"In recent times, the way of being Christian that emerges from Anabaptism has been called the "believer's church." This term emphasizes the voluntary character of the church: people choose to join as believing adults rather than being born into a church community. Adult versus infant baptism signifies the two differing ecclesiologies- understandings of the church- with their contrasting kinds of entrée." -J. Denny Weaver (Becoming Anabaptist, p.163)
It is not for Anabaptists, or any man for that matter, to erect a dogma which suggests that voluntarism, reason, faith, or the understanding are qualities inextricably bound to the adult and irrevocably missing in the infant. One cannot say this, far less can one determine to exclude infants and little children from baptism on account of it. Faith in Christ (however one may define it; be it a work of the understanding or intellect, involving reason or absurdity etc...) is not a prevenient disposition that exists as a presupposition of adult humanity. When Anabaptists insist that humans by the mere fact of maturing become better equipped to decide on the nature of the Gospel, they fall into a clear Pelagianism (which teaches that there are qualities in men, untarnished by original sin, which may aid them in their justification before God). It is no coincidence here that the early Pelagians denied baptism to infants (cf. Augustine Contra Julian I).
Faith, and all that accrues to it in the justification of man before God (by which I mean reason or motivations of the will), is a GIFT FROM GOD. A free gift. It comes from God's free grace to the individual, and absolutely NO ONE has the right to question God's dispensation of this grace (Rom.9:20). It is nothing short of spiritual arrogance to deny the merits of God's Gospel to infants or say that God is capable of giving the gift of faith to adults but is incapable to do so for infants. Jesus rather says, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." As I have said elsewhere, it is not adulthood with all of its reason and maturity that provides the best parable of faith but little children. They are the signs of Godly Trust in this godless world.
Infant baptism does not stem from some banal and useless thing called "church tradition" but from the authority of scripture and the proclamation of the gospel. It is in scripture that we learn to say:
Εκ στόματος νηπιων και θηλαζόντων κατηρτίσω αινον (Mt. 21:16)
In direct connection to the public confession of Jesus as Messiah by little children, Jesus includes infants (νηπιων) under the ordinances of God's praise. I leave it to Anabaptists with all of their devious sophistry to explain how infants can praise God without faith.
Naturally these criticisms can only apply to the Anabaptist who wishes to hold, for good or ill, to the scripture principle. I do not know of many in their circle of dark deeds today who wish to have anything to do with the authority of the bible. Inasmuch as believer's baptism figures in post-modern Anabaptism, it figures as a product of contemplative tradition rather than the authority of the Sovereign Lord of Heaven and Earth, who vows the destruction of the cosmos before the perishing of scripture.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
More Dilettante Theology from Robert Cargill
"Christianity is not first about doctrine or dogma, it is about service (specifically, social justice). Until we get the service part down, our doctrine is worthless." via: http://robertcargill.com/
I could hardly choke this one down. Precisely the opposite holds true for Christianity. Actually, what is first in the order of Christianity is neither service (what man does) or doctrine/dogma (what the serving man believes about God). It isn't about us. The foundation and linchpin of Christianity is the name Jesus Christ....period.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve...." -1 Cor.15:3-5
This is one of the earliest definitions of the Christian faith that we have, so I consider it a good measuring stick. Notice how it has absolutely nothing to do with men? Well ok, maybe the part which speaks about the forgiveness of sins and Christ's appearing to the Twelve and such. But the first presupposes that we are wicked and culpable before God, and the second only allots a passive role to anthropology: beings to whom Christ chooses to appear. No dogma, no doctrine, no service....just Jesus Christ, the one who died for our sins and rose again.
