducing such substances into the human ecosystem actually kills off large numbers of proto-lifeforms and microorganisms that would normally respond IF the need arrived.

youtube

The ability to heal is implicit with the ability to disable. The relationship between the two activities ~ thought to be linear in nature ~ has been elusive, mainly because the perpetrators (latter-day elites who run major corporations, governments, military, medical institutions and their agents) are getting what they want; a sense of control over, and ownership of the planet and all that dwell thereon.

Furthermore, the “prey” have been convinced that it is better not to question. In other words, “Conquered”.

We, who either promote or defend such practices or allow them to continue, don’t help ourselves by simply following precedent and bowing (or bending over) to these Draconian “traditions”, especially in light of the astounding rise in crises, chronic disorders, and conflicts that, in spite of claims to the contrary, can be linked to certain practices.

This stuff eventually reaches consumers’ stomachs.

The substances used today (not just vaccines) are far different (and more damaging) than they were even a few decades ago. While there is great denial of any link to damage to health, the environment, or human cognitive abilities and consciousness, there is little appreciation for the real price, beyond “money” and “health”, that is extracted and paid from ALL.

Passive Parties to Insanity

It’s amazing how we continue to allow ourselves and our children to be exposed to these substances in so many ways. This is the effect of trusting (or not questioning) the perpetrators, and the not knowing to what extent they affect us.

There may be another factor: cellular memory of gruesome measures taken against large populations by people intent on “playing God”.

SOURCE: amredeemed.com

inquisition: n. ~ an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX c. 1232 for the suppression of heresy. It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government.

A significant portion of the world’s population, proponents of Christianity, is expecting a major conflagration, a head-to-head battle between “good” and “evil”, as embodied in their chief protagonist, Jesus Christ, “Lord” and “Son of God”.

My use of quote marks is not to mock the term, or the use thereof. I use them to question, even challenge the appellation. The Jesus figure has been set up as someone to worship; an idol by any other definition. He is called a “Savior” by many believers, who think they are incapable of being or setting the example or living up to the standard that He apparently set.

Based on the stories written in the bible, for which a dear price was very likely paid many generations ago by those who didn’t believe, adherents today are thoroughly immersed in the idea that He had powers then that they don’t possess today.

Wisdom and Knowledge? Yes. Powers, No.

One thing about “worshiping” another being, the worshiper excuses and absolves himself from taking an active role in knowing the truth (that we are expressions of Source), and when the truth is known, then making it part of your day-to-day experience.

This includes the simple advice to treat others the way you would be treated, “loving your neighbor as yourself”.

No one can “love” another if they are of a mind that they need a “savior”. They can’t even accept, respect, or love who they are. Yet true love, freedom, truth and knowledge begins there… within

A Long History of Little Change

Few humans can imagine doing this to other humans, but such practices were once widespread.

“Anyone who attempts to construe a personal view of God which conflicts with Church dogma must be burned without pity.” – Pope Innocent III

SOURCE: crashedculture.com

Some will rationalize the acts inferred above as being of the “Dark Ages”, but its easy to see that the same type of thinking is liberally sprinkled throughout certain sectors of society to this very day.

Our fixation on the visible, perceivable world renders us blind to the ideas (of Mind) that drive them. The incessant debate for and against gun control in response to the growing phenomena of cultural self-destruction with guns, totally ignores the ecological, metabolic, and psychological damage that is still being by our unchallenged use of chemicals. Few voices are being raised (though some are) to end vaccination and circumcision practices.

More people are preferring foods that have not been injected with hormones and genetically modified. Even more are preferring produce grown on lands, and using methods that restore balance to soil and water.

We’ve got a lot of turning around to do, as the greatest damage was psychological and spiritual, which is both the hardest and easiest to change.

A New Day: Loving Nature

These toxin-free apples will enhance someone’s life when they grow up.

If we imagine that the practices associated with that period for which millions of people horribly, wrongly, and needlessly suffered were passed on as recollections from generation to generation, it would be easy to see how, or why so many people today are content to believe in God, or a doctrine rather than seek to know and exercise their own, true, creative, equal, divine nature.

Then they’ll act surprised, unduly inconvenienced, and unfairly targeted when diseases surface after we have indulged, or permitted one egregious crime against Nature after another for years and even generations.

For those who may wonder what a crime against Nature is, please consider for a moment that ALL of humanity (you and me included) is part of Nature. (Even Trump, Hillary, et al.)

As expressions of Life (and sometimes sentient), we are already part of the Natural Order; not apart from it. No other “Order”, neither “New” nor “Old” World, is Natural.

The Natural Order will always trump the unnatural schemes and practices dreamed up by wannabe “emperors”.

For these and other reasons, we have institutionalized many unnatural practices with respect to our environment, both inside the body, and out.

The alarming rise in long-term, chronic diseases can also be stated as the decline in natural immune function. This should be, and would be obvious to anyone not trained to set aside common sense, ignore reason, or suppress the truth in order to continue receiving a paycheck, or to not question an opinion simply because the practitioner has “credentials” (and we’re not worthy if we don’t) or might get offended.

Do you see the mental “game” they’re playing?

The social experiment on the human race has gone so far that Pavlov would be green with envy.

We who make wars possible by cooperation with puerile tyrants and despots, who make famine possible by making a world industry that grows and delivers “foods” that provide little nourishment; we have grown accustomed to sitting around, waiting for our Savior, and listening to others’ promises to make our lives better, to the point that we don’t actively do it ourselves.

How ironic that we’ve grown so mentally, emotionally, and socially afraid and dependent, then boast our courage and independence? How tragic that we’re so ready to “protect” ourselves from each other that “killing” is the way… as long as its an *approved* “enemy?”

I write these thoughts because, consciously or not, intentionally or not, this is our doing. Whether we knew it, agreed, or not, our BS meters were damaged or turned off when we entered this realm.

I say this because I KNOW that in spite of claims of intelligence ~ evidence of which is seen everywhere in the Natural Order ~ humanity acts pretty damn DUMB in matters that count, and appears to be doing much too little to right its own ship. We’d rather wait and see if the politician or oligarch du jour has promised to do it, or people in some government agency have *blocked* promising new approaches.

They need our compliance in order to do these things. Non-compliance does not have to mean violence or anarchy.

It might mean, however, that we’re growing up to become the one’s we’ve been wishing for.

We Always have a Choice

That said, we ~ the collective human population “we”~ are still the Power that makes it all possible; not only the crap that I have described, but amazing new directions that make you *want* to get up each morning to enjoy… not just the final realization, but *the journey* too.

You don’t have to believe me. You must know yourself, which only you can choose to do. I can only suggest to you that the choice, and the journey, when you decide to take it, will be well worth it.

Please enjoy this short video that I produced of Life expressing and co-existing.

youtube

Life is everywhere, in ALL forms of expression. We can learn from ALL life, because a piece of us is being expressed through ALL life that we see and encounter. Doing what they do is as much part of the Natural Order as our actions are. Their cooperative activities and interactions affect the quality of *our* lives, as our toxic, combative interactions with each other affect theirs.

Get Yours Now

Mutually respectful, proactive, constructive balancing cooperation sustains a high quality of life for all Life involved. Competitive, combative, destructive and destablizing activity lowers the quality of life for ALL, even while *some* may thing they’re exempt. There are no “privileged” classes who are exempt from Nature’s Laws.

Even insects appear to know this, but many of humanity’s apparently “brightest minds” (that the masses are encouraged to listen to), don’t have a clue.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Enjoy~

#Dark Ages #Environment #God #Healing #Inquisition #mind #Nature #society #vaccines

1 note · View note

pamphletstoinspire · 6 years

Photo

How to Kill Christianity

Much has been made of the recent Pew poll that highlights America’s religious landscape. What has drawn the most attention is the apparent decline of Christianity in the U.S. “The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining,” began the piece. Many liberals took gleeful notice. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley noted, “Secularists and their fellow travelers are ecstatic. The secular utopia about which John Lennon crooned is impending. Christianity is finally dying!”

Of course, this is far from the case, as Tooley later reveals. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, points out that it’s not Christianity that’s dying, but rather “near Christianity” that is teetering. “Good riddance,” Moore concludes.

The denominations that have lost the most “near Christians” are Catholic and Mainline Protestant. According to the Washington Times, “for every person who joined the Roman Catholic Church, six others were departing.” Additionally, in the last 50 years, the proportion of Americans belonging to one of the “Seven Sisters of Mainline Protestantism” has plummeted from one in six to one in sixteen.

