Thirty Steps from Honest Uncertainty to Christian Faith

When he finished his setting of the Credo, Stravinsky remarked to a friend that, “it is much to believe.” Indeed. If you start with the banquet of the Creed, you hardly know how to begin, and the whole mass of doctrines it encodes can be pretty hard to swallow at one bite. But there are only about thirty steps, more or less, from complete agnosticism to a profession of Christianity. Many are truisms, that if understood could hardly be denied by anyone; those that depend on knowledge of facts might require a fair bit of (absolutely fascinating) background research (e.g., especially, the Shroud). Each step is of course open to quibble, but such quibbles as I have so far encountered at each step are easily settled. Taken seriatim and in the proper order, none of the steps are as incredible as all of them seem taken at once.

  1. What is necessary cannot have a cause, for it cannot fail to be so; it must be eternal.
  2. What is not necessary must have a cause exogenous to itself (for a thing that has not yet happened cannot cause anything, including itself). Unnecessary events are contingent upon other events.
  3. Events of our world are contingent.
  4. Events of our world must have exogenous causes.
  5. Being in all its events contingent, our world as a whole must then be contingent, and have a cause exogenous to itself.
  6. That cause may itself be contingent, and itself require a cause, which may in turn likewise be contingent and require a cause, and so forth. That series of contingent causes might stretch back – logically, albeit not necessarily temporally – a long way. But however long the chain of contingent causes of our world, the whole series of contingent causes can’t cause itself: it must ultimately originate in a necessary cause.
  7. There must be an ultimate eternal necessary cause of all contingent events in this and every world. God is.
  8. All contingent perfections, of whatever magnitude, howsoever great, must likewise have a necessary cause.
  9. A cause must be at least equal in magnitude to its effect.
  10. Many perfections are in principle limitless: there is no maximum of their potential magnitude.
  11. The ultimate cause of any contingent realizations of such perfections must be infinite.
  12. God is infinite, and infinitely perfect in every respect – bearing in mind, of course, the limitations of religious language (e.g., while God is boundless, it would not do to think of him as infinitely tall or wide).
  13. By the definition of “ultimate,” there can be only one ultimate cause.
  14. God is One, and there is none beside him.
  15. As the ultimate cause of this and all worlds, God is the source of all mundane orders.
  16. However many intermediary causes may be involved in the actual implementation of mundane orders – the Natures of Worlds – such orders are all in the final analysis divinely ordained, and are therefore products or aspects of God’s creative Act.
  17. As expressions of God, mundane orders are not limited to their own reiteration under their own causal power. They may furnish occasions of novelty.
  18. There can be miracles: truly new things, and new sorts of things, can happen in worlds. These things are not unnatural to such worlds, but rather only rare. If they were logically impossible to such worlds, then even God could not perform them: they could not possibly occur. But being God, and the ordainer of worlds, God can perform miracles in them; so he might.
  19. The miracles attested in scripture are therefore possible. We need not worry about finding some “naturalistic” – i.e., normal and unremarkable – explanation for them. There is ontological room in cosmic becoming for extraordinarity. After all, even ordinary mundane becoming of the tidy, orderly sort to which we are accustomed is extremely unlikely, compared with all the things that might happen in the absence of cosmic regularity.
  20. It behooves us then to take credible accounts of miracles seriously. When push comes to shove, they are no spookier than spooky action at a distance; indeed, they are no spookier than action as such. How do things affect each other, at all? There is no explanation. It may be that no explanation is possible.
  21. The Shroud of Turin. A detailed discussion of the Shroud is beyond the scope of this post, but as evidence for the accuracy of the Resurrection stories in the Gospels it is tremendously strong. The nub of it is this: the image on the Shroud is accurate in three dimensions, and was made in a way that no one yet understands. There is far more to the Shroud than this – first century Palestinian linen, pollen from the vicinity of Jerusalem, abstruse physiological accuracy, and so forth – but it is this that convinces. Fr. Dwight Longenecker has written a quick précis on the Shroud. A much deeper discussion by sindonologist Fr. Manny Carreira provides particularly fascinating and hair-raising detail about the image on the Shroud.
  22. The Resurrection. Jesus rose from the dead.
  23. The Incarnation. Jesus is God.
  24. The honesty and reliability of the evangelists and apostles as witnesses, narrators and historians: unplanned coincidences among Gospels, Acts, and Epistles (follow the links in the first paragraph of the linked article at WWWW for lots more (H/T: Lydia McGrew).
  25. The Divine Authority of the Dominical sayings in the Gospels.
  26. Apostolic Authority.
  27. Patristic and Episcopal Authority.
  28. The Church.
  29. The dogmatic definitions of the Church in, e.g., the Nicene Creed.
  30. Christianity.

109 thoughts on “Thirty Steps from Honest Uncertainty to Christian Faith

  1. Pingback: Thirty Steps from Honest Uncertainty to Christian Faith | Neoreactive

  2. Kristor,

    I have a few problems with some of you steps. If I sound rude or dismissive, I don’t mean too. I’ve just spent too long in Philosophy departments.

    1. What is necessary cannot have a cause, for it cannot fail to be so; it must be eternal. (While this is true by definition, it does not prove the existence of necessary being. Why is this not a species of Petitio Principii?)
    2. What is not necessary must have a cause exogenous to itself (for a thing that has not yet happened cannot cause anything, including itself). Unnecessary events are contingent upon other events.
    3. Events of our world are contingent.
    4. Events of our world must have exogenous causes.
    5. Being in all its events contingent, our world as a whole must then be contingent, and have a cause exogenous to itself. (Fallacy of Composition. It is illicit to predicate the qualities of the elements of a class to the class itself; e.g., the set of well-dressed men is not itself well-dressed; ergo, just because all the its events are contingent, it is illicit to conclude that the world is contingent.)
    6. That cause may itself be contingent, and itself require a cause, which may in turn likewise be contingent and require a cause, and so forth. That series of contingent causes might stretch back – logically, albeit not necessarily temporally – a long way. But however long the chain of contingent causes of our world, the whole series of contingent causes can’t cause itself: it must ultimately originate in a necessary cause. (This is metaphysical speculation, knowable only through revelation. Nothing against that, but it is out of place here unless the audience is composed only of believing Semitic Monotheists. Nothing that is caused is the result of only one cause. And if we have time, we can discuss the impossibility of an eternal cause working successively; i.e., being eternal, God would produce all things eternally, not successively.)

    • It seems all things “creation” were, are and will always be “at the hands” of some type of “being?”

      All Creation at the hands of the Perfect Being rings intuitive to the healthy-minded.

      Necessary being seems true, but Perfect Being seems truer. And so the desire for “infinite regress” is necessarily intertwined with the desire “to do anything” in which the defining characteristic is an Uncaused redundancy that rejects an Uncaused Perfection thus rationalizing and justifying a “do anything by any means necessary” ethos.

    • Thanks, Nilakantha. I figured most readers would have a problem with one step or another in the series, so I am glad to hear of yours.

      The first step did not intend to prove anything, but only to establish the definition. I have found that many, many people get into all sorts of muddles further along in the steps because they are not familiar with this definition: with what it means to be eternal, necessary, and so forth. There is of course much more to these things than I here say, but I was going for brevity.

      In drafting step 5, I was cognizant of the Fallacy of Composition. I think that I have skirted it. If even one thing about the universe might have been different, then it is not the universe that it might have been. But to say that this universe is not the universe it might have been just is to say that this universe is contingent.

      I don’t think step 6 is speculative. Given any congeries of contingent events, whatever their causal relations, no contingent event can possibly be adduced as their ultimate cause, for any such event will require a cause of its own, meaning that it cannot properly be categorized as ultimate. The only sort of cause that can function as an ultimate terminus a quo for any set of contingent events (no matter how they are related, and no matter how numerous they are) is a necessary cause. Absent that necessary cause, what you get from a purely contingent set of causal factors is a state of affairs that is ultimately causeless, and therefore irrational, and so unintelligible. In that case, our feelings of understanding – all of them – are illusions. So then also are our plans, intentions, and behaviors: nothing then is coherently ordered.

      Classical theists do not suggest that God acts successively in time, with one act following another. They insist rather that he is a single, simple act; and that time is in him, rather than vice versa.

      Nothing that is caused is the result of only one cause? Why?

      • We are at an impasse. It’s a given, in Buddhism, that reality consists in an infinite number of beginningless and endless trajectories of consciousness. When they are under the influence of beginningless karma, they create and inhabit worlds, both material and spiritual. When the force of karma has been destroyed, an awakened consciousness transforms into the immortal body and mind of a Buddha. To claim knowledge of anything, you must be able to explain how that knowledge was obtained. Buddhism accepts three knowables and two or three means of knowledge. We have knowledge of the empirical world through perception and inference. All non-empirical knowledge, known as atyantaparokṣa (transcendent), i.e. metaphysical, ethical and telestic (concerning religious practice), is accessible only through Āgama (revelation, the reliable testimony of an omniscient person). The idea of an Unmoved Mover is a metaphysical postulate and therefore falls under metaphysics, not logic.

        The idea that nothing is the product of only one cause is inferential. What empirical effect has only one cause? Even Aristotle demanded four.

      • Ah, I see what you mean about multiple causes. Granted. I thought you were saying that nothing is the product of only one factor.

