Hell

God is love (1 John 4:8). He who denies this does not know God. He who does not love, does not know God.

Hell is the finalisation of not knowing God and never having been known by God (Matt. 7:22-23). Jesus will say to those who say “Lord, Lord” and yet were foolish hypocrites who never practised love that he “never knew” them.

Love is not just simply a feeling that you have toward someone or mere service you give to another person. These people who Jesus condemns had indeed cast out demons in his name. They had been the people who had done extant community service in the name of Christ. They had been people who converted others, evangelised others, taught the right doctrines, etc. This is the irony of the situation. But he never knew them nonetheless because they knew not him. They had been bogged down by so many of their accomplishments, so many of their improvements on the path toward deification that they had neglected a significant piece of the puzzle. That their Christianity was not of their own but was a gift from God himself.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. (1 Cor. 13:4-8)

These people who boast of the demons they cast out through whatever means, or of their community service, or of their self-giving to the poor, or of other miracles they made–these people have not love for love does not boast. These people have not love for love is not self-seeking. One who loves does not do these things to receive recognition but rather may even expect to get trashed for what they do. God is love and those who know him have love. They do not boast of their accomplishments for all their accomplishments are of God.

The ones in the Gospel of Matthew cast out from God experience Hell. Hell is not knowing God. It is not being known by God. Hell is the absence of truth, being tormented repeatedly by lies and repeatedly being accused. Hell is hearing what wrongs you have committed brought up against you over and over and over again. Hell is hearing the boasts, the pride, being dishonoured by the prideful. It is a state of anger. Constant anger. Immense unhappiness. This is what Hell is.

“If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things.” (Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov 291) To love is to know God but to not love is to reject God and to reject God is to reject love. Such a torment leads inevitably to love for there can be no truth in Hell. When there is no truth in Hell, then one experiences the pain of living in a lie so badly that “if there were fire in the material sense, they would be glad of it, for I imagine that in material agony, their still greater spiritual agony would be forgotten in a moment” (295).

Advertisements
Posted in Eschatology, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God save the children

The battle between the individual soul and the spirits of evil begins first at conception (Bl. Mary of Agreda, Ciudad de Dios, 4–The Coronation Ch. XV). The demons are opposed to life and attempt to snuff any potentiality that a new saint shall be born so they devise various tactics that convince the parents of the child to prevent its birth including the state of purity the mother and father were in, whether they themselves are in a state of grace, whether there was “excess in the act of generation”. The temptations become worse when the soul is infused into the child at forty or eighty days advancing it from the purely animal to the human for now the child may be baptised and saved by God. They begin even more fiercely to tempt for an abortion.

The demons relentlessly contend that the child belongs to them since it was conceived in sin, unworthy of grace, and belongs not nor can it reach redemption by God. That God lacks a desire to save it but this is all falsity. Often contending that the child cannot reach virtue. That it will be a child of sin any way.

In this vision, the Bl. Mary of Agreda sets a direct rebuttal to the common arguments in favour of the demonic act of abortion as some form of sick euthanasia. The demonic may contend the child will be an alcoholic. Rubbish! It does not mean the child cannot be freed. The child will have a disability or some other kind of deformity. Rubbish! God looks past physical and psychological defects. He cares for the soul. The child was conceived in an adulterous relation or in incest. Rubbish! The child is not to be tried for the sins of its parents.

The child born of David and Bathsheba died of natural causes after it was born for the battle for its soul was already won and it entered into Heaven as David testifies. “I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” (2 Samuel 12:23)

As long as the child can be redeemed, it is a heinous sin to give into the consistent and relentless temptations of the Devil that the child somehow cannot or should not be born or that it is unwanted. God wants it!

Posted in Scholastic Theology | Leave a comment

Evangelical…?

There subsists a lot of frustration in recent years from numerous progressive “Evangelicals” in that the term has either become equivalent to that of Fundamentalism, or Fundamentalists use it so much and frequently that the “progressives” seem “left out”. The “progressives”, in turn, have made an attempt to define precisely what an “Evangelical” is in the sociological sense. What qualifies one as an “Evangelical”? What tenets of faith must they profess before they declare themselves as “Evangelical”? And more importantly, what is the “Evangelical” movement?

