Tag Archives: Theology

Are New Atheists Idiots?

I came across this artice on Slate on some arrogant, “intellectually superior” atheist named Martin Pribble is leaving the atheist community because the religious are unthinking and irrational.

He spends the first few paragraphs deriding faith and religious people, with such arrogantly superior gems as this:

There is no point in it. All this back-and-forth sniping serves to do is to make us feel a sense of superiority to the person making the claims and does nothing for them except leave them with a smugness about their assumption that “atheists are all mean.” Faith overrides knowledge and truth in any situation, so arguing with a theist is akin to banging your head against a brick wall: You will injure yourself and achieve little.

Just after a few paragraphs of this type of arrogance, he then states this:

I have decided to define myself by what I stand for in life rather than what I don’t believe in. I call this “methodological humanism.” In essence, methodological humanism is a standpoint by which everyone, theist, agnostic, and atheist alike, can agree on as a platform from which we can all benefit: the need for food, water, and sanitation; the protection of our natural environment; and the preservation of the world as a whole. Without these things, we, as a species, cease to exist.

Make sure to read the link to “methodological humanism.”

Are atheists really this intellectually blind? Can he honestly not see the disconnect?

He derides faith, then blindly creates his own little faith-based beliefs which we should all agree for we will all “benefit”.

But I’m probably just “banging my head against a brick wall” as even if he reads this he probably will not see.

****

Bonus Fun: On the sidebar of his blog he states “I am a member of Secular Woman”. I have no point with this but it amused me.

Advertisements

The Holocaust: God Loves the Jews

Bryce questions why the holocaust has received such an inordinate amount of attention given that the deaths of a few million is not particularly uncommon.

The most telling reason is found withing what is contained, or rather not contained, within Bryce’s essay. Bryce, as with almost everyone who writes of the holocaust, focuses on the Jews, of which 4-6 million were killed (I don’t care what the exact number is). Given that slavs, particularly Poles, were the largest victims of the nazi cleansings and the largest planned targets,it is interesting that the Jewish killings are the only ones focused upon. We can ascertain it is not the nazi killings themselves which are the focus, but the killings of the Jews in particular.

This means that the obvious neoreactionary analysis, the Whig interpretation of history Bryce mentions, is likely incorrect, or at least incomplete. If it were simply Whig history, then surely the progressives would have been happy to throw the 12M-or-so slavs into the list of crimes of the right.

There are a few other obvious material explanations, some of which Bryce mentions: Jewish predominance in western media, financing, and academia leading to the preeminent position of Jewish historical events, the Western nature of the event (most other modern genocides have been outside the West, in uncivilized places such as Russia and SE Asia), the ruthless Germanic effeciency of modern, organized mass murder technique used, and the historical controversy over the position of Jews in European Christendom.

Instead, I am going to focus on the spiritual aspects.

****

If we look to the Old Testament, the Jewish and Christian scriptures, we find the same story played out repeatedly. Biblical Israel presents one of the greatest known examples of cyclical history.

Almost the entirety of the Old Testament, from Moses to Nehemiah, spanning a millenium, is the same story, repeated again and again, with only the names and details changed.

Yahweh loves the Israelites, chooses them from among the nations, and blesses them. Israel prospers, but turns from Yahweh, whoring after foreign idols. God sends prophets, famine, and, particularly, the foreign sword in attempts to draw Israel back into the covenant. In distress, Israel repents and cries for mercy. God, in His compassion and mercy relents and blesses His chosen. Israel prospers yet again, but yet again forgets and whores after foreign idols once more.

The same cycle repeated endlessly. This stiff-necked, stubborn people always spurning their blessing and turning against the God who loves them in favour of the fallen gods of their enemies.

****

But the cycle was finally to end: the Jewish messiah comes to Israel. The salvation of Israel is at hand. Yet Israel rejects Him; the Jewish leaders compel the Roman officials to commit deicide. The Jewish messiah is murdered upon the cross while Israel cries, “His blood be on us, and on our children.”

The cycle has not ended.

****

God loves the Jews, but the Jews have rejected Him. They have murdered His Son and sworn that His blood be upon their children.

God’s chosen have never repented this crime.

Yet God loves His chosen the same.

He yearns for them, He desires them return unto His love and mercy.

Yet, these stiff-necked, stubborn people refuse His love, reject His mercy.

So God does what He has always done for His chosen, he calls to them.