        It sounds as if you are insisting that there is no ultimate. If so, then perhaps we are at an impasse, for in that case, I would be insisting that reality is intelligible, and you would be insisting that it is not. But I think we are not, in fact, at an impasse. I think we can infer from the consequences of the notion that reality is composed entirely of an infinite number of beginningless entities that that notion must be false, or at the very least at wild variance with human life as ever lived – with, that is to say, anything that we can ascertain about what it is like to exist, and thus with our only evidence for the character of being.

        If the whole infinite congeries of beginningless entities are contingent in any single respect – if they might ever have been otherwise than just exactly what they are at any moment of any of their careers – then the congeries as a whole is contingent, and requires an exogenous necessary cause. In that case, boom, we are arrived at theism.

        If on the other hand no jot of that congeries might possibly have been different, then no such exogenous necessary cause is needful; but in that case, in no respect do any of them actually happen; on the contrary, they all just always are. But if none of them happen, experience is illusory per se, there being in reality no such thing. Not only are experiences illusory, but the illusion of experiences, being itself an experience, is illusory too. If there are no experiences, then there are no experiences of illusions, either. If nothing happens, then … nothing happens.

        This contradicts experience as such; it contradicts every last bit of our lives, including the peculiarly Buddhist bits. That may be no problem at all for the convinced Buddhist (tace for the nonce on the difficulty that on his own account a Buddhist’s experience of not having a problem with the notion that experience is illusory is itself illusory), but insofar as thought is an attempt to take account of experience in such a way as to determine how to respond appropriately thereto, it would seem to be a problem for thought. It would seem to stop it dead.

        But this is a goal of Buddhism, no? I’m not being snarky. I have read this hundreds of times in Buddhist and wannabe Buddhist texts.

        Now, certainly I am no student of Buddhism; all I have to go on, really, is what you have said. Perhaps I misunderstand what you have said.

        Notwithstanding all that, I’m not sure where you see the impasse. At what point does the stepwise progression break down for you, even given this notion of an infinite number of beginningless entities? I’m not sure how the number or age of the entities out there makes a difference. If any bit of them is contingent, wham, theism.

      • Perhaps I’m being obtuse. I’ve been away from philosophical theism for a long time. In Buddhism, the Absolute is the Buddha from which arises the Natural Law, i.e. the Dharma. As it says at the beginning of the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna: I take refuge in the Buddha, the greatly Compassionate One, the Savior of the world, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, of most excellent deeds in all the ten directions; And in the Dharma, the manifestation of his Essence, the Reality, the sea of Suchness, the boundless storehouse of excellencies.

        The only thing that is denied is that Buddha is the creator, i.e. the sole efficient cause of the universe. Buddha is the source of all the good but none of the evil. The silencing of thought should be thought of as a way to perceive the secret Silence spoken of by St. Dionysius the Areopagite: Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, knowledge and goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; direct our path to the ultimate summit of your mystical knowledge, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty.

        In the same way, only by the purification of the True Self of its adventitious defilements can a sentient being in saṁsāra know the Real, and in knowing the Real, become the Real. Now, if you can accept Plotinus as a theist, I can be a theist, though I can’t be a Christian.

      • “Obtuse” is not a word that would have occurred to me in connection with you.

        So far as I understand it – not far, I’m sure – your quote from the Mahayana seems to describe with quite spooky accuracy the Father and the Son. The Father is not alone the Creator: without the Logos – Memra, Torah, Dharma, Tao, Ṛta – is not anything made that is made (John 1:3). Nor is God the sole efficient factor: creatures too are efficient, as they are the source of evil, while God is the source of Good.

        There is of course no orthodox Christian disagreement, East or West, with St. Dionysius.

        Christians do not say that they can become *the* Real. But we do say that we can become Real; and, that when we are all Real, then God will be all, in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

        I can of course accept Plotinus as a theist. That’s just what he was, after all. So you, too, are a theist.

        What is not clear to me still is where in the 30 steps you find yourself running off the rails.

  3. Pingback: Thirty Steps from Honest Uncertainty to Christian Faith | Reaction Times

  4. If we’re agreed that the One and the Demiurgic Intellect act as Final and Formal Causes, logically but not temporally prior to the manifest world, I retract my reservations. Now that I understand your metaphysics a little better, the rest of your steps are unobjectionable. I think they would prove helpful to a rational man drawn to Catholic or Orthodox Christianity.

    • We do agree. I add only that, as sharing with each other through perichoresis everything other than their relation, and as both therefore equally operant (with the Spirit) in every divine operation, Father and Son are each both formal and final cause of all contingent things. I.e., the Forms are not *only* in the Logos, but by virtue of their presence in him are rather present also throughout the Godhead, and thus in the Father and in the Spirit as well. Likewise, the end of all being is not only the Father, but also the Son and the Sprit; it is, i.e., just God.

      All of this is only to indicate again that God is one Being and Essence in three Persons.

      Given the foregoing, it is only natural to wonder what the logical function of the Spirit might be, if the logical function of the Father is to be the final cause of all things, and the logical function of the Son is to furnish the formal cause of all things. What does the Spirit do? He is the the fact of efficiency. He does not himself do all things, for creatures do all sorts of things; but he furnishes the efficiency of all things, by which they may generate their effects.

      Whence then matter, the very possibility of becoming as such? That is furnished by the Godhead.

      • At 21 we move into the realm of faith, which is a good thing. The faith of an Orthodox Christian is sufficient to undergird a life that can lead him, by partaking in the Mysteries of the Church, to participation in divine energies of God and theosis. In the same way, my faith can lead me to participation in the transforming power of the Buddha. As the monk Cheng Chien puts it: This faith comes from the Buddha-nature inherent in the human heart, and provides the light that leads one beyond the familiar realm of meaningless obsessions, illusions, and worldly sentiments to one’s true abode—the boundless dharmadhatu. Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Buddhism are both sufficient for salvation at the present time, the only religions that are.

  5. Every Buddha is an immortally separate glorified Body and Mind; every Buddha is identical insofar as each participates in the unique Essence of Buddhahood (Dharmakaya), symbolized as the Great Sun Buddha, Mahavairocana.

    On the idea of becoming the Real, it might help to understand the idea of becoming Buddha by meditating on the Orthodox distinction between and essence and the energies of God:

    The distinction between the essences and the energies, which is fundamental for the Orthodox doctrine of grace, makes it possible to preserve the real meaning of St. Peter’s words ‘partakers of the divine nature.’ The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic–as in the case of the human nature of Christ–nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God. In deification we are by grace (that is to say, in the divine energies) all that God is by nature, save only identity of nature…, according to the teaching of St. Maximus (De ambiguis). We remain creatures while becoming God by grace, as Christ remained God in becoming man by the Incarnation.

    – Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church

    One quick aside, I am woefully ignorant of the popular works in circulation about Buddhism. Graduate school consisted of reading classical Indian philosophy in Sanskrit and Pali, directed by men who believed secondary source material and even translated primary sources were for the dilettante. I am an Orthodox Mahāyāna Buddhist, which means my beliefs and practices have to be measured by the teachings of the definitive scriptures (the Flower Garland, the Lotus and the Nirvāṇa) and the Five Doctrinal Works of Maitreya (the Five Dharmas of Maitreya). So, please be patient if I don’t seem to know what you’re talking about when it comes to popular Buddhism, because I often don’t.

  6. I find your incorporation of the shroud into this argument to be intriguing. Most apologetics deliberately avoids it because of the dating controversy. Do you have a response to the universities in Oxford, Arizona, and Switzerland which dated the shroud to the Middle Ages? I have heard some disputes to their accuracy, but would be interested to hear your theory on this matter. Is Carreira correct in his theory about contamination? If legitimate, the shroud is truly the most precious relic of the era of our Lord, on par and above even the lost Holy Chalice.

    • Without judging the authenticity of the Shroud one way or the other, it appeared in 1355 in a chapel at Lirey in the diocese of Troyes. Its history is unclear before that. What was step 21 before 1355? My point being that the following steps (22 and higher) have been accessible a lot longer than step 21, and if you get to step 22 and 23 by some other means, which presumably most all Christians did prior to 1355, you don’t need most of the others.

      With the exception of step 14, the style and thinking of the Old Testament, which is the way God led Israel into the matter, doesn’t have much prominence in the argument. I don’t really see this particular 30-step path prominently featured in the New Testament. So why this apologetic route other than it works for you?

      • Step 14 follows from step 13. Indeed, 14 is close to a restatement of 13.

        It is indeed resonant of the Psalms, which say the same thing many times. Exodus, too. I often wonder how Mormons get around that sort of statement from YHWH.

        The apologetic of the post begins from the presupposition of an interlocutor who has no reason to treat scripture as authoritative. It is an argument in Natural Theology. If it works for him, then he will have reason to find scripture compelling, or at least to read it with a mind open to the discovery that it conveys Truth.

        As to what stood in for the Shroud before it came to light in Troyes, it is evident that the testimony of the Apostles and their successors in the Church did the trick. They had help in this from the eucharistic miracles, the stigmata of the saints, miraculous healings, exorcisms in the name of Christ, conversion and reformation of notoriously sinful lives, the quotidian, quite common witness of faithful Christians to the grace that had suffused their hearts, the testimony of the mystics, and so forth.

        All that said, the Shroud seems to have been efficacious in the East continuously from the Patristic Era. In The Templars and the Shroud of Christ, Barbara Frale does a pretty convincing job – convincing to me, at any rate – of limning the history of the Shroud from the Mount of Olives to Troyes.

      • Faith comes by hearing the word of God. Romans 10:17. So one might as well start with the word of God as early in the process as possible.

        In the world of the Psalmist, only the fool believes there is no God. Psalm 14:1. Anciently, this was self-evident to the wise, and still is to the man on the street.

