Welcome to The Blog of the Kurgan

This is the most important essay on how intelligence, IQ, emotions, and logic work that I have ever read.

Internal blindness and emotional barriers

I have studied the human mind for at least 20 years and this essay has explained things I observed but could not really explain fully or at least well enough for my own satisfaction until now. Mixed with my experiences of martial arts of decades, it reduced to some observed truths.

One being that people avoid reality unless or until, physical pain is administered as a direct consequence. This is true and even animals can be trained to behave in certain ways through such methods, but it is not ideal or even practical, certainly not at a societal level, but also at a personal level.

Spartans were efficient and violence and pain was the main teaching instrument, so it absolutely does work, but it is not ideal for good relations in say a family unit.

The contrast between such methods being accepted say 50 or 70 years ago (or in my own raising, as older Gen X) and now is drastic.

Society didn’t have so many emotionally incontinent dyslexics! And everyone got by.

So that brutal method works, BUT, what if instead one approaches the situation from childhood so that a child gets taught to do something and his emotions of it are linked to it when they are good, and instead taught when a negative emotion happens to try and process it differently, say as a motivator, or marker of excellence.

Anyone that has done martial arts seriously will know that every one of us “forces” ourselves to process our pain, injuries, even fear itself as a “necessary” thing that once overcome makes us into better people. And it’s true, it does.

Sometimes you need to fool your brain into saying “this pain is ok, it’s good for me even if right now it hurts and maybe it will even cause serious or even permanent damage,* but I am choosing to go carry on past it, because it’s better on the other side of it and I WILL get there.” The fact is we don’t really know for sure what is on the other side, but all those who do get there know it was worth it after all.

And in that way our scars and so on are more tolerable. And we then learn to do the same emotionally, and again, overcoming your own emotions is always a positive for the most part.

The one exception is if you become so scarred over you can’t feel any good ones anymore. But then… you can reverse that situation by doing more of the same… forcing yourself to feel the good too. My living a year in the most beautiful city in the world (Venice) was essentially an aspect of doing that. It was very difficult to accept and be surrounded by such heartbreaking beauty alone. But I also knew it was healing.

So to get back to people who have a lowered ability in this capacity, starting with children, how do we teach them to use their emotions intelligently without limiting their ability to face diversity from the start? As I said, I suggest the method above of linking emotions to learning.

* The point is NOT to be so bull-headed to rush towards permanent injury with little thought, quite the contrary, one should become more hyper-aware and focused to avoid it, BUT, one MUST be willing to risk it at least in order to really overcome your own emotions. And evolve.

Subscribe

Share

Join the chat

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Having conversations with the Ice Spartan, and his still evolving theology, alongside his concerns about marriage and women in general, I came upon a realisation that is something you will only begin to see properly only if you have lived long enough on Earth and had enough experience with women of different types and then, at some point, became properly Catholic.

You can’t see this fully or correctly if you are a Protestant (you can come close to it as an Eastern Orthodox but not as close as a Sede Catholic) and not at all if you are an atheist, agnostic or generic Zen type as I was for most of my life, but here it is:

Men have the capacity to be loyal to principles, other men, ideals, family and their loved ones, as well as God to a far higher degree than women. That is right up to death. Women generally don’t and generally never will.

I don’t care for outliers and exceptions of saint this or that. This is a statistically valid reality.

By and large women are only truly loyal to their own emotions and feelings, regardless of how well or badly they march with reality.

This is not really their (entire) fault, because biologically they are wired to be that solipsistic. In the TMOS series on the OG blog I explained why in some depth in part 4 on marriage . And part 6 was on women specifically, but to get the big picture you really need to read the whole TMOS series from the start (scroll down).

Of course women too have free will, so their excuses for their often absurdly selfish actions should not be given a free pass because of this, but it is not wrong to consider them somewhat impaired in terms of making rational choices. Logic, long terms plans that benefit the most people and so on is the purview of men for the most part. As I say, the reasons are mostly biological, so read the TMOS series or Caveman Theory if you want more details on that.

