Sad Puppies cause Butthurt, and the glory to come.

/ pukeko

IMG_20140422_164009

Yesterday I got the texts muddled up, but I made some notes reading around and they apply in part to yesterday’s text, so here goes.

Via Kathy Shaidie, a Canadian conservative who found this link about a UK feminist who is hitting her head against the wall. I would add, that although retirement is for the birds, contributing to the pension scheme is effective saving particularly if your contributions are matched. Most of us did the math. Liz Jones did not.

I am a feminist, I really am (I’ve never let a man pay for anything), but feel the current generation of women in their 60s, the first to abandon the way of life of their mothers, which meant they pursued careers, married and had children late, had affairs then got divorced, all in the name of liberation, are now imprisoned in debt, alcohol abuse and loneliness, wishing they could die, and do it soon.
I’m taking part in a debate at the Oxford Union on May 1.
I am arguing against promiscuity. Oxford has chosen me because I was a virgin until my 30s, not for my brilliant education at Southend Tech, but my point will be this: the sexual revolution did us no favours, really.
It meant lots of us – including men who lost the family home and their children because of infidelity –will be old, and on our own. Who would want 30 years of that?

What, you may say, has this to do with the resurrection? Or the theology of the resurrection? Look at the text and not the verses in the middle — bad company corrupts good morals. Then consider the glory of your body and the glory to come.

1 CORINTHIANS (15:29) 30-41

29Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

30And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? 31I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you – a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

35But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”36Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

I do not know anything about the baptism of the dead. I do know that it legitimate to thank God for those who have gone before us, and who gave witness to the gospel to us, and to us previous generations.

But consider for a second the situation we are in if there is no resurrection. We are left with hedonism and existentialism. The trouble is that neither of these philosophies have any spine: any ability to allow people to handle pain: to do their duty. They rely on people being good, on people being noble.

And most of us are neither good nor noble.

So if we assume that the average group of people will in some manner not become corrupt we are being fools. We are fallen: we will ignore our own faults and be exquisitely concerned about the faults we perceive in others.

And this is the reason that we should not associate with the progressives. Not that they are more fallen than we are — we all are fallen — but that they deny their fallen state, and see no need for correction, instead saying that there is nothing there apart from food, drink and the comforts of fornication with the gender of your preference. These people are unhappy, and want to drag us down to their level. I am quoting a person who is currently hated, Vox Day here, but he does make the point quite well. The topic is being right wing in Science Fiction, and the screeches from the left that he and Larry Correa managed to get nominated for Hugos, for they are not of the Cathedral. (My money is on Charles Stross winning the Novella, and he is being relatively classy as the scat is being flung everywhere). Damien Walker wrote an article in the guardian stating that SF would have to become queer, for queer is the future.

It is fueled by our clear-eyed view of what these creatures are. It is our awareness that they are, like the soul-destroyed abhumans roaming the Night Lands, broken and lesser beings who seek to pull others down into the mire that torments them.

By way of evidence, consider their own words about themselves. Here, for example, is Damien Walter:

I was 30 and, by any measure, deeply unhappy. I’d been pushing down a lot of horrible emotions from a damaging childhood, grief from many losses, and had trapped myself in a life I didn’t fit in to from a desperate need to fit somewhere, anywhere. I had no kind of spiritual practice at all. I was a standard issue atheist, and any encounter I had with religion was edged with inherited and unexamined scorn. Consequentially, I really had no tools to process the pain I was feeling. Today, my argument with the radical atheist rhetoric of people like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett – both of whom I had read heavily at university – is that it leaves the bulk of its believers utterly amputated from their own emotional reality. It certainly had me. I was miserable, and in trying to escape from the causes of the misery I’d driven myself, repeatedly, to the borders of emotional collapse where I had, at long last, collapsed

.
This is why they preach equality. This is why they preach tolerance. This is why they seek to disqualify and destroy those who stand above them, immune to the manifold terrors that haunt their empty chests. They are damaged people, broken individuals, fallen souls.