The “Evangelical” movement often times allegedly is traced back to John Wesley even there is no evidence that by “Evangelical” in his teachings did he intend or seem to fore-see that there would be a sociological development in the term “Evangelical”. Regardless, the sociological definition commonly referenced is that of the Bebbington model:

Conversionism or the belief that a Christian must have a “born-again” experience and have a life-long process of following Jesus
Activism which is the expression and demonstration of the Gospel through social reform efforts
Biblicism which is a high regard for the Bible as the ultimate authority
Crucicentrism or the high stress of Jesus’s death on the cross for the redemption of mankind (from the National Association of Evangelicals’ official website)

It is a very confusing definition and even though someone such as John Wesley is usually heralded as the champion of the Evangelical movement, Johnathan Edwards isn’t necessarily excluded either. In fact, he is included (Mark A. Knoll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, pages 4, 8, 24). Not to mention, Charles Hodge is included as a key developer of the idea of what precisely Biblicism in and of itself means (97-98) with Briggs taken as a more moderate opponent (103). It was here that this “Evangelical” movement actually becomes a two-faced movement that includes and breaks into liberalism and fundamentalism (100). In other words, the definition that is commonly used by Bebbington for “evangelicalism” doesn’t tell us anything about what an “Evangelical” is. It tells us rather that “Biblicism is the center of ‘Evangelicalism'”. Some might throw stones at me for saying that or state I am not understanding but I would prefer instead thoughtful consideration.

What, other than Biblicism, sets apart a Traditionalist Roman Catholic from a Protestant Anabaptist within this definition. You might say their sacramental theology, their Marian theology, etc. But that is not what is differentiating the two. What is differentiating the two is the category: “Evangelical”. But a Roman Catholic believes strongly in the “born-again” experience which happens through the sacrament of baptism though for the Anabaptist it is different. The Roman Catholic believes strongly in conversion. In the cross. In the active demonstration of the Gospel. Would not St. Francis and St. Dominic be some of the most active evangelists of their day? What the Roman Catholic does not believe in is Biblicism. The Roman Catholic sees the Church and par-taking in the life of the Church as understanding the Bible. And this is so with all of the most ancient churches. What the Bebbington quadrilateral does it insists that “Evangelicalism” was effectively non-existent until Protestantism arrived. What the Bebbington quadrilateral is is an effective undermining of the Gospel itself. Where in the Gospel is it said that the Church is not important? Where in the Gospel is it said that the Scriptures are to be taken as the ultimate authority above the Church?

Such interpretations of “evangelical” miss out on the Greek roots of the word. Evangelion is the root of the word “Evangelical”. It means “Gospel” or “Good news”. The Good news is Christ-crucified. This was proclaimed even before the New Testament needed to be written. An “Evangelical” is not someone who adheres to Biblicism, but someone who adheres to the message of Christ-crucified for all for the redemption of sins. They then spread this message throughout the world. The “Evangelical” movement is not a sociological movement that starts back in the 18th through 19th centuries but is the historic spread of the Christian religion starting with the Apostolic mission received from Christ himself. “Go forth and baptise all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

To be Evangelical is to baptise, to proclaim Christ crucified, to eat the body and blood of Christ, to be transformed into his image. There is no Biblicist component in any of this. Where did the Biblicist component come in from? It came in from people who attempt to divorce and manipulate the Scriptures to their advantage.

Posted in History, New Testament | Leave a comment

Why jrj1701 is a bad person?

The doctrine of total depravity states that men in their nature are entirely and completely ruined. Every faculty. They cannot even desire good. This is firmly inconsistent with classical Christian views on original sin. St. Augustine, in his opening in The Confessions writes that “man, who bears about with him his mortality, the witness of his sin, even the witness that You resist the proud, — yet man, this part of Your creation, desires to praise You” (Bk. 1, Ch. 1).

The doctrine of total depravity as layed out by Calvin and John Wesley states the following:

“every man a “carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to” his “law;” and which so infects the whole soul, that “there dwelleth in” him, “in his flesh,” in his natural state, “no good thing;” but “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil,” only evil, and that “continually.”” (John Wesley, Sermon 44 on Original Sin)

“Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin5 (Gal. 5:19); while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings,” (Calvin, Institutes, Bk. 2, Ch. 1)

But these views are not accurate for it would imply man is unable to naturally desire God. The Thomistic view states the following:

The good of human nature is threefold. First, there are the principles of which nature is constituted, and the properties that flow from them, such as the powers of the soul, and so forth. Secondly, since man has from nature an inclination to virtue, as stated above (I-II:60:1; I-II:63:1), this inclination to virtue is a good of nature. Thirdly, the gift of original justice, conferred on the whole of human nature in the person of the first man, may be called a good of nature.