The point here is that the REASON this is a verifiable fact that has been demonstrated throughout human history, is because in general, men have the capacity to sacrifice themselves for something bigger than themselves. This is why for example even though Clown World tells us women are better with children, the fact is that children raised by single parents that are men invariably outperform children raised by single parents that are women in every metric one cares to look at, from academic performance, to criminality, violence, drug use etc etc.

Because men are capable of dedicating themselves to things bigger or more important than themselves (objectively from a specific point of view) they are more able to be more effective at creating good things for society as a whole as well as people around them even if they are not particularly religious. Not so with women. A woman’s true belief in God —and that means the loving Christian God, and even more specifically, the nuanced and humane and humorous Catholic God— is about the only thing she will generally consider as “bigger” or more important than her own emotions.

Women in the Aether are screaming at me right now that they love their children or even husbands (more rare), or have deep love because they are so empathetic to the plights of thousands of military age male refugees from African or Arab lands.

But the truth is they more often than not are in love with their own IDEA of that child or whatever, than the actual child.

I speak from experience as my own mother has always been such a person. Most people (being idiots) assume the woman is a kind and selfless person, the truth is that she only ever does what she wants because of how it make HER feel. The feelings if others were a mask or an excuse or even totally ignored. After my parents divorced, the few men that my mother chose to be with became her pilot star. If she had got with a circus performer she would have elevated being a clown to the pinnacle of human achievement, and if she had been with a banker she would no doubt have extolled the sanctity of usury. The only trait that was ever truly hers was the capacity to just do whatever her emotions told her to.

And most women are indeed like that.

Except when they actually truly believe in a loving God that has specific rules. Then they will tend to follow those rules. And of course if the God is one of a broken or flawed or nonsensical religion, well, then their actions will be just as broken. This is why women are more susceptible to joining cults. The two things that can sway their emotions the most are men (but usually only temporarily) or God.

And because of the two only God is always “unreachable” (and perfect) in full, it is the one they might be most likely to be loyal to.

So, in the search for a wife, if one takes the following things into account:

• Non vaxxed
• Not a huge body count
• No drugs or alcohol
• Has at least a basic physical attraction to you and you to them

You’re already on thin ice in terms of viable numbers of eligible women. Add in

• Truly religious

And the number shrinks drammatically

Add in

• Properly Catholic

And you may be looking at double digit numbers in your entire country.

And while Sede marriages happen, they are probably not the norm and most people reading this are not sede Catholics anyway. Even so, the point stands.

But allowing for some latitude then, what is a young man to do? Ideally he is to gently lead a woman towards the truth of God.

And in such a way that she can find it in her own way too. Not prescribed so much as shown. And so that she can see it for herself.

And if and when she does, and it is tested, then and only then, marry.

And I suggest, marry in church only. A sede church marriage is not recognised by the state, but it is by God. And that is how it should be, because among faithful, there is no need of lawyers and courts and so on. If you are a true believer you will not rob or cheat your neighbour, never mind your wife or husband.

Are these unions rare? Absolutely. But are they possible? Also yes.

Hard to come by? Perhaps. Prayer does seem to help if not done in desperation.

But in any case, this is the harsh reality, and it is always best to see it as it is.

Good luck and may God guide you.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

For all those thinking Vigano is a “real” Traditionalist:

Here is a little dossier you can read up on to show you better who he is.

A small extract:

2010 to 2018 : Legal battle concluding with Carlo Maria Vigano sentenced by the Court of Milan ‘ to pay his brother Don Lorenzo, a disabled priest, a maxi-millionaire compensation. The moralizer Viganò, in fact, had maintained and managed the co-ownership of the assets assigned to them at the death of their father, without any kind of accountability to his disabled brother, a distinguished scholar of Mesopotamian texts. The inheritance includes numerous properties for an estimated value of almost 20 and a half million euros, as well as a significant sum of money (over six million seven hundred thousand euros). The Court found that the former nuncio [Carlo Maria Vigano] had always received the proceeds of the immovable property, holding for himself all the liquidity that was part of the community property, benefiting from a total of “transactions for a net amount of €3,649,866.25”. Now he will have to pay his brother half of that amount, news that still does not appear on the blogs of Viganò’s flatterers, the various Catholic compasses that say they are made for the truth. ’ [5] Carlo Maria Vigano “ had to pay 180 thousand Swiss francs to his sister Rosanna, after she denounced him for the appropriation of 900 million lire deriving from her father’s inheritance. ”

There is PLENTY more at the link.

I didn’t know this stuff but it didn’t make any difference, because I knew enough of Canon Law to be certain he is a snake in the grass, since:

1. He was “ordained” in 1968. Meaning almost certainly with invalid rites.
2. He was made “Bishop” by the fake “pope” Wojtla (however you spell it) so clearly invalidly so.
3. He has continued to promote Vatican II for over 50 years, meaning AT BEST he is a heretic.
4. He has a PhD in Canon Law, of 1917, so he is perfectly aware of canon 188.4.

Conclusion: he is a gatekeeper and part of the Cabal, just as usual, controlling the other side of the coin. The same playbook the Freemasons and Jews who hate Catholicism have been using for millennia.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

It is well known Vox Day has been calling his AI his “new best friend” and while this is chatGPT and I think his is deepseek… I think his new best friend might disappoint Vox if this is any indication…

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I have written before about Western nepotism, but I recently realised there is an even more obvious and more powerful type of nepotism we should all be taking advantage of.

It really has the possibility of inverting the current wasteland of woke dystopia and making it a buried memory of a time of witches, overtaken by a golden age of glory, power and efficiency not seen in living human memory.

It is the hiring, working for, networking with, primarily or only:

Efficient European men.

No bullshit. No worries about paper qualifications. No concern about age. No concern at all about political correctness or their politics —unless they make it a thing that affects their performance or your business— except in one respect: attacks or comments on them from outside people trying to sabotage them get ignored or batted back.

Everything reduced to ONLY two things:

• Effectiveness
• Loyalty (which MUST go both ways)

That’s it.

Share

I have been doing this somewhat unconsciously since the advice and example of life I give and have given throughout my life follows that pattern, but it was rarely reciprocated. I recall precisely one ex employer that operated on that same principle and for the three years he was with that company we made them a LOT of money. After he left, I left shortly thereafter too.

Recently however I have met a gentleman that I think operates on a similar basis and the somewhat unexpected aspect of being in that position again was so refreshing it made me realise that if even a small group got together on that basis and worked together, the results would surpass the expectations of everyone involved.

There really is a synergy when such people  work together that indeed does become more than the sum of the parts.

Of course, it is what I am trying to build near me, and it’s slow work, but once that boulder starts moving, and I think it is now, inching forward, towards the cliff edge, it becomes a force of its own and can turn into an avalanche so quickly some will be left unprepared.

Elements are starting to come together. It’s early days, but I sense a tectonic shift slowly happening.

You should absolutely begin to indulge deeply into this kind of nepotism.

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

The Prot vs Cath post certainly got the retards to come crawling out from under their rocks.

Here is one cretin named Henri Laurent, whose comment is so idiotic he has managed to elevate himself to the spectacle that he will now become in yet another Kurganing.

His comment is in retarded bold , my replies in standard text.

Before his comment, and my vivisection of it, it is worth noting his tone. He attempts to take on the air of the “educated scholar” who will superciliously educate me.

Unfortunately for him, but amusingly for us, he has all the gravitas of a toddler announcing he can count to eleventy million thousand.

“If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)”

Of course Protestants would agree Jesus established a doctrine, but that doctrine is much more minimal than the ever-expanding doctrine of Catholicism.

