2. Traditional Catholic
3. Rural/Southern Christian
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Group Survival during Mutational Meltdown
Reference: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/04/we-are-worse-off-than-mouse-utopia.html
During the coming "mutational meltdown" and the coming collapse of civilization, for a healthy group to survive it will need to face both internal and external attacks, become autonomous from broader society, and have a worldview sufficiently motivating to overcome a long period of suffering.
Modern society is "uniquely" structured to succumb to mutational meltdown and fail fast, as outlined above and here:
1) No interest in preserving itself against internal or external attack. The most productive and intelligent members are actively denigrated and attacked, numerous policies actively handicap the productive workers while promoting the less productive, their labor is blunted, taxed, and wastefully "managed", while a massive influx of colonizers is welcomed, with the openly desired and stated goal of replacing or destroying the current backbone of our civilization.
2) Everything is highly correlated and linked on a worldwide basis, so that major disruptions to food and energy supplies, and even basics like clothing, will be felt globally. Large portions of the population, as in Africa, are dependent on world aid. Any major setback to the highly complex, technological system will result in major suffering, disease, and starvation worldwide.
3) First-world civilization has absolutely no motivating factor outside of basic hedonism and materialism (and the desire for self-destruction already mentioned). There is no cohesive culture or religion to hold society together and motivate people in the face of major hardships.
Traditional cohesive factors such as a strong uniting culture and ethnicity, with a clear and organized patriarchy are almost completely absent in broader Western Civilization. It is likely and necessary that these factors would emerge during severe hardships, but depending on the speed of collapse would be no guarantee for personal or group survival.
The answer, of course, is a strong and organizing religious faith, which was the basis of civilization for all of history and only abandoned recently. Not all modern religious organizations would survive, and especially those less powerful and loosely organized groups that require little in commitment of their members would fail overnight.
So our options are limited to those featuring:
1) A clear and organized chain of power (not a democracy) that will be obeyed by its members. Clearly a patriarchy is necessary, with the traditional model of divinely ordained Kingship.
2) A strong worldview that overcomes or even embraces discomfort, struggle, and suffering (Christianity has these messages) and a very clear and purposeful reason of existing now.
3) A very strong family structure, with an emphasis on protecting and raising children.
4) Autonomous structures for food, power, clothing, medicine, etc.
5) A way to survive despite heavy, strong, and sustained persecution utilizing modern technologies. Very possibly on a scale not seen before.
In all these factors considered, it appears Mormonism, especially early Mormonism, under the divine-Kingship structure (i.e. the Prophet organizing both religious and secular affairs) may be uniquely structured to survive these coming hardships. The system will likely have to revert back to a more isolated and independent model than currently exists - where many members are heavily involved in secular society, public schools, etc. - but the religion has done good about never forgetting its roots. They regularly recall the struggles of the early Mormon pilgrims, which the expectation that they are at least thankful or may have to experience it again, and have a carefully organized system for making sure members are financially independent, or at least not indebted, along with amble food stores to survive pro-longed hardship. Unlike the suicidal modern system, Mormonism has a clearly delineated and prioritized organizational structure where the needs of immediate family, children, and church members would come before broader society. While the organization is currently one of the most charitable around, these resources could quickly be diverted to prioritizing member survival and protection during a time of major hardship and failure in broader society. Even now Mormon Bishops on the local level have a unique power over their member's time and have extensive practice in organizing members for the above mentioned food storage operations, scouting, charitable operations, etc.
Secondarily, Catholics do have a long-history of survival through many of history's hardships. The problem being though that the whole church doesn't appear prepared, in the way that the Mormons are, for this coming catastrophe. It seems likely a very conservative, tightly-organized Catholic community would be in a good position for survival (e.g. similar to unique ethnic/Catholic immigrant communities that existed earlier in American history), where the Church's structured patriarchy could help selflessly organize members and create or renew a strong and binding culture. Monastics and others maintain the history of a organized life of work and prayer, seasonal feasts, etc. Those who join such communities, even the priesthood, tend to being of above-average intelligence as the study commitments are intellectually strenuous, and the discipline asks unique self-control and selflessness. These are all excellent factors for trusting one for a leadership role or class. Agrarian history and practices could be renewed, housing efforts organized, etc. Mentally the traditional Catholic liturgy puts a strong emphasis on bearing suffering. In many ways the Catholic traditional also preserves legal traditions, and to some degree the culture, of Rome. The main negative, as mentioned above, is these forms may not exist *now* as it does for the Mormon church. Perhaps to some degree one might look towards the Society of Saint Pius X, as even now it faces persecution from the broader Catholic church in its effort to preserve the traditional Roman/Latin liturgy in the face of Vatican II's modernization - has been uniquely opposed to modern moral and cultural changes - and has actually thrived and grown under this persecution.
(In this regard the Orthodox could also be a viable example, with its history of surviving persecution under Communism).
I'd say a third, and less clear option, might be some Southern churches. Some of the south still maintains a degree of cultural independence from broader society (and, again, persecution, mockery, etc.) and has a strong agrarian tradition, firearm and hunting skills, etc. On a smaller basis than the above two, smaller and closely organized communities would have the necessities for survival.
During the coming "mutational meltdown" and the coming collapse of civilization, for a healthy group to survive it will need to face both internal and external attacks, become autonomous from broader society, and have a worldview sufficiently motivating to overcome a long period of suffering.
Modern society is "uniquely" structured to succumb to mutational meltdown and fail fast, as outlined above and here:
1) No interest in preserving itself against internal or external attack. The most productive and intelligent members are actively denigrated and attacked, numerous policies actively handicap the productive workers while promoting the less productive, their labor is blunted, taxed, and wastefully "managed", while a massive influx of colonizers is welcomed, with the openly desired and stated goal of replacing or destroying the current backbone of our civilization.
2) Everything is highly correlated and linked on a worldwide basis, so that major disruptions to food and energy supplies, and even basics like clothing, will be felt globally. Large portions of the population, as in Africa, are dependent on world aid. Any major setback to the highly complex, technological system will result in major suffering, disease, and starvation worldwide.
3) First-world civilization has absolutely no motivating factor outside of basic hedonism and materialism (and the desire for self-destruction already mentioned). There is no cohesive culture or religion to hold society together and motivate people in the face of major hardships.
Traditional cohesive factors such as a strong uniting culture and ethnicity, with a clear and organized patriarchy are almost completely absent in broader Western Civilization. It is likely and necessary that these factors would emerge during severe hardships, but depending on the speed of collapse would be no guarantee for personal or group survival.
The answer, of course, is a strong and organizing religious faith, which was the basis of civilization for all of history and only abandoned recently. Not all modern religious organizations would survive, and especially those less powerful and loosely organized groups that require little in commitment of their members would fail overnight.
So our options are limited to those featuring:
1) A clear and organized chain of power (not a democracy) that will be obeyed by its members. Clearly a patriarchy is necessary, with the traditional model of divinely ordained Kingship.
2) A strong worldview that overcomes or even embraces discomfort, struggle, and suffering (Christianity has these messages) and a very clear and purposeful reason of existing now.
3) A very strong family structure, with an emphasis on protecting and raising children.
4) Autonomous structures for food, power, clothing, medicine, etc.
5) A way to survive despite heavy, strong, and sustained persecution utilizing modern technologies. Very possibly on a scale not seen before.
In all these factors considered, it appears Mormonism, especially early Mormonism, under the divine-Kingship structure (i.e. the Prophet organizing both religious and secular affairs) may be uniquely structured to survive these coming hardships. The system will likely have to revert back to a more isolated and independent model than currently exists - where many members are heavily involved in secular society, public schools, etc. - but the religion has done good about never forgetting its roots. They regularly recall the struggles of the early Mormon pilgrims, which the expectation that they are at least thankful or may have to experience it again, and have a carefully organized system for making sure members are financially independent, or at least not indebted, along with amble food stores to survive pro-longed hardship. Unlike the suicidal modern system, Mormonism has a clearly delineated and prioritized organizational structure where the needs of immediate family, children, and church members would come before broader society. While the organization is currently one of the most charitable around, these resources could quickly be diverted to prioritizing member survival and protection during a time of major hardship and failure in broader society. Even now Mormon Bishops on the local level have a unique power over their member's time and have extensive practice in organizing members for the above mentioned food storage operations, scouting, charitable operations, etc.
Secondarily, Catholics do have a long-history of survival through many of history's hardships. The problem being though that the whole church doesn't appear prepared, in the way that the Mormons are, for this coming catastrophe. It seems likely a very conservative, tightly-organized Catholic community would be in a good position for survival (e.g. similar to unique ethnic/Catholic immigrant communities that existed earlier in American history), where the Church's structured patriarchy could help selflessly organize members and create or renew a strong and binding culture. Monastics and others maintain the history of a organized life of work and prayer, seasonal feasts, etc. Those who join such communities, even the priesthood, tend to being of above-average intelligence as the study commitments are intellectually strenuous, and the discipline asks unique self-control and selflessness. These are all excellent factors for trusting one for a leadership role or class. Agrarian history and practices could be renewed, housing efforts organized, etc. Mentally the traditional Catholic liturgy puts a strong emphasis on bearing suffering. In many ways the Catholic traditional also preserves legal traditions, and to some degree the culture, of Rome. The main negative, as mentioned above, is these forms may not exist *now* as it does for the Mormon church. Perhaps to some degree one might look towards the Society of Saint Pius X, as even now it faces persecution from the broader Catholic church in its effort to preserve the traditional Roman/Latin liturgy in the face of Vatican II's modernization - has been uniquely opposed to modern moral and cultural changes - and has actually thrived and grown under this persecution.
(In this regard the Orthodox could also be a viable example, with its history of surviving persecution under Communism).
I'd say a third, and less clear option, might be some Southern churches. Some of the south still maintains a degree of cultural independence from broader society (and, again, persecution, mockery, etc.) and has a strong agrarian tradition, firearm and hunting skills, etc. On a smaller basis than the above two, smaller and closely organized communities would have the necessities for survival.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Faith
Politicians put their faith in money. If we have more money we can do X.
Christians should put their faith in God. If we perceiver in prayer, love, and striving to obey God's will, we can do anything.
--
The use of money, like all things material, may be used for God's will, or for good, but we must strive not to put our faith in it or in creation. Our faith must be in God. Anything else is idolatry.
Christians should put their faith in God. If we perceiver in prayer, love, and striving to obey God's will, we can do anything.
--
The use of money, like all things material, may be used for God's will, or for good, but we must strive not to put our faith in it or in creation. Our faith must be in God. Anything else is idolatry.
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Eternal Marriage, Mormon and Catholic
I think the Mormons make a pretty good argument that "they will neither marry nor be given in married" has been misunderstood as a universal case applying to all Christians and marriages, but that Christ is speaking - quite plainly at that - of a specific case that references an Old Testament incident ("ye err i not knowing scripture").
From that base though, I think that Mormons may misunderstand the nature of the highest order of Heaven. For active members, it is pretty clear they need to be married (sealed) within a temple to obtain this glory and have a full communion with God.
Clearly though many people are simply not meant to be married, and many marriages are so deeply flawed that one wonders if they were meant to persist in Heaven? I mean that, the implicit suggestion that active Mormons need to achieve this may be flawed (or perhaps misunderstood by many active Mormons, and not intended by the leaders - rather just as an ideal that should be strived for as Catholic sainthood but knowing many will fail?)
My point being though the teaching that all people have, by the grace of God, the ability achieve the highest level of Heaven, or communion with God, and that implying that eternal marriage is necessary for this doesn't seem applicable to all people.