From the Anglicans at Jamestown, to the Pilgrims at Plymouth, and the Puritans at Massachusetts Bay, virtually all of the Mainline Protestant churches in the U.S. can trace their roots to those who literally founded America. The principles of American democracy were born in Mainline churches. The revivals during the Great Awakening were preached by men from Mainline churches. Many of the first colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded by Mainline churches. What’s more, eight of the first fourteen U.S. Presidents were Episcopalian. The spiritual and political roots of America are deeply embedded in Mainline Protestantism. What a tragic fall!

So this begs the question, why have the Catholic Church and Mainline Protestantism seen such a collapse? Moore reveals the answer when he notes that, what the Pew poll really reveals is that we have “fewer incognito atheists” in America. “Those who don’t believe can say so -- and still find spouses, get jobs, volunteer with the PTA, and even run for office. This is good news because the kind of ‘Christianity’ that is a means to an end -- even if that end is ‘traditional family values’ -- is what J. Gresham Machen rightly called ‘liberalism,’ and it is an entirely different religion from the apostolic faith handed down by Jesus Christ.”

Of course, it would be the denominations most infected with liberalism (Is there anything liberalism can’t corrupt?) that have seen the most decline. As Tooley put it, “Mainline Protestantism lost its way when it forgot how to balance being American and being Christian, choosing American individualism and self-made spirituality over classical Christianity. Nearly all mainline seminaries had embraced modernism by the 1920s, rejecting the supernatural in favor of metaphorized faith integrated with sociology and political revolution.”

Such watered-down theology has produced ear-ticklers like John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gene Robinson and the like, along with heretical nonsense such as the Jesus Seminar. For decades men (and women) like Spong and Borg made quite a name for themselves by rejecting the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, His atoning death and resurrection, every miracle recorded in the New Testament, and so on. In other words, in a tragic attempt to make themselves “relevant,” such men and women rejected virtually every tenet of the Christian faith, all the while still calling themselves “Christians.”

Unsurprisingly, it’s heretics such as these who’ve overseen such a precipitous decline in their denominations. After all, who wants to attend a church that rejects the supernatural and offers little more than worn-out platitudes and self-help advice? Who wants to attend a church that doesn’t talk about the forgiveness of sin (much less the existence of sin) and the hope of eternal life? Instead of pointing people to eternal truths, these liberal congregations have concerned themselves with “social activism.”

To a significant extent, the same thing has happened to the Catholic Church in the U.S. Though the American Catholic Church, unlike most of her liberal Protestant counterparts, has (for the most part) opposed abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and the rest of the radical sexual agenda of the left, sadly many Catholics have been all too willing to use big government activism as a substitute for charity.

As Paul Rahe put it, many years ago the American Catholic Church “fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.”

Additionally, rabid anti-death penalty advocate Sister Helen Prejean, the inspiration of the Susan Sarandon movie Dead Man Walking, is doing little for the cause of “individual responsibility.” In an attempt to help Dzhokhar Tsarnaev escape the ultimate responsibility for his murderous crimes, Sister Prejean testified last week in the penalty phase of the infamous Boston Bomber.

In spite of the lack of any public expression of remorse, Prejean testified that she felt that Tsarnaev was “genuinely sorry” for his crimes. Like her Catholic compatriots who advocate for the likes of ObamaCare, Prejean mistakes “state paternalism” for true charity. (Nothing says “state paternalism” like clothing, housing, and feeding a mass murderer for decades.) Again, borrowing from Mark Tooley, “Was she concerned more about his eternal soul, or his physical life, and her political cause? Let’s pray the former, but the latter seems likelier. If indeed the latter, Sister Prejean is an archetype for the modern church’s indifference to eternity, and judgment, in favor of therapeutic protection and affirmation.”

Sister Prejean is a great illustration of why the Catholic Church in the U.S. is in steep decline. Just as with its promotion of government healthcare, or a litany of other programs that push state paternalism over personal responsibility, for decades now the American Catholic Church has shown “indifference” toward eternity and judgement. Thus, anyone fervently seeking the truth on such matters is drawn elsewhere.

By and large, the churches that are growing in the U.S. are those that unapologetically present the truth. Of course, a large or a growing church isn’t always a measure of a healthy and holy church, but when one is sincerely seeking the spiritual truths that we all at one time or another crave, most of us “seekers” know the truth when we hear it and see it. This doesn’t mean that the majority of us will embrace such truths. Jesus Himself warned us that this would not be the case.

Don’t be surprised to see the decline of Christianity continue. As it becomes more difficult and dangerous to be a follower of Christ, more and more people are going to find the “wide road” described by Jesus quite appealing. This is especially the case when so-called “Christians” are pointing the way.

Story written by Trevor Thomas

#how to kill Christianity

1 note · View note

trying-hard · 7 years

Text

Trans Issues and Christianity

For my first post, I’d like to talk about something I care about in depth - Christianity, transgender issues, and how they intersect. As a trans woman, devout Christian, and politics junkie this intersection comes up very often for me, and I have a lot invested in it. The effects of this go far beyond just me and people like me, though. The topic strikes deep into the core of Christian notions of gender and sex, making the consequences of this debate extremely important - not just because it impacts trans people’s lives and the current political climate, but also foundational ideas of the extremely powerful and influential religion of Christianity.

In the big picture, trans issues being at the forefront of social discussions is a somewhat new thing. In 2015, Slate released an article titled “Conservative Christianity’s Discovery of Transgender Issues Worries Trans Christians“. It discusses how a group of self-described biblical counselors held a conference on “transgender confusion”. The results were not surprising; the article gives it the description of a “one-sided succession of rants against modernity and cultural change that made little or no attempt to address how religious congregations could go about welcoming individuals who are transgender and/or struggling with gender dysphoria.“ Since then, discussion has only picked up.

For example, the Church of England had visibly warmed up to trans people, going so far as to consider special services to mark gender transition. This predictably brought backlash along with it. Meanwhile, the twitter of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, the social issues arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, regularly brings up transgender issues, and is currently advertising a book on the topic. On the flip side, the United Methodist Church recently commissioned a nonbinary deacon.

To truly understand this debate, we need to understand not just the arguments commonly brought up, but the relevant traditions within Christianity. It is no surprise that gender roles are prevalent within it. The two major ancient, apostolic churches (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) have never supported women within any of the major religious roles. Methodism was a pioneering group for women preachers within Protestantism, and they started as recently as 1761. Even then, complete gender equality in church roles within Methodism wasn’t achieved until 1956.

In terms of scripture, there seems to be clearly defined gender roles. Paul does a majority of the complementarianism, with writings such as Ephesian 5:22-33, 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, and 1 Timothy 2:8-15. While there is a lot of exegetical work (which I won’t spend time elaborating on here) that goes into interpreting these seemingly plain verses, some of which suggests gender complementarianism is a misinterpretation, the majority agrees that the Bible does mandate certain gender roles.

Lastly, the issue of sex, both the biological kind and the action, is fundamental to much Christian thought, even if most don’t even know about the important conclusions which have led to our present. A long time ago, a person known as Augustine came into the Christian fray. Augustine had some ideas, among the most notable being the doctrine of Original Sin. Augustine posited that sex and sexuality is intimately tied to the curse of sin, passed through mankind. This is why Adam and Eve were ashamed to be naked; this is why an erection, basically a prerequisite to procreation, is involuntary; and this is why all humanity is cursed for the sins of the first humans. Sex is inherently bad, in a way, according to Augustine. The reason Augustine’s thoughts are important is because he was an extremely important figure in the development of Catholic doctrine, and even if many tenants of his thought are disagreed with today, the consequences of his thought - for example, that sex is something which should not be talked about lightly - remain in conservative doctrine.

These three points - gender and tradition, gender and the Bible, and sexuality - are important to this topic, because modern gender theory throws it all into chaos. It challenges notions of innate differences and the connection of genitalia to psychology. When so much revolves around sexual biology, what happens when that is disturbed? What about when the existence of intersex people becomes a key point? It requires rethinking longstanding views, and to institutions based in preserving the heavenly truth once and for all delivered to mankind, that’s scary.

I understand the challenges it presents to conservative and moderate Christianity, and how it’s unnerving. Despite this, I still have huge criticisms with how it’s been handled. Even discarding the very obvious criticism of “they disagree with me”, the topic has been handled atrociously by major powers in Christianity, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Church.

Appearances and reports suggest the Catholic Church has butchered transgender issues badly alongside LGBT issues in general. Right before the Catholic Church held the Synod on the Family in 2015, a priest by the name of Kryzysztof Charasma came out as gay and in a relationship with another man. This priest, who had formerly been a part of a major doctrinal organization within the Church and had written much on theology, was rapidly fired and defrocked (removed as a priest). He later was interviewed and had many interesting things to say about the inner workings on the Church.

“The reaction to gender really began after the UN conferences, after Cairo and Bejing. The Vatican responded to those conferences with panic and disorder...