First clue he’s a retard. Catholicism has never expanded divine doctrine. Only stated it and then explained it in ever-increasing (logical) detail to counter the sophistry, lies, intentional as well as idiotic “interpretations” of those morons who ALL followed the “doctrine” of a maid-raping nun-fetishists who invalidated his entire doctrine off the bat by saying only scripture counts and then promptly modifying that very scripture, not to mention his staunch belief that “reason is the whore of the devil”.

And its in the Bible.

Yes it is retard. And just like a man who reads and tests and sees that 2+2+2=6 and 2+2+2+2=8 might infer or deduce multiplication, every utterance of our Lord and most if not all the passages of the Bible can and do have deeper and extrapolated logical meanings. Also known by anyone who has actually read the Bible since there are multiple levels of knowledge in it and in fact it is stated in it more than once in various ways that different types will get more from it than others.

There is no mention of many things that Catholics added over time.

Catholics didn’t ADD anything, you absolute moron. They EXTRAPOLATED because logic is a thing. Reason is a thing. In fact the very word Logos from which the word logic derives refers to our Lord directly. Now go get a dictionary and look up the following word: extrapolation.

It won’t convince you, but that is because you, like ALL Protestants (bar none) are a cargo cultist. You have no concept of the reality of logic, or objective reality, and hence have no capacity to discern error from truth at ANY resolution. All you do is emote and PRETEND you are “thinking” but you don’t even have the ability, because you have no clue what logic is or how to use it. You’re a toddler. Pretending.

The question of infallibility is not even necessary because the doctrinal system wasn’t meant to become so big and bloated to begin with, and a minimal doctrine doesn’t require that kind of infallibility.

Thank you for demonstrating what I just wrote above perfectly. Since:

1. Name ONE THING that humans have not twisted, corrupted or will be able to corrupt. I really want to see what you come up with in an age when half the planet thinks men can get pregnant. Go on. We’ll wait.
2. Since ALL humans are flawed they WILL corrupt ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. It is literally impossible for them not to. Eventually they will find a way. (See pregnant “men”). This is absolutely OBVIOUS if you can do logic at a level of a normal 7 year old.

Ergo… infallibility MUST and can ONLY be supernaturally guaranteed by God (Jesus) himself. Humans simply can’t do it. And while Vox either didn’t understand the point or dodged it, it remains a fact that if we have these conditions, namely:

1. Humans WILL absolutely corrupt any doctrine whatsoever over time.
2. However simple or limited, God MUST have some rules for salvation to work for us.

Then: those rules will only remain true and available if God Himself makes it so. Because absent that Divine supernatural protection, the rules will be lost, twisted, corrupted and inverted.

Vox dodged the question here saying God broke his own rules to save us, but he did not explain how this in any way prevents certain rules applying to us that we MUST follow to be saved.

If Vox believes no matter what we do God will always break His own rules to save us then that is not love nor do we have any real free will. It’s just a boy playing with his dolls that keep falling down over and over again and he keeps picking them up again.

If on the other hand there ARE some rules, again, however simple they might be, given we WILL corrupt them, a LOVING God would ensure at least for those who SEEK, that the truth can be found, and found to be infallible, that is UNCORRUPTED, for us; thanks to Him keeping it so REGARDLESS of how many times we try to corrupt it.

And Lo and behold, that is precisely what we have in the Catholic Church.

Vox going off at a tangent about Jesus knowing people are dumb, does not answer the point that was asked: why would a LOVING God not give His loved creatures an infallible doctrine they can choose (or reject) to be saved?

“If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?”

Did you really think any type of Christian would deny both that God established a church AND that he established a doctrine?

Vox has certainly denied Jesus necessarily established a Church, since according to him a couple of lesbian “pastors” gathering in his name and telling others Leviticus is old and can be ignored is good enough for Jesus to be with them.

And he dodged the doctrine question by saying God broke his own system to save us, implying both that there IS a system, but it doesn’t really matter because God loves us and will save our sinful ass anyway.

Like all Protestants, when asked to specify if there is really ANYTHING at all that we MUST do to be saved, or conversely if there is anything at all we can do to LOSE salvation, the answers are very far from complete, logical, or form any kind if valid syllogisms, and tend instead to more resemble to mumbled sentences of a generic and fog-like nature.

So, yeah, every Protestant either denies both, one, or none, but can never give a clear answer as to what that doctrine is, or which Church is the right one. Or if all of them are then why have different ones? Each with 40,000 different variants, which is pointless anyway because according to Protties every man interprets everything Biblical by himself anyway. It’s just a morass of cognitive dissonance, avoidance, chaos thoughts, and above all emotions, but supreme above them all: Pride. And not the “good” kind.

Even if someone were to say “no, Paul established the church, not God” then they would still acknowledge that God established a doctrine by giving Paul the gospel of justification by faith alone.

God did no such thing (re: “by faith alone”). You need to learn to read for context and comprehension as well as read the book of James. But then you’re a Protestant, you can’t read, only quote mine, and you think James was Jesus’ brother and that is all.

And you STILL haven’t stated what that doctrine actually IS. Wasn’t it so simple it didn’t even need infallibility? So why don’t you spell it out for us? Go on. We’ll wait!

Now on question 1, someone tried to restate your question as

“A stronger formulation of Kurgan’s first question is ‘If Jesus gave his apostles the authority to teach, to forgive sins, and to distribute the Sacraments until He returns, as He explicitly states in the Gospels, then in what form does that authority exist on earth today?'”

He says nothing about needing authority to “distribute” any “sacraments” in the gospels.

Then why does Paul say if anyone teaches differently than THEY (the apostles) do to ignore them? And WHY did the practice of Apostolic succession exist? And is in fact mentioned in the Bible that others (Simon Magus) tried to fool people into thinking he was too an apostle?

You really need to READ that Bible boy. Not just parrot pieces of it with less grasp of their context than the average chicken has of advanced calculus.

Obviously any Christians can baptize and bless the bread and wine.

This sentence is so stupid it probably should be framed. It is a nested matrix of stupidity so intense it may warp time!

Let us see it as best as we mere mortals can, wary of the fact that looking too hard into such blithering idiocy may in fact kill IQ points from us.

• Please explain how a Christian becomes a Christian if only a Christian can baptise.
• In fact… how can Christians even exist? Since the first baptism must have been done by someone unbaptised and we know the first baptism wasn’t done by Jesus (Gid) so… oh wait! Yeah… you’re an idiot. And the Catholic version is right. ANYONE can baptise. As ling as the form and intent are correct.
• If ANYONE can bless ANYTHING at ANY time, why even have Protestant “pastors”? If Sacraments don’t exist, why have one presiding over things like weddings?
• Explain why you need to bless the bread and wine. Where did Jesus tell his Apostles they need to bless anything?
• In fact explain what a blessing is. And when you are done googling it, and hopefully realise at least a little how abysmally stupid you are, then go on to explain why not anyone can in fact give blessings.

Conclusion

Behold ladies and gentlemen. This is indeed the kind of “reasoning” and “erudition” and “scholarly” work that Protestants inevitably do.

Share

Subscribe

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

I asked Vox three theological questions which in all honesty I expected him to ignore as I know he hates theological debates and the inevitable retardation that follows.

Now I want to make a few things clear:

Leave the man alone and don’t go asking him more questions on this. The point here is not Vox specifically or to have a real in depth debate with him or any of that. My curiosity on his views was due to the fact that he is intelligent and he has a different perspective and one can usually learn something by testing your own views with someone at least able to think on your level who has a different take.

The purpose of this post is to share in general terms the two perspectives and hopefully create an atmosphere of better overall understanding of some fundamental concepts.

The point is to question my own perspective as much as I might question his and see if anything worthwhile shakes out.