        Muslims wonder how Christians get around the absolute oneness of Allah. Search the scriptures on the subject of oneness (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:17, John 17:22-23). It is not possible to be intimate with or to be the child of the “totally other.”

        Once one grants the possibilities of miracles, the usual standards of proof in the secular sense are no longer valid. If something is miraculous, it or its history or its meaning stands apart from the mundane world even if the object itself remains in the world.

        The most common and in many ways one of the most valuable miracles is personal revelation (e.g. Matt 16:17: “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee…” and James 1:5).

      • Never mind thinking, then? Is that what you’re thinking?

        Christians easily answer Muslims on the question of the Trinity: a person is not the same sort of thing as a being. A polytheism in which the many gods are disparate beings logically cannot.

    • I’m no expert on which threads were taken from the Shroud for carbon 14 testing, but the argument that they were from the vicinity of the Medieval patches would seem to be easily refuted. So far as I know, no one has refuted it.

      The Grail, by the way, is on display in the chapter house of the Metropolitan Basilica Cathedral of the Assumption of Our Lady of Valencia.

  7. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#71)

  8. This is the difficult point: 7. There must be an ultimate eternal necessary cause of all contingent events in this and every world.

    How can a necessary cause have a contingent effect? If P is a eternal and necessary, and if P is a sufficient cause of Q, how can Q be other than eternal and necessary?

      • Yes.

        Furthermore, the effect is *different* from the cause. If it were not, then it would not be an effect in the first place, but rather only an aspect of the cause; indeed, the effect in this case would not truly exist at all – it would be nothing.

        Finally, there can be no more than one necessary being, so insofar as they actually exist – i.e., insofar as they are disparate from him – his effects *must* be contingent.

      • Kristor, your “Yes” is ambiguous. Do you mean that you are using cause to mean “formal cause,” or to mean “final cause”? (In ordinary English usage, of course it means “efficient cause” unless otherwise specified.)

        At any rate, do you agree with me that a necessary state of affairs cannot be the sole efficient cause of a contingent state of affairs?

      • I meant, “yes,” to what Nilakantha said. Sorry for the confusion.

        Thus I meant to indicate that I agree with Nilakantha that the problem you notice does not arise if we take God to be causing the world formally and finally, rather than efficiently.

        This gets somewhat clearer when we recall that efficient causes are ordered to their effects by an extensive relation – of space, or time, or both, or something like them. First x actually exists, *and then* its effect y can be influenced by x – can be ordered to x as a fact, rather than as only an act (it is the influence of x upon y that moves x from mere act to historical fact).

        But God is not ordered to his effects in this way, because he is eternal. [NB that this does not mean that he cannot act historically, or within time; it is just that he does not do so *from* time, or *from* a particular place, as creatures all do, but rather from eternity.]

        That efficient causes are ordered to their effects extensively – i.e., in the context of some world or other – is our clue to the answer to your question, “do you agree with me that a necessary state of affairs cannot be the sole efficient cause of a contingent state of affairs?” I would, if it were not for the fact that, being eo ipso mundane, efficient effects *cannot* be necessary. There can be only one necssary being, and worlds are systems of many beings.

      • “At any rate, do you agree with me that a necessary state of affairs cannot be the sole efficient cause of a contingent state of affairs?” — WmJas

        I would state that Perfection is not the efficient cause of imperfection, but rather, he with the will to do anything, ie., be imperfect, has been efficiently sublimated by He who will do all right, ie., Be Perfect. In Effect is a contingent desire for Perfect Cause.

        The “necessary being” because “it” is Perfection and no other. “We” do not really desire known Cause, but a solution to “infinite regress.”

  9. It occurs to me that 21 can be substituted for any evidence for the resurrection or divinity of Christ. 24 itself can replace 21 if accepted.

    I would say up to 20 you can more or less argue from something akin to pure reason, but moving from ‘One God’ to ‘Jesus the Christ’ requires testimony of a witness or at least something empirical. We can know of God by ourselves, but God is not knowable except through Christ and his witnesses.

    • Agreed. It was at 20 that we got as far as perfectly general and abstract arguments could take us toward Christianity, and had to turn to historical facts. But then, it is in historical fact that Christianity is peculiarly strong, and rich.

      24 is quite compelling in itself, and the more one reads about it, the stronger it gets. So it would do even if the Shroud turned out to be a fake. Yet another item that would seem to suffice is the plethora of eucharistic miracles, incorruptibles, and the like. These add up to the point that it grows very difficult to gainsay them all and remain convinced of one’s honesty.

      But the inhuman accuracy of the image on the Shroud is to my mind a knock down piece of empirical evidence.

      • Oh, by saying 21 was replaceable I wasn’t trying to take a knock at the shroud, I really don’t know much about it one way or the other. I merely meant to convey that the universe seems so construed as to lead us to a general idea of God, but we need God to come to us one way or another to comprehend Christ and come to Christianity.

        I would say that 24 is the cornerstone of people coming to Christ though all the ages. It is the integrity of the first hand witnesses, then the second third and thousandth that spreads the Gospel message. On the same token a few bad witnesses poison the well for many souls.

      • Oh, by saying 21 was replaceable I wasn’t trying to take a knock at the shroud …

        I didn’t take it that way. It seemed to me only that you were suggesting that 24 was another set of empirical facts that could carry the argument forward from 20. I agree.

        I would say that 24 is the cornerstone of people coming to Christ though all the ages. It is the integrity of the first hand witnesses, then the second third and thousandth that spreads the Gospel message.

        Agreed. The Shroud, by contrast, has barely begun its work.

      • Prariepolyguy…

        He with the will to do all right is simply the path to Perfection.

        This is REALLY what’s at stake… Crushing the very last vestige of even a single white man with the will to do all right, ie., be perfect.

        White men seeking Perfection is THE ONLY MODERN TABOO…

        Lucky for “us,” under the auspices of a “will to do anything” is the legitimacy of seeking Perfection.

      • I rather like the idea of theological perfectionism, but it is a rather hated concept right now. I’ve heard pastors say idiotic things like ‘you cannot go even one day without sinning’ that just show me both how idiotic many churches idea of sin is and how little they care to address it even if they could identify it.

        Mind perfectionism (and when I say this I mean the idea that a Christian can get to a point where they have no desire to sin, and have come free of it in this life by the grace of God) is pretty hated no matter the race of the congregation. People much prefer the ‘can’t succeed so why try’ when talking about overcoming sin.

  10. And then, Kristor, is step 31.

    31. White Supremacy.

    And the recognition that Latin American Christianity, African Christianity, Asian Christianity, etc. CAN BRING NO Christianity forward capable of saving Western white man AND THUS, deracinated “Christianity” is no such thing. It’s “white” liberation operating under a purposely chosen misnomer.

    There is little doubt that the totality of “our” mass formal education system was aimed directly at the social engineering of anti-white Supremacists… Ergo, all good people are supposed to be anti-white Supremacists…

    BUT….

    For the Kristors, Charltons, Bertonneaus, Roebucks and thordaddys — white men who are believers in and worshippers of objective Supremacy, ie., The Perfect Man, such a public repudiation IS IN FACT a repudiation of one’s self as a white Christian.

    So when Kristor hits step 30 and the enemies of Christianity jump forth to ask, “Are you, Kristor, a white Supremacist?” To wit, you retort, “Absolutely not!” You have just publicity rejected your step number 30. You have publicly repudiated your own Christianity and the Christianity of those that have led you here. This is the psychological gotcha game ALL white Christians are engaged. They want to be Christians without being white Supremacists. Impossible!!!!

    • While I’d certainly not deny being a white supremacist, or at least a nationalist in the sense of wanting a nation of my own people forged by their ideals and beliefs (which would naturally be powerful enough to hold colonial power over others), I wouldn’t call your step 31 linked in the same way Kristors 30 steps where.

      To reach that conclusion you’d have to put at least a few more steps in between. Plus while Kristors 30 steps is useful to any with intellectual capacity to understand it (at least one standard deviation above normal intelligence? Can’t be much more than that because I get what he said and I’m probably not much more than that) and well yes that particular capacity is objectively bias to certain races, once we move to what you’re getting at it’s no longer universal but only applies to those of the races that can be called ‘white’. It’s no longer for everyone.

      • Prariepolyguy…

        Deracination is the pathology inherent to all ideologies and religions outside of Christianity and so it is the aim of the Equalists (aka anti-Supremacists) to deracinate Christianity. One should note that deracmation, broken sex and radical sexual autonomy are like three peas in the liberationist’s pod.

        IF this is indeed a game of the intellectuals and the anti-white Supremacist cabal persuades white Christians to publicly disavow genuine white Supremacy THEN it is GAME OVER… “White” “Christian” has announced his deracination… He has proclaimed his inherent pathology… He has repudiated his own uniquely critical and created place within Christianity. He has asserted the dominion of anti-white Supremacy over Christianity, racially-rooted or otherwise.

      • Prariepolyguy…

        All the evidence suggests that it is in fact the “intellectuals” that either do not know how to do right or only wish to teach wrong. The average folk very much still grasp the idea of a right and wrong rooted in a racial-religious admixture. Meaning, decent white folk still intuit right from wrong based on a pervasive white Christianity.

      • Thor,

        Most religions, even those who will welcome everyone, tend to have deep cultural and racial roots they are grounded in. Ideologies less so, but even then the only really anti-racial ideology I know of is globalist Marxist communism. That seems to be somewhat of a singular enemy.