They live lives of lies and self-deceit. They lie about others; they lie about themselves:

I am by nature a non-political person. I tend to see both sides of most arguments, and there are merits and faults with any position in any political debate. Extremism is always wrong. Beyond that, who is right is mostly a matter of your tribal, partisan allegiances.

No doubt that is why he didn’t link to Larry’s piece he was criticizing and why David Barnett intentionally and admittedly evaded The Guardian guidelines in his hit piece aimed at me, lest I defend my position in a convincing manner.

But no matter what lies Damien and his broken kind tell, they will find no comfort whatsoever in confronting the likes of Mr. Corriea and Mr. Wright. They will find no peace through confronting me. They will find nothing but emotional collapse in this lifetime and damnation in the next as a result of their rejection of the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we do our feeble best to serve.

At least Damien has taken one step forward in abandoning the intellectually bankrupt world of the radical atheist. He knows there is something else out there. But he is still caught in the soul-sucking mire, he is still lost in lies and desperately lashing out at the likes of Larry and me in a vain attempt to find fulfillment in the approval of those he foolishly seeks to emulate.

But he will not, because there is no fulfillment to be found there. There is none to be found in telling lies, in making-believe, because even if he manages to convince others of his falsehoods, he will never be able to convince himself that they are true.

Well, Damien, the future belongs to the breeders. I have, through many misadventures and a fair amount of pain tears and legal fees, had three children — and the oldest has three of her own, which gives me a task for the future of subverting the smug political correctness drummed into every Canadian with their mother’s milk. [Which is not that needed. Reality bites hard, and Canada has a property bubble].

Now, we should not, not commit fornication, or any other form of sexual immorality. The queer, Damien, are a minority — at most half those who have sex with the same gender. I need not remind you that you cannot breed without medical intervention unless you do have at some point sperm deposited within a vagina. Biology does not care about queerness.

But being progressive, right on, and queer id more destructive to your soul than the fornication you do. Dealing with the consequences of your actions is a lifelong work. Fighting your tendencies to lust, to greed, to envy is what makes us noble. And what helps us bear witness to Christ. And helps us live well.

And living well is a good revenge. It’s much better than worshiping your sin, or your feelings, and whining every time someone uses harsh words.

8 thoughts on “Sad Puppies cause Butthurt, and the glory to come.”

  1. It’s Kathy Shaidle, NOT Katy Shadie; she’s Canadian, NOT British; and she’s a trad Catholic, NOT a feminist.
    Are you high?
    Just asking. 😉
    BTW, the Mormons practice that ‘baptism of the dead’ thingie, which we orthodox Christians of course reject.

    • Name and nationality corrected. Besides, it makes the comments about subversion the smugness of the Canadian political elte more relevant.

      The verse about baptism of the dead… I will put in another comment.

      • You didn’t correct the name properly – still says ‘Katy’ instead of ‘Kathy’, and while she may have, like most women, some feminist tendencies, she considers herself a conservative (she’s a neo-con, not a pure trad, but still).

      • Ah, exercise. It improves prose. Kathy quoted a UK feminist columnist who was basically saying my life is a mess, kill me now. Kathy was appropriately snarky in her comments.

        The death spiral of feminism is apparent to all now.

  2. Calvin argues quite strongly that Baptism for the dead is the equivalent of baptising those who are sinful, and who are reckoned as dead. This gets a bit complex.

