His Credit, not his Crime

I almost got into a fight yesterday and while the other gentleman backed down, the conflict (as far as I know) remains unresolved and I expect further trouble Wednesday.

Is it unChristlike to be excited about it?

A further question:  Was this God’s way of reprimanding me for my recent posts on apologetics (including my list of arguments against miscegenation)?

Here’s what I mean:

Suppose a few democrats become stranded on an island.  None of them are Christian (it’s only by a Satanic turn in history that people claiming Christ also claim democracy).  Not having a pre-existing infrastructure in place, they revert to a primal state of association, with a formal assumption of equality among all members of the party.  Something like the following conversation results:

Democrat A:  I’d like to bring a motion to the group.  I move that we stay near the water and eat fish.

Democrat B:  I’d like to raise a counter-proposal.  I move that we go inland and search for food.

Democrat C:  I move we put the proposals to vote and Dem D will act as chairman.  All in favor of A say Aye, all in favor of B, say Aye.

Democrat D:  The A’s have it.

Of course, Democrat B isn’t going to accept this.  He’ll move for dismissal of the vote by lodging a formal protest.  By appealing to the rationality of the others, he’s affirming (implicitly) that their course of action should be decided by determining which adheres closest to a mutually-agreed-upon standard — say, “survival” for instance.

Oftentimes, however, the mutually-agreed-upon-standard is only formal.  Or, it’s “ceremonial” in a way.  In other words, people have different agendas — different standards — but instead of formally voicing their intent to adhere to their personal standard, they lie and pretend that they’re really adhering to the formal standard that everyone else has already agreed upon and which is usually regarded as sensible on the surface (no one would deny that “survival” is a sensible standard in the island-situation).

For instance, Democrat B may have had his pride damaged as a result of the vote.  It may seem (so he thinks) that the others have rejected his position because they don’t see it as rational, implying subsequently, that Democrat B is also not rational.  So, Democrat B now has a vested interest in reiterating his initial position, not because he’s interested in which course of action will best lend to the survivability of the group, but because he’s trying to redeem himself.

This happens to people all the time, even when they’re not stranded on deserted islands.

Apologetics is the use of arguments to persuade people that your position (or, to keep with the illustration: your desired course of action) best adheres to a formally agreed-upon standard.  Before the voting process, Democrat A and Democrat B would both act as apologists for their positions and try to persuade the other democrats.

Now, let me apply this to arguments against race-mixing.

There is a formal standard that we’re all adhering to in the debate.  All parties in the debate are usually attempting to determine which position would best lead to the happiness and comfort of humanity.

But that’s only the formal (or ceremonial) standard.  The real standards — the underlying goals and motivations of the two parties — are dramatically different.

The race-mixers are religiously devoted to destroying old Christian Europe and rubbing out the memory of it.

The antique-Europeans are equally devoted to restoring old Europe and dismantling the kingdom of Satan.

The two are fundamentally opposed and to think that the one will yield to the other because of a sound set of reasoning or apologetic arguments, is the height of naivete.

I would even claim that it’s dishonest and the act of a coward to argue for a formal standard as a way to implement a personal agenda.  Why not be very forthright about your desires?

Democracy (like contemporary Christendom) has bred dishonest and effeminate cowards who, under the guise of “reason” are trying to annihilate everything I love.

…and that calls for a sword, not a pen.

“His credit, not his crime, was non compliance with a wicked time.”

This entry was posted in General and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to His Credit, not his Crime

  1. Faust says:

    All too true…
    “Democracy (like contemporary Christendom) has bred dishonest and effeminate cowards who, under the guise of “reason” are trying to annihilate everything I love.”

  2. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    Hey Shotgun, I have a request for a post topic on here. Where do you think women belong in society?? Not where they are, but where they should be. I’ve known people who say that women should be a prize to be won and then cherished like a glass rose, and then there’s others who say that women’s place is in the kitchen and that’s their only place.

  3. Shotgun says:

    I learned a long time ago that when a man starts telling a woman what she ought to be doing, he’s heading for trouble.

  4. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    Hahaha!! Smart guy!! But seriously, I would like your opinion. I personally don’t believe that women should have gained the right to vote in america. I think they all should have stayed home and listened to their God-given authority (their husbands) and let them handle it.

    • Shotgun says:

      Why do you think there should be voting at all?

      • ~MaryBeth~ says:

        True. That was just the start of the country’s downfall in my opinion.

      • Shotgun says:

        Let me answer your original question briefly (I’ll defer to Faust for anything further as I’m likely to agree with what he says 100 %).

        I don’t think a woman’s place is in the kitchen, but I do think her place is in the home.

        Problem is, modern ideas of “home” have shrunk so dramatically that it’s become undesirable to be a Godly woman. When we think of family in terms of legacy and dominion however, it becomes more like an organization — with the wife and mother as very important authority-figures.