I could hardly choke this one down. Precisely the opposite holds true for Christianity. Actually, what is first in the order of Christianity is neither service (what man does) or doctrine/dogma (what the serving man believes about God). It isn't about us. The foundation and linchpin of Christianity is the name Jesus Christ....period.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve...." -1 Cor.15:3-5
This is one of the earliest definitions of the Christian faith that we have, so I consider it a good measuring stick. Notice how it has absolutely nothing to do with men? Well ok, maybe the part which speaks about the forgiveness of sins and Christ's appearing to the Twelve and such. But the first presupposes that we are wicked and culpable before God, and the second only allots a passive role to anthropology: beings to whom Christ chooses to appear. No dogma, no doctrine, no service....just Jesus Christ, the one who died for our sins and rose again.
Top ten ways to purge your mind of anabaptist dreck.
1. Read the Bible.
2. Take the Bible seriously.
3. Watch Braveheart.
4. Read St. Augustine.
5. Read Martin Luther.
6. Observe the choosiness of Anabaptists in action.
7. Read their greatest theological text: "The Politics of Jesus" and be appalled at its mindlessness.
8. Commit to allowing Jesus to exist and speak beyond two pages from the Gospel of Matthew.
9. Appreciate grace.
10. Spend time with Christians.
2. Take the Bible seriously.
3. Watch Braveheart.
4. Read St. Augustine.
5. Read Martin Luther.
6. Observe the choosiness of Anabaptists in action.
7. Read their greatest theological text: "The Politics of Jesus" and be appalled at its mindlessness.
8. Commit to allowing Jesus to exist and speak beyond two pages from the Gospel of Matthew.
9. Appreciate grace.
10. Spend time with Christians.
A good reminder from Jeremiah.
"Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you concerning Israel, Judah and all the other nations..." -Jer. 36:2
The prophetic Word that we have in the Old Testament is not constrained by "Israel's Story." It can even be said, in a sense, that it has nothing to do with "Israel's Story" at all. This is first and foremost because God's Word is not concerned with storytelling but with commanding, rebuking, promising, examining, and foretelling (the order here is utterly arbitrary). If stories figure at all in the prophetic scripts, they serve the wider and infinitely greater purpose of God's majestic Lordship. Secondly, one cannot speak of "Israel's Story" without committing a woeful anachronism, for a wide array of the prophetic literature concerns two distinct nations: Israel and Judah. If we are to develop a science of the Old Testament and call it OT theology, there is no room for the excrescences of imprecise phrases and misleading terms. Thirdly, the prophetic Word concerns other nations; not simply as they figure or relate to "Israel's Story" but as they relate to the purposes of the LORD of Heaven and Earth, which are not ALWAYS wrapped up in Israel's concerns. The continuous merger between Israel and YHWH which figures in much OT scholarship is disconcerting and childish. Is it any coincidence that the writers from this school, that those who construct for themselves a God immanent in the mundane processes of Israel; is it any coincidence that the same are elsewhere in sympathetic dialogue with the Roman Catholic church, no longer finding anything to protest in Rome and its ecclesiology?
The prophetic Word that we have in the Old Testament is not constrained by "Israel's Story." It can even be said, in a sense, that it has nothing to do with "Israel's Story" at all. This is first and foremost because God's Word is not concerned with storytelling but with commanding, rebuking, promising, examining, and foretelling (the order here is utterly arbitrary). If stories figure at all in the prophetic scripts, they serve the wider and infinitely greater purpose of God's majestic Lordship. Secondly, one cannot speak of "Israel's Story" without committing a woeful anachronism, for a wide array of the prophetic literature concerns two distinct nations: Israel and Judah. If we are to develop a science of the Old Testament and call it OT theology, there is no room for the excrescences of imprecise phrases and misleading terms. Thirdly, the prophetic Word concerns other nations; not simply as they figure or relate to "Israel's Story" but as they relate to the purposes of the LORD of Heaven and Earth, which are not ALWAYS wrapped up in Israel's concerns. The continuous merger between Israel and YHWH which figures in much OT scholarship is disconcerting and childish. Is it any coincidence that the writers from this school, that those who construct for themselves a God immanent in the mundane processes of Israel; is it any coincidence that the same are elsewhere in sympathetic dialogue with the Roman Catholic church, no longer finding anything to protest in Rome and its ecclesiology?
Sunday, July 21, 2013
When I have a Baby
I will hold it over a cliff by the leg and decide its right to live based on how it reacts to the coffee I give it.
Bonhoeffer
It is a point of no small amusement for me that modern Christians (men-worshipers) consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer to be a martyr. Martyr is one of the titular ascriptions given to this pious man by his popular biographer Eric Metaxas. I recently heard the word used gushingly in respect to the B-man by the former president of Trinity Western University. I hear it everywhere. It's utter bollocks. To be a martyr, you have to willingly go to your death for the sake of keeping to the testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You have to be willing to die rather than renounce the gospel. This is the formal and material criterion set by the earliest records of the concept of martyrdom, such as the account of Polycarp, which insists on το κατά το ευαγγέλιον μαρτύριον (martyrdoms which are in strict accordance with the gospel) or according to the will of God (1.1; 2.1). Christians who voluntarily provoked the authorities or gave themselves up for vainglorious ends were summarily dismissed as fiends (4).
Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not go to the gallows for Jesus Christ but for Germany. Nor did the Nazis punish him on account of his faith but on account of his sedition. Dietrich even admitted that he and his fellow conspirators, by their sedition, incurred the wrath and the judgment of God (for the relevant saying, see Elizabeth Raum's work, p.111). In other words, it was out of disobedience to Jesus Christ that Bonhoeffer went to his death. Oh jeez. Yet another ethicist and pelagian showing us his true weakling colours.
If we can term someone who willfully disobeys God for the sake of an lateral political grudge a martyr, the word is henceforth stripped of any value or truth whatsoever. Bonhoeffer witnessed to one thing, and one thing only: bad faith laced with copious amounts of self-delusion. To him I say: Go on up you baldhead!!
Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not go to the gallows for Jesus Christ but for Germany. Nor did the Nazis punish him on account of his faith but on account of his sedition. Dietrich even admitted that he and his fellow conspirators, by their sedition, incurred the wrath and the judgment of God (for the relevant saying, see Elizabeth Raum's work, p.111). In other words, it was out of disobedience to Jesus Christ that Bonhoeffer went to his death. Oh jeez. Yet another ethicist and pelagian showing us his true weakling colours.
If we can term someone who willfully disobeys God for the sake of an lateral political grudge a martyr, the word is henceforth stripped of any value or truth whatsoever. Bonhoeffer witnessed to one thing, and one thing only: bad faith laced with copious amounts of self-delusion. To him I say: Go on up you baldhead!!
Saturday, July 13, 2013
What we learn about conquest from Deuteronomy
"[The Rephaites] were a people strong and numerous, and as tall as the Anakites. The LORD destroyed them from before the Ammonites, who drove them out and settled in their place. The LORD had done the same for the descendants of Esau, who lived in Seir, when he destroyed the Horites from before them. They drove them out and have lived in their place to this day." -Deut.2:21-22
First of all, this little passage places a delicious and strong lie on the modern and post-modern devils who love to speak of biblical theologies of conquest as "nationalistic self-legitimations" and " national stories which justify colonial oppression." Pathetic. Both the Ammonites and the Edomites were mortal enemies of Israel, as is amply testified by biblical literature and archaeological findings. If biblical theologies of conquest had anything to do with nationalism and self-legitimation, they would not go out of their way to speak of the LORD (Israel's so-called patron deity!!) assisting and helping ENEMIES in their territorial warfare. Nationalism falls to the ground as an appropriate model for understanding what is at work here.
