0 comment Saturday, September 13, 2014 | admin
I've been hearing more about the recent trip to Central America by some of our local youth.
What I'm hearing and seeing is a deliberate program of making our young people believe that the Third World is our responsibility, and that being a good Christian involves feeling enormous guilt about how prosperous we are. After all, those poor people south of the 'border' have nothing, and we have everything.
Teenagers are emotional creatures, very susceptible to this kind of manipulation. Most are naive and have a tendency to want to help those who seem downtrodden or helpless, at least if those downtrodden people are Third Worlders.
So I don't blame the young people as much as I do their elders, who are just as emotionally vulnerable as the young people are. Is this another manifestation of our national adolescence? There are so many adults who seem to live as perpetual adolescents, with all the soft-headedness and gullibility that characterizes many immature young people.
One such person is a parent of one of the young folks who just came back after the guilt-trip (literally) south of the border. I am now hearing stories of how these youngsters were taken to a prison which is said to be 'controlled by gangs', and which is said to have an area where even the guards will not go, because the prisoners apparently have de facto control over that area.
Would any of you let your sons and daughters go into this prison, accompanied by a Christian chaperon who is as naive as the kids? I certainly wouldn't, especially a daughter. In today's PC climate, that is considered a 'racist' attitude, but a few decades ago it was simple common sense.
I don't hear of any concern or outrage on the part of the parents whose kids were taken into this prison to 'minister' to the criminals. Of course visiting those in prison is part of what Christians are enjoined to do. But surely some common sense should govern who goes to do this kind of thing, and under what conditions. Let grown men do this, not adolescent girls and boys with no clue about reality.
I am 100 percent certain that these parents would not let their sons and especially their daughters enter our state prison with its hardened criminals. But the Third World? They're all just victims there, of course, and we can't judge them, can we?
And another question occurs to me: Latin America was supposedly Christianized centuries ago, was it not? Why are missionaries and assorted other do-gooders, including kids, still having to bring them the Gospel?
That's a rather rhetorical question on my part; I don't believe that many Latin Americans are Christian, their beliefs being a hodgepodge of heathen superstition with various corrupted Catholic practices.
But even so, surely the many missionaries who go down there have spread the Gospel thoroughly? It seems to me that the purpose of going is to minister to the people's material needs, but why do Christians go there on seeming guilt tours? Is this part of the mission to make the young, especially, feel more connected to those who are coming to live among us? To give them more of a 'global consciousness'?
It may be noteworthy that the church sponsoring this is one of those 'seeker-sensitive' Oprah-ized churches. And though they are ostensibly Protestant, they seem to believe in 'earning' salvation by good works.
The kids, bless their idealistic hearts, are champing at the bit to go back and help those poor people 'who have nothing'.
The mother of one of the teens says that she now sees illegal immigration in a different light: these people 'have nothing', so it's understandable that they are entering our country in droves to find a 'better life.'
And just a side note: the woman in question has taken a tough line on illegals heretofore, sounding quite a bit like me at times, on the subject of the invasion. All it took was a few hearts-and-flowers stories about the poor peasants who 'have nothing', and she is suddenly full of sympathy for the illegals.
This encapsulates the average White American's response to the invasion. We are too prone to feel sympathy and pity for the poor illegals -- did you know they 'have nothing' in their countries? -- and to put our own interests last.
Our young people, as I said, are being inculcated with racial guilt, guilt over our supposed wrongs toward the have-nots of the world, and guilt for our prosperity and comfort. Protestants have not traditionally believed in self-flagellation and 'mortification of the flesh' as Catholics once did, but this is the modern equivalent, this racial guilt and a sense of enduring obligation to the downtrodden and the aggrieved have-nots of the world. So these kids will work and save money to go again next year to take care of the perpetual basket-cases of the world and thus do penance for their sin of being born White and born in a prosperous, comfortable country.
Maybe they are much better Christians than I, but then I don't pretend to be an exemplar in that regard.
At times I struggle with the question of whether I am a bad Christian or a bad human being because I am not inclined to such self-sacrifice and I don't believe we are compelled as Christians to embrace self-immolation, giving our home away to aliens, or sending our children into harm's way to make ourselves feel more virtuous.
This sending of our young to these dangerous and crime-ridden countries seems to me rather like the Old Testament stories of 'passing children through the fire', sacrificing them to the idol Moloch. That these local kids came back without having been physically harmed is beside the point; they are being indoctrinated into the multicult, which is Moloch in 21st century guise.