Accordingly, the first-mentioned good of nature is neither destroyed nor diminished by sin. The third good of nature was entirely destroyed through the sin of our first parent. But the second good of nature, viz. the natural inclination to virtue, is diminished by sin. Because human acts produce an inclination to like acts, as stated above (I-II:50:1). Now from the very fact that thing becomes inclined to one of two contraries, its inclination to the other contrary must needs be diminished. Wherefore as sin is opposed to virtue, from the very fact that a man sins, there results a diminution of that good of nature, which is the inclination to virtue. (St. Thomas, Summa, First Part of Second Part, Q. 85, A. 1)

So is jrj1701 a good person or a bad person? Well clearly the properties of his moral virtues are diminished and so his reasoning is diminished. It may be that some of his virtues are more diminished than others as well. But he’s not entirely bad. He is a very but not entirely bad person.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The political religion of the Christian left refuted…

It sickens me to see these “progressive Christians” abusing Christianity and the Bible completely beyond recognition when it comes to building a political philosophy. There is a political philosophy within the Bible. It is neither inherently Republican nor Democrat. Rather, it is simply “put not your trust in princes or in the sons of men” (Ps. 146:3). Hence, why I am a Libertarian and not a Republican or Democrat. But even the Libertarian party is not the Biblical version or the Christian version of politics. For Jesus’s kingdom is “not of this world” (Jn. 18:36). In fact, the politics of Christianity is a spiritual struggle between the secular forces of the world, the spirits aligned with the devil, and the Holy Spirit and the saints in Heaven led by Christ the King (Eph. 6:12).

But nevertheless, let’s take the Christian left to task here in its effort to de-stabilise the Christian religion and turn it into the latest secular fad.

1. The Good Samaritan is not about immigration illegal or legal
First, the Christian left conflates the government’s assistance to refugees and immigrants with a moral virtue. It is not. It is an issue of the government establishing order and civility in a just society and as such, the government is given full right to determine who does and does not come into its country (Rom. 13:1-4). The story of the Good Samaritan begins with a man questioning Jesus on what law he must follow (Luke 10:25-37). Jesus tells him to love his neighbour. The man demands to know who his neighbour is so he may fulfill this law. Jesus delivers the story of the Good Samaritan who is a foreigner from a group of people that has been in conflict with the Jewish people. A priest and a Levite both pass by a man who has been severely wounded by a group of thieves. The only person that will help this man is the foreigner who the Jews are in conflict with. The “bad guy” is given the status of “hero” in the story. Jesus then tells the man questioning him to do the same as the Samaritan. This is not about immigration. This is about helping and providing aid to people in need regardless of whatever existing quarrels, religious laws, or class status. The priest and the Levite are involved in the category of people who are such sticklers for religious laws and class status that they want to preserve what they have over the needs of the man at the time. The Samaritan is an enemy and has every reason to kick the man while he is lying on the ground just for insult. But he doesn’t. This is not the same thing though as giving a homeless man money or water whenever. If you have no water, there is nothing you can do but say a prayer or be friendly and give him a smile of recognition. If you even have money, it may not be best. But if you have at least water, give it.

2. Christians were communists
This is one of the most nutty things that is constantly thrown out by “scholars” of early Christianity. Because the Christians were giving and sharing their possessions in the book of Acts and sacrificing their property (Acts 4:32-35), the first Christians must have been communists. Actually, the parable of the talents describes something that is quite capitalistic as well (Matt. 25:14-30). One man is given five talents, the other two, and the third one. The man with the five bags doubles his amount, the second likewise, and the third buries his in the dirt refusing to use it lest he lose it. The master returns and scolds the third for he did not risk what he had to gain more of the master’s treasure. While indeed, this is quite capitalist, the money involved in the story is metaphorical of heavenly riches. Christians are baptised and then confirmed in order to be enlisted as soldiers. This means going out into the spiritual battlefield for Christ. Being subjected to temptation as Christ was. And even going so far as to die for him. He is our treasure where no moth and rust can destroy (Matt. 6:19-24). He also states “blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20) signifying that the class system of rich against poor is meaningless. A man given to voluntary poverty has accumulated more treasure than a man who has accumulated earthly material goods. Those who give in generosity and give much receive much. Giving much is giving all such that the widow who gave two coins did (Luke 21:1-4). When we give we receive back from God who is our only treasure. So it was not that Christians were communists but rather that Christians have a different treasure which is a heavenly treasure.

