Yeah, uh, lots of pagans (and Christians and Jews) also converted to Islam. People are pretty good at seeing where there bread is buttered. I am just floored at how people think Christianity is unique in any way in terms of the evidence adduced for its empirical/doctrinal claims. It is so clearly just a snapshot of a syncretic process, not a religion that plopped into the world fully formed with an actual man named Jesus who taught it.
Just because you have been defeated in the past, does not mean that you cannot win again.
Christianity is definitely losing its influence in western countries even though the total number of Christians worldwide is rising. The pagan LARPers see this and hope to fill that space (or void) of retreating Christianity.
Don´t get me wrong, I am sympathetic to a Christian revival in our society, but the current trend goes into the grave. In Germany, the number of Christians decreased from 95% in 1965 to 50% today. A reversal of this trend is not visible.
I consider Kulak’s complaint an extension of the Problem of Evil. She is scandalized by evil, and thus concludes that Christian morality is wrong. But the unfeeling forces of the universe don’t care about your nationhood. Thus she would be denouncing evil on no basis at all. Without God, if the powerful deem something good, it becomes good. From the secular power’s point of view, there is no “evil” because *they decide what is evil on an arbitrary basis.*
In other words, being scandalized by evil presupposes a Christian morality that Kulak denies.
Great point. The whole idea of an objective standard of rightness that is IMMUTABLE is a religious principle that, here in the western world, comes directly and unequivocally from Christianity.
You touch on a very common and very weak anti-Christian (never anti-other religions) argument which is “Christians aren’t perfect/Christian cultures aren’t perfect, so therefore the whole thing’s got to go.” Oddly, these types of people are never this unyielding and principled when their political party of their choice perpetrated war crimes. Strange…
Government is not capable of "charity". Stealing from some people to give some away to others while keeping some (any) for yourself is not "charity". There is nothing Christian about the Social Justice theology. Jesus never condoned theft and bribery.
Exactly. Everybody knows this which is why you should be wary of Christians who are buddy-buddy with government, regardless of which denomination or party.
While you aren’t wrong in saying that Protestantism opens the door to wildly off base biblical interpretations, it doesn’t make the underlying principle invalid. Rejection of the Catholic Church and its associated hierarchies and dogmas is not a rejection of Christianity. (To be clear, I’m not suggesting that was your assertion)
That’s right it wasn’t my assertion. I’m not Catholic so there are things about Catholicism I reject too (Petrine supremacy being a big one). I was referring to the “All interpretations are valid” idea which, while I don’t think that’s what Martin Luther intended, he seemed to unleash.
No interpretations are valid because they are all wish fulfillment. The Bible is like a horoscope, as you would expect since the authors of the various books didn't all believe the same thing and cribbed from different sources.
Kulak is the right wing flavor of the basement-dweller nerd loser trying to behave like an alpha male, only managing to appear like a deranged psychopath in the process.
I agree with the idea that "neither Jesus Christ, nor the church, viewed charity as 'government confiscating your money and throwing it at people that will vote for them.'"
But Christ said to be perfect as your father in heaven was perfect. Matthew 5:48 and he told people to go and sin no more. He wasn't trying to trick people or mislead them. He came teaching the way to stop sinning.
I wrote about a video about the book Toxic Charity and it describes how much the church does it wrong. But he also describes ways to do it correctly in the book (which I did order and read after watching the video I was writing about). https://www.thedramaofitall.com/p/toxic-charity-or-teaching-a-man-to
The type of "savior charity" that people do, that he calls toxic, is not good for the world. It's important to understand that giving away fish rather than teaching people to fish will not help anyone in the long run.
It's definitely good to help out local people who will take personal responsibility to use that help to better their situations. But trying to help people who won't take responsibility for themselves is definitely a waste of time and effort on Christians' part.
The Didache also says to give, but know who you are giving to: "Give to everyone that asks, without looking for any repayment, for it is the Father's pleasure that we should share His gracious bounty with all men. A giver who gives freely, as the commandment directs, is blessed; no fault can be found with him. But woe to the taker; for though he cannot be blamed for taking if he was in need, yet if he was not, an account will be required of him as to why he took it, and for what purpose, and he will be taken into custody and examined about his action, and he will not get out until he has paid the last penny. The old saying is in point here: 'Let your alms grow damp with sweat in your hand, until you know who it is you are giving them to.'"
I assume that's because you wouldn't feel the spirit leading you to give to the wrong person, but if you don't know someone, you inevitably will.
You’re right, Christ wasn’t trying to trick anyone. I wasn’t trying to imply that he was.