        When I talk about intelligence I mean raw capacity, not membership in the intelligentsia, who are often not very capable at this time. And while the common man may be able to tell right from wrong in a Christian culture, I wasn’t really talking about anything like that.

        Kristoff’s proofs take a significant intellectual capacity to comprehend properly. That is all I was saying.

      • Prariepolyguy…

        Liberalism is deracinated by way of “exaltation” of the homo-sexual “nature.” Islam is deracinated by way of desire for radical sexual autonomy… Judaism is deracinated by way of matrilineal lineage… Buddhism is deracinated by way of “nirvana…” Fascism Is deracinated by way of corporate pressure… “Black” “nationalism” is even deracinated by way of its inherent anti-white Supremacy.

        So the aim is to deracinate Christianity in virtually all the ways above…

        Define “it” as desirous of radical sexual autonomy, ie., soft and compassionate towards homo-sexuality…

        Divide “it” from patriarchy and thus “make” Christianity de facto matrilineal and “feminized.”

        Turn “it” into a religion of purifying the self BY annihilating the “ego.”

        Apply corporate pressure so that Christianity can get on board with the corporate-state agenda.

        And of course, lastly, use rogue “black” radicals to paint Christianity as fundamentally anti-white Supremacy… Ergo, assert that Christianity is against all those white men who believe in and thus strive towards objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection…

        Now, my intial point was the paradox presented in the intellectual vigor it takes to go from step 1 to step 30 as compared to the requirement of virtually no intellect to go from step 30 to step 31. BUT, what is not needed in intellect is more than made up for by the sheer courage that is now required to go from step 30 to step 31. So for the Kristors, Roebucks, Charltons AND even those that cannot get from step 1 to step 30 intellectually, step 30 to step 31 IS A SIMPLE EQUATION that one accepts or rejects…

        Step 1: non-Christian —> much intellectual vigor —> Step 30: Christian —> raw courage —> Step 31: White Supremacist (a NOT deracinated Christian).

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        And those that say this UNDENIABLY true equation does not matter when one publicly asserts that one is both a Christian AND an anti-white Supremacist show themselves to be charlatans BECAUSE there is no benefit of ignorance for those who have already crossed from step one to step thirty and then cannot bring themselves to take one more step TOWARDS greater Truth when their country and culture is literally dying for them to take the real leap of faith.

      • Thor,

        I am as of yet unclear we are in the same conversation.

        That said if you’re forming a militia somewhere near me let me know and I’d be amicable to an alliance.

      • Prariepolyguy…

        The MOST IMPORTANT STEP NOW is the one from step 30 to step 31 FOR the Kristors, Bertonneaus, Charltons, Roebucks and thordaddys as there is no such thing as a deracinated Christianity… To deny that one is a white Supremacist is to deny that one is even a Christian.

        The denial of Christianity IS THE NAME OF enemy’s game and it’s match, set, point WHEN even the “best” Christians deny being Christian IF ONLY by a different name.

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        These entities are exactly synonymous and represent the coalescing force behind all the anti-Supremacists, ie., “Equalists.”

        So it is very simple. To deny being one is to deny being the other. And this why step 31 is so very critical at this juncture.

      • Can you tell us what you mean by deracinated in this context? I’ve given up trying to understand your esoteric use of white supremacist. I feel like I could be sympathetic to your position, but I never can actually figure out what you are talking about.

        Could you at least point us to some other Christian author at any point in history who expresses more clearly the point you are constantly trying to impress upon us.?

      • Josh…

        Deracinated means one who absolutely rejects the racial particulars of Creation… One who CLAIMS race is nonexistent or means nothing… And so a deracinated “Christian” is no such thing.

        The late Mr. Lawrence Auster showed “us” a way out of this racial quagmire by simply rejecting the false dichotomy of race meaning “everything” (also ultimately self-annihilating) versus race meaning “nothing.” Race is neither one of those things. Race is simply a created particular of Creation THAT CAN THEN signal to others one’s unique path to Christianity. There is absolutely no mandate in the Bible for whites to overcome their whiteness in order to be better Christians. None whatsoever.

  11. Kristor,
    You misunderstand what miracles are. Your saying– “These things are not unnatural to such worlds, but rather only rare. ” belies a Humean perspective.
    A miracles is a suspension of the laws of nature. Eg virgin birth is contrary to the laws of human biology. Walking on water is contrary to the laws of physics. It is not a question of probabilities.

    • Hume’s entire argument is premised on the proposal that the Laws of Nature distill the universal experience of all mankind in all ages. Well, rather obviously, there is more under Heaven than any of us or all of us have yet suspected. Man’s knowledge of the Logos does not exhaust it.

      If the system of this universe – God’s system, mind – forbad miracles, then under no circumstances could they possibly occur here. That they do indicates that our notions of the Laws of Nature are purblind.

      Remember, it is a universe with the same nature as this one, but innocent of the corruption caused by the Fall, that will be the New Jerusalem. Death and corruption are not proper to our present universe. They are improper to it. Resurrection bodies that can pass through walls apparently are not; they are proper to this world. We can tell because they happened in it.

      • Miracles are defined and make sense in present dispensation only where Natural and Supernatural are distinct. If everything is connected and natural-supernatural is blurred, then you have no need to call anything a miracle.
        But philosophy admits an autonomous realm of Natural. Indeed, philosophically, we arrive at the notion of God ONLY by considering the nature of changes in the Natural realm. So, autonomy of natural realm is important. Otherwise one is liable to get lost in theosophical swamps (CS Lewis-Pilgrim’s Regress).

      • Things can be connected without being blurred. Indeed, things can be connected at all only if they are distinct. A connection is not an elision, and vice versa.

        If there were absolutely no room in the system of nature for the Incarnation – this being the limit case – then the Incarnation could not have taken place within that system. The Incarnation did happen, so there is such room for it in the system of nature.

        At the Incarnation, God acted upon the world and produced effects – such as the hypostatic union – that no creature could have acted to accomplish. This is the key difference between natural and supernatural acts: the nature of the agent. Supernatural agents are capable of doing things that natural agents are not. That’s why we call them supernatural! Natural agents can’t do supernatural things (except insofar as they are aided by supernatural graces conferred upon them for the purpose by supernatural agents).

        Of course, natural agents can’t do even natural things without those graces, either. They can’t, for example, cause their next moment of existence to occur. Nature doesn’t cause itself.

      • I know the CS Lewis quote and he would not agree with you that
        “These things are not unnatural to such worlds, but rather only rare. ”

        His view is that a miracle consists of changing the initial condition a bit. But this is incomplete. But changing the initial condition again requires a “suspension of the laws of nature”. Point that CS Lewis is making is that Christian miracles have a style that is missing in purported miracles of other religions–eg Hinduism where the alleged miracles have more of a magical coloring,

        One needs to appreciate the polysensual word “nature”. It would not do to throw quotes around.
        Consider virgin birth. Was it just a rare event or something that is contrary to the laws of human biology?

        Many things are rare, very rare indeed without being a miracle. Consider quatum tunneling of a largish object or evolution of eukaryote.

        Also, at step 18, you are not permitted to talk of New Jerusalem or The Fall etc etc,. They can only come after Christ.

        I should also put in a word for specifically Catholic miracles such as the Miracle of the Sun.

      • Also, at step 18, you are not permitted to talk of New Jerusalem or The Fall etc.

        Step 18 doesn’t mention those things. What are you talking about?

        The bottom line, Vishmehr, is this: if miracles involve a suspension of the laws of nature, and if miracles do actually occur in the system of the world, then those laws are not really laws at all. They are more like policies, or regularities – they are, that is to say, more like human laws, that can possibly be suspended for this reason or that. They do not constrain what is possible in this world, because they are subject to suspension at any moment so that something that breaks them can be admitted to history.

      • For CS Lewis in the Miracles, acts of rational thought are miraculous in his sense–they involve a physically unexplained change in the initial conditions–the idea he seems to have got from Lucretius-of the swerve that atoms make leading to the huamn free will.
        Thus, CS Lewis would not say that miracles are something that are rare.
        I do not think this idea of swerve or change in initial conditions A to A’ –fits well with hylemorphic conception of the free will and miracles. But it fits CS Lewi purposes–that supernature invades nature as her lawful sovereign and not as an alien invader.

        Stanley Jaki’s Physics and Miracles is very good.

      • It seems obvious that what has happened before cannot explain a new thing that has not happened before. If novelty is to enter the world, it must somehow arrive from outside the system of things that have already happened. This is not a new idea; it goes back to Plato.

      • The only “law” that every miracle “must follow” is The Law of Anti-redundancy such that no miracle can be an exact replication of a past miracle nor can any miracle be exactly duplicated in the future. Miracles are singularities to which ONLY A UNIQUE one-time universe-wide material configuration is necessary. So one can imagine a near infinite array of universe-wide material configurations to which the brunt of life is represented by redundant sets of universe-wide material configurations unpredictably “interjected” with singularities (one-time universe-wide material configuration) to which miracles are revealed.

      • There are laws of Nature such as a virgin can not be a mother. But these laws of nature do not constrain supernatural iruption into the natural realm. These iruptions are called miracles.
        It is not a question of rarity.
        And if you think that the laws of human biology or the laws of plantary motions are mere regularities, a mere human invention then you subvert all knowledge and philosophy. You then exist in the realm of magic, where anything can happen. You do not get to progress even at the step 1.

        It is really very odd that one would talk of miracles without speaking of supernatural.
        After all, by your definition that a miracle is something that occurs rarely, how rare it should be-one in a million instance, a billion instance? And how does one go about deciding this threshold.