3. Taxation is Godly
Romans 13:6-7 and Matthew 22:17-21 are abused beyond recognition to justify taxation as anything other than governmental theft. The only problem is that both of these verses declare that Caesar’s authority and the government’s authority are actually derived from God. Meaning that paying taxes willingly is a form of giving back to God and acknowledging order that God has established. Incidentally, this also means that the government is supposed to give that tax-payers’ money to God and use it for good things but they rarely do this. Further, Jesus specifically called his Apostle Matthew when he was sitting at a tax collector’s booth (Matt. 9:9-13). St. Matthew was led away from his life of sin to Jesus. Another man, Zecchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), the “wee little man” who “climbed the sycamore tree” in order to receive Jesus was also a tax collector who upon being visited by Jesus, St. Zacchaeus immediately gave back the wealth he had taken from everyone.

People who want to abolish governmental charity systems are abusing the poor
This one is simply moronic and a straw-man. People who want to abolish governmental charity programs want to rid charity programs of governmental corruption plain and simple and they want the Church to actually take over charity programs.

Posted in New Testament, random nonsense | 2 Comments

Ye Olde Plagiarizers….

plagiarising this.

See, there's this thing called biology...

ONE FACEBOOK, TWO WORLDS, THREE PROBLEMS link here

alice2I jest. This particular kind of plagiarism is actually the highest form of flattery. The plagiarism of ideas, as in yes, somebody else actually gets it! I really appreciated the above article which begins, “…you might have felt like Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole.”  You don’t say?? Imagine that! Am I not the Girl in the Blue Dress?  I have no less than 45 posts tagged “Alice in Wonderland Logic.”

Indoctrination. Brainwashing. Perception is not reality. Algorithms, ideology, cultians, and facebook, oh my. People are actually being brainwashed on the internet, our behavior and perceptions of the world, manipulated. Fake news, biased news, confirmation bias, the molding of public opinion and we are the lab rats.

rabbitYou can’t really protect yourself simply by avoiding facebook or turning off the news, although those are good ideas. But you sure can protect yourself…

View original post 144 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

REJECT RALPH!!!

Calling on all Virginians here to make the smart decision and vote AGAINST Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam this year in Virginia’s gubernatorial election. Ralph Northam threatens to take away your guns thus subduing your freedoms. There has never been a legitimate argument as to how stricter gun laws have actually prevented the madness that 93 million Americans die each day from gun violence in the city of Chicago alone (sources: Gov. Terry McAuliffe on the statistic of 93 million and sarcasm on the Chicago thing based on the fact that Chicago has the highest rates of gun violence).

The 93 million American statistic alone should be enough reason to reject Ralph Northam’s bid for governor of Virginia. Primarily because the Democratic governor Ralph Northam serves is averse to facts (there are only 330 million Americans in the United States by the way) as well as the fact that Ralph Northam faithfully serves his overlord as the Lt. Gov. of Virginia.

Secondly, Ralph Northam believes that anti-Islamic rhetoric threatens Virginia! I have no idea what a more asinine comment at this time in our nation’s history could be made when one of the things affecting the entirety of the nation is a war with an ideology called radical Islamic terrorism! And anti-Islamic rhetoric is what threatens Virginians?!? Virginians, be warned about this psycho-path. If you elect him governor, your guns will be taken away, he’ll probably let in a mass-influx of Muslim refugees–do you understand that a good portion of those could be Islamists or potential Islamist recruits or even their children could be Islamists? Alexandria could be the next Boston. And you won’t have anything to defend yourself from this psycho-path or the other potential psycho-paths that could come into your nation.

Ralph Northam must be stopped at all costs–please share this with all Virginians in the blogosphere.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment