i’m just really embarrassed by christians who feel the need to go out of their way to demonize an entire church. i thought the focus was to work out our on salvation with fear and trembling but i guess i was wrong
LET THE SPIRIT USE YOU SON!
Yep. People criticizing from the outside aren’t practicing biblical discernment. If you want to really change the church, go join it, befriend the people, and reform it from
Perhaps as a general principle. But as an absolute rule, this is neither practicable, realistic, or necessary when abuses are patently obvious to ‘outsiders.’
Become a Mormon to fix Mormonism? Yeah I’ll pass.
And furthermore, what are any of you doing to reform a church in the ‘proper’ way? Seemingly, none of you disagree that the church is morbidly in the wrong, yet you do nothing. Instead, you have contented yourselves with criticizing someone who is earnestly trying to elicit change and encourage ecclesiastical and theological irreproachability. I appreciate Johnny’s efforts which you have here criticized (ironically from the “outside”, it having nothing to do with working out your own salvation with fear and trembling which was your original point); it seems both more effective and morally outstanding.
I think you are trying to get rid of something viable and good in favor your personal, non-confrontational ideology. And the rhetoric used only cements this impression (“just really embarrassed”; “but i guess i was wrong”).
Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.
|—||Markus Willinger, Generation Identity: A Declaration of War Against the ‘68ers (2013)|
It is inevitable that you should feel the rub of other people’s characters against your own. After all, you are not a gold coin that everyone likes.
Besides, without that friction produced by contact with others, how would you ever lose those corners, those edges and projections — the imperfections and defects — of your character, and acquire the smooth and regular finish, the firm flexibility of charity, of perfection?
If your character and the characters of those who live with you were soft and sweet like sponge-cake you would never become a saint.
|—||Josemaría Escrivá, The Way|
"You are part of a small human group fighting to stay alive.
The reason why doesn’t matter.
Conquest, war, death, hunger or disease — any of The Horsemen will do.
You could be our primal ancestors, you could be pioneers, you could be stranded in some remote location, you could be survivors of a nuclear holocaust…Again, it doesn’t matter. For humans without access to advanced technology, the scenario plays out more or less the same way.
You have to define your group. You need to define who is in and who is out, and you need to identify potential threats. You need to create and maintain some sort of safe zone around the perimeter of your group. Everyone will have to contribute to the group’s survival in some way unless the group agrees to protect and feed someone who can’t contribute due to age or illness. For those who can work, you’ll need to decide who does what, based on what they are good at, who works well together, and what makes the most practical sense.
If you are going to survive, your group will need protection from predators — animal [or] human. If there is someone or something out there who wants what you have and is willing to fight for it, you’re going to need to figure out who in your group is going to be willing to fight back. You’ll want the people who are best at fighting to stand watch, to defend everything you care about, or to go out and eliminate a potential threat.
If females are with you, they won’t have access to reliable birth control. Males and females won’t stop having sex, and females will get pregnant. Humans are mammals, and like most mammals, a greater part of the reproductive burden will fall on women. That’s not fair, but nature isn’t fair. Even strong, aggressive women become more vulnerable and less mobile during pregnancy. Even tough women will nurse their young. They’ll bond with their offspring and take to caring for them quickly. Babies are helpless, and children are vulnerable for years.
If there were no other physical or mental differences between women and men, in a hostile environment the biological realities of human reproduction would still mean that over time more men would be charged with exploring, hunting, fighting, building, and defending. Men would have more time to specialize and develop the necessary skills to excel at those tasks. They wouldn’t have a good excuse not to.
Men will never get pregnant, they will never be nursing, and they will be less encumbered by their children. They may not even know who their children are. Women know who their kids are. Children don’t depend on their fathers in the same way that they depend on their mothers. Men are freer to take risks for the good of the group, believing that their offspring will live on.