        At your 3.38 pm reply on 20th you wrote:
        “Remember, it is a universe with the same nature as this one, but innocent of the corruption caused by the Fall, that will be the New Jerusalem. Death and corruption are not proper to our present universe. They are improper to it. Resurrection bodies that can pass through walls apparently are not; they are proper to this world. We can tell because they happened in it. ”

        I make the point that this can not be stated at point 18 where you introduce the concept of miracles. You can not both justify miracles using Catholic dogma and then justify Catholic dogma using miracles.

      • Vishmehr, I think we have been misunderstanding each other’s terms. You write:

        There are laws of Nature such as a virgin cannot be a mother. But these laws of nature do not constrain supernatural irruption into the natural realm.

        I take from this that what you mean by “Laws of Nature” is “the limits on what sorts of things creatures themselves are by their natures able to do.” I have been using it to mean something slightly different: “the limits on what sorts of things can happen in a world without ruining it as a world, or turning it into a different sort of world altogether.”

        It was to your meaning of “Laws of Nature” (insofar as I have understood it correctly) that I was responding in saying that the agent of the event made the difference; that, i.e., an event is miraculous when it surpasses the capacity of creatures themselves to perform, and must therefore originate in the act of a supernatural agent. If I have understood you correctly, then I quite agree.

        It is however to my meaning of “Laws of Nature” that both Augustine and Lewis directed their remarks. They, and I, mean to say only that it does not violate the order of this cosmos for God to intervene in it. To suggest that it did would be quite odd, given that the order of this cosmos, and thus this cosmos itself, is given by and from him in the first place. Thus my repeated statement to the effect that if miracle x were contrary to the Laws of Nature, it could not – logically could not – occur in our world.

        And if you think that the laws of human biology or the laws of planetary motions are mere regularities, a mere human invention then you subvert all knowledge and philosophy. You then exist in the realm of magic, where anything can happen. You do not get to progress even at the step 1.

        I don’t think that. I was suggesting that if the limits of what sorts of things can logically happen in this world can be broken whenever a miracle needs to happen, then they are not in the final analysis limits at all, properly speaking. And that’s false: there are real limits to what sorts of things can happen in our world. While I agree with you that miracles surpass the limits of what the creatures of our world can logically do, I do not agree that they surpass the limits of what can possibly happen in our world via the acts of supernatural agents.

        I don’t think I was talking about miracles without speaking of the supernatural. So far as I can tell, to speak of miracles *just is* to speak of the supernatural.

        I don’t define a miracle as something that happens rarely, although I think it is true that we rarely recognize miracles. I think in fact that they are far more common than we suspect. But in any case, I think a miracle is an intervention in the history of the universe by a supernatural agent.

      • Vishmehr24…

        What does a Law of Nature “look” like other than one particular universe-wide material configuration or the innumerable universe-wide configurations that provide the absolute redundancy needed to substantiate the scientific method with which one is unable to utilize in order to “observe” miracles BECAUSE the only Natural Law of Miracles is that said miracle MUST BE a non-redundant universe-wide material configuration.

        So the claim that miracles must contravene or transcend The Laws of Nature doesn’t ring true. Miracles are in fact revelations of the nearly never observed singularities perfectly in line with all Laws of Nature INCLUDING that “law” that provides for a unique one-time universe-wide material configuration.

      • “There are laws of Nature such as a virgin can not be a mother.” — vishmehr24

        I’m pretty sure that this world entertains artificial insemination.

        But…

        The real point is that miracles are simply unique ONE TIME nonredundant universe-wide material configurations. Each miracle is not “rare.” Each miracle IS ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE in its total configuration never to have been replicated from the past nor duplicated in the future. In this manner, the idea of the Supernatural manipulating the Natural in unnatural ways is moot. The basic charge is that our universe does not accommodate singularities OR if it does then God must do something unnatural in our Natural world. But simply “commanding” a particular material configuration never before commanded and never again to be assorted in such a way mandates no thoughts of unnatural acts.

        It’s much like a puzzle with all pieces comprised of strictly ninety degree angles… The near infinite configurations one can create in no way inhibits that one particular configuration that stands out like a real miracle of mind and nothing unnatural is required to assort these puzzle pieces in such a dazzling configuration.

      • thordaddy,
        I have not been going for some ultimate theory of miracles. First, one should be able to recognize a miracle. Eg, if one sees a dancing sun throwing off purple rays, then it conflicts with our normal expectation of solar behavior. That’s all.
        Artificial insemination has nothing to do with it with laws of nature– a law of nature is what intellect abstracts out of the phenomena.

    • Miracles are not contrary to nature but only contrary to what we know about nature.

      – St. Augustine, City of God XXII

      Augustine was a Humean, who knew?

      • It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t. If I knock out my pipe I alter the position of a great many atoms: in the long run, and to an infinitesimal degree, of all the atoms there are. Nature digests or assimilates this event with perfect ease and harmonises it in a twinkling with all other events. It is one more bit of raw material for the laws to apply to, and they apply. I have simply thrown one event into the general cataract of events and it finds itself at home there and conforms to all other events. If God annihilates or creates or deflects a unit of matter He has created a new situation at that point. Immediately all Nature domiciles this new situation, makes it at home in her realm, adapts all other events to it. It finds itself conforming to all the laws. If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. We see every day that physical nature is not in the least incommoded by the daily inrush of events from biological nature or from psychological nature. If events ever come from beyond Nature altogether, she will be no more incommoded by them. Be sure she will rush to the point where she is invaded, as the defensive forces rush to a cut in our finger, and there hasten to accommodate the newcomer. The moment it enters her realm it obeys all her laws. Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread will be digested. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern. It does not violate the law’s proviso, ‘If A, then B’: it says, ‘But this time instead of A, A2,’ and Nature, speaking through all her laws, replies ‘Then B2’ and naturalises the immigrant, as she well knows how. She is an accomplished hostess.

        CS Lewis, Miracles 8

      • Very impressive you were mindful to reverse the order of their occurence in the post! I’m making a note of this.

  12. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/07/19) | The Reactivity Place

  13. Thordaddy writes: “The MOST IMPORTANT STEP NOW is the one from step 30 to step 31 FOR the Kristors, Bertonneaus, Charltons, Roebucks and thordaddys as there is no such thing as a deracinated Christianity… To deny that one is a white Supremacist is to deny that one is even a Christian.”

    My late father (God bless him) – and his two brothers and sister – were light-skinned blacks who passed as white. My ancestors came out of Saint-Domingue during the Revolution there and settled in New Orleans. The self-designation of the Saint-Domingue refugees in the city of their adoption was “gens de couleur libres,” “free people of color.” My great-grandfather on my father’s side is a marginally famous person who served as an officer in Confederate colored infantry and then in the first organized unit of Federal colored infantry. My mother (God bless her) is a Swede. I am a former atheist who converted to Catholicism. Where this leaves me in Thordaddy’s universe, I have no notion.

    Incidentally, my first degree was in Germanic and Scandinavian Languages. I spent last week with my wife in Montreal speaking French. When I visited the Basilica, I crossed myself many times and noticed with amazement and chagrin how many visitors to the cathedral were walking around staring at their cell phones.

    The entire modern world is deracinated. The questions to ask of any given individual are, have you recognized your deracination and have you taken steps to put down roots? I set myself to learn my ancestral languages – and the West’s ancestral languages. I have done my best to re-orient myself from Modernity to Tradition. I suspect that I can tala med Tor bättre än Thordaddy kan.

    • TFB: I think Thordaddy assumed that you were white–a perfectly reasonable assumption, in the absence of the additional information which you’ve provided. The revelation that you are nonwhite doesn’t undermine Thordaddy’s point.

      Obviously, from the vantage point of a.d. 2015, Christianity is the historic religion of the white race. It might well be the historic religion of other races or nonwhite peoples, as well as given individuals such as yourself who perhaps don’t identify with a given ethnos, but it is unquestionably the ancestral faith of the European peoples. There is a concerted effort in the United States, and in the modern West generally, to deconstruct both the racial and the religious consciousness of whites. Thordaddy is speaking to the being of whites as a people–to something analogous to Heidegger’s Bodenstaendigkeit or soil-rootedness–in insisting that whites must re-appropriate their being as both whites and Christians, if they are to survive as a people.

      As to where that leaves you, I don’t know. Maybe it just means that you’re a cosmopolite and/or a philosopher–a noble calling, perhaps, for an individual man of heightened intelligence. But philosophic cosmopolitanism at the level of the sociopolitical order is destructive of a people in their specific racial and religious being, and if American whites are to survive as a people–are to secure their existence and a future for their children–then they must not abandon either the knowledge of who they are in the flesh or the knowledge of the god of their fathers, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      • “Christianity is the historic religion of the white race.”

        The first Christians were Semites from Jerusalem.

      • “The first Christians were Semites from Jerusalem.” — Dr. Bertonneau

        So they too were Supremacists, but the “Chosen Ones” are most definitely anti-Supremacists to this very day AS ARE a super-majority of moderns including almost all liberated/deracinated “Christians.”

        Whites do not own the Christian Assertion, but they have shown a devotion to it deeper and for longer than any other race as far I can tell.

      • Far be it from me to denounce ethno-nationalism, but oughtn’t we keep things in perspective? The gospel is universal; the way of the Lord is for all peoples. Such recognition does not mean that other matters don’t have their place of importance. The first sin of the Nazis was not that they treasured their Deutschtümelei but that they rendered it an idol. The Left’s take on the brotherhood of man is obnoxious and extreme, but such does not invalidate the truth that all mankind shares in a fraternal bond — biologically and spiritually.