Charity is one of those concepts people THINK they understand the Christian perspective of, but many are confused by something different wearing Christian clothing. Your citations only further highlight that the charity Kulak, et al, decries is something very different than what Christian doctrine teaches.
Sadly true, which is why we must bring back God into the conversation and Christianity into people's lives even as we must remember the importance of bloody borders.
The church was a counterweight to the state, not a replacement. It was to remind those at the top of the human hierarchy that there was someone the crown was beholden to. This is important. Our leaders now act like Gods. I think the rush towards transhumanism and “uploading your consciousness to the system, man, and living forever” reflects a fear, whether conscious or unconscious, that they know they’re not going to a nice place in the afterlife and want to put it off indefinitely.
Great work! I was under always under the impression that Christianity has always worked best to form healthy societies when paired with something else that gives it enough of a bite to make the world a better place, be it political ambition or simply the need to survive as a nation in the medieval world. Modern interpretation of Christianity in the general public consists on a lame and simple "be nice to everyone always" which is just idiotic. We need to go beyond that.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post and found value in it. Thank you.
I agree that pop Christianity is so wimpy and insubstantial, it’s no wonder nobody cares about it anymore. If the church I grew up going to was like that, I wouldn’t be a Christian today either. Thank God, and I mean that literally, I’m a cradle Orthodox.
Dude sounds like Edward Gibbon but w/o the education. Gibby maintained that Christianity was to blame for Rome’s decline, rather than inherent decadence and simple attrition over the centuries. When I was in my 20s, I too thought it hip to be anti-clerical. Now I find myself loving some of the early Christian schools, especially the Gnostics. Man, I love the Gnostics!
As far as charity goes--that just has to do with not being a simple POS.
1) The “Christianity destroyed Rome!” argument is one I’m not deeply in the weeds about, but my understanding is that the city of Rome fell a century or so after St. Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, and when the Western emperor at the time let a bunch of barbarians into Rome. And that this incident was the last straw precipitating a collapse a long time coming. And like I said, the Roman Empire continued in the east for another millennium as an explicitly Christian theocracy. So color me unconvinced.
2) “Charity = bad” is such a galaxy brained take I have difficulty believing any real people and not just the terminally online adhere to it.
This is the problem I have with "Christian nationalism." As an Orthodox Christian, the only type of "Christian nationalism" I would only be okay with a "Christian nationalism" that would be a symphonia between the State and the Orthodox Church, as was exemplified with the Eastern Roman Empire and Constantinople.
Christian nationalism, whatever that even means, also requires that everyone be the same denomination. While I’d rathrr live in a Catholic nation than what we have now, America ain’t gonna be a “Christian nation” the way Hungary or Italy or hell even Greece is because in those nations like 95% or so of the people have the exact same faith (in differing levels of piousness, of course). America is too multi-cultural to be coherent, so unless there are mass and/or forced conversions, we’ll need a different unifying principle. Or a different structure allowing for more autonomous regions or zones. Or we split up. I dunno.
We’ve tried economics/consumption as a unifying force with a weak smattering of civic nationalism. That hasn’t really worked so hot for national unity and cultural cohesion.
For real. After being received into the Orthodox Church, our family literally acts like we've become Muslims or Mormons. I even had one of them ask, "So, do you still believe in the Trinity?"
Oh, we've already been told that we're "basically Catholic," now. We try to explain "no, we haven't been in communion for, y'know, a THOUSAND years," but there's almost no point in trying to explain it. *sigh*
"Christianity has been defeated!" cries the pagan LVRPer without considering that paganism was defeated by Christianity.
“Muh forced conversions!”
Tons of BASED PAGAN WARLORDS willingly, many eagerly, converted so, you know, you be the judge.
The elephant in the room they can't contend with is that their ancestors embraced and kept Christianity because they liked it better.
Yeah, uh, lots of pagans (and Christians and Jews) also converted to Islam. People are pretty good at seeing where there bread is buttered. I am just floored at how people think Christianity is unique in any way in terms of the evidence adduced for its empirical/doctrinal claims. It is so clearly just a snapshot of a syncretic process, not a religion that plopped into the world fully formed with an actual man named Jesus who taught it.
Just because you have been defeated in the past, does not mean that you cannot win again.
Christianity is definitely losing its influence in western countries even though the total number of Christians worldwide is rising. The pagan LARPers see this and hope to fill that space (or void) of retreating Christianity.
A wise man pointed out that Christianity has died many times, but our God knows the way out of the grave.