The Mormons argue that only those *sealed* marriages are known to be eternal, which are a minority among earthly marriages. I think Catholics need to admit that some marriages being eternal is a real possibility - there is nothing explicitly forbidding this, though unlike Mormons it isn't explicitly taught. Certainly we have Christ's words that man and woman become "one flesh" - and knowing bodily resurrection it seems unlikely God himself would separate or tear asunder this one flesh that He Himself made a holy sacrament. The church's own teaching on divorce is that no "divorce" as such can exist, but only the recognition that a marriage wasn't real (i.e. the couple wasn't truly made "one flesh", or haven't achieved the requirement for its eternal nature).
So in this both Mormons and Catholics agree that not all marriages are eternal. I think Catholic opinion is flawed in arguing that all marriages are not eternal (because even they themselves don't believe this, as revealed in the eternal or heavenly nature of the Holy Family with St. Joseph, St. Mary, and the Child Jesus). So for both we should admit that *some* marriages are eternal. However, is having an eternal marriage *necessary* for the highest level of Heaven?
I'd argue no, and take the Catholic position that the saints dwell with God in Heaven as fully, or at the same level, as those who are eternally married - or at least, marriage in itself, isn't the distinguishing feature for the separate rooms or mansions in Heaven. That there is another distinguishing feature that is perhaps more based on our fully giving to God, our service, and imitation of Christ Himself that would determine the hierarchy of Heaven even for those souls. That is, for both the hierarchy of Heaven itself and distinguishing which souls dwell in purgatory still (or, if you will, the lower levels) versus fully with God in Heaven.
From that base though, I think that Mormons may misunderstand the nature of the highest order of Heaven. For active members, it is pretty clear they need to be married (sealed) within a temple to obtain this glory and have a full communion with God.
Clearly though many people are simply not meant to be married, and many marriages are so deeply flawed that one wonders if they were meant to persist in Heaven? I mean that, the implicit suggestion that active Mormons need to achieve this may be flawed (or perhaps misunderstood by many active Mormons, and not intended by the leaders - rather just as an ideal that should be strived for as Catholic sainthood but knowing many will fail?)
My point being though the teaching that all people have, by the grace of God, the ability achieve the highest level of Heaven, or communion with God, and that implying that eternal marriage is necessary for this doesn't seem applicable to all people.
The Mormons argue that only those *sealed* marriages are known to be eternal, which are a minority among earthly marriages. I think Catholics need to admit that some marriages being eternal is a real possibility - there is nothing explicitly forbidding this, though unlike Mormons it isn't explicitly taught. Certainly we have Christ's words that man and woman become "one flesh" - and knowing bodily resurrection it seems unlikely God himself would separate or tear asunder this one flesh that He Himself made a holy sacrament. The church's own teaching on divorce is that no "divorce" as such can exist, but only the recognition that a marriage wasn't real (i.e. the couple wasn't truly made "one flesh", or haven't achieved the requirement for its eternal nature).
So in this both Mormons and Catholics agree that not all marriages are eternal. I think Catholic opinion is flawed in arguing that all marriages are not eternal (because even they themselves don't believe this, as revealed in the eternal or heavenly nature of the Holy Family with St. Joseph, St. Mary, and the Child Jesus). So for both we should admit that *some* marriages are eternal. However, is having an eternal marriage *necessary* for the highest level of Heaven?
I'd argue no, and take the Catholic position that the saints dwell with God in Heaven as fully, or at the same level, as those who are eternally married - or at least, marriage in itself, isn't the distinguishing feature for the separate rooms or mansions in Heaven. That there is another distinguishing feature that is perhaps more based on our fully giving to God, our service, and imitation of Christ Himself that would determine the hierarchy of Heaven even for those souls. That is, for both the hierarchy of Heaven itself and distinguishing which souls dwell in purgatory still (or, if you will, the lower levels) versus fully with God in Heaven.