“In this situation, you cannot reflect about reality, about this thing you refuse. Therefore, the reaction to gender studies is to reject... When Darwin wrote his book, the reaction of the Catholic Church and of Christianity as a whole was to reject it. The only strategy was prohibition – not objective study, reflection, or dialogue – of human thought, which the Church perceives as not coherent with the doctrines of the faith. The same thing is now happening with gender studies.”

There is much more like this in the interview. This confirms what I had suspected beforehand about Catholicism: it is either unable to handle new challenges to gender and sexuality, or refuses to. With all due respect to the beautiful and fascinating theology of Catholicism and the intelligence of the people who study it, it seems clear to me that in this field it has grown outdated and is now entering a state of petrification. It doesn’t even need to necessarily shift completely towards the more modern perspective to avoid this; it just has to actually engage with modern gender philosophy in an intellectually honest way. As of right now, this is not what the Catholic Church is doing.

While Catholicism is the larger and more influential group, the Southern Baptist Convention’s rhetoric is worse. While acknowledging the existence of gender variance and the scientific research on the subject, they pose opposition with essentially no real solutions. While Catholicism may be inherently neutral in basically refusing to engage, the discussion surrounding the resolution to condemn transgender identity involves complete anti-intellectualism, suggesting no longer classifying being transgender as a mental illness was political and not scientific. Other lovely descriptors involve “revolt”, “confusion”, and “rebellion”; as well as suggesting being transgender involves a lack of humility. It’s not just a refusal to engage - it’s harmful, anti-intellectual rhetoric that is explicitly aimed at the political scene. While it’s been a while since that resolution was passed, if the ERLC twitter is anything to go by, the SBC hasn’t gotten much better.

Many of my criticisms could be fixed through honest, open dialogue. Intellectual isolation does not lead to finding the truth, but to other-ing people, relegating them to the threat and not to someone trying just as hard to get through life as you are. In this exchange of ideas, people are humanized, and bad ideas are shown for what they truly are. Earlier it was mentioned how the Catholic Church uses intellectual isolation to handle trans issues. It’s been noted more than once that the SBC has a similar issue, although intentionality is more unclear. Simply put, they appeal only to their own “experts”, and anyone with an outside perspective is not included. This is always bound to lead to intellectual stagnation, and it has.

I believe there are Biblical ways to reconcile the concept of transgender people with the Bible without even touching topics like Biblical infallibility. The Bible does acknowledge, if passively, the existence of intersex people within the category of “eunuchs”, and in one case explicitly lays out that they have exception from normal rules. Given that modern scientific research suggests that trans people’s brains are literally the opposite gender, should it be true, it’s not a stretch to posit that they are the exception to the rule. I don’t believe that the idea that God forms everyone in the womb is particularly Biblically founded, given the only two relevant verses I know of are poetic. There is the traducian view of reproduction as well, which suggests that souls are created along with bodies in procreation, autonomously. There is more to my views which I may cover in a later post, but not here; the point is that there is a legitimate case to be made for conservative and moderate Christians that being trans is Biblically acceptable.

This debate is complex and has far-reaching implications. Beyond even the very significant effect it has on trans people, it touches foundational principles of what is arguably the most important religion in today’s world. The debate deserves respect and understanding from all involved, and while a solution likely won’t be found soon, it is imperative that Christians, politicians, and LGBT people collaborate to ease tensions and understand each other. There is more to it than hatred or rebellion; it is something which touches the deepest parts of people.

#politics #lgbt #religion #original #transgender #trans #christianity #catholicism #catholic church #sbc #southern baptist convention #anglican communion #anglicanism #christians #christian #lgbtq

10 notes · View notes

nymphaea-nouchali-x · 4 years

Text

Magic for the Skeptic

[NB: This is just me squeeing about the book Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe by Dean Radin (see end for link to online version)]

If ever there was a book to convince a long-time skeptic about whether magic or psychic phenomena were real, then this is it! I had seen reviews of it complaining about the statistical data that Radin goes into in the book and, honestly, that is probably what convinced me to pick it up and read.

With three Masters degrees and about fifteen years of being an active member in the medical and food science community, shaking off that skepticism and unlearning certain ‘principles’ of mainstream science was, is, and always has been extremely difficult. To add to that, I come from a Theravada Buddhist family, and if anybody guessed that the Theravada sect of Buddhism was the Protestantism of Buddhism, they would be correct. No other combination of science and religion would pooh-pooh concepts such as magic or psychic phenomena as hard as this. Although Theravada Buddhism does delve into the existence of nonphysical entities, as well as ‘miracle’ work by the Buddha himself and some of his closest followers, this ‘magical work’ has always been taught in the context of issuing a warning to those wanting to dabble in it. That is, one is only allowed to learn it in the context of Theravada Buddhism. As tolerant a religion as it posits itself, it still manages to come across as quite the opposite. At least that is what it seems like here, in Sri Lanka, where religion is politicized. Someday I will find a politically-neutral teacher from the Theravada school to help me with my questions, but until then, self-study would have to do.

So, finding a book that discussed parapsychology and psi phenomena from a scientific point of view, statistics and data and all that included—I clearly had to have it.

And it did not disappoint.

In the book, Radin explores two things:

Whether psi phenomena (telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition, psychokinesis, etc.) is ‘real’ (that is, is it reproducible as well as deliberate)

The extent of how much we do not know about reality, apart from the materialist and reductivist worldview of mainstream science that has consistently refused to acknowledge psi simply because it defies existing laws of Physics

Radin stresses the importance of not discounting the many mentions of magic throughout human history. And this is quite important, considering how different forms of magic are part of human culture, and has been since prehistoric times. It plays such a crucial role in understanding the threads of society and how they operated back in the day that separating magic from it means refusing to acknowledge a major chunk of what you’re studying. According to Radin, real magic, unlike the sensationalized Hollywood version, the Harry Potter version, or even the stage illusionist version, can be broadly classified into three categories:

Mental influence of the physical world = force of will (associated with spell casting and other techniques seen throughout history that could influence events or actions)

Perception of events distant in space or time = divination (tarot reading, scrying, etc.)

Interactions with non-physical entities = theurgy (methods of evoking and communicating with spirits, where Radin also includes near death experiences of proof of there being the ability to exist and maintain a sense of self outside a ‘physical’ body)

The book goes on to elaborate that the essence of magic comprises two major mental skills, namely, attention and intention. Furthermore, the strength of a magical outcome is determined by four factors:

Belief

Imagination

Emotion

Clarity

In other words, the stronger the combination of these four factors, the better the outcome of what one intends to do or make happen.

There is much focus on the mind and consciousness throughout the book as well, where Radin identifies the mind and consciousness as not being limited to the physical meat-suit component that is the brain. The analytical mind and the tendency to merely get a glimpse of something and immediately fill in the blanks with related information instead of seeing something for what it truly is seems to be an evolutionary trait—act first and think later seems to have helped us throughout history. But clinging to familiarity and depending merely on the five senses and the physical world to explain away events might be setting us back by a lot, particularly when we are beginning to see that the laws of nature, as defined by us, might not follow the same mathematical formulae we once thought they should.

It is also because our ancestors understood this—that the mind and consciousness are not limited to the physical vessel that we call the body—that we have many religions, particularly Eastern esoteric ones, that dedicate a good portion to teaching practices such as meditation. In some of the experiments described in the book, Radin explains how participants were able to obtain statistically more positive results if they first entered a state of gnosis (an altered consciousness where the mind is focused on only one thought or goal and all other thoughts are pushed away). According to Radin:

“The bottom line: If you want to perform magic effectively, maintain a disciplined meditation practice. Learn to quiet your mind. See the world as it is, not as it appears to be when viewed through multiple layers of cultural conditioning.”

That right there—cultural conditioning—is what most of us, myself included, need to unlearn to giving ourselves a chance to learn from within without religious or scientific dogma limiting us. Having being able to achieve this state of gnosis would, thereafter, help with the ‘attention’ part of magical practice.

It is also perhaps this awareness that arises from a still mind free from the tendency to ‘act first, think later’ that enables one to understand reality as it is. Reality, according to quantum physics, is still a mystery. Research in the area tends to lean away from the idea that we are entirely separate from one another and the universe itself, and theories about how the personal consciousness is actually a part of the universal consciousness seem to be looking more and more like a possibility.