Don´t get me wrong, I am sympathetic to a Christian revival in our society, but the current trend goes into the grave. In Germany, the number of Christians decreased from 95% in 1965 to 50% today. A reversal of this trend is not visible.
That's sad. But Christianity will be just fine.
I consider Kulak’s complaint an extension of the Problem of Evil. She is scandalized by evil, and thus concludes that Christian morality is wrong. But the unfeeling forces of the universe don’t care about your nationhood. Thus she would be denouncing evil on no basis at all. Without God, if the powerful deem something good, it becomes good. From the secular power’s point of view, there is no “evil” because *they decide what is evil on an arbitrary basis.*
In other words, being scandalized by evil presupposes a Christian morality that Kulak denies.
Great point. The whole idea of an objective standard of rightness that is IMMUTABLE is a religious principle that, here in the western world, comes directly and unequivocally from Christianity.
You touch on a very common and very weak anti-Christian (never anti-other religions) argument which is “Christians aren’t perfect/Christian cultures aren’t perfect, so therefore the whole thing’s got to go.” Oddly, these types of people are never this unyielding and principled when their political party of their choice perpetrated war crimes. Strange…
Nietzsche understood that the death of God left only the will to power and the ubermensch. Not a happy place.
He’s right. Without God, might makes right is the whole of the law.
Correct. You cannot appeal to an objective standard of morality if you don’t think one exists.
Also relevant: https://brianniemeier.substack.com/p/from-a-based-church-deliver-us
Yes sir. A great piece.
Government is not capable of "charity". Stealing from some people to give some away to others while keeping some (any) for yourself is not "charity". There is nothing Christian about the Social Justice theology. Jesus never condoned theft and bribery.
Exactly. Everybody knows this which is why you should be wary of Christians who are buddy-buddy with government, regardless of which denomination or party.
DING DING DING. Now we're cooking.
My most recent essay addressed the same thing. Our "Christianity" is clearly not the same as our ancestors'. Retvrn *that.*
Please provide a link! I’d like to read it.
https://open.substack.com/pub/parrythis/p/small-vee-vitalism?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2r94pv
Let me know what you think.
While you aren’t wrong in saying that Protestantism opens the door to wildly off base biblical interpretations, it doesn’t make the underlying principle invalid. Rejection of the Catholic Church and its associated hierarchies and dogmas is not a rejection of Christianity. (To be clear, I’m not suggesting that was your assertion)
That’s right it wasn’t my assertion. I’m not Catholic so there are things about Catholicism I reject too (Petrine supremacy being a big one). I was referring to the “All interpretations are valid” idea which, while I don’t think that’s what Martin Luther intended, he seemed to unleash.
No interpretations are valid because they are all wish fulfillment. The Bible is like a horoscope, as you would expect since the authors of the various books didn't all believe the same thing and cribbed from different sources.
Kulak is the right wing flavor of the basement-dweller nerd loser trying to behave like an alpha male, only managing to appear like a deranged psychopath in the process.
NEOTR. I find that his arguments contain good points amidst the stuff I disagree with. Take the good with the bad.
I can't stand him that much so I usually ignore his stuff. That said, yes, he has the good points, too.
That’s fair man. You can like who you like and dislike who you dislike.
This take was particularly egregious though.
I agree with the idea that "neither Jesus Christ, nor the church, viewed charity as 'government confiscating your money and throwing it at people that will vote for them.'"
But Christ said to be perfect as your father in heaven was perfect. Matthew 5:48 and he told people to go and sin no more. He wasn't trying to trick people or mislead them. He came teaching the way to stop sinning.
I wrote about a video about the book Toxic Charity and it describes how much the church does it wrong. But he also describes ways to do it correctly in the book (which I did order and read after watching the video I was writing about). https://www.thedramaofitall.com/p/toxic-charity-or-teaching-a-man-to
The type of "savior charity" that people do, that he calls toxic, is not good for the world. It's important to understand that giving away fish rather than teaching people to fish will not help anyone in the long run.
It's definitely good to help out local people who will take personal responsibility to use that help to better their situations. But trying to help people who won't take responsibility for themselves is definitely a waste of time and effort on Christians' part.
The Didache also says to give, but know who you are giving to: "Give to everyone that asks, without looking for any repayment, for it is the Father's pleasure that we should share His gracious bounty with all men. A giver who gives freely, as the commandment directs, is blessed; no fault can be found with him. But woe to the taker; for though he cannot be blamed for taking if he was in need, yet if he was not, an account will be required of him as to why he took it, and for what purpose, and he will be taken into custody and examined about his action, and he will not get out until he has paid the last penny. The old saying is in point here: 'Let your alms grow damp with sweat in your hand, until you know who it is you are giving them to.'"