      • @ Joseph A.

        Let’s stipulate that “…all mankind shares in a fraternal bond — biologically and spiritually.” Is it not the case that God chose Noah and his family, and wiped the rest of humanity off the face of the earth–despite the fraternal bond in which all mankind shares? Is it not the case that the Lord God of Israel chose Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and their descendants, and separated them from all the nations of the earth–despite the fraternal bond in which all mankind shares? Did God not send his only Son to save the world–and is he not superior to all other men, despite the fraternal bond he shares with all mankind? Does God not save all those who place their trust in his only Son, and consign all the rest to an infinite damnation–despite the fraternal bond in which all mankind shares?

        Now, you may be squeamish about white supremacy. But as thordaddy has been at pains to point out–and relatively clearly, I might add–Christianity is itself a “supremacist” doctrine par excellence. If one is opposed to “supremacy” among men as such, any argument that takes flight from some intuition that Christianity opposes such a notion per se is bound to flop.

      • Joseph…

        When the anti-Christian touts Christianity’s “universalism,” he does so possessing the implication that this “universalism” equals a deracinated Christian. BUT, there is no aspect of Christian doctrine that mandates any sort of self-annihilation. The true universalism of Christianity is simply the fact that all sentient human being in this universe can step towards Christ if they so desire. Of course, history is full of incontrovertible evidence that some step farther than others and many go in the opposite direction (“strive” toward anti-Supremacy/Equality). These understandings DO NOT conflict with a particular white man stepping towards Christ nor is there any conflict with the idea of a white race stepping towards Christ in a frictionless parallelism. Acknowledging both these potentials WHETHER FINALLY REALIZED OR NOT actually smashes the egalitarian paradigm that conceptualizes a “universalism” that really does nothing more than assert the equalness of ALL men. So “we” observe the same tricks involving a liberation of the Logos in relation to the notion of Christian universalism which then ultimately breaks down to the widely-held false liberal conception and the largely rejected Truth of the matter.

        All CAN be Supremacists… Only whites can be white Supremacists though… Some individuals or a certain race of individuals may passionately take it upon themselves to step towards Supremacy LIKE NO OTHERS… Such an understanding need not either invoke or provoke the “other.” Such an understanding is absolute and by no means relative.

        And still…

        White Christians JUST ARE white Supremacists.

      • TD, so, you mean that because Christians believe in Jesus Christ as a superior man, they are not egalitarians but rather “supremacists”? And white Christians are therefore “white supremacists”?

        This seems to do violence to accepted language and for no good reason. When people use the term white supremacist, they refer to folks (usually white) who believe that the white race is a superior race or a master race. They do not mean a white guy who does not hold egalitarian views. And that is not a contorted understanding of the phrase — it is a natural interpretation.

        Imagine a nice fellow who presides over the local Rotary Club — a cordial, bourgeois man who happens to be a registered Republican. Then, imagine that the local newspaper refers to him as the “Republican chairman.” For he is a Republican and he is a chairman, though the one has nothing to do with the other. I guess there is a chance that our man could be Reince Priebus, but Priebus is probably too busy to get involved in a NoVa chapter of the Rotary Club. Obviously, such usage would be needlessly confusing. So, why use it?

        If you’re trying to wake American whites from their self-hating slumber — to remind them to have some self respect, then that’s great. I wish you all the luck. However, using baffling terminology — which reminds me of some of the loonier forms of nineteenth century racial musings (Anglo-Israelism comes to mind) — may not be the most advantageous strategy.

        WM, I am not squeamish about anything (well, except mutilations, internal hemorrhaging, and the like), but if you want to argue the superiority of the white race, then I just don’t think that you should call Jesus to the stand to testify as an expert witness.

        Claims of ethnic superiority — in absolute terms — strike me as something that one cannot really demonstrate. Sure, you can point to certain human activities where some nations or ethnic families do better than others, but a clear, comprehensive hierarchy of human groups appears to be beyond our judgment. So, I place such claims on the same level as the hometown baseball team chauvinist — “the Yankees are the best team ever.” That’s all well and good, and we need not fret with Mr. Foxman and friends that the goyim will start cooking Jews if such historically common thoughts are allowed to re-enter the Western mind {reality check, Abe: many if not most men who defeated Nazi Germany were “white supremacists” at some level — your paranoia shouldn’t be reason to destroy a civilization}. Rather, ethnic chauvinism is the default feeling of mankind, but we should not take its claims seriously, just as we do not take the Yankee-supremacists seriously.

        But if you still wish to persist in arguing Honkey, Honkey über alles, why besmirch the gospel? It smells like sacrilege.

      • Joseph A., in my comment I said nothing about Christianity affirming or even implying white supremacy. In your original comment to which I was responding, you suggested that Christianity affirms or implies that white supremacy (or ethnonationalism) is false because Christianity affirms or implies that the notion of supremacy *as such* among men is false.

        You said: “The gospel is universal; the way of the Lord is for all peoples.” You also said: “The Left’s take on the brotherhood of man is obnoxious and extreme, but such does not invalidate the truth that all mankind shares in a fraternal bond — biologically and spiritually.”

        In reply, I pointed out that the universality of the evangel–its directedness toward “all peoples”–and the “fraternal bond” of mankind didn’t prevent God from flooding the earth and killing all humanity, save the eight members of Noah’s family. I made reference to the Biblical ethnonationalism of the descendants of Jacob–an ethnonationalism affirmed at times by both Jesus and the apostle Paul. I remarked on the superiority of Jesus to all other men, despite our shared humanity. I went on to remind you that Christian universalism and the brotherhood of man doesn’t prevent God from making a distinction between the redeemed and the reprobate–and consigning the latter to infinite damnation.

        My point in all this was not that the Bible or the Gospel teaches white supremacy–but rather that it does not deny the principle of supremacy as such. Indeed it affirms it. So I didn’t “call Jesus to the stand to testify as an expert witness”–you did that, and I simply denied that he was the expert witness in this area that you supposed him to be. “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

        You write: “Claims of ethnic superiority — in absolute terms — strike me as something that one cannot really demonstrate.” I’m not sure whether it can be demonstrated “in absolute terms” or not, but I’m certain it has already been demonstrated in some terms or other. Don’t worry–as America becomes ever more nonwhite, even you’ll get the demonstration, assuming you live long enough to see it. In any case, on present trends, your descendants will be moving into a black or brown neighborhood–and by your way of thinking, it will be as easy as making the transition from being a Yankees fan to being a fan of the Mets. Those of us who aren’t “squeamish” about such things know better.

      • Joseph A asks,

        TD, so, you mean that because Christians believe in Jesus Christ as a superior man, they are not egalitarians but rather “supremacists”? And white Christians are therefore “white supremacists”?

        This seems to do violence to accepted language and for no good reason.

        No… YOU are in a state of radical autonomy and cannot tolerate the certainty. Christians do not worship Christ “as a superior man.” Christians KNOW Christ as The Perfect Man. Huge difference. And of course, knowing this, knowing that The Perfect Man walked earth as empirical fact ABSOLUTELY smashes any and all notions of a Universal Equality reigning absolutely. Total Redundancy can not reign supreme where The Perfect Man has walked so freely. So the idea that those who reject the Universal Equality as highest reality can then be “egalitarians,” (which you imply above) IS ABSURD and does REAL VIOLENCE to the white man’s psychology.

        Then you say,

        When people use the term white supremacist, they refer to folks (usually white) who believe that the white race is a superior race or a master race.

        Yes, of course, this is because those “people” are radical moderns absolutely submissive to the false liberal frame where Supremacy = degeneracy and thus the white Supremacist = white degenerate.

        So you can continue to foolishly and destructively hold dear to false liberal frame or you reject “it” for Truth.

        You go further…

        They do not mean a white guy who does not hold egalitarian views. And that is not a contorted understanding of the phrase — it is a natural interpretation.

        Huh? White Supremacists/white Christians ARE NOT egalitarian no matter how contorted is the false liberal frame. The only point is that Universal Equality is not a gross lie, but that IT IS NOT the Final Truth. There is no doubt, much redundancy, repetition and repeating to be observed in the our universe some of which is nothing more than the imperfection of man and some of which is just the Natural Law. Neither of these facts of life negate The Perfect Man and His status as The Absolute Standard of Man to which Christian strive. Your insistence that Christians are egalitarian is actually nonsensical. Meaning, I cannot even conceive what exactly an “egalitarian Christian” is? Please define such a “thing?”

        Then you ask,

        Imagine a nice fellow who presides over the local Rotary Club — a cordial, bourgeois man who happens to be a registered Republican. Then, imagine that the local newspaper refers to him as the “Republican chairman.” For he is a Republican and he is a chairman, though the one has nothing to do with the other. I guess there is a chance that our man could be Reince Priebus, but Priebus is probably too busy to get involved in a NoVa chapter of the Rotary Club. Obviously, such usage would be needlessly confusing. So, why use it?

        Why use white Supremacist versus white Christian? Isn’t that obvious? YOU think white Christians are egalitarian when they are truly Supremacists. So when *you* speak of Christians, you are speaking of Equalists… Anti-Supremacists… Anti-white Supremacists. RADICAL LIBERATIONISTS. YOUR “Christians” ARE “white” liberal anti-white Supremacists. Of course, if one has lived long enough in America as a conscious white man then one understands that the ENTIRE AIM is to create a mass of anti-white Supremacists. Ergo, to create a mass of anti-white Christians. And if this mass can call itself “Christian” and be recognized as such by the mass of sheeple, well, that’s all the more deliciously devilish in the minds of the anti-white Supremacists.