Through fire and sword he whispers His love and His desire for reconciliation.

Through temporal discipline, he displays His eternal love for His own.

During the Shoah, God replaced famine and sword with gas and bullet.

If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land. Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer that is made in this place. For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time. – 2 Chronicles 7:14-16 (ESV)

God calls to His chosen to repent and turn to Him, for He loves them. The Holocaust was the most recent manifestation of God’s love for Israel.

****

This spiritual aspect is the reason for the west’s disproportionate focus on the Shoah. Whatever the west’s fallen state, it is still primarily Christian in origin and thought.

The story of the Shoah is compelling for it is western civilization’s founding mythos acting itself out for our modern age.

Most westerners in this degenerate age may not understand it intellectually, but on a cultural level, they know this: the Old Testament was brought to life in all its gory glory.

The eternal story from which western civilization was birthed was and is being told and we can not turn away.

Most will deny the spiritual implications, as our age is one of materialism, of denial of the spirit and of God. Some of the spiritual will deny that it was God’s hand, for they deny the Christian story; they look only unto God’s mercy, forgetting that without God’s judgment, God’s mercy is worthless. But those who have eyes will see and those who have ears will hear.

Those who are unable to hear and those who are unable to see, are also unable to ignore. The truth, even when denied, draws them.

That is the reason the Shoah is the target of such disproportionate focus: it touches our civilizational mythology and tugs at our dwindling Christian spirit.

The Jew may refuse to repent, but cannot turn away.

The gentile Christian sees his own story played out on the Jew writ large and cannot turn away.

The non-Christian see the Lord calling him to be His own through the Jew and, though he may reject the call, can not turn away.

We can not help but look at God’s love and judgment poured out.

Deep spiritual truths from the days of old played themselves out for us in an unforgettable manner. The story of Elijah, of Moses, of Joshua, of the Prophets enacted before our very eyes. Even if we choose not see.

Blessed be the Lord our God.

****

They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.

How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan.

And he led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.

And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased.

He cast out the heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents.

Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:

But turned back, and dealt unfaithfully like their fathers: they were turned aside like a deceitful bow.

For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.

When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:

And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy’s hand.

He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance.

The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.

Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation.

Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.

And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach.

Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:

But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds:

From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.

So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.

Psalm 78: 43-43, 53-72


Christian Marriage

Man was created to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. It is not good for Man to be alone, so Woman was created from Man as Man’s helper. Once united in marriage the two become one flesh, indivisible. This union is as the union of Christ and the Church. The sex act, by itself, is enough to create this union. Any sexual relation outside of this union of this is a sin against God and against one’s own body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is taken very seriously by God. Marriage is to be held in honour by all and the marriage bed is not to be defiled by sin.

The fall led to Man’s work being unyielding and ultimately fruitless and Woman’s submission being to a fallen Man who can never fully be what she needs. Yet, in Christ and His kingdom, Man can build a home eternal where his treasures never rust or decay. In Christ, Woman can submit to Man as to Christ.

Marriage is not eternal; it is made for this world. The dead and the resurrected do not marry for they cannot die. Marriage does not carry from this world to the next; marriage ends with death, and with death alone.

Some men are meant to be alone; they are made eunuchs by birth, by men, and for the sake of the kingdom. It is good for a man not to have sex and not to marry, for he can devote himself fully to the Lord. But not every man is given the gift to remain chaste, remember, Man was not meant to be alone. It is better to marry than burn with passion; if a man cannot exercise sexual self-control, he should marry. Each man unable to do so should each take his own wife. Both marriage and celibacy are good, neither is a sin, but neither Man nor Woman should primarily be focusing on either marriage or being free from marriage. Young women, particularly widows, are given extra encouragement to marry. One should not be burdened or restrained whatever one’s choice, as the choice of whether to marry is for a person’s own benefit, to best promote order and devotion to the Lord. Those who forbid marriage are deceitful; each man should live as he is called. The unmarried should be devoted to the Lord, while the married will necessarily split their devotion.

Marriage has two biblical purposes: to sate passion to avoid sin and for man to have a helper in his mission (to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth). In addition to the commandment to be fruitful, Women will be saved from responsibility for the fall through child-bearing. Any marriage taken should be for one, but optimally both, of these purposes.

To marry a divorced man or woman is to commit adultery. For a man to marry a prostitute or non-virgin or marry more than one woman is less sanctified and may prevent a man from having a position of leadership, but is not necessarily sin.