Furthermore, this scripture tells us that you do not have to be a nation at peace with YHWH for Him to do battle for you. The modern Christian scholar, who wishes to have it known that he is a jew-everything and will adopt meaningless Jewish phrases like "Torah" (as if Rabbinic terminology is somehow appropriate and non-anachronistic for dealing with literature written centuries before there was such a thing as a sodding Rabbi) has yet to be "instructed" on this count. Deuteronomy is the eternal Word of God, given by the lips of Jesus the eternal Lord. We find in it boundless instruction. And in this particular word of God, we learn that it is the Way of YHWH to assist godless nations in conquest. He does this for His own purposes and ends. As such we cannot absolutely condemn conquest today when it occurs, for who are we- mere men- to determine whether the hand of our God might not be behind it?
First of all, this little passage places a delicious and strong lie on the modern and post-modern devils who love to speak of biblical theologies of conquest as "nationalistic self-legitimations" and " national stories which justify colonial oppression." Pathetic. Both the Ammonites and the Edomites were mortal enemies of Israel, as is amply testified by biblical literature and archaeological findings. If biblical theologies of conquest had anything to do with nationalism and self-legitimation, they would not go out of their way to speak of the LORD (Israel's so-called patron deity!!) assisting and helping ENEMIES in their territorial warfare. Nationalism falls to the ground as an appropriate model for understanding what is at work here.
Furthermore, this scripture tells us that you do not have to be a nation at peace with YHWH for Him to do battle for you. The modern Christian scholar, who wishes to have it known that he is a jew-everything and will adopt meaningless Jewish phrases like "Torah" (as if Rabbinic terminology is somehow appropriate and non-anachronistic for dealing with literature written centuries before there was such a thing as a sodding Rabbi) has yet to be "instructed" on this count. Deuteronomy is the eternal Word of God, given by the lips of Jesus the eternal Lord. We find in it boundless instruction. And in this particular word of God, we learn that it is the Way of YHWH to assist godless nations in conquest. He does this for His own purposes and ends. As such we cannot absolutely condemn conquest today when it occurs, for who are we- mere men- to determine whether the hand of our God might not be behind it?
The Fourth Crusade
"You vowed to liberate the Holy Land... [but] you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians... The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs." -Pope Innocent III (qtd in The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, xv).
The centuries in which the crusades unfolded are far too complex, topsy-turvy and amorphous to draw fingers out for pointing. Who to blame? Why? For which? And for what? Were not the Middle Ages as sprawling in their cultural and religious interpenetrations as any other day?
I disavow the modern and very folksy belief that the Crusades were a product of unadulterated evil. Land disputes are an epiphenomenon of being human in relation to other humans, and the desire to conquer is hardly more than venial. Why shouldn't I in the society of fellows much like me desire to take via blood spilling and warfare that which I see others of a different blood occupying? Does anyone bear an analytical a priori connection to the land they stand on? Nonsense!!! At best we can attempt some sort of historical relation between this piece of land and that group of inhabitants. But the contingencies abound in all historical premises. For instance, no group of sots "has always been there," thus there is no eternal synthesis which would confer on them the right to stay. Even Israel, avowed a very precise terrestrial allotment by the hands of the Creator himself, cannot venture such boasts. When it has, the Creator has rightly demonstrated to them their own contingency of ownership by rightly placing it in the hands of others. Beyond the Word of the Lord we may speak of far less connections. There is no Divine guarantee that anyone belongs anywhere. And since this is so; since the scriptures also venture not so much as a tittle of contemning towards militaristic conquest.....I strongly suggest that it is a matter of secular adiaphora whether a country or group of men should take up arms and forcefully acquire another country. It is all meaningless.
I cannot condemn the Crusaders for their political motives. Much less can I condemn "Christendom" for giving us the Crusades. Which Christendom damnit? The Greeks (solemnly recognized as a polis of Christians by the Latins)? But they were the victims of the Fourth! Shall we make them qua Christians apologize for that which raped, pillaged and destroyed them? What utter nonsense! One might as well ask Jews to offer apologies for the Holocaust! Shall we then condemn the Latins? But the Pope, representing all of the Latin Church, was fiercely angry with the Fourth Crusade!! Do we condemn the church that condemned the Crusade? Again, that makes no sense. Nor can we erect Muslims as the victims in this aeon-esque game. The land they contended to keep was no more their land than the Christians, and their hands were just as full of blood in gaining it. One must also point out how many awful things they did in penetrating the Iberian peninsula via Africa and pushing as far as Vienna via Asia Minor. If these muhammedan brutes were the victims, why does their activity parallel on all counts that of the imperial West?