        As for her direct role in humanity, I’ve always thought Dan Wises’ statement is striking in its clarity and truth:

        What is the sphere of woman? Home. The social circle. What is her mission? To mold character, –to fashion herself and others after the model character of Christ. What are her chief instruments for the accomplishment of her great work? The affections. Love is the wand by which she is to work moral transformations within her fairy circle. Gentleness, sweetness, loveliness, and purity are the elements of her power.

        Her place is not on life’s’ great battlefields. Man belongs there. It is for him to go forth armed for its conflicts and struggles to do fierce battle with the host of evils that throng our earth. But woman must abide in the peaceful sanctuaries of home, and walk in the noiseless vales of private life.
        There she must dwell, beside the secret springs of public virtue. There she must smile upon the father, the brother, the husband, when, returning like warriors from the fight, exhausted and covered with the dust of strife, they need to be refreshed by sweet waters drawn from affections spring, and cheered to renewed struggles by the music of her voice. There she must rear the Christian patriot, and statesman, the self-denying philanthropist, and the obedient citizen.

        There, in a word she must form the character of the world, and determine the destiny of her race! How awful is her mission! What dread responsibility attaches to her work! Surely she is not degraded by filling such a sphere. nor would she be elevated, if , forsaking it, she should go forth into the highway of society and jostle with her brothers for the offices and honors of public life. Fame she might occasionally gain, but it would be at the price of her womanly influence.

      • ~MaryBeth~ says:

        Wow, I really like that article!! There is great truth in that statement.

  5. Servantofchrist says:

    Love thine enemies.

    • Shotgun says:

      Concerning “Love thine enemies” …

      I had to listen to a guy complain about his duties once. He was in charge of about fifteen people, none of whom (it seems) could get along with each other.

      Now, I know the guy was stressed and under a lot of pressure, but he said that he’d rather be be-headed than deal with these people. Since he was speaking as a Christian, I had to confront him.

      I reminded him that if God sent His son to die for these people, then the least we can do is deal with them fairly and with dignity.

      So, in that respect, I think we can deal with people fairly and with dignity.

      But, beyond that, I don’t know what “love thine enemy” means, and if some limp-wristed Christian intellectual tries to convince me that I should stand by and applaud the slaughter of my people (or suggest that I do not react violently) then he’s just become my enemy.

      • Well, Shotgun… Is reacting violently, considered respectful? Shall I attack my co-worker for nearly getting me fired? Granted, it’s not genocide that he/she is committing…

        I understand, it’s a struggle I have. Learning to love those that I’d rather hate. But, seeking God first (instead of my own gain) has taught me a lot. Now, “your people” may be being attacked ( without a doubt, they are) and your blood is boiling. With gnashing teeth and knotted muscles, you furiously wish to retaliate. I get it. If anyone were to lay a finger on my beautiful nieces…. Let’s just say I’d be adding another sin to my life. Thank God for His beautiful forgiveness!

  6. Shotgun says:

    There’s no love in someone who doesn’t passionately desire vengeance and justice.

    This is the other side of the coin that satanic Christian pastors have forgotten in modern times (it’s the state’s job to handle the nasty stuff, they’ll say). When an offender avoids justice because someone has decided to “love” him, the offended parties are the ones who are left without justice and without love.

    This is precisely why churches are becoming “feminized”. They have castrated the white European and taught him that the ways and passions of old Europe, with the virtue and honor of knighthood, are not Christian and not to be imitated.

    You can admire them like you would relics in a museum. A few people may care so much they spend a life-time studying them. But whatever we do, we mustn’t imitate them! They weren’t Christlike. All that talk of chivalry and honor. Those can’t be justified by the rationalists in the ivory towers.

    They were racist, violent, anti-semitic, woman-haters and no real Christian (who holds to the Satanic culture with a passion) can ever imitate them.

    If that’s true, then I’m no real Christian and as I’ve said a hundred times: If Hell is the England of Walter Scott and Dickens, then consign me to the seventh level of it!

    • Not once did I say you weren’t a Christian. On the contrary, I agreed with you. No need to go signing up for hell.

      God said we’re allowed to be righteously angry. And, if God is perfect (by definition, He is) then, we can use Him as our role-model. God’s vengeance is just and absolute. He wiped out Egyptians so Israel could leave. Take what you want from this.

      • shotgunwildatheart says:

        Oh, but I want to be in Hell, since Hell is the old Europe of Walter Scott and Dickens.

        I’m speaking tongue-in-cheek, and not referring to your comments. I’m criticizing the mood of modernism which is far bigger than our conversation.

        I can count on one hand the number of churches I know about that have not pledged fealty to Satan. The vast majority worship using all the old signs, symbols and words, but have filled them with detestable meaning.

        God has written adventure and adversity into our life’s story. We can’t flinch from it or back down.

  7. ~MaryBeth~ says:

    Man, I really wish that wordpress had a ‘like’ button. :)

Comments:

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