Another interesting topic that the book addresses is the question of why we cannot make huge changes in the world—such as immediately bring about world peace and entirely change the weather. Radin identifies three factors that may be working against a magician who attempts such a thing:

Reality inertia, which refers to the theory that reality, though seemingly highly receptive to intention (a statement made as a result of decades of study that has produced significant results supporting this), is also elastic and interconnected. So while force of will causes a distortion in the fabric of reality in one direction, because it is interconnected, something or someone who does not like the way it is going can warp it in the opposite direction, effectively nullifying the effect or maintaining a balance or statistical equilibrium. The fabric of reality seems to prefer stability over chaos and hence is adept at repairing itself.

Lack of talent – This might sound a bit harsh, but it does make sense as the process involves getting into a state of gnosis, which might take practice, but not everyone may have the talent for it

The unconscious – While desiring something at the conscious level, it may not be so at the unconscious level. Self-deprecating views are part of this, and can even reverse or neutralize magical effects. This is likely where shadow work comes in (which will be a whole other topic I will discuss one day).

Overall, Real Magic was a great read for a skeptic like me. It’s like that pat on one’s shoulder telling you that it is okay to believe in a world outside of the physical realm. It certainly has worked to dial down those feelings of shame or stupidity when dealing with parapsychology or the paranormal.

Here’s an online version if anyone wants to give it a read, though I suggest buying it if it’s something you’re interested in in the long run.

#magic #magick #book review #dean radin #( theory )#quantum physics #( spirituality )#( theravada buddhism )#( magic: general )#( spellwork )#( divination )#( theurgy )

0 notes

sammy24682468 · 4 years

Text

2019 Revelation Study lesson 10

"Memory Text: “Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” (Revelation 14:12, NKJV)."

"Revelation shows that Satan’s end-time deception will be so successful that the world will choose to worship the beast and receive its mark. Yet, Revelation 14:1-5 tells us that God will have His remnant, those who will take their stand for the Lord when most of the world doesn’t."

"In the end, people will have to choose, not whether to worship or not (everyone always worships something), but rather, whom to worship. The worshipers of the beast will receive the mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, symbolic of their choice to serve this apostate system with their deeds and/or minds."

"At the same time, the world will witness a great proclamation of the gospel such as has not been seen since the day of Pentecost. Before the judgments of God are poured out upon rebellious humanity, God will send His warning messages “to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people” (Rev. 14:6, NKJV). God does not want anyone to perish but all to be saved, which is why Christ’s death was for all humanity. The question is who will accept that provision and who won’t."

"Just before the end, God sends His warning messages, symboli-cally portrayed in terms of three vocal angels flying in the sky. The Greek word for angel (angelos) means “messenger.” Evidence from Revelation suggests that the three angels stand for God’s people who are entrusted with the end-time message to share with the world."

"Read Revelation 14:6 along with Matthew 24:14. The first angel’s message is referred to as the “everlasting gospel” (Rev. 14:6). What does describing this proclamation as “the everlasting gospel” tell us about the content and purpose of the first angel’s message? Why is this message central to all that we believe?"

"This first end-time message is the gospel proclamation in the context of the hour of God’s judgment that has come upon the world. The gospel is good news about God, who saves human beings on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ and His work for them. The gospel is “everlasting” because God never changes. His plan was put in place even before we existed (2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2). The first angel’s message includes both salvation and judgment. It is good news for those who give glory to God and worship Him as their Creator, but it also is a judgment warning for those who reject the Creator and the sign of true worship He has given—the seventh-day Sabbath."

"The three angels are described as proclaiming the messages with “a loud voice” (Rev. 14:7, 9). These messages are urgent and important; they must be heard by all because it concerns their eternal destiny. As such, they must be proclaimed to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people. This proclamation is particularly significant because, at the time of the end, the beast will exercise authority over “every tribe, tongue, and nation” (Rev. 13:7, NKJV). Satan’s deceptive activities, worldwide in scope, are met by the end-time proclamation of the gospel worldwide."

"The three angels’ messages are proclaimed by God’s people to counter Satan and his end-time allies—the dragon, a symbol of paganism/spiritualism; the sea beast, which signifies Roman Catholicism; and the false prophet, or lamblike beast, representing apostate Protestantism (Revelation 13). They will operate up through the time of the sixth plague (Rev. 16:13, 14). Thus, the world is presented with two rival messages, each with the goal to win the allegiance of the people on earth."

Part 1

"Read Revelation 14:7 along with Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14. What does it mean to “fear God”? How does the concept of fearing God relate to the gospel, and what does the gospel have to do with keeping God’s commandments? (See also Rom. 7:7-13.) What is the connection between fearing God and glorifying Him?"

"The call to “ ‘fear God and give glory to Him’ ” (Rev. 14:7, NKJV) is proclaimed in the context of the “everlasting gospel.” A realization of what Christ has done for our salvation results in a positive response to Him."

"In the Bible, fearing God and giving glory to Him are closely related (Ps. 22:23, Rev. 15:4). Together, they designate a right relationship with God (Job 1:8) and obedience to Him."

"To fear God does not mean to be afraid of Him but to take Him seriously and allow His presence in our lives. God’s end-time people are the ones who fear God (see Rev. 11:18, Rev. 19:5). God desires His people to love Him (Deut. 11:13, Matt. 22:37), obey Him (Deut. 5:29, Eccl. 12:13), and reflect His character (Gen. 22:12)."

"It is important for God’s people to give Him glory because “ ‘the hour of His judgment has come’ ” (Rev. 14:7, NKJV). The judgment in view here is the pre-Advent investigative judgment, which takes place prior to the Second Coming. The purpose of this judgment is to reveal whether or not we are truly serving God—a choice made manifest by our works (see 2 Cor. 5:10). At the conclusion of this judgment, the destiny of every person is decided (Rev. 22:11), and Jesus will come to bring His reward to every person according to his or her deeds (Rev. 22:12)."

"Judgment in Revelation 14 is a part of the gospel. To those who are in a right relationship with God, judgment is good news; it means vindication, salvation, freedom, and eternal life. However, it is bad news for the disobedient, unless they repent and turn to God by accepting this end-time, judgment-hour message. God does not want anyone to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Pet. 3:9)."

Part 2

"Revelation shows that the central issues in the last crisis of earth’s history will be worship and obedience to God, as revealed in keeping His commandments (Rev. 14:12). The people of the world will fall into two groups: those who fear and worship God, and those who fear and worship the beast."

"Review the first four commandments of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:2-11). Then go through Revelation 13. How does the beast’s demand for worship (Rev. 13:15), the setting up of an image to the beast to be worshiped (Rev. 13:14, 15), blasphemy of God and His name (Rev. 13:5, 6), and receiving of the mark of the beast (Rev. 13:16, 17) point to Satan’s attacks on the first four commandments of the Decalogue in the final crisis?"

"The central concept of the first four commandments of the Decalogue is worship. Revelation indicates that these commandments will become the standard of loyalty to God in the final crisis. The final conflict between Christ and Satan plainly will revolve around worship and the first four commandments."

"The key issue in the final crisis is emphasized in the second exhortation of the first angel’s message. The call to “ ‘worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water’ ” (Rev. 14:7, NKJV) is almost an exact quotation of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:11). This fact shows that the call to worship God the Creator is a call to Sabbath observance."

"Rest and worship on the seventh day—Saturday—is a special sign of our relationship with God (Exod. 31:13, Ezek. 20:12). The first angel’s message is a call to worship the Creator."

"“While the observance of the false sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment, will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God’s law, is an evidence of loyalty to the Creator. While one class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority, receive the seal of God.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 605."

"The second angel’s message announces the fall, or apostasy, of Babylon and identifies it as a false religious system. In Revelation 17:5, “Babylon is said to be ‘the mother of harlots.’ By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 382, 383."

"Read Revelation 14:8 along with Revelation 18:2 and Isaiah 21:9. The twofold repetition of the word “fallen” points to Babylon’s progressive apostasy and signifies the certainty of her full moral collapse. Babylon is described as already fallen, but her fall is also described as future. Why is that?"

"The end-time Babylon in Revelation is a union of false religious systems that includes Roman Catholicism and apostate Protestantism. These will put themselves into the service of Satan against God’s people (see Rev. 13:11-18, Rev. 16:13, Rev. 17:5). This apostate religious union will manifest the arrogance of ancient Babylon in exalting itself above God and will seek to take His place in the world. The message of the second angel warns God’s people that this wicked system will depart further and further from the truth in consequence of her refusal of the light of the end-time gospel message. Only when “the union of the church with the world shall be fully accomplished throughout Christendom, will the fall of Babylon be complete.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 390."

"Read again Revelation 14:8 along with Revelation 17:2 and Revelation 18:3. How does Babylon make the world drink the wine of her fornication? What does this wine symbolize?"

"Revelation 17 pictures end-time Babylon as a harlot making people on earth drunk with her wine of immorality (see Rev. 17:2)."