The Crusades: I can blame no one and as of yet can extol no one. It was all a chasing after the wind.
The centuries in which the crusades unfolded are far too complex, topsy-turvy and amorphous to draw fingers out for pointing. Who to blame? Why? For which? And for what? Were not the Middle Ages as sprawling in their cultural and religious interpenetrations as any other day?
I disavow the modern and very folksy belief that the Crusades were a product of unadulterated evil. Land disputes are an epiphenomenon of being human in relation to other humans, and the desire to conquer is hardly more than venial. Why shouldn't I in the society of fellows much like me desire to take via blood spilling and warfare that which I see others of a different blood occupying? Does anyone bear an analytical a priori connection to the land they stand on? Nonsense!!! At best we can attempt some sort of historical relation between this piece of land and that group of inhabitants. But the contingencies abound in all historical premises. For instance, no group of sots "has always been there," thus there is no eternal synthesis which would confer on them the right to stay. Even Israel, avowed a very precise terrestrial allotment by the hands of the Creator himself, cannot venture such boasts. When it has, the Creator has rightly demonstrated to them their own contingency of ownership by rightly placing it in the hands of others. Beyond the Word of the Lord we may speak of far less connections. There is no Divine guarantee that anyone belongs anywhere. And since this is so; since the scriptures also venture not so much as a tittle of contemning towards militaristic conquest.....I strongly suggest that it is a matter of secular adiaphora whether a country or group of men should take up arms and forcefully acquire another country. It is all meaningless.
I cannot condemn the Crusaders for their political motives. Much less can I condemn "Christendom" for giving us the Crusades. Which Christendom damnit? The Greeks (solemnly recognized as a polis of Christians by the Latins)? But they were the victims of the Fourth! Shall we make them qua Christians apologize for that which raped, pillaged and destroyed them? What utter nonsense! One might as well ask Jews to offer apologies for the Holocaust! Shall we then condemn the Latins? But the Pope, representing all of the Latin Church, was fiercely angry with the Fourth Crusade!! Do we condemn the church that condemned the Crusade? Again, that makes no sense. Nor can we erect Muslims as the victims in this aeon-esque game. The land they contended to keep was no more their land than the Christians, and their hands were just as full of blood in gaining it. One must also point out how many awful things they did in penetrating the Iberian peninsula via Africa and pushing as far as Vienna via Asia Minor. If these muhammedan brutes were the victims, why does their activity parallel on all counts that of the imperial West?
The Crusades: I can blame no one and as of yet can extol no one. It was all a chasing after the wind.
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Brian Mclaren is a Fucking Idiot.
"Standard, normative, historic, so-called orthodox Christian theology has been a theology of empire, a theology of colonialism, a theology that powerful people used as a tool to achieve and defend land theft, exploitation, domination, superiority, and privilege."
And, in true Mclarenesque form, an appended, smooth, mysterious evasion:
"Of course, [this] may be a false accusation. But it may not."
Via: http://sojo.net/blogs/2010/09/15/post-colonial-theology
At this point we know what side you are leaning towards Satan, please just grow even a modest pair of testicles and blaspheme openly.
Post-colonialist readings of history are a joke and a disaster. There is simply NO WAY you can even remotely understand the dogmatic formulations of the Incarnation of Christ, his hypostatic union, the communicatio idiomatum, the Trinity, the filioque, the doctrines of grace etc.. etc.. as "theologies of empire" or "colonialism." I would be darn tootin intrigued to hear someone seriously relate the doctrine that Christ's mind is both human and divine to land theft, or the eternal truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son as a device for exploiting black people. Seriously, who are these buffoons and whence did they acquire the power and privilege to exist without political persecution? I hope they are soon put to death.
Justin Martyr was scribbling his thoughts on the divinity of Christ and the authenticity of the gospel over against the Jews as Christians were getting bludgeoned by the empire. Athanasius was exiled and held in contempt by the world for his ideas, and Augustine had to work his ass off not to start an anti-Christian riot in Rome after Aleric stepped in and went apeshit.
Arise, Oh Lord, defend the honor of your word against these snakes.
And, in true Mclarenesque form, an appended, smooth, mysterious evasion:
"Of course, [this] may be a false accusation. But it may not."
Via: http://sojo.net/blogs/2010/09/15/post-colonial-theology
At this point we know what side you are leaning towards Satan, please just grow even a modest pair of testicles and blaspheme openly.
Post-colonialist readings of history are a joke and a disaster. There is simply NO WAY you can even remotely understand the dogmatic formulations of the Incarnation of Christ, his hypostatic union, the communicatio idiomatum, the Trinity, the filioque, the doctrines of grace etc.. etc.. as "theologies of empire" or "colonialism." I would be darn tootin intrigued to hear someone seriously relate the doctrine that Christ's mind is both human and divine to land theft, or the eternal truth that the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son as a device for exploiting black people. Seriously, who are these buffoons and whence did they acquire the power and privilege to exist without political persecution? I hope they are soon put to death.
Justin Martyr was scribbling his thoughts on the divinity of Christ and the authenticity of the gospel over against the Jews as Christians were getting bludgeoned by the empire. Athanasius was exiled and held in contempt by the world for his ideas, and Augustine had to work his ass off not to start an anti-Christian riot in Rome after Aleric stepped in and went apeshit.
Arise, Oh Lord, defend the honor of your word against these snakes.
Psalm 18 got this, so why hasn't a single theologian these days ever stood up and said it?
"ο θεος μου αμωμος η οδος αυτου τα λογια κυριου πεπυρωμενα υπερασπιστης εστιν παντων των ελπιζοντων επ' αυτον" -Ps. 18:30
God can do no wrong, his word is flawless, and absolutely everyone who comes to him for refuge will find an unfailing and infinitely great Shield. In place of this scriptural truth we have a perfidious theology farting about which goes something like:
1. God is learning as She goes (I can understand the connection between femininity and imperfection, but seriously).
2. We as a church must apologize for the atrocious and horrific things god authorized, specifically in the Old Testament but also in the Haustefeln of the New.
3. The Bible is rife with errors on every page, except those pages as testify to what our itching post-modern ears wish to hear.
4. God is only a shield to good, obedient people.
I shake my head at the world.
God can do no wrong, his word is flawless, and absolutely everyone who comes to him for refuge will find an unfailing and infinitely great Shield. In place of this scriptural truth we have a perfidious theology farting about which goes something like:
1. God is learning as She goes (I can understand the connection between femininity and imperfection, but seriously).
2. We as a church must apologize for the atrocious and horrific things god authorized, specifically in the Old Testament but also in the Haustefeln of the New.
3. The Bible is rife with errors on every page, except those pages as testify to what our itching post-modern ears wish to hear.
4. God is only a shield to good, obedient people.
I shake my head at the world.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Hatred as a gift from God.
"There is a time to love and a time to hate." -Ecc. 3:8a
If this is indeed scripture, what Paul calls "ιερά γράμματα... τα δυνάμενά σε σοϕίσαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν Χριστω Ιησου" (2 Timothy 3:15), that which also completes the man of God in all righteousness (v.16); if this is scripture- and believe me reader, it is- then Christians are confronted with the sheer, Christological wisdom of hatred. It is wise, when the time calls, to hate. This is what our Lord wants of us.