Christ is the head of man and the husband is the head of his wife for Woman was created for Man.  A wife is to submit in everything to her husband, as the Church to Christ, for the Church is Christ’s bride. No woman should have spiritual authority over a man, yet a wife has authority over her husband’s body, while the husband has the same over hers.  Likewise husbands should love their wives as Christ does the church and as they love their own bodies. A Christian’s submission to Christ and God is to be total and absolute, so should a wife’s submission to her husband. As well, Christ’s love for the church was absolute and self-sacrificing, so should a husband’s love for his wife. Neither man nor women are independent.

To divorce and remarry is sin. A woman is bound to her husband until he dies and a husband should not  divorce his wife, for it is to commit violence. There are only two acceptable justifications for divorce and remarriage: adultery and abandonment by a unbelieving spouse. Separation without remarriage and with attempts to reconcile is acceptable, but not recommended.

****

With all the discussion of marriage around these parts I decided to create a summary for myself of what I could find in the Bible on the issue.

Marriage is both a less important and more important than much of modern Christianity makes of it. It is less important In that being married is not necessary to the faith, as some seem to advocate.

But it’s more in that if you do become married, it is a major dedication for both men and women. Men are to be as Christ, women are to fully submit; there are no outs and there is Biblically no such thing as asking too much in a marriage, for either men or women. Also, Simon is right, Woman was created for Man, and a married woman does not submit to God and is not accountable to God, but to her husband.

The common manosphere meme of divorcing if your wife doesn’t provide sex does not seem to have any support, unless adultery is defined far more broadly than would seem prudent. You have to love her anyway.

So, before you marry, count your costs and be prepared to carry your cross. Biblically, it is a huge, irreversible step with very limited escape clauses.


The Curse of Eve

But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:20-22)

Eve was created to be the helper of Adam, to assist him in his great work, which, thanks to the curse of Adam, is a hard, miserable task.

Eve was tempted and in turn tempted Adam with her sweet fruit; he fell, as men are wont to do when a woman’s sweet fruit is involved. Adam was a given a cruel curse for weakness, but Eve was as well.

To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

The first part of the curse is harsh, but simply; Adam and Eve were blessed to be fruitful and multiply, but to Eve being fruitful became a painful and deadly experience. That is the first part of her curse, to desire children with her innermost being, but to suffer, and often die, in the bearing.

Yet, the second part of the curse is less straightforward, but more interesting. The more literal translation from Hebrew is more interesting still:

…and to your man is your following and he will regulate in you,

Following and regulate as defined for this:

Following: To go, proceed or come after. Being next in order or time. Subsequent to. As the river follows the path of its banks.

Regulate: To govern or correct according to rule. Rule over a dominion. To bring order, method, or uniformity to. To compare one thing to another in the sense of a rule of measurement, often as a proverb or parable.

Eve’s curse then is to desire her husband and to follow after him.

Her purpose, woman’s purpose is to help man, her greatest desire is to follow after their husband, she yearns to be his.

He will regulate in you. Her curse is not primarily that man controls her outwardly, physically, but rather that he rules in her.

Adam controls Eve’s emotional being; to him she is devoted, for him is her greatest desire, and to follow him is her greatest pleasure and purpose.

Eve’s curse is emotional dependence on fallen man. She desires to her very core to be wholly his.

Adam has absolute rule over her inner world, whether she wills it or not.

Before the curse, she was a helper to a perfect leader. Now she is a subject to a fallen man cursed with bitter hardship. This fallen man may be cruel, he may be weak, he may foolish, he may be sinful, he may despise her, he may reject her, and he will most certainly hurt her. He will never be the perfect man, God’s own untainted image, in which she yearns with longing deep to lose herself, subsume herself.

This is the paradox of Eve’s curse: She yearns to be Adam’s as he was, but Adam as he is is fallen: sinful and weak. She sees his weakness and may rebel against him and herself to her own ruin, but however much she may rebel, she knows she is beholden to him. Her desire for fallen Adam causes her suffering for she can not be rid of it, yet he is not the perfect man he was before he fell. Rebellion against his imperfection only causes her greater suffering for her need to be Adam’s is her very core.

Woman can only find true joy and purpose in wholly devoting herself to man, yet man, being imperfect, will never truly fulfill her longing to lose herself wholly in him.