"The wine of Babylon refers to the false teachings and false gospel offered by this apostate religious system. Today, as many Protestant churches, in fulfillment of Bible prophecy, rapidly erase the differences that once separated them from the Roman Catholic Church and turn away from biblical truth, we witness the corrupting influence of Babylon’s wine amongst the professed body of Christ: theistic evolution, which is implicitly contrasted with the reference to Creation in the first angel’s message; theological traditions replacing sola Scriptura; revised ethics abandoning biblical definitions of gender, marriage, and so forth. Intoxicated people cannot think clearly. As the people become spiritually inebriated by Babylon’s wine, Babylon will seduce them into worshiping the sea beast and receiving the mark of the beast."

"In contrast to God’s faithful people, Revelation 14:9, 10 warns about the fate of those who face God’s wrath. In the Old Testament, the outpouring of God’s wrath is described symbolically as drinking wine from a cup (Jer. 25:15, 16). The severity of the judgment upon the worshipers of the beast is expressed as drinking the wine of the wrath of God that is poured out “without mixture” (Rev. 14:10) into the cup of His indignation. In ancient times, people often diluted wine with water to reduce its intoxicating strength. But the wine of God’s wrath is described as “unmixed” (akratou). The unmixed, undiluted wine represents the pouring out of God’s wrath in its full strength, without mercy."

"Read Revelation 14:10, 11 along with Revelation 20:10-15. How do Isaiah 34:8-10 and Jude 7 shed light on the statement: “ ‘And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever’ ” (NKJV)?"

"The statement of the torment with fire and brimstone refers to total destruction. Fire and brimstone is a means of judgment (Gen. 19:24, Isa. 34:8-10). The ascending smoke of destruction is a well-known image in the Bible. Isaiah prophesied of the future destruction of Edom by fire and brimstone: it will become a burning pitch; “it shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever” (Isa. 34:10, NKJV). Jude describes the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah as suffering the punishment of “eternal fire” (Jude 7). These texts do not talk about endless burning, for none of these cities is burning today. The consequences are eternal, not the burning itself. The “eternal fire” in Revelation refers to annihilation; the burning will be long enough to make the consumption complete until nothing is left to burn."

"Although we can be thankful for the great truth that the fires of hell don’t torture the lost for eternity, the punishment is still terrible enough. What should the permanence and the severity of the punishment tell us about the sacred task that we have been given to warn others about what is coming?"

"Revelation shows that at the time of the end, God’s people are commissioned with the proclamation of the end-time gospel to the world. The work before us seems daunting, all but impossible. However, we have the promise of God’s power."

"“The great work of the gospel is not to close with less manifestation of the power of God than marked its opening. . . ."

"“The message will be carried not so much by argument as by the deep conviction of the Spirit of God. The arguments have been presented. The seed has been sown, and now it will spring up and bear fruit.”—Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 611, 612."

"The conclusion of the proclamation of God’s final message will result in a great separation that divides people in the world into two camps: those who love and obey God and those who follow and obey the beast. This separation is portrayed in terms of two harvests: the gathering of the wheat into the storehouses (Rev. 14:14-16) and the grapes to be trampled in the winepress (Rev. 14:17-20). This final separation is the subject of Revelation 17 and 18."

"• Think about the question of the Sabbath in the context of final events. The issue is: Whom will we worship—the Creator of “the heaven and the earth” (Rev. 14:7, NASB), or the beast power? The Bible teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath is the oldest (Gen. 2:2, 3), most foundational sign of God’s creatorship of “the heaven and the earth.” What does that truth teach us about why the Sabbath, as one of God’s commandments (Rev. 14:12), plays such a prominent role in the final crisis?"

0 notes

alexhaitz · 5 years

Text

Theodicy, Molinism, and Chaos Theory.

“Why would a good God give a child bone cancer, and let them die for no reason?”

The problem of evil is a massive obstacle for a legion of people in coming to believe in Christianity. In the infamous debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig at the University of Notre Dame (in which it’s almost unanimously agreed upon that Sam was slaughtered), Harris continually made these sorts of appeals. “Why would a good God allow a tsunami to destroy a third-world country?” These questions won over the general crowd, as WLC refused to play into these points as they weren’t the topic of debate, even though he’s covered them extensively himself in other places. And Craig’s ideas are what I’m going to be basing my theodicy on here.

What is a theodicy? It’s one’s attempt to solve the problem of evil. After some delving into this topic, I was able to easily come to peace with this issue upon some very mild research.

There are a couple of ideas I need to set straight and clear before we proceed. First, let’s establish what the actual issue is. Evil exists. The Christian claim is that God is all-good, and all-powerful. Since evil exists, God is either not powerful enough to stop it, or is not good. Second, we need to look at God’s attributes, and come to a conclusion on a particular soteriology (doctrine of salvation). Here are his standard features.

1. Omnipotent (All-powerful) 2. Omniscient (All-knowing) 3. Omnipresent (Exists in all places at all times in some form) 4. Immaterial/meta-physical 5. Personal/autonomous This page lists everything, but most of these points cover the subtle/specific attributes.

Now let’s get to work. With these two ideas set forth, a new point arises. Has God pre-determined all of history? Are we simply puppets and have no will in any given choice? Has human suffering been something outside of our control from day one?

My answer? Yes and no, but with a strong inflection on the no. Let’s talk soteriology now, the doctrine of salvation. This camp of thinking usually lands on one of two sides: Calvinism and Arminianism, with Lutheranism being something of a middle ground between the two. The debate between these two sides has been extensive and has lasted for most of Protestantism. I’ll try to summarize the two views briefly, so pardon any details lost in translation.

Calvinism Usually distilled down to these five points (known as T.U.L.I.P.). 1. Humans are in bondage to sin, and wholly unable to choose to follow God unless God bestows grace upon them to do so. 2. God has chosen the select peoples who will accept salvation, leaving the rest to damnation. 3. Jesus’ atonement on the cross only redeemed the sins of the elect, and was not extended to all humans. 4. The elect are converted to Christianity “monergistically”, meaning that the Holy Spirit works in them to bring them to salvation, regardless of the individual’s cooperation. 5. The elect to salvation can and will never apostatize, meaning that once they’re saved, absolutely nothing, including themselves, can “un-save” them. Arminianism, to a greater or lesser extent, is the inverse of these views, giving humans much more say in their destiny. When I first came upon these competing views in soteriology, I grappled with Calvinism for at least a month solid. It’s a massive pill to swallow for many Christians. I watched Calvinist pastors and apologists give their takes, and at the end of the day, I could not accept Calvinism. It seemed to fly in the face of how the Gospel functioned, and it didn’t sit well with me whatsoever on nearly every level. When someone like John Piper is asked how God can be sovereign over all human decisions and yet those decisions are still morally accountable and responsible on the part of said humans, and he flat out says “I don’t have an ultimate answer”. The rhetoric in these areas often turn to “Oh, I can hold them in tension” or “Oh, it’s just a mystery that we may never understand.” This wasn’t enough for me. Yes, there are obvious mysteries in Christianity. But I don’t think this needs to be one; it doesn’t make sense for it to be one. It’s surface theology, basic scriptural doctrine. “I don’t have an ultimate answer” = Your model isn’t fully functional. So I ended up putting Calvinism on the shelf, and I kept looking.

Then, I found William Lane Craig’s case for Molinism, and my soteriology came to peace. Molinism is something like a very traditional view of Arminianism, but one that doesn’t make God look like a wet noodle who gives humans a bit too much say in history.

Here’s Craig explaining its basic points.

youtube

The key take away from this ideology is that God has the sovereignty of the circumstance, and we have the freedom of the choice. Our choice isn’t forced, merely the scenario. Think of it as bumpers on a bowling lane; we can’t enter the gutters, but we can roll about the lane and ultimately hit the pins at the end. God might have us on an open lane in some ares of our life, allowing us to hit a variety of pins, or he may have us on a strict course, allowing us only to bring in a meager spare. The distinction to be made out of all of this is that God isn’t choosing where we move, merely the space in which we have freedom to move. Still, he’s cognizant of every inch that we do move. You can look up “Permissive Will vs Perfect Will” for more on this subject.

Now, Molinism might not be wholly true, but it at least provides a model to remove the conflict between divine providence and human freedom that Calvinism claims has to remain a mystery. And if a possible model for alleviating a contradiction can be made, said contradiction is now nullified.

So why all of that soteriology stuff? Well, Calvinists have a hard time evangelizing when it comes to the problem of evil, because their answer is that God enacts everything. He pulls the strings, forces people to do evil acts beyond their personal will, and ultimately decides who returns to him and who is cast into the abyss. It’s hard not to paint God as the author of evil in Calvinist doctrine. But to show that this might not be the case helps to lift the burden, the image of a tyrant God. To show that we’ve brought the poison, we’ve opened the veil covering the darkness, we’ve covered ourselves in leaves and hidden from the light. But with God still sovereign on the throne, how do we move forward with a theodicy?