    29. Else what shall they do He resumes his enumeration of the absurdities, which follow from the error under which the Corinthians labored. He had set himself in the outset to do this, but he introduced instruction and consolation, by means of which he interrupted in some degree the thread of his discourse. To this he now returns. In the first place he brings forward this objection — that the baptism which those received who are already regarded as dead, will be of no avail if there is no resurrection. Before expounding this passage, it is of importance to set aside the common exposition, which rests upon the authority of the ancients, and is received with almost universal consent. Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are followed by others, are of opinion 6363 “This,” it is stated by Barnes, “was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose.” — Ed. that the Corinthians were accustomed, when any one had been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to substitute some living person in the place of the deceased — to be baptized at his grave. They at the same time do not deny that this custom was corrupt, and full of superstition, but they say that Paul, for the purpose of confuting the Corinthians, was contented with this single fact, 6464 “De ce seul argument;” — “With this single argument.” that while they denied that there was a resurrection, they in the mean time declared in this way that they believed in it. For my part, however, I cannot by any means be persuaded to believe this, “Mats ie ne voy rien qui me puisse amener a suyure ceste coniecture;” — “But I see nothing that could induce me to follow that conjecture.” for it is not to be credited, that those who denied that there was a resurrection had, along with others, made use of a custom of this sort. Paul then would have had immediately this reply made to him: “Why do you trouble us with that old wives’ superstition, which you do not yourself approve of?” Farther, if they had made use of it, they might very readily have replied: “If this has been hitherto practiced by us through mistake, rather let the mistake be corrected, than that it should have weight attached to it for proving a point of such importance.”

    Granting, however, that the argument was conclusive, can we suppose that, if such a corruption as this had prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle, after reproving almost all their faults, would have been silent as to this one? He has censured above some practices that are not of so great moment. He has not scrupled to give directions as to women’s having the head covered, and other things of that nature. Their corrupt administration of the Supper he has not merely reproved, but has inveighed against it with the greatest keenness. Would he in the meantime have uttered not a single word in reference to such a base profanation of baptism, which was a much more grievous fault? He has inveighed with great vehemence against those who, by frequenting the banquets of the Gentiles, silently countenanced their superstitions. Would he have suffered this horrible superstition of the Gentiles to be openly carried on in the Church itself under the name of sacred baptism? But granting that he might have been silent, what shall we say when he expressly makes mention of it? Is it, I pray you, a likely thing that the Apostle would bring forward in the shape of an argument a sacrilege “Ce sacrilege horrible;” — “This horrible sacrilege.” by which baptism was polluted, and converted into a mere magical abuse, and yet not say even one word in condemnation of the fault? When he is treating of matters that are not of the highest importance, he introduces nevertheless this parenthesis, that he speaks as a man. (Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; Galatians 3:15.) Would not this have been a more befitting and suitable place for such a parenthesis? Now from his making mention of such a thing without any word of reproof, who would not understand it to be a thing that was allowed? For my part, I assuredly understand him to speak here of the right use of baptism, and not of an abuse of it of that nature.

    Let us now inquire as to the meaning. At one time I was of opinion, that Paul here pointed out the universal design of baptism, for the advantage of baptism is not confined to this life; but on considering the words afterwards with greater care, I perceived that Paul here points out something peculiar. For he does not speak of all when he says, What shall they do, who are baptized? etc. Besides, I am not fond of interpretations, that are more ingenious than solid. What then? I say, that those are baptized for dead, who are looked upon as already dead, and who have altogether despaired of life; and in this way the particle ???? will have the force of the Latin pro, as when we say, habere pro derelicto; — to reckon as abandoned The form of expression referred to is made use of by Cicero. (Art. 8.1.) — Ed. This signification is not a forced one. Or if you would prefer another signification, to be baptized for the dead will mean — to be baptized so as to profit the dead — not the living,6868 “Proufite apres la mort, et non pas la vie durant;” — “Profits after death, and not during life.” Now it is well known, that from the very commencement of the Church, those who had, while yet catechumens, 6969 “Estans encore sur la premiere instruction de la doctrine Chrestienne;” — “Being as yet in the first rudiments of Christian doctrine.” fallen into disease, “Quelque maladie dangereuse;” — “Some dangerous malady.” if their life was manifestly in danger, were accustomed to ask baptism, that they might not leave this world before they had made a profession of Christianity; and this, in order that they might carry with them the seal of their salvation.

    So I think we can say that the Mormons baptizing the dead is at best a pagan superstition, and at worst anabaptism — disavowing the licit baptism that believers have had to bring them into their heretical fellowship. Besides, Christ knows his own.

Comments are closed.