Naturally Anabaptists will balk at the Old Testament, which usually only gets a hearing when it is in full accord with their dream-like, imaginary world of Jesuanic ethics. To them I quote the saying of Jesus found in Luke:
"If anyone comes to me and does not μισει (hate, despise) his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters....he cannot be my disciple." (Lk. 14:26)
Naturally the Mennonite is not faithful to this saying of Jesus; she only ever hates that which is praiseworthy and loves that which is full of blame. Yet she serves as a paragon for the universal situation of Law and that which it places us under: disobedience. If a person loves another, we should not be quick to praise them as pious exemplars of the meaning of Christianity. It so happens that the love we show our fellowmen is very often worthless in the eyes of God.
If this is indeed scripture, what Paul calls "ιερά γράμματα... τα δυνάμενά σε σοϕίσαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν Χριστω Ιησου" (2 Timothy 3:15), that which also completes the man of God in all righteousness (v.16); if this is scripture- and believe me reader, it is- then Christians are confronted with the sheer, Christological wisdom of hatred. It is wise, when the time calls, to hate. This is what our Lord wants of us.
Naturally Anabaptists will balk at the Old Testament, which usually only gets a hearing when it is in full accord with their dream-like, imaginary world of Jesuanic ethics. To them I quote the saying of Jesus found in Luke:
"If anyone comes to me and does not μισει (hate, despise) his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters....he cannot be my disciple." (Lk. 14:26)
Naturally the Mennonite is not faithful to this saying of Jesus; she only ever hates that which is praiseworthy and loves that which is full of blame. Yet she serves as a paragon for the universal situation of Law and that which it places us under: disobedience. If a person loves another, we should not be quick to praise them as pious exemplars of the meaning of Christianity. It so happens that the love we show our fellowmen is very often worthless in the eyes of God.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
The Global South in a Nutshell.
Extorting billions of dollars from the West via methods of pity and entitlement, and then training up "voices of the poor" to give "intellectual perspectives" on white corruption and Western evil. Useless third worlders....
The greatest argument for colonial domination is post-colonialism. As a representation of vast hordes of parasitic consciousnesses, it manifests a whole archipelago of nations who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and waste the good graces proffered to them on savagery and indolence.
The greatest and last gift the West can offer to these thankless sots is total and utter neglect. No more apologies, no more foreign aid, no more partial treatment, no forgiveness on unpaid debts, and no trading relationships unless said countries agree to the terms that every other honest country has to submit to for the sake of such a thing as trade.
Many an intellect from Africa and Asia has dared to call the Northern lands, even WHITE PEOPLE, all sorts of demeaning things in the name of some purported larger project of `racial equality`. Fucking douchenards. In response they get a pat on the back and a free plane ride to speak in our universities, where we all poo poo, smile and nod, kowtow and mentally flagellate our own cultural backgrounds. What can this be but a bewitchment from a very uncivilised, very dull and dim network of savages? They should be flogged.
The greatest argument for colonial domination is post-colonialism. As a representation of vast hordes of parasitic consciousnesses, it manifests a whole archipelago of nations who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, and waste the good graces proffered to them on savagery and indolence.
The greatest and last gift the West can offer to these thankless sots is total and utter neglect. No more apologies, no more foreign aid, no more partial treatment, no forgiveness on unpaid debts, and no trading relationships unless said countries agree to the terms that every other honest country has to submit to for the sake of such a thing as trade.
Many an intellect from Africa and Asia has dared to call the Northern lands, even WHITE PEOPLE, all sorts of demeaning things in the name of some purported larger project of `racial equality`. Fucking douchenards. In response they get a pat on the back and a free plane ride to speak in our universities, where we all poo poo, smile and nod, kowtow and mentally flagellate our own cultural backgrounds. What can this be but a bewitchment from a very uncivilised, very dull and dim network of savages? They should be flogged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)