Enter “chaos theory”, or moreover, the “butterfly effect”.

Here’s an excerpt from the Wiki article to easily describe what the butterfly effect is. ...Derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier. What does this mean? It means that the tiniest choices we make have infinite influence. Any event can be traced back to the smallest of incidents. Would Abraham Lincoln have existed if his parents hadn’t met and had intercourse at the precisely correct moment? Them meeting could’ve never happened if one of them had taken ill at the wrong time, or one of them tripped on the sidewalk, making them late for a meeting somewhere. The available alternatives are endless. Are you drinking something right now? What shirt are you wearing and what does it say? What have you posted on social media today? If you’re drinking, that could cause you to visit the restroom of a grocery store at the exact moment needed for you to run into an old friend that you haven’t talked to in years, one who needs your help. Your shirt could be a conversation starter for someone on the street, or could say something that someone needs to hear today. Same with your social media presence.

Once you realize the possibilities, everything under the sun gains massive, interwoven significance. Nothing is out of place. Vestigial organs might have a purpose now, as the mere act of getting your appendix removed impacts history in countless ways. Now, we can no longer say “Why would a good God give a child bone cancer, and let them die for no reason?”, as we simply cannot make that claim. We cannot say “for no reason”, because we cannot fathom the amount of good (or evil) such an act can bring. There are plenty of anecdotal stories and accounts of beauty arising from tragedy. And it may not even appear until years or centuries later.

The hardest pill one would have to swallow, is to realize that all of the pain and suffering allowed to exist in this world, exists solely for the purpose to bring as many souls freely into God’s presence as possible. Some may find this detestable, but I’d claim that these people would have far broader qualms with God that don’t burrow this deep in this specific field. They wouldn’t care to think this far in, as they dismiss it a ways back. I would diagnose this as a different problem, a problem of hating God’s nature, hating his will and thinking him an egotistical tyrant, which is a different issue than what I’m trying to address here.

Still, it helps to see that God isn’t forcing people into his presence against their will. You get to choose where you want to be: with him, or without him. But beware, succumbing to gravity is much easier than climbing.

I hope this wasn’t too long of a read, and that it had some interesting things to say. These ideas have given me much peace in all areas of life, as I no longer feel pressed to question God and his providence in an indignant way (and even when I do, there are resonant Psalms of lament I can turn to). I see his goodness so much, so much. And I trust in his character, his nature, and his commandments. So when I see pain, grief, heartache, despair...I remember Matthew 8, what a carpenter said when he was awoken aboard a sea-swept boat.

"Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"

The winds will be calmed. Have great faith in this, peace will be found there.

0 notes

republicstandard · 6 years

Text

A Critique of the Critique of the Culture of Critique

This article is a follow-up to the "Jewish Question" debate, replying to Nathan Cofnas' Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy.

Professor Kevin B. Macdonald is the Professor Emeritus and Editor of the Occidental Quarterly. He is perhaps best known for writing the three-volume series, The Culture of Critique. In this work, he writes about the history of Jewish group strategy, a variety of collective altruism used to empower Jews - religious and racial - at the disenfranchisement of gentiles, particularly individuals of European descent. He outlines this by specifying Jewish interference in multiple countries and cities throughout the post-Christ period and explains their meddling in governments, economies, and public images of many highly traditional nations.

Jews were originally expelled across states comprising the European continent, then in North Africa, and finally other Arab states within the Middle East. A common tactic used by the Jews which led to their many, many expulsions, was denying ethnic and religious identities for various demographics across different continents. Jewish legacy can be seen today, where they control a disproportionate quantity of the media and property in the West. This much at least is surely undeniable as a matter of historical fact.

Nathan Cofnas of Oxford University wrote an article in response to Kevin Macdonald’s theory of Jewish involvement in the cultural sphere. It was published in an issue of the journal Human Nature.

On the website Ideas and Data, an extensive and detailed analysis of Jewish overrepresentation in Europe and the United States was made; The Jewish Question: an Empirical Examination. This data was later used to produce a video called A Celebration of the Jewish People by Ryan Faulk, who goes by the username The Alternative Hypothesis.

youtube

A friend of Ryan Faulk, around the same time he published his video, made another video titled The Jewish Question: an Empirical Analysis. I have also been told, and anyone can see that the names are the same, that Sean Last is the proprietor of Ideas and Data.

youtube

Nathan Cofnas made a reply to the article itself, making sure to specifically refer to Sean Last. Clearly, Cofnas is at least aware of the supporting data for Macdonald's ideas.

I have four major problems with Cofnas' critique, Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy: A Critical Analysis of Kevin MacDonald’s Theory.

On anti-Gentilism and anti-Semitism

Cofnas has a mainstream perception of Jewish resentment toward gentile survival and genetic determinism – especially that of European and Arab non-Jews – relating to past events, such as persecution in Europe and Israel.

Since New Antisemitism developed after World War II, most people critical of Jews who exist within the Western world will bring up concerns over their representation in Western media, economics and political fields such as parliaments, voting, and general government-related issues, as opposed to their past atrocities, such as the Holodomor (Ethnic Ukrainian famine in Eastern Europe) and their high enrolment rate in the Soviet Union’s army (page 659). The over-representation of South Caucasians is due to most of them being Muslims (Azerbaijan comprising the largest nation in the region), as Nazi Germany made it illegal to practice any other religion aside from Christianity, and even then, just Protestantism. Catholicism and Islam were strictly prohibited, aside from Adolf Hitler having positive personal views toward Islam (page 96).

Nobody will deny Jews were oppressed throughout Europe and within the Palestinian territories, but the Jewish Question came into debate far before that of Hitler’s rise to power. Karl Marx’s On The Jewish Question was written in 1843, far before World War II and the drastic changes to Germany’s historical image occurred.

Jews escaping persecution and belittlement in Islamic, Arab countries, fled to Europe where they became evidently troublesome to the continent’s religiously and ethnically homogeneous identity. If Europeans or Arabs were to occupy Israel, then negative attitudes toward their presence would without a doubt be justified.

Seeing Jews want to protect their culture and heritage, as many surveys reveal, taking such pleasures away from Europeans and Christians is unquestionably hypocritical, in the same way it would be to Arabs and Muslims. Those who live within the Palestinian territories and are of Palestinian descent value the same qualities of a country as Israelis do. The two don’t see eye to eye, but they’re not so different when they actually confront their overt similarities.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whether you agree with its contents or not, was originally published in 1903, and in the Russian Empire of all places. Not in Israel or America, in Russia.

You'll have to ask yourself why the Jews have been expelled so many times throughout history. The evidence suggests that because they seek to be dominant in all fields of power, including in terms of land mass. Israel today is colonizing the remaining Palestinian territories, rather than enacting state control and then declaring two independent states: Israel and Palestine.

On Chomsky and Soros

Cofnas highlights two prominent Jews who oppose Zionism (Israeli nationalism and/or imperialism) as examples as to why Macdonald is wrong. These are Noam Chomsky and George Soros, literally two people out of an ethno-religious population of roughly 16 million by 2016, which accounts for 0.000012499999999999999% of all Jews worldwide. This is clearly not statistically significant.

The Culture of Critique never states every Jew thinks the same. Data disproves that. But that there is a significant correlation between Judaism, Israelis and a bitter disdain for anything outside of that realm that happens when you combine the three.

On Cofnas' remarks surrounding Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany and the Institute for Social Research.

There are blatant hypocrites such as Heidi Beirich who don’t even attempt to hide their hypocrisy, people who can’t be cited as true defendants of the school’s critical theories, but Frankfurt School’s younger members have later arrived to defend the establishment against accusations of Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness and so on. This isn’t a generational aspect of the country, it’s something inherent about ideology.

I actually happen to agree with the concept of a think tank dedicated to promoting socialist ideas through means of academic publication, alongside enrolment of students focused on learning economics from an egalitarian perspective. Despite agreeing with many of Marx’s ideas, I cannot identify with the more socially progressive side of modern academia today. I do very much appreciate and respect the love and care going into teaching Marxist beliefs.

When people reflect upon the Frankfurt School’s legacy, it’s a consideration more on who was influenced and how they were influenced. Less about what the actual philosophers themselves thought, retrospectives on the institute discuss how the future was inspired by the past. To modern Liberals, nationalism is only acceptable in the context of non-European countries striving for independence. If you ask your average liberal person, they’ll tell you they support Tanzania or India breaking free from British colonization, but not Ukraine wanting freedom from the Soviet Union.