Again, I keep coming back to this idea of post-modern 'Christianity' as a cult of niceness, a mere empty shell of its former self.
Too many Christians today have no concept of goodness, knowing only 'niceness', which is an anemic, simpering caricature of Christian goodness. Niceness wishes only to think only good of everyone, even those who are evil, and those who are enemies of God. Niceness does not want to offend or exclude anyone. Niceness will tell flattering lies rather than unflattering truths. Niceness does not hold truth in high regard, as goodness does.
Niceness will not make tough decisions, or execute justice when needed; niceness wants only to accommodate everyone, please everyone, and make everyone 'equal', even though that flies in the face of justice. Niceness is a stranger to justice, and prefers it that way.
Niceness thinks that it is virtuous to give preference to those who least merit it, or least deserve it. Niceness seeks recognition for being self-abnegating and for appeasing evil -- in fact, niceness does not acknowledge that evil exists -- except in the case of those who violate political correctness.
In fact, political correctness is one of the most recognizable faces worn by 'niceness'; the emphasis is on falsehoods and obfuscation in the name of being 'sensitive.'
May the Lord preserve us from 'nice' people. Nice people are seldom good people.
Goodness includes within itself hardness when appropriate; true goodness is not weak and feeble, but strong and fearless, willing to actively oppose evil, to confront it.
Goodness recognizes evil where it exists, and calls it by its name. Niceness refrains from judging or confronting, except when condemning those who speak unflattering and uncomfortable truths.
Goodness takes a stand, discerning and judging. Niceness takes a neutral position, so as not to judge, much less to 'condemn.' Even worse, sometimes niceness aids and abets evil, and expects praise and approbation for its 'tolerance' and 'broadmindedness' or 'compassion.'
If goodness were like the impostor, niceness, it would long ago have been extinguished altogether from lack of willingness to oppose evil.
Niceness is held in higher regard, sadly, by most Christians today, than goodness and righteousness.
It seems niceness is at bottom a part of pride: the desire to be seen by all as tolerant and accepting. It's a kind of conspicuous display of 'virtue', the kind of public posturing which caused the Pharisees to be condemned for their pride and hypocrisy.
I do understand the exasperation expressed by so many people who see the role played by this counterfeit Christianity in the destruction of the West. I suppose it's understandable that there is dismay, given the way much of Christianity has gone off the rails, adopting a psychology-based, pop-culture-ized, universalistic, one-world, no-borders belief system while continuing to call it Christianity.
This 'new and improved' Christianity knows nothing of the God of the Bible, having created a god in their image, a god who does not condemn, and does not punish, but instead is an indulgent, tolerant, all-accepting friend and buddy. Their 'god' is unfailingly nice, always the lamb and never a lion. The god of niceness is not the 'consuming fire' or the Just Judge of the Bible. That was the God of our Fathers, who was not only perfectly good but perfectly just. 'Goodness and severity' combined. As we believed in that God, our society then embodied 'goodness and severity', at least to the extent that any flawed human society can. Now we have lost the 'severity' or strength, and have thus exchanged goodness for its useless counterfeit, niceness.
God, according to the Bible, commands that we not only cleave to the good, but abhor evil. Abhor. That is a strong word, but it is not in the vocabulary of the 'niceness' cultists, hence their bland and vapid response to evil
The Christianity which has become the fad of today, with its show business style and its feel-good trappings and catchphrases, is another gospel, and it preaches a god who is only half a god, a god of bland niceness, all mercy and forgiveness and no justice.
And even many non-Christians or outright atheists actually worship this hollow idol of niceness, so it can't be blamed on Christians alone.
Whoever is ultimately to blame, and we can point fingers everywhere, the niceness will surely be the end of us; it's what brought us to where we are now, surrounded in our own country, like Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians.
Speaking of that analogy, Pat Boone's recent article about immigration used that same metaphor, which I've also used here on the blog.
I suppose it's an obvious metaphor; we are Gulliver, tied down by the Lilliputians surrounding us. And it may be that we simply don't know our own strength. It's our own false perceptions that are tying us down, including our false ideas about niceness and the real article, goodness.
We need only to look through the fog of our present era back to earlier times, when we knew and thought and believed with more clarity and strength than we do in our present bound, helpless condition.
The old strengths are still available to us, if we can only break free of our mental and spiritual bonds.
What I'm hearing and seeing is a deliberate program of making our young people believe that the Third World is our responsibility, and that being a good Christian involves feeling enormous guilt about how prosperous we are. After all, those poor people south of the 'border' have nothing, and we have everything.
Teenagers are emotional creatures, very susceptible to this kind of manipulation. Most are naive and have a tendency to want to help those who seem downtrodden or helpless, at least if those downtrodden people are Third Worlders.
So I don't blame the young people as much as I do their elders, who are just as emotionally vulnerable as the young people are. Is this another manifestation of our national adolescence? There are so many adults who seem to live as perpetual adolescents, with all the soft-headedness and gullibility that characterizes many immature young people.
One such person is a parent of one of the young folks who just came back after the guilt-trip (literally) south of the border. I am now hearing stories of how these youngsters were taken to a prison which is said to be 'controlled by gangs', and which is said to have an area where even the guards will not go, because the prisoners apparently have de facto control over that area.
Would any of you let your sons and daughters go into this prison, accompanied by a Christian chaperon who is as naive as the kids? I certainly wouldn't, especially a daughter. In today's PC climate, that is considered a 'racist' attitude, but a few decades ago it was simple common sense.
I don't hear of any concern or outrage on the part of the parents whose kids were taken into this prison to 'minister' to the criminals. Of course visiting those in prison is part of what Christians are enjoined to do. But surely some common sense should govern who goes to do this kind of thing, and under what conditions. Let grown men do this, not adolescent girls and boys with no clue about reality.
I am 100 percent certain that these parents would not let their sons and especially their daughters enter our state prison with its hardened criminals. But the Third World? They're all just victims there, of course, and we can't judge them, can we?
And another question occurs to me: Latin America was supposedly Christianized centuries ago, was it not? Why are missionaries and assorted other do-gooders, including kids, still having to bring them the Gospel?
That's a rather rhetorical question on my part; I don't believe that many Latin Americans are Christian, their beliefs being a hodgepodge of heathen superstition with various corrupted Catholic practices.
But even so, surely the many missionaries who go down there have spread the Gospel thoroughly? It seems to me that the purpose of going is to minister to the people's material needs, but why do Christians go there on seeming guilt tours? Is this part of the mission to make the young, especially, feel more connected to those who are coming to live among us? To give them more of a 'global consciousness'?
It may be noteworthy that the church sponsoring this is one of those 'seeker-sensitive' Oprah-ized churches. And though they are ostensibly Protestant, they seem to believe in 'earning' salvation by good works.
The kids, bless their idealistic hearts, are champing at the bit to go back and help those poor people 'who have nothing'.
The mother of one of the teens says that she now sees illegal immigration in a different light: these people 'have nothing', so it's understandable that they are entering our country in droves to find a 'better life.'
And just a side note: the woman in question has taken a tough line on illegals heretofore, sounding quite a bit like me at times, on the subject of the invasion. All it took was a few hearts-and-flowers stories about the poor peasants who 'have nothing', and she is suddenly full of sympathy for the illegals.
This encapsulates the average White American's response to the invasion. We are too prone to feel sympathy and pity for the poor illegals -- did you know they 'have nothing' in their countries? -- and to put our own interests last.
Our young people, as I said, are being inculcated with racial guilt, guilt over our supposed wrongs toward the have-nots of the world, and guilt for our prosperity and comfort. Protestants have not traditionally believed in self-flagellation and 'mortification of the flesh' as Catholics once did, but this is the modern equivalent, this racial guilt and a sense of enduring obligation to the downtrodden and the aggrieved have-nots of the world. So these kids will work and save money to go again next year to take care of the perpetual basket-cases of the world and thus do penance for their sin of being born White and born in a prosperous, comfortable country.
Maybe they are much better Christians than I, but then I don't pretend to be an exemplar in that regard.
At times I struggle with the question of whether I am a bad Christian or a bad human being because I am not inclined to such self-sacrifice and I don't believe we are compelled as Christians to embrace self-immolation, giving our home away to aliens, or sending our children into harm's way to make ourselves feel more virtuous.
This sending of our young to these dangerous and crime-ridden countries seems to me rather like the Old Testament stories of 'passing children through the fire', sacrificing them to the idol Moloch. That these local kids came back without having been physically harmed is beside the point; they are being indoctrinated into the multicult, which is Moloch in 21st century guise.