Adam’s curse is to labour brutally and unceasingly only to see it come to ruin; Eve’s curse is to suffer the whims of cursed Adam or suffer the utter desolation of being bereft of Adam.


The First King – Reaction in the Bible

We here at Free Northerner (the royal we) are monarchists, possibly anarcho-monarchists. Becoming more reactionary by the day, we are probably now Jacobites. All hail the Stuarts.

In point of fact, we have made spirited defences of restoring the Stuarts in real life among both friends and strangers, to little effect, but still the effort was made.

Yet, labels do not fit us well, for we are also culturalists, subsidiaritists, and tribalists, and tribal English anarcho-monarchic localism, doesn’t really roll off the tongue.*

But, we are also Christian. In fact, our Christian identity should supersede our other identities (at least philosophically, if not always in practice).

So today, we will examine the neoreaction by the Bible (or at least part of it). For what is more reactionary than following the natural laws dictated by God thousands of years ago and sustained by tradition over millennia.

So, what does the Bible say of monarchy:

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.” (1 Samuel 8:10-18)

That’s kind of harsh towards monarchs.

But notice, a tenth. The king only takes a tenth. Our blessed, generous democratic government takes four-tenths, more if you dare provide good service to your fellow citizens.

Even God himself only asked for one-tenth, yet the democrat asks for many times that.

The king thinks himself the equal of God; the democrat thinks government to be greater than God, if not God itself.

If one-tenth was tyranny, what is four-tenths?

Anyway, it should come as no surprise to anyone reading this that the masses desired more tyranny, so God gave them their king.

So, a monarch may take less than the democrat, but God and his servant clearly believe that is tyranny compared to what came before, even if the mob demanded tyranny. So, what came before?

And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, wbut they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them xand show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:7-9)

Prior to the monarch God ruled directly. More accurately, the people constantly rebelled against the True King, got themselves in trouble in their rebellion, and then God rescued them through a judge, only to be abandoned once again.

And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. And they abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the Lord to anger. They abandoned the Lord xand served the Baals and the Ashtaroth. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he gave them over to plunderers, who plundered them. And he sold them into the hand of their surrounding enemies, so that they could no longer withstand their enemies. Whenever they marched out, the hand of the Lord was against them for harm, as the Lord had warned, and as the Lord had sworn to them. And they were in terrible distress.

Then the Lord raised up judges, who saved them out of the hand of those who plundered them. Yet they did not listen to their judges, for they whored after other gods and bowed down to them. They soon turned aside from the way in which their fathers had walked, who had obeyed the commandments of the Lord, and they did not do so. Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge. For the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who afflicted and oppressed them. But whenever the judge died, they turned back and were more corrupt than their fathers, going after other gods, serving them and bowing down to them. They did not drop any of their practices or their stubborn ways. So the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he said, “Because this people have transgressed my covenant that I commanded their fathers and have not obeyed my voice,I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of the Lord as their fathers did, or not.” So the Lord left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. (Judges 2:11-23)

The entire book of Judges is simply an endless repeat of variations on the same story. If we go even earlier in the Bible, we can see that the ruling of these judges was a part of the law of God:

“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. (Deutoronomy 18:15-19)

This tells us about leadership during crises but how about political leadership in everyday life? To that we can go to the law on how leaders were chosen:

“You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not pervert justice. You shall not show partiality, hand you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and subverts the cause of the righteous. Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you.(Deutoronomy 16:18-20)

“If any case arises requiring decision between one kind of homicide and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another, any case within your towns that is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose. And you shall come to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office in those days, and you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place that the Lord will choose. And you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you. According to the instructions that they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do. You shall not turn aside from the verdict that they declare to you, either to the right hand or to the left. The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So syou shall purge the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear and fear and not act presumptuously again. (Deutoronomy 17:8-13)

Before the monarch, Israel was a series of tribes, 12 tribes to be exact, who more or less ran themselves locally with the help of the priestly tribe. In times of trouble, a leader appointed by God would save their stubborn asses. Law and politics was handled by locally appointed judges and priests.

Theocratic tribalism was the order of the day in Israel.