        They you protest,

        If you’re trying to wake American whites from their self-hating slumber — to remind them to have some self respect, then that’s great. I wish you all the luck. However, using baffling terminology — which reminds me of some of the loonier forms of nineteenth century racial musings (Anglo-Israelism comes to mind) — may not be the most advantageous strategy.

        No Joseph… I am separating real white Christians from subversive liberationists who call themselves “Christians” and have the Joseph As of this world believing such charlatans are the real Christians. The litmus test is so eloquently simple…

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        If one rejects the above equation then one IS ANTI-CHRISTIAN. Period.

        There is nothing baffling about it. Only YOUR mind has been baffled by the moderns attempting liberating of the Logos.

      • Joseph A…

        To put it more succinctly, the only “way” one is able to “reject” the following equation AS FALSE:

        White Christian = white Supremacist…

        Is through a process of deracination “positively” embraced as desire for radical sexual autonomy.

    • “The entire modern world is deracinated. The questions to ask of any given individual are, have you recognized your deracination and have you taken steps to put down roots? I set myself to learn my ancestral languages – and the West’s ancestral languages. I have done my best to re-orient myself from Modernity to Tradition. I suspect that I can tala med Tor bättre än Thordaddy kan.

      TFB: Somehow I missed this paragraph of yours when I wrote my comment. All I can say is–you can put down roots, but you can only put down the roots that belong to the kind of tree or plant which you are. The white race isn’t a voluntary organization–it is itself a natural kind, it is itself a specific tree with a specific pre-given root. If Thordaddy never learns Swedish it won’t even begin to put a dent in his whiteness–his mother and his father were white and that is all that matters. If it were otherwise, then Rachel Dolezal would’ve been more black than Al Sharpton or Barack Obama.

      • I added the passages as an afterthought, so you need not apologize for having missed them.

        You write: “If Thordaddy never learns Swedish it won’t even begin to put a dent in his whiteness–his mother and his father were white and that is all that matters.” No, but it will mean that I’m less deracinated than he is, culturally speaking, and I am speaking of culture whether anyone else is or not. And what if Thordaddy’s parents were liberal Democrats, members of the ACLU and supporters of Planned Parenthood? Or Communists? Or ardent Multiculturalists? How does that figure in it? And what if his children become Feminists or Earth-Worshipers?

      • ” And what if Thordaddy’s parents were liberal Democrats, members of the ACLU and supporters of Planned Parenthood?–etc.”

        Obviously, that sort of thing would be very regrettable. But let’s imagine rather that a given set of white parents follows Thordaddy’s injunction and raises their children to believe in white supremacy and Christianity. Would that not reduce the chances that their children would grow up to exhibit the self-annihilating pathologies of left-liberalism? Would that not itself be an example of putting down roots?

      • Is this what Thordaddy is saying? Why doesn’t he just say it instead of giving us opaque equations. In any case, the Church, and the influence of the Benedictine monasteries specifically, made possible the ethnicification of modern Europe. The “white race” may be a natural kind (I don’t deny that it is), but it has never been synonymous with Christianity. Historically people spoke of many different races within Europe, not all of which were predominantly Christian. Some were Christian only briefly. Some became Christian well after ethnicification. In America, the Church organized urban parishes by nationality, not race.

        Incidentally, are the Jews white? It seems obvious to just about everyone that they are, but I wonder if you disagree?.

      • @josh:

        “The “white race” may be a natural kind (I don’t deny that it is), but it has never been synonymous with Christianity.”

        This is too much. There was obviously a time when the white race was not Christian. As Prof. Bertonneau has reminded us, Chrsitianity is at its primal root, a religion of Semitic origin and the Europeans were polytheists or idolaters. However, it became in course of time the religion of the white race such that, in my view, Christendom and Europe (which is to say, the white race) were synonyms.

        “Incidentally, are the Jews white? It seems obvious to just about everyone that they are, but I wonder if you disagree?”

        I’m given to understand that there are, broadly speaking two strains of Jews–the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic, with the former being approximately the European strain and the latter, the Middle Eastern. I think it’s obvious that European Jewry were or are racially white. If you feel that undermines my argument in any sense, all I can say is that they are, in perhaps a very real and visceral sense, the exception that proves the rule.

      • @Prof. Bertonneau:

        ” No, but it will mean that I’m less deracinated than he is, culturally speaking, and I am speaking of culture whether anyone else is or not.”

        Admittedly, I’m not fully acquainted with Thordaddy’s perspective, but I’m not sure why you’re implying that he is deracinated. It seems to me that a white man who advocates white supremacy and Christianity is the opposite of deracinated, culturally speaking.

        But you do point to a real problem by invoking the concept of culture. As you’ve pointed out, whites who exhibit self-annihilating ideological pathologies are exemplifying a defect or lack of a cultural nature. So culture is an undeniably necessary attribute of a healthy people–and I think there’s a very real sense in which Thordaddy speaks to this notion in his advocacy of Christianity. If Christianity is the historic religion of the white race–and it is–then there’s a certain respect in which it just is the culture of the white race.

        Going back to the figure of soil-rootedness, I would say that, in this case, the root is culture–Christianity and white racial consciousness–and the soil is the flesh of the white race itself. The spirit and the flesh together–the mind and the body at one–represent a completed, perfected people.

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        But this is not a matter of who is more deracinated. It is a matter of YOU publicly denouncing your Christianity by way of manipulated implication thus conceding an intellectual defeat at the hands of the anti-Christian…

        IF you deny being a Supremacist, YOU DENY being a Christian…

        It is no more elaborate than this…

        One’s ONLY RETORT is that Christians are not Supremacists, ie., Christians are anti-Supremacist… Ergo, Christians are Equalists and thus clearly reject The Perfect Man. So Christians are really radical liberals. This is undenIably false.

        That’s it. It’s that simple, but the step from 30 to 31 is nearly impossible for most to take ESPECIALLY the intellectuals.

    • “The first Christians were Semites from Jerusalem.”

      Of course–I acknowledged that it may not be exclusively the religion of the white race alone. That doesn’t detract in the least from the fact that it is without question the historic religion of the white race. I’m not at all sure that, from the vantage point of a.d. 2015 it can be described as the historic religion of the Semites.

      • No, but it will remain forever the religion that historically was first revealed to Semites. It is also currently a religion hardly revealed at all to most people, white or otherwise, as far as I can tell. How do you see it?

        PS: Rachel Dolezal is best described as a destructive narcissist, a nykulturnya, and a fraud. In this she is like many modern people irrespective of their skin-color.

      • “No, but it will remain forever the religion that historically was first revealed to Semites. It is also currently a religion hardly revealed at all to most people, white or otherwise, as far as I can tell. How do you see it?”

        I don’t disagree at all.

      • Dr. Bertonneau…

        The revelation to the Semites of The Perfect God by way of The Perfect (Semite) Son changes nothing when the “Chosen Ones” committed the most inexplicable act of self-annihilation known to mankind. “The Chosen Ones,” ie., NOT the converted ones, crucified their perfect son. So in fact, the Jew qua Jew, whether orthodox or leftist, ethnic or ideological convert, is an anti-Supremacist AND archetype self-annihilator.

        Thordaddy: Everyone in Jerusalem murdered Christ, including the Romans; the Apostles themselves murdered Christ. The whole point of the Passion is that the murderers of Christ are a unanimous crowd. The only ones who escape the charge are Mary the Mother of God and Mary of Magdalen. (TFB)

    • Well first, Dr. Bertonneau, in YOUR OWN Universe, as a self-avowed Catholic, you are simply a Supremacist, ie., one who believes in objective Supremacy… One who believes in the historic fact of The Perfect Man. Now whether you want to add a racial descriptor so that your Catholicism expresses more detail is your preference. You are still a Supremacist. Denying such IS EQUAL TO denying that you are Catholic. But you just said you are Catholic.? But then you IMPLIED that you reject objective Supremacy by saying you are not a Supremacist? So then you cannot be a Catholic.

      But you are absolutely correct in questioning my own comittment to Christianity as I feel more comfortable referring to myself as a white Supremacist for the simple fact that I am no student of Christianity, BUT ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE in the ordering principle of the Christian Assertion and I firmly believe this desire to believe in the Christian Assertion to be rooted in an Aryan ancestry.

      I simply see no other race more “obsessed” with Perfection* than the white race… Even now with that same white race only “obsessed” with anti-Perfection, it is still inexplicable tangled up in a deep seeded notion of objective Supremacy.

      * Perfection = objective Supremacy = The Perfect Man = He who wills all right…

      This is what the Christian Supremacist is motivated and inspired to do… Will all right… Be Perfect.

      Whether that really means lay down roots… I don’t know… I’m just trying to get good white Christians to refuse to publicly repudiate being Supremacists and THUS IMPLYING their repudiation of the Christian Assertion. That’s all.

      • Thordaddy: I live in the universe, the same one inhabited by everyone else including the Martians, not in “YOUR [that is, ‘my’] OWN Universe.” I am not a Gnostic.

      • “Where this leaves me in Thordaddy’s universe, I have no notion.” — Dr. Bertonneau

        Lol… I was responding to this little jibe. Of course, I have no power to leave you anywhere.

        My only point is a very simple one…

        Deny being a Supremacist AND YOU DENY BEING a Catholic/Christian.