As things are, there are biological differences between men and women that have little to do with pregnancy or breastfeeding. On average, men are bigger and stronger than women. Men are more daring, probably more mechanically inclined, and generally better at navigating. Men are hard wired for aggressive play. High testosterone men take more risks and seek more thrills. Men are more interested in competing for status, and when they win, their bodies give them a dopamine high and more testosterone.
Because your group is struggling to survive, every choice matters. If you give the wrong person the wrong job, that person could die, you could die, another person could die, or you could all die. Because of the differences between the sexes, the best person for jobs that involve exploring, hunting, fighting, building, or defending is usually going to be a male. This is not some arbitrary cultural prejudice; it is the kind of vital strategic discrimination that will keep your group alive.
Humans, like chimpanzees, will often hunt in teams because cooperative hunting is more effective than hunting alone. When you put together a team — any kind of team — the raw skills of your candidates aren’t the only factors you have to consider. You also have to consider the team’s social dynamic. Which people will work best together? As a leader, you want to create synergy, reduce distractions, and avoid conflicts within the group. Males will compete for status within any group, but they will also compete for females. Eliminating a second layer of potential jealousy and antagonism may be reason enough to choose a male over a female.
If there are females in your group, they will have plenty of hard and necessary work to do. Everyone will have to pull their own weight, but the hunting and fighting is almost always going to be up to the men. When lives are on the line, people will drop the etiquette of equality and make that decision again and again because it makes the most sense.”
— Jack Donovan, The Way of Men
"Except in cases of complete transcendence of the human condition, sex must be conceived as a “destiny,” a basic fact of human nature. There is no existence except as men and women. This point of view is held steadfastly against the belief that being a man or a woman is something accidental or secondary as compared with being human in general; sex is seen as a difference that concerns only the physical and biological part of human nature, to the degree that sex has meaning and implications only with respect to the naturalistic side of human life. Such a point of view is abstract and inorganic and in reality can only be held by a human race disintegrating through regression and degeneracy. […] The primordial male or female quality penetrates and saturates the whole of our being visibly and invisibly… just as color permeates a liquid."
— Julius Evola, Eros and the Mysteries of Love: The Metaphysics of Sex
"We cannot ask ourselves whether ‘woman’ is superior or inferior to ‘man’ any more than we can ask ourselves whether water is superior or inferior to fire … There can be no doubt that a woman who is perfectly woman is superior to a man who is imperfectly man, just as a farmer who is faithful to his land and performs his work perfectly is superior to a king who cannot do his own work."
— Julius Evola
Reasonably solid argument; fantastic writing.
|—||Guillaume Faye, Archeofuturism|
Along with the Ptolemaic theory the ancient anthropology fell likewise into oblivion. Man ceased in effect to be a microcosm, a theomorphic being standing at the center of the universe, and became instead a purely contingent creature, to be accounted for by some sequence of terrestrial accidents. Like the cosmos he was flattened out, shorn of the higher dimensions of his being. Only in his case it happens that ‘mind’ refuses to be altogether exorcised. It remains behind as an incomprehensible concomitant of brain-function, a kind of ghost in the machine, a thing that causes untold embarrassment to the philosophers. The fact is that man does not fit into the confines of the physical universe. There is another side to his nature — be it ever so subjective! — which cannot be described or accounted for in physical terms.
And so, in keeping with the new outlook, man finds himself a stranger in a bleak and inhospitable universe; he has become a precarious anomaly — one could almost say, a freak. There is something pathetic in the spectacle of this ‘precocious simian’; and behind all the noise and bluster one senses an incredible loneliness and a pervading Angst. Our harmony and kinship with Nature has been compromised, the inner bond broken; our entire culture has become dissonant. Moreover, despite our boast of knowledge, Nature has become unintelligible to us, a closed book; and even the act of sense perception — the very act upon which all our knowledge is supposed to be based — has become incomprehensible.
Meanwhile all the ideal aspects of human culture, including all values and norms, have become relegated to the subjective sphere, and truth itself has become in effect subsumed under the category of utility. Transcendence and symbolism out of the way, there remains only the useful and the useless, the pleasurable and the disagreeable. There are no more absolutes and no more certainties; only a positivistic knowledge and feelings, a veritable glut of feelings. All that pertains to the higher side of life — to art, to morality or to religion — is now held to be subjective, relative, contingent — in a word, ‘psychological’. One is no longer capable of understanding that values and norms could have a basis in truth. How could this be in a world of ‘hurrying material’?
And so man has become the great sophist: he has set himself up as ‘the measure of all things’. Having but recently learned to walk on his hind legs (as he staunchly believes), he now fancies himself a god! ‘Once Heaven was closed,’ writes Schuon, ‘and man was in effect installed in God’s place, the objective measurements of things were, virtually or actually, lost. They were replaced by subjective measurements, purely human and conjectural pseudo-values.’
Thus, too, all the elements of culture, having once been subjectivized, have become fair game to the agents of change. Nothing is sacrosanct any more, and at last everyone is at liberty to do as he will. Or so it may seem; for in reality the manipulation of culture has become a serious enterprise, a business to be attended to by governments and other interest groups.
We find thus that cosmology does indeed ‘implicate values’; one could even say that eventually it turns into politics. So too a pseudo-cosmology necessarily implicates false values, and a politics destructive of good. It is by no means a harmless thing to be cut off from the higher spheres or from the mandates of God. Our civilization has forgotten what man is and what human life is for; as Nasr notes, ‘there has never been as little knowledge of man, of the anthropos.’
|—||Wolfgang Smith, Cosmos and Transcendence (via zerogate)|
Every age, every civilization, has a spirit of its own. It is this that determines the habitual outlook, the typical way of looking at things, the values, norms and interdictions — in short, the essentials of the culture. It is quite certain, moreover, that most individuals will conform to the prevailing tendencies of the civilization into which they have been born, and this applies also no doubt to the majority of those who consider themselves to be non-conformists. On the other hand, it must also be possible to transcend cultural boundaries: there can really be no such thing as a rigid cultural determinism. But yet this crossing of boundaries turns out to be a rather rare occurrence; it happens much less frequently than we are led to suppose. We must not let ourselves be fooled. It is true, for example, that in modern times there has been an unprecedented interest in the study of history; and yet one finds that it is almost invariably a case of history truncated by the mental horizon of our age and colored by the humanistic sentiments of our civilization. The Zeitgeist is indeed a force to be reckoned with, and it is never easy to swim against the stream.
Yet this is precisely what must be done if we are to gain an unbiased perspective on the modern world. To put it rather bluntly, we need to break out of the intellectual smugness and provincialism of the typically modern man, the individual who has become thoroughly persuaded that our civilization represents the apex of a presumed ‘human evolution’, and that mankind had been groping in darkness until Newton and his scientific successors arrived upon the scene to bring light into the world. Now this is not to deny that bygone ages have known their share of ignorance and other ills, and that in certain respects the human condition may have been improved. Our point, rather, is that these supposedly positive developments which figure so prominently in the contemporary perception of history represent only a part of the story: the lesser part, in fact. We see the things that we have gained and are blind — almost by definition — to all that has been lost.
And what is it that has been lost? Everything, one could say, that transcends the corporeal and psychological planes, the twin realms of a mathematicized objectivity and an illusory subjectivity. In other words, as intellectual heirs to the Cartesian philosophy we have become denizens of an impoverished universe, a world whose stark contours have been traced for us by the renowned French rationalist. At bottom there is physics and there is psychology — answering to the two sides of the great Cartesian divide — and together the two disciplines have in effect swallowed up the entire locus of reality: our reality, that is. Beyond this we see nothing; we cannot — our premises do not permit it.
|—||Wolfgang Smith, Cosmos and Transcendence|