His take is here .

And he also had another response from the AI he trained (I think) which he named Vox DAI, here . I found this last to be really quite irrelevant anyway but I added it for the sake of thoroughness. Though I find engaging with it at all pointless so will not do so.

Now to each question I asked, his reply and my view of the exchange.

If God (Jesus) did in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) to follow on Earth, then surely it necessarily must be a) infallible, and b) eternal (at least until end times). Agree? If not, why not? (In this case please explain the reasoning as I doubt I can infer it otherwise)

Disagree. The logic doesn’t follow at all. As with most appeals to “then surely it necessarily” this reveals nothing more than the formulator’s inability to construct the correct syllogisms. The conflation of “eternal” with “until end times” is a giveaway of the formulator’s tendency toward ambiguity.

He is correct that I misused the word eternal. I meant it as merely the time between now and the end times (revelation or the apocalypse) so not actually “eternal” but rather “lasting for the whole of the duration of mankind before the second coming of Christ.” I thought I made it relatively clear in the parenthetical but it is true that it is a conflation, and as I also agree that whatever happens after the second coming may well be an entirely new and different set up, it is at least possibly true that the Church (even in the form of its adherents becoming eternal in the afterlife) as an institution as such may not in fact continue to exist beyond that.

So ok, I asked the question badly and I should have said b) last at least until the second coming.

The reason being He said He would be with us until the end times.

Indeed, the common use of the marriage metaphor for the relationship between Church and Christ indicates that it not only isn’t necessarily eternal, but cannot be.

Furthermore, Jesus Christ knew his apostles were fallible and even predicted some of their specific failures. There is no reason to believe that he had higher expectations of his future followers who would be even further removed from his teachings. I absolutely refuse to believe that Jesus Christ was less intellectually capable or had a weaker grasp on human behavioral patterns than Siddhartha Gautama or me.

The second part appears to be Vox’s lack of understanding that the infallibility presumed by Catholics for their Church is not anything to do with humans, but an aspect of God and hence not reliant on human beings. I am a little surprised if that is how he thinks of it, because Papal infallibility and indeed the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has NEVER been assumed to be the result of any human, including the Popes. It is our belief that Jesus Himself protects the Magisterium AND Ex-Cathedra pronouncements by VALID Popes from error through His own supernatural infallibility.

The reason being that a loving God would give his flawed humans not only a way to be saved, but also a way that is absolutely true that gets transmitted faithfully through the ages without any error in it. From my perspective, which is also probabilistic, not binary (though in some parts it is absolute, but based on faith, not probability), to NOT have such a thing would mean that:

• No one could be sure that ANYTHING is really true or happened as it has been passed down to us by apostolic succession (which preserves the infallibility by being the legitimate way to pass the truth down the ages). If there is no infallible Church then anyone might be right or wrong about an infinite number of things. There could never be certainty of a true path to salvation. (Vox gives his reasoning on this in the second question; in his view that path being simple (even if not certain)).

• Vox subscribes to the Nicean Credo (as explained in exhaustive detail here). But why he should do so is unclear since no doctrine or Church is required (and in any case you cannot be certain of it being infallible anyway). The only answer I see is in some responses he gave on SG that essentially stated he thrives on probabilistic thinking, uncertainty and chaos. I don’t deny that my own mind is quite comfortable with a LOT of uncertainty and I too am a probabilistic thinker, however, in this instance it implies Vox only has a belief that he himself must recognise is only a probability, not a certainty. And in fact he does state this while also pointing out that all of us also have beliefs that are only probabilities, not absolute facts, which is true, since we are all flawed, but it does seem to be a very subjective and not very logical way of selecting the Nicean Credo and rejecting all the others. And if there is no need for doctrine or Church then the Credo itself, and indeed the Bible would not exist, since these were both put together as a result of there being a Church that did both (as well as many other things), so the first principle of how or why that specific Credo should be special is missing. Or the Church must have been required at least so as to put the Bible and the Nicean Credo together (and infallibly so, or at least so close to infallible as to satisfy his probability level to believe it, presumably to the point he would rather die than deny it, which is a pretty high bar, but one I have myself so I know it’s certainly possible to have to this level even if you don’t have certainty.)