        So in other words, nearly ALL self-avowed Christians ACTUALLY deny being Christian WHEN ASKED whether they are Supremacists*.

        *Forget the “white” part (in white Supremacist since this is the singular distracting focus) for a second as it mainly concerns old stock American Christians ONLY and the obvious link to genuine white Supremacy.

    • I do want to make clear, Prof. Bertonneau, that I have nothing but respect for you. I’ve been reading, enjoying and profiting by your articles for several years now. In fact, I intend to spend this evening reading your lengthy article on gnosticism and modern scholarship. I admire you very much for being an academic who writes in his own name in support of reactionary conservatism and you’ve my best wishes.

      I happen at the same time to be sympathetic to Thordaddy’s joint white racialist and Christian perspective and so I wanted to drop in and offer some support for his view.

      • Mr. McKenzie…

        Thank you for your further elucidations… I think you have done well in explaining my views.

      • It is good to know where one’s interlocutors stand. I would like to insist on one small point, just for the sake of accurate self-representation. I avoid the word “conservative.” Insofar as Lindsay Graham is a “conservative,” I’m fairly certain that I’m not. I refer to myself as a Traditionalist. I am happy with the adjective, “reactionary.”

  14. Thank you for the recent installments of this discussion, gentlemen. I wonder if TD and TFB would agree with Oswald Spengler’s assertion that “race” is a spiritual, not a zoological, category. Those who acutely feel kinship with each other in orientation to life and in aspiration to community are of one “race,” whether or not it has yet been named. Someone might consider himself related to both TD and TFB as members in such a race. “Supremacy” would be the shared, subjective state in which a race’s ideals and representations — and Deity — fill the horizon, and relegate the ideals and aspirations of other “races” to secondary importance. The old Sinn Fein motto, “Ourselves, ourselves alone,” seems to catch the spirit.

    Such thoughts as these come naturally to the protestant American traditionalist who finds Russians, white liberals, and white monarchists similarly alien to our heritage of ordered liberty and self-government.

    One feature of our degradation is that so few people of any zoological group are “sound,” that one is tempted to think there is no zoological dimension to the race. However, as small as the number of sound whites (historic Europeans) may be, the number of sound non-whites who participate in the spiritual white race is even smaller.

    Contra Spengler, however, the Incarnation tells us that the specifics of our zoology are as essential to our being as our aspiration to new life — or Perfection, to use TD’s term.

    • Anon…

      Clearly, those who reduce “race” to mere biology kill the spirit FIRST. This is the fundamental pathology of Neo’s Reaction. He thinks he can fight with no spirit. It’s insane. So, although I’ve never read Spengler, I would agree wholeheartedly that the white race is spirited and those that attempt to kill that spirit either through racial reductionism or purported racial nonexistence are to be met head on and submitted spiritually, intellectually and probably physically…. Many who now run “free” should be put “back in the closet.”

  15. Kristor,
    Other religions have claims to miracles as well. How to judge between them. You seeker would get stuck after step 18. How to judge miracles in Bible vs miracles in Koran or miracles in Mahabharat?

    • Wit and discernment. Aside from that, Christianity records many other historical miracles, some of which are physically visible, such as the many eucharistic miracles, the stigmata, and the incorruptibles. And again, the Shroud looks awfully strong to me. Is there anything like it in other religions?

      • Thanks for the link to Carreira’s work. Fascinating. I, too, thought the Shroud is a medieval fake but the reality is again much more interesting. Knowing our Lord’s face makes Him more real and closer. I think God has a sense of humour and He must have had fun when He sent this “negative” to unbelieving modern man who is only capable of making a positive print out of it.

  16. @thordaddy: You have an interesting focus on what you term “radical sexual autonomy” as a pre-eminent evil goal. For example, I was reviewing an old post about Islam from some time back and you drew an intriguing connection between the this-worldly radical sexual autonomy of liberalism and the otherworldly radical sexual autonomy of Islam.

    Elsewhere, you’ve characterized–correctly, in my view–both liberals and casual, mainstream Christians as constituting a super-majority who are equally oriented toward the goal of radical sexual autonomy, which you liken to a “de facto” homosexuality.

    Obviously, Christian marriage–eros subordinated to procreation and child-rearing–would be a counterpoint to radical sexual autonomy and de facto homosexuality. One might even term it sexual heteronomy, in the sense of being governed by a law external to the self.

    Ancient Christianity also seemed to set great store by the idea of celibacy. One finds reference to it in the New Testament–and emphatic reference in Augustine–and it survives to this day in the Catholic priesthood. I’m just curious as to the place which celibacy occupies in your outlook. Do you see it as a legitimate counterpoint to radical sexual autonomy?

    • Mr. Mckenzie…

      That’s an interesting question for the simple fact that strict, purposeful celibacy seems darn near equal to anti-procreation… Er, self-annihilation. But at the very same time, celibacy is not akin to radical sexual autonomy and more closely related to just radical autonomy. Yet, even there, experience tells me that celibacy requires a mental and spiritual discipline absolutely not inherent to radical autonomy. I guess the question for those who choose celibacy is whether such choice is in pursuit of a genuine free will or an obeisance to God’s command? In other words, does one choose celibacy to feel even more free? I can certainly imagine that line of thought running through the minds of those currently or previously mired in radical sexual autonomy.

      PS. I am no student of the Bible and so I have no real knowledge of the Christian emphasis on celibacy and what it actually entails or why exactly it is spoken of.

      • So it is Christian marriage which you support unequivocally, but you make a distinction between what might be termed autonomous celibacy–liberating one’s will from the sexual imperative through abstinence–and heteronomous celibacy, which is undertaken in obedience to God’s will.

        I had recently read Augustine’s City of God and I was struck by his emphasis on celibacy at various points in that book–he was himself celibate from the time of his conversion–and I just wondered about your own evaluation of celibacy in the light of your critique of radical sexual autonomy. Thanks

      • I think you should have a passing familiarity with the New Testament before claiming that Christianity requires acknowledging white supremacy. I don’t know how you would reconcile Galatians 3:28:

        There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

        Paul was claiming that race/ethnicity really doesn’t matter: you are all the same to God. Of course, one is not required to deny whiteness (or blackness). But it’s no special advantage to God.

      • @Scott in PA:

        “Paul was claiming that race/ethnicity really doesn’t matter: you are all the same to God.”

        “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much, in every way.” ~Rom. 3:1,2.

        The verse above from the apostle Paul–and I’m not trying to “proof-text” here, just muddy the waters a bit–suggests that the NT declaration that “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, etc.” isn’t quite as clean and neat as “race/ethnicity really doesn’t matter…”

        I don’t get the impression that thordaddy is suggesting that Christianity requires acknowledging white supremacy–it is empirical earthly reality that requires it–but that Christianity requires the acknowledgement of “supremacy” as such. It is enough to invoke the Christian distinction between the saved and the damned in order to point to the fact that Christianity is a “supremacist” doctrine.

        What thordaddy is saying is that our fear of being defined as “white supremacists” means that we are whipped in any confrontation with liberalism and its drive toward radical personal autonomy. The frightening charge of “racism” or “white supremacy” keeps us all in line no matter how much we try to fight the good fight on other lines.

        thordaddy is trying to get his interlocutors to overcome their fear and apprehension at being cast as “racists” or “white supremacists” by showing them that to be a Christian is itself to be a kind of supremacist–a worshiper of the One True and Supreme Being, whose only Son is the Supreme and Perfect Man, the Sovereign King of Mankind and the Cosmos. What’s more, Christianity is the historic religion of–though not exclusive to–the white race, the European peoples. The liberal project to deconstruct our religious identity goes hand in hand with the liberal project to deconstruct our racial identity.

        I am myself persuaded that thordaddy is absolutely right about this–and so I freely identify myself as a white supremacist and a Christian, and I wish others of my kindred who are so-called reactionaries would do so as well.

      • Mr. McKenzie…

        Once again, you have been spot on in my assessment. But I would go one step further and report that amongst the anti-Christians “intellectuals” is the feverish psychological desire to “trick” (through a liberated Logos) mere Christians into publicly repudiating their Christianity by another name. So in fact, the “best” white Christians publicly repudiate their Christianity when they are forced to personally denounce being white Supremacists. And so the forces of evil enjoy a little giggle in their corners while naive thought-to-be Christians publicly deny their Christianity.

      • Scott in PA…

        I am certainly familiar with Christianity to the extent that its fundamental assertion I take as unassailable. All the major quotes most frequently tossed about across the Internet ALL SERVE ONE PURPOSE and the one you have provided is very much along that same trajectory. These quotes are to prove that Christianity is a self-annihilating doctrine… A doctrine requiring a “universal equality,” ie., a total redundancy. Of course, given the Christian Assertion, this interpretation IS CLEARLY FALSE. There are ACTUAL Greeks and Jews, slaves and free men, males and females. They exist, no doubt about it. And ALL CAN STEP equal in the eyes of God, but are not forced to and experience tells “us” that not all step equally towards Christ.

        Are you going to tell me this doesn’t matter? This doesn’t matter at the individual level? At the racial level? At the societal level?

        The quote you provide IS NOT a mandate to self-immolation. It is a “shout out” to ALL OF MAN that he and he alone can strive towards Supremacy NO MATTER WHAT!

  17. Incidentally, if Prof. Bertonneau–or anyone else who might care to weigh in–reads this: What is your take on the early Christian and Augustinian emphasis on celibacy? What is its rationale and significance?

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s