Monday, February 15, 2016
Ordered Love vs Disordered Love
What the Bible says:
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
What a #ProAbortion -ist says:
"To sacrifice another's life for my pleasure is a human right!"
"Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
What a #ProAbortion -ist says:
"To sacrifice another's life for my pleasure is a human right!"
Monday, January 11, 2016
St. Joseph as Every Father
There is a Truth in which we are all like St. Joseph. While unlike him, our children are conceived naturally, nevertheless there is an aspect of their nature that is a miracle - that is, both the actual creation, but especially their immortal souls.
Looking at my newborn baby, a profound mystery strikes me: this is my child, and yet he also has an immortal soul given by God, his Father in Heaven.
Just like St. Joseph, this child is also to be obedient to us in so far as we teach it the good, but he may have a higher mission from God.
My duty is to protect and raise the child, keep him healthy, but ultimately his purpose is infinitely above me, it is His purpose.
Looking at my newborn baby, a profound mystery strikes me: this is my child, and yet he also has an immortal soul given by God, his Father in Heaven.
Just like St. Joseph, this child is also to be obedient to us in so far as we teach it the good, but he may have a higher mission from God.
My duty is to protect and raise the child, keep him healthy, but ultimately his purpose is infinitely above me, it is His purpose.
Friday, January 1, 2016
God's Sacrifice and Number of Elect
There are a lot of debates on "who gets to go to Heaven," or "how many are elect?" but I think, before considering anything else, we need to keep in mind Christ's sacrifice. That is, the sacrifice of God is, by His very nature, infinite and all encompassing. Christ has already suffered all our sins.
That is, the basis of everything, is to acknowledge and accept this sacrifice. To thank God for this sacrifice and accept it as our own to have an effect.
We seem to understand intrinsically though that this can't be done hypocritically - we can't pretend to accept it, but should seek to love God with our whole being, to repent of our failing even in this regard.
Because of this, and God's great mercy, it is wrong of us to assume God would not extend His love to those who have not heard of Him, or been told lies of Him - surely he will ask "forgive them for they know not" and seek even that lost sheep and rejoice should it return. We must then necessarily assume that a great many people must chose to accept Christ after death, but before the resurrection - as in during those "3 days" when Christ descends to the dead and brings them the Gospel. Is that a period act, or an eternal act?
Based on this simple understanding, I don't want to go further. It seems, at that point, to accept revelation as given to one church or the other. If to the Catholics, then purgatory answers the role of meeting the remaining deficiency. If Mormon, then the levels or "rooms" of the mansion answers the role - as "few are chosen" either for direct sainthood or to the fullest celestial glory.
I can testify though that God wants us to love Him, that He seeks us out for us to love Him as a most perfect Father who desires His lost son or daughter to come home and embrace Him.
That is, the basis of everything, is to acknowledge and accept this sacrifice. To thank God for this sacrifice and accept it as our own to have an effect.
We seem to understand intrinsically though that this can't be done hypocritically - we can't pretend to accept it, but should seek to love God with our whole being, to repent of our failing even in this regard.
Because of this, and God's great mercy, it is wrong of us to assume God would not extend His love to those who have not heard of Him, or been told lies of Him - surely he will ask "forgive them for they know not" and seek even that lost sheep and rejoice should it return. We must then necessarily assume that a great many people must chose to accept Christ after death, but before the resurrection - as in during those "3 days" when Christ descends to the dead and brings them the Gospel. Is that a period act, or an eternal act?
Based on this simple understanding, I don't want to go further. It seems, at that point, to accept revelation as given to one church or the other. If to the Catholics, then purgatory answers the role of meeting the remaining deficiency. If Mormon, then the levels or "rooms" of the mansion answers the role - as "few are chosen" either for direct sainthood or to the fullest celestial glory.
I can testify though that God wants us to love Him, that He seeks us out for us to love Him as a most perfect Father who desires His lost son or daughter to come home and embrace Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)