It actually tickles me pink when Western countries like America, Canada, France or Britain interfere in the affairs of foreign nations. Why?
1. The West is, quite simply, superior to the east in everything (those who are angered by my thoughts should ask themselves why they do not move to the precise place that they find BEST).
2. The East has such a pitiful track record of doing anything other than chaos, that we must continually ask ourselves the question whether they truly have a right anymore to the land they have been befouling.
3. The ability to interfere successfully entails a sign of political health at home. Only the absolute fool will go to war in a condition of instability.
4. It is the mandate of every country to expand its sphere of influence. The doctrine of "live and let live" effects nothing and helps no one. We owe everything; from technology to medicine, from scientific exploits to mail delivery systems (perfected by the Persian Empire), from the spread of sophisticated language to architecture...we owe all of this to EMPIRES.
5. Argue my points all you wish. NO ONE can deny that countries like Syria or Haiti would be infinitely more peaceful and developed if the West stopped latching onto a useless post-colonial conscience and had the balls to formally and materially assimilate these regions into itself. Proper colonialism would be effected: ie. white people would settle the shit out of those places until insurgents can no longer hide.
Popular consciousness would consider these tenets to be KKK-esque, bigoted, racist etc...
Yet popular consciousness seems to be willfully blinded to the fact that ALL of these tenets are being implemented, in one way or another, by EASTERN countries (China, Iran, previously Iraq etc....) albeit very poorly and without method. China quietly took command of Taiwan decades ago and the UN has scarcely uttered a peep about it. Iraq formerly effected genocidal campaigns against the ethnicities within its Northern fringes under Sadam....we are still shedding tears over the fact that America displaced him. Popular consciousness LOVES the East, but HATES it when the West does the very things that the East LOVES (albeit more peaceably and efficiently). This is a blatant contradiction.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Bibliolatry is a strawman
Those with deficient views of scripture often accuse those with a high view of scripture of bibliolatry or worship of the bible rather than God. What childish feculence!! In point of fact none of those who stand accused by these lip-smacking liberals have an appreciation for scripture that even REMOTELY comes close to the appreciation and adoration of God's decrees as found in Psalm 119, and yet the man of God who wrote these words is not judged. Even granting the foolhardy notion that the law of God or his decrees are something perfectly distinct from scripture, the liberal still must admit that God's decrees and laws are not God Himself but things which issue from his being. Why have they not turned their wrath against the Psalter and its supposed idolatry? Why do they strain out the gnat of the modern fundamentalist and swallow whole caravans of camels as found in sacred history? I'll tell you why: because they are thoughtless and stupid.
The Newpies on Paul never get it.
"Circumcision has value if you observe the law." -Paul
Yet the NPP swine are adamant that the Gospel shrugs off these "covenant boundaries" and strips them of all value. Nonsense. The Gospel never shrugs off the law, not even its so-called "peripheries" (let any brigand call circumcision a boundary with a straight face and I'll call him a stinker). The Gospel upholds the whole law and asserts its comprehensive value by presenting us with a God-man who vicariously fulfills all of it. As for us, apart from this God-man and in ourselves; we stand just as much judged by the law of circumcision as we do the law of love....the gospel has not "changed" the meaning of the law, discarding certain commands and instating others, spiritualizing a few here and casting off a few there. In point of fact circumcision would be of IMMENSE value if we kept it along with the rest of the law, which is the interpenetrative point of every command. We may even take circumcision as a sort of sign of induction; not as it separates Jew from Gentile but as it commends the whole man to God and his righteous obedience. "If we keep these commands, they will be unto us our righteousness" as Moses puts it in Deuteronomy. This is not a sociological factum but a spiritual one; both Jew and Gentile are equally commanded unto circumcision, for God summons the world unto himself by means of Abraham (and cf. Is. 56:4).
Is this to fall into the Judaizing error? Not at all. Rather we free ourselves in Christ of EVERY command; we are no longer obligated by God unto anything for anything. We are not slaves. This is not some peculiar anti-nomianism but a precise acknowledgment that everything God has ever demanded of us he has already fulfilled in us by a man other than us. Let no one accuse us of anti-nomianism. Anti-nomians forget that the law in fact must be fulfilled, that it is holy. We disavow this forgetfulness and insist upon Christ.