Past generations who have read studies published by the Institute for Social Research came to their own conclusions, had their own interpretations. Most came away agreeing with Israeli nationalism, but also believe in European identity having no meaning, and that Europeans shouldn’t act collectively; they should instead only act as individuals. They saw Jews as a group, but not gentiles.

Yet, members of the Frankfurt School would condemn antisemitism even in comedy. In Herbert Marcuse’s essay -part of his book he wrote with other philosophers at the school A Critique of Pure Tolerance, Repressive Tolerance- he argues against speech against minorities groups in the United States, Africans, Arabs, Muslims – Jews being another – Indians, homosexuals, and even ideological groups such as socialists. But free speech was allowed as long as it was directed against more populous demographics, such as European Americans, Christians, and conservatives. Marcuse was in favor of essentially banning antisemitic speech, but permitting anti-gentile sentiment. As Jews show concern for Israel being taken over by Arabs and Muslims, they also display it in the context of the West, having rather unfavorable views of American Muslims as shown by polling.

Herbert Marcuse wrote in 1965:

The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and ‘philosophies’ can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the ‘end of ideology’, the false consciousness has become the general consciousness–from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don’t have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters.

Jews are both a racial and religious minority in the United States, but Europeans and Christians aren’t. Well, as of then and now. Unfortunately, I can’t quite say the same for the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Christianity or Christians themselves, but it appears that a Jewish and Muslim America would be even more extreme.

One could point out that Marcuse’s essay was based upon the tolerance paradox, which would be true, but ultimately this misses the point. Anybody can insert political opinions into their works, even if the subject matter has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. With that said, in Marcuse’s essay, the entire purpose of why it was written was to make it clear he supported minority speech and suspension of free speech for the White American majority.

On the statistics Cofnas cites on Jewish intermarriage.

In 2013, the Pew Research Center that non-religious racial Jews in the United States married with a non-Jew 58% of the time (between 2000 to 2013; page 35). However, take into account that in 2012 Jews only comprised 2.15% of America’s national population. With this in mind, Jews are 1853.48% more likely to marry a Jew than a non-Jew based upon their population size.

I don’t have a problem with this Jewish tendency. In fact, I don’t think anyone should marry outside their race or religion. Personal feelings aside, when Cofnas claims that Jews are disobedient to their own kind, to imply that they’re not loyal –as I believe they’re perhaps the most loyal out of any of the world’s human demographics– he is denying the facts.

Let’s pretend there’s a country where half of its residents are Jews and the other half are non-Jews. There would be practically no intermarriage between the two whatsoever.

Conclusion:

I find Cofnas to be rather thought-provoking, and for that, I’m happy his criticism of the Culture of Critique exists. Even so, Cofnas lacks an understanding of the collectivism that has been and still is, historically present within Jews scattered all across Earth. And for that, I believe it’s very, very incorrect.

Kevin Macdonald's rebuttal to Cofnas can be found here.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2LKuphH via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

sharionpage · 6 years

Text

Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens

At a recent Sacrament Meeting I heard the following message: “The world tells women to be independent, confident, and educated, but we know women are instead supposed to be chaste, virtuous, and modest.” Sunday School then featured these highlights: “We are constantly under attack from temptation. If we deviate even an inch we can fall! We have to be constantly on guard against Satan.” and “Wearing revealing clothing is breaking the law of chastity. Imagine the shame you would feel if the Second Coming happened and the Savior saw you wearing a sleeveless shirt!” The previous week’s Sacrament Meeting featured an overview of appropriate dress standards for an upcoming EFY activity, an admonition from the Bishop to be more faithful in church cleaning assignments, and a reminder that when people become inactive or leave the Church it’s ultimately because they were offended and are too prideful to repent.

A short time earlier I attended a stake conference in a different part of the world where the topics were (in this order): appropriate Sabbath Day observance standards, tithing, Book of Mormon, missionary work, the importance of “doing” and “obedience,” tithing (again), missionary work (again), and another on missionary work (a third time). At one point a counselor in the Stake Presidency directed a quick comment to visitors: “I know we have many visitors here and we welcome you! We want you to know that of course we’re Christians and we believe in Jesus.” (One wonders why he felt the need to clarify, given the topics that were emphasized in the meeting.)

The visiting member of the Seventy then finished the meeting with an exhortation to be faithful and obedient to home teaching, tithing, and temple attendance because, as he explained, there is no progression from Kingdom to Kingdom in the afterlife. If you are not faithful and obedient to the gospel now, he warned, your path will be forever sealed against eternal life and exaltation.

………………..

Terryl and Fiona’s latest book The Christ Who Heals makes a bold claim: Mormon theological culture has inherited a religious “style” from its Western Christian (Catholicism and Protestantism) antecedents that often serves to obscure its empowering, uplifting, and ennobling truths. In other words, Mormons hear the phrase “philosophies of men mingled with scripture” in their temple liturgical rites and assume that it must be referring to liberal Christians who use the Bible to defend same-sex marriage or political philosophers who argue that the Bible makes a strong case for socialism. Based on my reading, Terryl and Fiona might argue that it also refers to the integration of traditional Catholic and Protestant perspectives of sin, guilt, and depravity into our conceptualizations of Mormon belief and praxis.

One of the book’s key methodologies is the “Hugh Nibley approach”: Terryl and Fiona constantly draw parallels between Josephine Mormonism[1] and early Christian desert fathers, monks, and mystics, especially in the Eastern Christian tradition. These parallels serve to anchor their argument that the Eastern Church’s theological development was much closer to what Joseph Smith taught many centuries later, while the Western Church moved continually toward more cynical and pessimistic view of human nature, sin, death, and repentance. They argue that Eastern Orthodox Christianity represents a path that Western Christianity might have taken, and if it had, would have resembled Josephine Mormonism to a much stronger degree than it currently does.

How, then, did Mormonism shift toward Western Christianity’s notions of depravity, guilt, and sin? Through our language, they argue. Not “language” in the strict sense of speaking the English language (or others), but rather the cultural environment in which we are raised.[2] They argue that since Mormonism emerged in the fertile landscape of early America where Protestantism was on fire (literally in the “burned-over district” during the Second Great Awakening) Joseph had a difficult time breaking his followers out of their strong Protestant conditioning. To this day, they argue, Mormon theology, culture, and practice have a strong bias toward Western Christianity’s orientations toward sin, guilt, and judgment instead of its “true” focus on human potential, advancement and eternal progression.

Why is it this important? Among other things, it matters how we understand the nature of God. Our understanding of God shapes everything else in our religious lives, including our values, choices, and priorities, as well as the way we interact with one another. As Joseph Smith said: “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.”[3]

Psychological research has also shown that it matters whether one believes in a more “Authoritative” God [judgmental, punitive, strict, etc.] or a more “Gracious” God [friendly, loving, intimate] (see here and here). Those who have a more “gracious” conceptualization of God tend to have better health outcomes, report higher levels of well-being, spiritual health, self-esteem, happiness, etc., to volunteer and engage in their communities, and have lower levels of anxiety, depression, and paranoia.[4] It could be argued, then, that to the extent that Mormon clergy and laity alike embrace a Western Christian view of sin, judgment, and depravity, they are risking the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of those in their communities.

It is in this context that Terryl and Fiona try their best to “move the needle” of the Mormon theological conversation back toward a “gracious” conceptualization of God. As is common in their writing, they draw on scripture, science, literature, and art, as well as theologians from Irenaeus to Origen to Tertullian to Julian of Norwich[5] to bolster their arguments. A sampling includes:

“Salvation is the culmination of our richer incorporation into the heavenly family of celestial beings.” (50)

“Christ … volunteers himself an offering to assume the painful consequences of our injurious choices. Appeasing some abstract justice, or propitiating a sovereign God, is not the point.” (55)

“Atonement is primarily about healing the pains and strains of injured relationships.” (74)

“Zion-building is not preparation for heaven. It is heaven, in embryo. The process of sanctifying disciples of Christ, constituting them into a community of love and harmony, does not qualify individuals for heaven; sanctification and celestial relationality are the essence of heaven.” (78)

“We do not earn heaven; we co-create heaven, and we do so by participating in the celestial relationships that are its essence.” (93)

“We cannot overstate the significance of this shift from accusatory judgment and evaluation to judgment as an awakening of self.” (98)

“Sin is whatever is crippling, destructive of human relations, whatever distorts or hedges up the way of flourishing. Virtue, on the other hand, is wholeness, the measure of our creation.” (102)

I will admit that I struggled with the understanding of the concept of atonement that is presented in The Christ Who Heals. The authors firmly reject the Cleon Skousen view that Christ’s atonement was necessary to satisfy the demands of justice on the part of “intelligences” upon which God’s support depends to maintain his position as God (a view that was popular in late-20th century Mormonism). Instead, as I understood from my reading of the book, they argue that Christ’s atonement was primarily about sharing in our pain so that he could serve as a perfect Healer and to generate the infinite grace necessary to draw and persuade all of God’s children unto him. This is a compelling and exciting view, but to me it begs the question: was an atonement necessary, then? Did our Heavenly Parents already not have the ability to share in and heal our pains? Did they not already have the ability to draw and persuade us back to Them, absent of someone else needing to perform that task or generate that ability? The Skousen view, while in my view wrong, as least has a clear and consistent logic. I finished The Christ Who Heals without a clear understanding of how the authors’ view of atonement ultimately requires a Christ to perform that atonement. (All the more reason, in my view, to move away from a literalistic understanding of Christianity and the atonement and toward a more metaphorical, mystical understanding.)