• It also needs to be noted that the Nicean Credo of 325 AD was later altered in response to heretics making various claims, but this “alteration” was really (as most of Catholic dogma is) merely a better explanation of some details known by all Catholics but now being brought into question by deceivers (heretics), and so requiring a more detailed explanation. Vox appears to think this change was the adding in of things that were not really known by the Church, but that were added in to fortify their position nevertheless. I think this is wrong and a common error of Protestants. They assume a change is an actual change, instead of a more detailed version to combat the lies. If I say I am a man and someone then says I am a Pygmie, I can then say, “no, I am not, I am a six foot two white guy” that’s not changing who I am or the fact I am a man or my nature. It is simply adding in true information to counter the false one being made.

• It would imply God is leaving us to our own devices for knowing how to behave; which doesn’t seem very loving, but Vox answers this in the second question below.

If you do not agree with the premise that God DID in fact establish a Church (or at least a doctrine) then how do you reconcile this with God being a loving God?

Easily. First, God sent Jesus to rescue us from our fate under His own rules. He values us more than He values His system. Second, Jesus said that wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he would be there. Both are powerful indications of love that require neither Church nor Doctrine.

So… if I understand him correctly Vox believes God has a system (or rules), but he breaks it for love of us. And apparently this means we are ok not to follow them? Because hey, God will save us anyway? Now I know Vox doesn’t subscribe to the retarded concept of once saved always saved, because he expressly stated so in a blog post somewhere years ago, but that logically means he agrees God has some rules. So we are supposed to follow them? But that is only an ideal condition and it doesn’t really matter if we don’t because He’ll probably save us anyway, which is why He hasn’t bothered to make them explicit and infallible? Seems a bit of a hippie and slapdash way of doing things, and not very logical, but I think Vox gets around that by what I assume is his belief that simply loving God back is enough. I have to assume that because his next point is that all it takes for Jesus to be with you is if people (you and at least one other) gather in His name. Sounds like a congregation to me (however small) which again implies a Church, but I guess Vox means at a stretch it could just be a couple of friends discussing Jesus over a beer. I don’t know, I’m trying to give maximum parameters of latitude here to then see how it stacks up against my own beliefs.

As far as I can tell Vox seems to subscribe to the general Protestant view that all you need to do is love God and you’re gonna be saved.

There is certainly some evidence that could be true, Jesus did say all you need to do is love God and love your neighbour.

So in a very summarised form it is valid.

HOWEVER…

There are many other things Jesus said, such as to eat of His Flesh and drink of His Blood in memory of him and in order to have everlasting life. It is not a casual thing, it is repeated in all the gospels and quite specifically each time.

In John 6:53-59, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:18-20, Matthew 26:26-28, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. It is a central tenet of Catholicism that the Holy Mass is a sacrament and includes transubstantiation, and there have been at least 7 cases of transubstantiation being essentially proven in a lab that I am aware of.

It seems to be a very important part of being saved, along with Baptism. And I know Vox believes at least in baptism. But why? After all the Bible that tells us so according to his view was put together by fallible men who acted and belonged and formed a Church he thinks is not required. How could he possibly believe the Bible or the things in it are absolutes or even worthy of respect since they have no specific authority or infallibility in his view?

And if some yes and some no, why baptism but not the Holy Mass complete with transubstantiation?

If all we need to do to is to love God and our neighbour, why bother with baptism or the mass or any of the other things we are told to do like in the ten commandments?

Jesus also gave the power to lose and bind to the apostles and Peter the keys, in:

Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, and Revelation 3:7

A brief but decent explanation is here .

So what was that about? It died with the Apostles and apostolic succession means nothing?