Again, I keep coming back to this idea of post-modern 'Christianity' as a cult of niceness, a mere empty shell of its former self.
Too many Christians today have no concept of goodness, knowing only 'niceness', which is an anemic, simpering caricature of Christian goodness. Niceness wishes only to think only good of everyone, even those who are evil, and those who are enemies of God. Niceness does not want to offend or exclude anyone. Niceness will tell flattering lies rather than unflattering truths. Niceness does not hold truth in high regard, as goodness does.
Niceness will not make tough decisions, or execute justice when needed; niceness wants only to accommodate everyone, please everyone, and make everyone 'equal', even though that flies in the face of justice. Niceness is a stranger to justice, and prefers it that way.
Niceness thinks that it is virtuous to give preference to those who least merit it, or least deserve it. Niceness seeks recognition for being self-abnegating and for appeasing evil -- in fact, niceness does not acknowledge that evil exists -- except in the case of those who violate political correctness.
In fact, political correctness is one of the most recognizable faces worn by 'niceness'; the emphasis is on falsehoods and obfuscation in the name of being 'sensitive.'
May the Lord preserve us from 'nice' people. Nice people are seldom good people.
Goodness includes within itself hardness when appropriate; true goodness is not weak and feeble, but strong and fearless, willing to actively oppose evil, to confront it.
Goodness recognizes evil where it exists, and calls it by its name. Niceness refrains from judging or confronting, except when condemning those who speak unflattering and uncomfortable truths.
Goodness takes a stand, discerning and judging. Niceness takes a neutral position, so as not to judge, much less to 'condemn.' Even worse, sometimes niceness aids and abets evil, and expects praise and approbation for its 'tolerance' and 'broadmindedness' or 'compassion.'
If goodness were like the impostor, niceness, it would long ago have been extinguished altogether from lack of willingness to oppose evil.
Niceness is held in higher regard, sadly, by most Christians today, than goodness and righteousness.
It seems niceness is at bottom a part of pride: the desire to be seen by all as tolerant and accepting. It's a kind of conspicuous display of 'virtue', the kind of public posturing which caused the Pharisees to be condemned for their pride and hypocrisy.
I do understand the exasperation expressed by so many people who see the role played by this counterfeit Christianity in the destruction of the West. I suppose it's understandable that there is dismay, given the way much of Christianity has gone off the rails, adopting a psychology-based, pop-culture-ized, universalistic, one-world, no-borders belief system while continuing to call it Christianity.
This 'new and improved' Christianity knows nothing of the God of the Bible, having created a god in their image, a god who does not condemn, and does not punish, but instead is an indulgent, tolerant, all-accepting friend and buddy. Their 'god' is unfailingly nice, always the lamb and never a lion. The god of niceness is not the 'consuming fire' or the Just Judge of the Bible. That was the God of our Fathers, who was not only perfectly good but perfectly just. 'Goodness and severity' combined. As we believed in that God, our society then embodied 'goodness and severity', at least to the extent that any flawed human society can. Now we have lost the 'severity' or strength, and have thus exchanged goodness for its useless counterfeit, niceness.
God, according to the Bible, commands that we not only cleave to the good, but abhor evil. Abhor. That is a strong word, but it is not in the vocabulary of the 'niceness' cultists, hence their bland and vapid response to evil
The Christianity which has become the fad of today, with its show business style and its feel-good trappings and catchphrases, is another gospel, and it preaches a god who is only half a god, a god of bland niceness, all mercy and forgiveness and no justice.
And even many non-Christians or outright atheists actually worship this hollow idol of niceness, so it can't be blamed on Christians alone.
Whoever is ultimately to blame, and we can point fingers everywhere, the niceness will surely be the end of us; it's what brought us to where we are now, surrounded in our own country, like Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians.
Speaking of that analogy, Pat Boone's recent article about immigration used that same metaphor, which I've also used here on the blog.
I suppose it's an obvious metaphor; we are Gulliver, tied down by the Lilliputians surrounding us. And it may be that we simply don't know our own strength. It's our own false perceptions that are tying us down, including our false ideas about niceness and the real article, goodness.
We need only to look through the fog of our present era back to earlier times, when we knew and thought and believed with more clarity and strength than we do in our present bound, helpless condition.
The old strengths are still available to us, if we can only break free of our mental and spiritual bonds.
Labels: Christendom, Christianity, Hypocrisy, Multicultists, Political Correctness