Perhaps their most important and exciting theological argument is made in the final chapter, where they argue that an overly-judgmental conceptualization of God risks obscuring the bold and radical doctrine of eternal progression. They outline in Chapter 12 that Mormon authorities such as Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, B.H. Roberts, James Talmage, Joseph F. Smith, J. Reuben Clark taught clearly that even though Mormon doctrine believes in an initial assignment to a degree of glory in the afterlife, there exists the potential for eternal advancement, even from kingdom to kingdom. (They further argue that this perspective can be reasonably inferred from early desert fathers such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa.) It is only more recent Mormon authorities such as Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who taught that this is not true, based on an erroneous understanding of the phrase “words without end” in D&C 76:112.[6]

If there truly is the potential of advancement from kingdom to kingdom in the afterlife, it is a radical and ennobling principle: it is never too late. Terryl and Fiona argue that our Heavenly Parents are rooting and cheering for us throughout the eternities, and that the Savior will never give up on inviting, loving, and helping us all on our way toward eternal life and exaltation as we climb the long ladder of eternal progression and improvement. No one who desires will be left behind, even if it takes eternities for them to come around.

The implications of this possibility cannot be understated. This means that everyone who wants to can and will “make it” in the end. While some will take a little longer than others, everyone is on the same journey with the same destination. Vicarious temple work ensures that everyone will receive all the saving ordinances in the end, and so long as a person’s orientation is pointed toward God (or even Goodness), they will for eternity have a standing invitation to progress and learn and come ever-closer to “eternal life and exaltation.”[7] We will all have the “eternal family” that is promised to us, sooner or later, regardless of how far down the road we make it in this life.[8]

………………..

For many people, the day-to-day lived experience of contemporary Mormonism, with its frequent focus on behavioral checklists, institutional maintenance, dress standards, guilt-based persuasions, and obedience over grace, is an environment that they find effective and helpful to them as they seek to draw closer to God and become more like Them, participating in the “co-creation” that Terryl and Fiona describe. For some, however, the contemporary LDS environment has become stifling, discouraging, uninspiring, uninteresting,[9] or in some rare cases, even unsafe.[10]

Terryl and Fiona present what is, in my view, a desperately needed “course corrective” to predominant framings and emphases in contemporary Mormon theological discourse. The Mormon tradition is by leaps and bounds richer for the perspectives they are contributing to the theological conversations and narratives. To be sure, there are local leaders and General Authorities who strive to bring these more expansive and ennobling perspectives to the fore. These framings are, however, usually a strong minority in most corners of Mormondom. The Mormonism that Terryl and Fiona present is, very regrettably, simply not the Mormonism that most members encounter these days in their day-in-day-out, on-the-ground experience with the Church.[11] I therefore fear that their effort to influence the dominant narratives in Mormonism is an increasingly quixotic one as American Mormonism and Evangelical Protestantism become increasingly interchangeable in their outlooks, perspectives, and religious styles. But as a Christian, of course, I value hope, and I hold out hope that, in the end, the Mormonism of The Christ Who Heals will prevail.

………………..

FN1: I use the term “Josephine Mormonism” in reference to Joseph Smith’s version of Mormon theology.

FN2: I whole-heartedly agree with this, by the way. And I might venture to take it one step further. What other understandings or assumptions about God and religion are influenced by our cultural conditioning, either as individuals, communities, or institutions? How much has our understandings of concepts like “church,” “priesthood,” “authority,” “exaltation,” “scripture,” or even “Jesus” or “God” been shaped by the cultural environments in which we were raised and by the languages and assumptions and worldviews that we swim in? (2 Nephi 31:3) How much might our views of gender or sexuality be influenced in the same way? And to take it another step further: Terryl and Fiona argue that Joseph’s ability to bring the early Saints to new truths was constrained by their cultural conditioning, but how much of Joseph’s own theology, revelations, and behavior was also constricted and bounded by his cultural conditioning? If Joseph Smith had been born in India, for example, how might he have understood and conveyed his First Vision experience to his followers? What would the “Book of Mormon” looked like?

FN3: History of the Church, 6:303

FN4: See here, here, here, here, e.g.

FN5: I particularly appreciate that Terryl and Fiona gave Julian such a strong platform in this book. Her Revelations of Divine Love should be required reading for all Christians. That said, I may be biased, as my wife and I named one of our daughters in her honor: “Hazel Julian.”

FN6: The point about “worlds without end” comes from an interview with Fiona on the LDS Perspectives Podcast. She argues that “worlds without end” in the 19th century was used as a title for God, and thus Joseph likely understood this mean: “but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, where We are [yet!]” I might venture to add that this was a missed opportunity that the book could have taken. What is a faithful Mormon to do when there is very clear evidence that Mormon authorities taught mutually exclusive perspectives on a topic? Or that an authoritative doctrinal teaching is based on an erroneous interpretation of a scriptural phrase?

FN7: A similar argument was featured on this blog in 2015: http://ift.tt/2ASBOtT

FN8: Of course, this presents an awkward paradox. If salvation is truly an eternal opportunity and the door never closes, what is the urgency to faithfully follow the LDS program in this life, especially if someone finds more light, knowledge, hope, and/or faith in other faith traditions (or none at all)? The answer, for Terryl and Fiona, is that they personally find the LDS context most compelling and conducive to learning the lessons of eternity and creating a Zion community. I never found in the book a compelling argument, though, for why everyone necessarily best thrives and flourishes in an LDS context, or what to do if someone finds that active LDS participation is more of a hindrance than a help toward a more abundant spiritual life, especially given that the ennobling and empowering narrative of Mormonism they present is not frequently encountered in most Mormon contexts these days. This seems to be the unanswerable question for Mormon apologists such as Terryl and Fiona and Patrick Mason. It is difficult to simultaneously hold to a near-universal view of salvation while simultaneously arguing for the necessity of a near-universal LDS experience.

FN9: Indeed, the 2016 Next Mormons Survey found that 20% of self-identified Mormons in the United States say that at the end of church they feel “tired or burned out” instead of “spiritually fed and inspired.” This includes 13% of those who attend church regularly.

FN10: See, for example, “The LGBTQ Mormon Crisis: Responding to the Empirical Research on Suicide by Michael Barker, Daniel Parkinson, and Benjamin Knoll”, Dialogue 49(2) as well as my research on Mormon context and youth suicide rates: http://ift.tt/2ASa5cO

FN11: In contrast, I tend to find many of the general positive, ennobling, and universalistic aspects of Josephine Mormonism more often these days taught and celebrated in Mainline Protestant communities.

Book Review: “The Christ Who Heals” by Terryl and Fiona Givens published first on http://ift.tt/2wQcX5G

0 notes

usnewsaggregator-blog · 7 years

Text

The Islamic World Doesn't Need a Reformation

New Post has been published on https://usnewsaggregator.com/the-islamic-world-doesnt-need-a-reformation/

The Islamic World Doesn't Need a Reformation

Various Western intellectuals, ranging from Thomas Friedman to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have argued over the past decades that Muslims need their own Martin Luther to save themselves from intolerance and dogmatism. The Protestant Reformation that Luther triggered exactly 500 years ago, these intellectuals suggest, can serve as a model for a potential Muslim Reformation. But is there such a connection between the Reformation in Christendom and the “reform” that is arguably needed in Islam?

To start with, it’s worth recalling that Islam, in the form of the Ottoman Empire, helped Protestantism succeed and survive. In the 16th century, much of Europe was dominated by the Holy Roman Empire, which had ample means to crush the Protestant heretics. But the same Catholic empire was also constantly threatened and kept busy by “the Turks” whose own empire-building inadvertently helped the Protestants. “The Turk was the lightning rod that drew off the tempest,” noted J. A. Wylie in his classic, History of Protestantism. “Thus did Christ cover His little flock with the shield of the Moslem.”