I assume that's because you wouldn't feel the spirit leading you to give to the wrong person, but if you don't know someone, you inevitably will.
Good points and a thoughtful comment. Thank you.
You’re right, Christ wasn’t trying to trick anyone. I wasn’t trying to imply that he was.
Charity is one of those concepts people THINK they understand the Christian perspective of, but many are confused by something different wearing Christian clothing. Your citations only further highlight that the charity Kulak, et al, decries is something very different than what Christian doctrine teaches.
Sadly true, which is why we must bring back God into the conversation and Christianity into people's lives even as we must remember the importance of bloody borders.
The church was a counterweight to the state, not a replacement. It was to remind those at the top of the human hierarchy that there was someone the crown was beholden to. This is important. Our leaders now act like Gods. I think the rush towards transhumanism and “uploading your consciousness to the system, man, and living forever” reflects a fear, whether conscious or unconscious, that they know they’re not going to a nice place in the afterlife and want to put it off indefinitely.
Again, just a theory.
Completely agree, you're right on both accounts.
Me every time I have minor chest pain
Great work! I was under always under the impression that Christianity has always worked best to form healthy societies when paired with something else that gives it enough of a bite to make the world a better place, be it political ambition or simply the need to survive as a nation in the medieval world. Modern interpretation of Christianity in the general public consists on a lame and simple "be nice to everyone always" which is just idiotic. We need to go beyond that.
I’m glad you enjoyed the post and found value in it. Thank you.
I agree that pop Christianity is so wimpy and insubstantial, it’s no wonder nobody cares about it anymore. If the church I grew up going to was like that, I wouldn’t be a Christian today either. Thank God, and I mean that literally, I’m a cradle Orthodox.
Brilliant and to the point. BC brought you to my attention. Thanks for taking the time to write this post.
Thank you! I’m sorry but who is BC?
Bacon Commander.
Got ya. Well, welcome!
I am pleasantly shocked.
Who are you, really, and what have you done with the real Alexander Hellene?
Have you really been this brilliant all along and I just haven’t noticed?
Like my hero Frank Zappa, I obscure my brilliance under layers of stupidity.
Dude sounds like Edward Gibbon but w/o the education. Gibby maintained that Christianity was to blame for Rome’s decline, rather than inherent decadence and simple attrition over the centuries. When I was in my 20s, I too thought it hip to be anti-clerical. Now I find myself loving some of the early Christian schools, especially the Gnostics. Man, I love the Gnostics!
As far as charity goes--that just has to do with not being a simple POS.
1) The “Christianity destroyed Rome!” argument is one I’m not deeply in the weeds about, but my understanding is that the city of Rome fell a century or so after St. Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople, and when the Western emperor at the time let a bunch of barbarians into Rome. And that this incident was the last straw precipitating a collapse a long time coming. And like I said, the Roman Empire continued in the east for another millennium as an explicitly Christian theocracy. So color me unconvinced.
2) “Charity = bad” is such a galaxy brained take I have difficulty believing any real people and not just the terminally online adhere to it.
Well said. Well done. And thank you.
You are welcome.
This is the problem I have with "Christian nationalism." As an Orthodox Christian, the only type of "Christian nationalism" I would only be okay with a "Christian nationalism" that would be a symphonia between the State and the Orthodox Church, as was exemplified with the Eastern Roman Empire and Constantinople.
Christian nationalism, whatever that even means, also requires that everyone be the same denomination. While I’d rathrr live in a Catholic nation than what we have now, America ain’t gonna be a “Christian nation” the way Hungary or Italy or hell even Greece is because in those nations like 95% or so of the people have the exact same faith (in differing levels of piousness, of course). America is too multi-cultural to be coherent, so unless there are mass and/or forced conversions, we’ll need a different unifying principle. Or a different structure allowing for more autonomous regions or zones. Or we split up. I dunno.
We’ve tried economics/consumption as a unifying force with a weak smattering of civic nationalism. That hasn’t really worked so hot for national unity and cultural cohesion.
For real. After being received into the Orthodox Church, our family literally acts like we've become Muslims or Mormons. I even had one of them ask, "So, do you still believe in the Trinity?"
Haha! What? That’s like asking—pardon the analogy—if the Pope is Catholic.
Oh, we've already been told that we're "basically Catholic," now. We try to explain "no, we haven't been in communion for, y'know, a THOUSAND years," but there's almost no point in trying to explain it. *sigh*