Yet the NPP swine are adamant that the Gospel shrugs off these "covenant boundaries" and strips them of all value. Nonsense. The Gospel never shrugs off the law, not even its so-called "peripheries" (let any brigand call circumcision a boundary with a straight face and I'll call him a stinker). The Gospel upholds the whole law and asserts its comprehensive value by presenting us with a God-man who vicariously fulfills all of it. As for us, apart from this God-man and in ourselves; we stand just as much judged by the law of circumcision as we do the law of love....the gospel has not "changed" the meaning of the law, discarding certain commands and instating others, spiritualizing a few here and casting off a few there. In point of fact circumcision would be of IMMENSE value if we kept it along with the rest of the law, which is the interpenetrative point of every command. We may even take circumcision as a sort of sign of induction; not as it separates Jew from Gentile but as it commends the whole man to God and his righteous obedience. "If we keep these commands, they will be unto us our righteousness" as Moses puts it in Deuteronomy. This is not a sociological factum but a spiritual one; both Jew and Gentile are equally commanded unto circumcision, for God summons the world unto himself by means of Abraham (and cf. Is. 56:4).
Is this to fall into the Judaizing error? Not at all. Rather we free ourselves in Christ of EVERY command; we are no longer obligated by God unto anything for anything. We are not slaves. This is not some peculiar anti-nomianism but a precise acknowledgment that everything God has ever demanded of us he has already fulfilled in us by a man other than us. Let no one accuse us of anti-nomianism. Anti-nomians forget that the law in fact must be fulfilled, that it is holy. We disavow this forgetfulness and insist upon Christ.
Homosexuality is a choice
"Genet's early states of sexual agitation- those he experienced before entering the reformatory- must be regarded as rehearsals, experiences and experiments, not as manifestations of a bent. Can any man maintain that he never dreamed, in childhood, of caressing a playmate? And what of it! And even if there were an actual exchange of caresses, would that be a reason to speak of homosexuality? It is only afterward that these tentative efforts take on meaning. When the individual definitely takes one path rather than another, "the retrospective illusion" then detects in them the premonitory signs of disorder or decides to regard them only as inconsequential deviations. Inversely, our inventions are mainly decisions and clarifications. What we think we discover in a moment of special insight is what we have been inventing for years, bit by bit, absent-mindedly as it were, without being completely involved."
-Sartre (Saint Genet, p.78)
For Sartre, homosexuality is merely one among billions of ways in which an individual consciousness (what he would call a being-for-itself) manifests its relations with the world. But as a manifestation of this consciousness, it is strictly a manifestation of freedom. Sartre insists (rightly, I believe) that there is no being which is capable of acting on consciousness, since consciousness has no outside to be acted upon. It can be limited only by itself. Thus the homosexual in his very homosexuality is a choice, and nothing but a choice. This was not thrust upon him by some pre-determined nature or βιος, neither by parents nor society.....nor did education force him into it, nor the circumstances of his life (for Sartre, the circumstance, even if it be as great and as vast as a world war, is authored by the individual). The homosexual is RESPONSIBLE for his homosexuality.
This will enable Sartre to say quite simply: "A person is not born homosexual or normal." (ibid.)
It is interesting that we learn of this from a sodding godless atheist, but the church will not speak for fear of having its toes stepped on! Even those of the fundamentalist right will usually concede that there is a sort of pre-embryonic sin nature that will determine the future acts of the homosexual. Mind that Sartre doesn't stand up on the day of Christ and condemn this generation of post-Christendom Christians for saying what their own cowardly minds and souls refuse to say, though their own scriptures insist that they say it! The homosexual is responsible. His refusal to admit this only proves that he is utterly ashamed of himself, like the child who under question will say that his older sibling made him do it.
In the vast literature of Sartre, the homosexual usually becomes the object of comedy and satire. Not, mind you, because Sartre believes that homosexuality is wrong. "Where's the crime? Where's the enormity? Human relations are possible between homosexuals just as between a man and a woman. It's surely better to get into bed with a boy friend than to go travelling in Nazi Germany when France has been defeated and strangled." (ibid., p. 225) Sartre rather pours his disdain on the homosexual because, "...acknowledging all the facts which are imputed to him, he refuses to draw from them the conclusion which they impose." (Being and Nothingness, p.107) The homosexual becomes, in the paragon and man-loving exemplar Marcel Jouhandeau, a "phony soul." He will acknowledge each of his acts but insist that Another is doing them.
I have maintained in the case of Africa and our local Indians that ethnic collectivities can never recover the dignity they so ardently desire for themselves so long as they place the weight of their history's failures into the arms of a foreign oppressor. To be sure, this post-colonial method of masking a failure is VERY impressive and catching, but it is for all that a mask...and qua mask quite pathetic for the considerations of sincere philosophy. The same problem lies with the homosexual. If he is not willing to be the author of his own deeds, nay, his own nature, then he has already admitted to the world that he is sub-human.
-Sartre (Saint Genet, p.78)
For Sartre, homosexuality is merely one among billions of ways in which an individual consciousness (what he would call a being-for-itself) manifests its relations with the world. But as a manifestation of this consciousness, it is strictly a manifestation of freedom. Sartre insists (rightly, I believe) that there is no being which is capable of acting on consciousness, since consciousness has no outside to be acted upon. It can be limited only by itself. Thus the homosexual in his very homosexuality is a choice, and nothing but a choice. This was not thrust upon him by some pre-determined nature or βιος, neither by parents nor society.....nor did education force him into it, nor the circumstances of his life (for Sartre, the circumstance, even if it be as great and as vast as a world war, is authored by the individual). The homosexual is RESPONSIBLE for his homosexuality.
This will enable Sartre to say quite simply: "A person is not born homosexual or normal." (ibid.)
It is interesting that we learn of this from a sodding godless atheist, but the church will not speak for fear of having its toes stepped on! Even those of the fundamentalist right will usually concede that there is a sort of pre-embryonic sin nature that will determine the future acts of the homosexual. Mind that Sartre doesn't stand up on the day of Christ and condemn this generation of post-Christendom Christians for saying what their own cowardly minds and souls refuse to say, though their own scriptures insist that they say it! The homosexual is responsible. His refusal to admit this only proves that he is utterly ashamed of himself, like the child who under question will say that his older sibling made him do it.
In the vast literature of Sartre, the homosexual usually becomes the object of comedy and satire. Not, mind you, because Sartre believes that homosexuality is wrong. "Where's the crime? Where's the enormity? Human relations are possible between homosexuals just as between a man and a woman. It's surely better to get into bed with a boy friend than to go travelling in Nazi Germany when France has been defeated and strangled." (ibid., p. 225) Sartre rather pours his disdain on the homosexual because, "...acknowledging all the facts which are imputed to him, he refuses to draw from them the conclusion which they impose." (Being and Nothingness, p.107) The homosexual becomes, in the paragon and man-loving exemplar Marcel Jouhandeau, a "phony soul." He will acknowledge each of his acts but insist that Another is doing them.
I have maintained in the case of Africa and our local Indians that ethnic collectivities can never recover the dignity they so ardently desire for themselves so long as they place the weight of their history's failures into the arms of a foreign oppressor. To be sure, this post-colonial method of masking a failure is VERY impressive and catching, but it is for all that a mask...and qua mask quite pathetic for the considerations of sincere philosophy. The same problem lies with the homosexual. If he is not willing to be the author of his own deeds, nay, his own nature, then he has already admitted to the world that he is sub-human.
Friday, August 23, 2013
God anoints unto violence.
"Jehu son of Nimshi...whom the LORD had anointed to destroy the house of Ahab." -2 Chronicles 22:7
This important factum is elucidated in 2 Kings 9, where the LORD says to Jehu: "I anoint you king over the LORD's people Israel. You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets etc.."
Jehu's anointing is special; it is not only a general mandate towards kingship but a particular mandate towards revenge. Vengeance is indeed the LORD's, and it pleases him at times to use humans in meting it out, without their having any proper claim to it. Nor can it be said that this use is always omnibenevolence working good through evil. Let no one say that the sacred act of anointing someone unto a task is profane. The anointing confers holiness and purity on the individual; they and their task are SET APART by God for His own RIGHT ENDS. This means, quite simply, that humans might kill and destroy in utter holiness.
Pacifists must be reminded of this. They must also be continually reminded of the passages in the Gospel of John which identify- without mediacy- Jesus with YHWH (12:42 in particular).
It is the historical Jesus who anoints people for purposes of killing.
This important factum is elucidated in 2 Kings 9, where the LORD says to Jehu: "I anoint you king over the LORD's people Israel. You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets etc.."
Jehu's anointing is special; it is not only a general mandate towards kingship but a particular mandate towards revenge. Vengeance is indeed the LORD's, and it pleases him at times to use humans in meting it out, without their having any proper claim to it. Nor can it be said that this use is always omnibenevolence working good through evil. Let no one say that the sacred act of anointing someone unto a task is profane. The anointing confers holiness and purity on the individual; they and their task are SET APART by God for His own RIGHT ENDS. This means, quite simply, that humans might kill and destroy in utter holiness.
Pacifists must be reminded of this. They must also be continually reminded of the passages in the Gospel of John which identify- without mediacy- Jesus with YHWH (12:42 in particular).
It is the historical Jesus who anoints people for purposes of killing.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Elisha the Lord.
That's what the men of Jericho call him (according to the Septuagint): "ο κυριος" (2 Kgs. 2:19).
The widow at Zarephath refers to herself and her dead husband before Elisha as δουλος σου (your servant), as does the commander of the armies of Aram (5:15), as do the whole host of Yahwistic prophets (6:3). The King of Israel calls him πατερ or father, and so on and so forth.
Even if all of these phrases are mere formalities, we must bear in mind that formalities are significations, and as significations they refer to a reality, in this case a political one. The monarch of Israel and all of the holy ones who wander his environs are effaced before the power of Elisha and must pay him heed. Fascinating and intriguing!!
These theological data are already bursting with Christological import. It is the prophet of YAHWEH who properly leads Israel.
The widow at Zarephath refers to herself and her dead husband before Elisha as δουλος σου (your servant), as does the commander of the armies of Aram (5:15), as do the whole host of Yahwistic prophets (6:3). The King of Israel calls him πατερ or father, and so on and so forth.
Even if all of these phrases are mere formalities, we must bear in mind that formalities are significations, and as significations they refer to a reality, in this case a political one. The monarch of Israel and all of the holy ones who wander his environs are effaced before the power of Elisha and must pay him heed. Fascinating and intriguing!!
These theological data are already bursting with Christological import. It is the prophet of YAHWEH who properly leads Israel.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
To exist in a world of human relations is the nearest thing to treading barefoot on broken glass. I am responsible for my perpetual quality-judgments of ALL who dwell in my world, and others are responsible for their repeated judgments of me. We create death and misery for each other, and the church of God is by no means exempt. It is in fact in the church that Paul turned against Peter, that Barnabas turned against Paul, that the disciples turned against Jesus and one another (Lk. 9:46). It is in the church that weeds are sewn in by the devil (which may be taken in the hamartiological sense of sin and discord among brethren and the more literal sense of false brothers infiltrating and destroying), that the family unit breaks down and we learn to "hate father and mother," that a sword of betrayal comes between relations most dear. It is in the church that confessing Christians are judged in the flesh by their elders to the point of death; which can hardly be taken as an example of family discipline. It is in the church that Jesus comes to fight against us with the sword of his mouth and strikes sinners among us dead (Rev. 2:23). So we see the Divine Hand come to place its seal upon this discord and violence, overturning our humanism and love at every turn and plunging us again and again into anguish before our deeds.
"Wretched man that I am!! Who will rescue me from this body of death?!!"
I do not believe in love anymore. I have never seen it. Ever. I have never felt that a Christian truly loves me as himself; therefore he does not love at all. "A half heart is no heart" in the words of Spurgeon. Then again, I am speaking in so many fine words already. There is a Christian love, for the Word of God not only commands it; it acknowledges its existence, recognizes it in action, and promises more to come. Yet I am thrust by mine very own eyes to discard all that is seen as temporary and foolish and evil, to testify in faith to the fact that this love is hoped for above all else rather than FELT or EXPERIENCED.
"Wretched man that I am!! Who will rescue me from this body of death?!!"
I do not believe in love anymore. I have never seen it. Ever. I have never felt that a Christian truly loves me as himself; therefore he does not love at all. "A half heart is no heart" in the words of Spurgeon. Then again, I am speaking in so many fine words already. There is a Christian love, for the Word of God not only commands it; it acknowledges its existence, recognizes it in action, and promises more to come. Yet I am thrust by mine very own eyes to discard all that is seen as temporary and foolish and evil, to testify in faith to the fact that this love is hoped for above all else rather than FELT or EXPERIENCED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)