The priestly tribe, although given much political and legal power, was set apart:

“The Levitical priests, all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion or inheritance with Israel. They shall eat the Lord’s food offerings as their inheritance. They shall have no inheritance among their brothers; the Lord is their inheritance, as he promised them. And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from those offering a sacrifice, whether an ox or a sheep: they shall give to the priest the shoulder and the two cheeks and the stomach. The firstfruits of your grain, of your wine and of your oil, and the first fleece of your sheep, you shall give him. For the Lord your God has chosen him out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the name of the Lord, him and his sons for all time. (Deutoronomy 18:1-5)

It’s almost platonic in nature. A tribe of philosopher-kings (theologist-kings?) running the show, but who are not allowed to accumulate wealth or land.

God did allow for “political evolution” though.

“When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

“And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (Deutoronomy 17:14-20)

Despite his warnings of the corruption of kings later on, God did allow for Israel to appoint a king. Allowance does not mean it’s for the better though.

It’s almost as if monarchy itself were the first progress. This raises the question: is monarchism reactionary or are monarchists simply not dark enough? At the risk of trying to be darker than thou, should theocratic tribalism be what reactionaries, Christian ones at least, be working towards?

I don’t think it’s too important, either would be better than rule by the ignorant and apathetic and both were allowable and recommended by Old Testament law. Just something to think about.

Also, note how important the rule of law was under both tribalism and monarchism. It’s fairly obvious that the rule of law was more important to God than the specific ruler or method of ruling.

Who exercises power is less important than that there be law and the law be upheld justly.

****

From these readings we can tell the natural political order blessed by God is theocratic tribalism, although monarchism is allowable, even if it has its downsides (10% tax! The tyranny!). The rule of law is more important than either of these forms though.

At some point, I plan to look to the New Testament to see if there is a Christian political order apart from the Israelite order.

****

* Note for those who may be stupid: These are not code words. We are not white nationalists, white supremacists, nor white [insert label here], as whiteness is far too diverse and amorphous to base a community around (what have I to do with a Spaniard and what has he to do with me?). Neither are we racists, by any reasonable definition of said term. By culturalist and tribalist, we mean that people prefer to associate with people similar to them; either as close kith and kin (local tribalism) or by shared cultural understandings (culturalism). These are the two things one can build a cohesive society around: family or shared culture. For English nations, We advocate a return to a society based around the family, local community, and English culture. For non-English folk in English countries, we advocate them either accepting English culture and becoming English, or emigrating/separating to build their own societies however they please.


More on Rights

Phineas has responded to my response. It seems that we are mostly in agreement in the whole:

Ordinarily, in any other case outside of gender relations, I’d agree with Free Northerner’s post more wholeheartedly. But the original text was about the relationship between men and women and must be dealt with in that light. With the warped and twisted way life is right now, the only proper thing is that any discussion regarding men is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve rights. Conversely, any discussion involving women is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve responsibilities. As long as the rights/responsibilities pendulum is being held to the side and not allowed to rest at equilibrium, this must be the case.

Nowadays, men are given responsibility without the right to the fruits of their efforts, while women are given rights to the fruits of men’s efforts, without the responsibility of working for it. I agree, and I also think it is deplorable. So maybe, some imbalance in the discussion to the reverse may be necessary.

But I still stand by my original assertion, but I’ll expand based upon his criticisms. Nobody, neither men nor women, have natural rights, and nobody, neither men nor women, has a natural obligation to most other people.

By natural obligations, I mean that people owe the provision of something to other people. People do have God-ordained obligations to God (which take the form of being rendered to other people), to specific people (ie: parents), and obligations to not commit certain actions against others.

In this case, I am using natural rights as an abstract theological/philosophical concept. Not as a practical concept. People do have ‘rights’ as a practical matter, but these are social and political creations, no more, no less. It is necessary for a society to develop a list of rights and freedoms (and corresponding responsibilities), as inviolable freedoms lead to the healthiest societies.

But these rights are not granted to you by God, these rights are not something inherent in being born, these rights are social creations.

Despite our general agreement, I’ll talk to a few other points:

Rights are exhibited in the form of laws, and God has His own laws. “Right to life”“thou shalt not kill”. “Right to private property”“thou shalt not steal” and the like.

The duty to not kill does not necessarily imply a right to not be killed. The duty to not take others property does not necessarily imply a right to private ownership. I agree fully that every society should have both a right to life and a right to property, but neither of those are inviolable gifts from God. Given that God has seen fit to let almost one in three people die as infants throughout the majority of history and often personally commanded mass genocide and executions, it is hard to see where a right to life is guaranteed.

Those that go around claiming “rights don’t exist” will at the same time cry about their rights or the rights of others when the government comes to take their guns, or someone robs their home, or even claim a “right to life” when it comes to the issue of abortion.

One can discount natural rights, yet still believe in societal rights, or simply desire to be left alone. An American can say they have a right to a gun, because the right to a gun is societally accepted in their constitution, and non-Americans can desire a societal right to own a gun. Neither implies a natural right. There is no fundamental contradiction.

This leads into responsibilities undertaken willingly, which addresses Col 3:22 and Matt 16:24-27. People can willfully trade responsibility for responsibility. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist, but that people have the right to negotiate an exchange of goods and services. It, however, is a proof that responsibilities come from rights and not the other way around. Undertaking all things have a cost, and even Jesus warned of counting costs in such things. The misapplication of these Scriptures involve the fact that a choice was made to undertake a vow. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist.

I highly doubt most slaves had a choice in the matter and willfully traded their freedom for the care of their master.

Christ does not bid anyone come by force. This is obligation. The nature of men is to turn something that should be out of love into a forced obligation and something that should be given out of grace into an entitlement.

Absolutely agree.

This brings us back to the silly and absurd statement that “rights don’t exist”. When this is said in the context of the manosphere, it usually meant to mean “Rights Don’t Exist for Men.” In traditional practice, this is a true statement. This is readily seen by the practice of chivalry, which takes all rights away from men and all responsibilities away from women. This is akin to the statement that “Responsibilities Don’t Exist For Women”.

When I say it, I mean it for both sexes. I have written a number of times on the double-standard of rights, including chivalry. What society enforces and what is natural are not one and the same.

****

Also, this got linked on Reddit, where I was accused of subverting the red pill for Christianity. I will simply say the same conclusion must be reached by atheists. What natural rights do accidently evolved bags of water that happen to have certain electrical and chemical interactions occur within them have? Where do these natural rights come from?

The answer is they have none and they cannot come from anywhere. Any atheist proclaiming the existence of natural rights has simply failed to review his presuppositions. I thought this was obvious enough to those in the alt-right to not need mentioning.


A Respectful Response: Rights Don’t Exist

Ballista has responded to one of my more recent posts:

Related to this matter is the blog post here. While men need their gardens to tend and need them to bear fruit, the problem with Free Northerner’s premise is that it is couched in terms of responsibilities and not rights. Any responsibility undertaken without the complete freedom of choice (a right) amounts to slavery. This is the usual mistake of frame that the feminist man-hating traditionalist “Christians” make to justify their warped and twisted profane view of marriage. It is these same people who are producing the man-up rants when their man-slaves run off the plantation and deprive a woman of her rightful divorce and fabulous cash and prizes. As Antz writes (the first comment):

Ballista’s mistake here is simple, there is no discussion of rights without responsibilities.

Contrary to popular mythology, there is no such thing as a natural right. God does not grant anyone a right to freedom, a right to life, a right to happiness, or any other such silly thing. The existence of natural rights is simply the delusion of the liberal. On the other hand, the legal fiction of natural rights is a useful political tool, as it establishes a basis for a free society, the most effective form of social organization man has yet attained, but it is still extra-biblical.

True rights come from responsibilities. A right to something comes from man’s earning it. He who works not, eats not.

The delinking of the rights and responsibilities is one of the largest causes of societal dysfunction. From it flows the entitlement society.

True freedom is responsibility is simply the absolute responsibility for self. Man is only truly free when given the absolute responsibility to act for himself and bear the consequences and reap the rewards of said actions.

That being said, Ballista is right in this:

The lack of the freedom to choose (i.e. “you MUST marry, and I don’t care if it’s a land whale, slut, womyn, boy claiming to be a woman or otherwise, you WILL man-up and marry it you piece of scum”) – and yes it’s Scriptural, is the essence of the definition of slavery.

The ultimate end of the issue is that men need to be freed to undertake what is good, beneficial and right before them and before God.

Marriage is not a command, it is a gift from God. Men should be wise in choosing a wife and anyone who tries to pressure a man to marry, especially to a women in rebellion of the natural order, is to be condemned.

Also, men do need to be freed, but not because they have some natural right to it, but because only in their freedom can they find true responsibility. Only a man free to find his own way will find what he truly should be responsible for.

Ballista, if you reply to this, I’m busy and won’t be able to reply for a few days at least.