I could go on, but I will limit myself to one more point.

I generally agree God is not a rules lawyer, but a loving God necessarily MUST have rules. Because true, real, love, based in free will, without justice, cannot exist. So some of those rules MUST be able to send you to hell if you break them, and even as a flawed human being you MUST have at least some way to be able to discover what these rules are, as well as figuring out they are in fact infallible rules, and breaking them sends you to hell (unless you truly repent).

And the Catholic Church explains what these rules are, and the history of mankind proves Catholicism is superior in practical and spiritual terms than any other religion. You can tell simply by the fruits of it.

In short, Vox’s position has no real foundation. It is built on sand, and my personal opinion is that his unwillingness to face certain realities concerning this is mostly rooted in a visceral aversion to having any human have any sort of authority over him, however theoretical or subtle it might be.

But the baseline flaw is that WITHOUT that very authority he would have no Bible, no council of Nicea, no credo, no Cathedral, no Crusades (because no Popes) etc etc etc. In short, there is some heavy cargo culting going on here. About 1500 years of truth getting ignored even as everything that comes after it (in error, i.e. Protestantism) is based on it.

As for my own position, it certainly appears to be far more rigid and unforgiving than his, however, that is not the whole story as the Church (and therefore me) believes in the remission of sins, baptism of desire, baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, and so on, which are all ways that a soul may yet enter heaven (well…purgatory at least) that means Catholicism is not as cut and dried as it is invariably presented.

And lastly, the general ignorance of the way Roman Law (which is what Canon Law operates under) is underpinned by logic to an extent not present in any anglo legal system, means some unstated (but logically clear and implied) rules nevertheless apply.

As I said, please leave Vox alone, but feel free to comment to your heart’s content here.

The last question was a lot simpler:

Do you have an opinion/view on whether Mary was and remained a Virgin (sexually at least) both before and after the birth of Jesus?

Yes. If Jesus had brothers and Mary was their mother, then she was obviously no longer a virgin. One virgin birth is divine. Two or more smacks of propaganda or a fundamental failure to understand how reproduction works.

Furthermore, either Mary didn’t remain a virgin or she never became the wife of Joseph because their marriage was never consummated.

The last point is simply that Catholics believe Mary was a virgin both before Jesus as well as after. Her marriage to Joseph was sacramental and thus valid but not sexual. This was not all that unusual in those times.

It also needs to be understood that in those times anything that was “set aside for God” was generally NOT messed with or even touched without there being usually final and deadly consequences, so a woman that gave birth to a boy as a virgin, as per 400 years of Prophecies, “fathered” by God Himself in the form of the Holy Spirit, would hardly be touched by anyone of that belief system, never mind copulated with!

And the Greek word translated as “brother” in the Greek can and does refer to a variety of relatives and even just close friends. Similarly, when the word “brethren” is used it doesn’t literally mean “my brothers”. It’s more like our modern day “bro”. This is relatively well known so I am not sure why Vox ignores this, intentionally or otherwise. Especially since this position was held by ALL of Christianity for well over a millennia and a half.

It indirectly runs into the absurd idea too that all of Christianity was wrong for 1520 years or so until Martin Luther came along and “fixed” it, which is enough to put a total lie to the entirety of Protestantism on its own, because again… by their fruits you shall know them.

Anyway… have at it in the comments here, but have a care because outright trolls and retards will be banned and blocked without warning. You can argue, but if so do NOT ignore the points already made in this post, or misrepresent them. That is a quick route to banning. Instead engage them honestly if you wish to argue them.

Enjoy.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

Along with the previous post, this one too is a favourite song. Kind of sums up as I see things too. Even as the trench warfare continues and even as I too must take my place in it.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

It’s between this one and Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here

You really should read it and know it.

It is one of those few pieces of writing that can sustain and encourage a man even as he gradually or suddenly learns that ultimate truth men must all ultimately face even if you’re surrounded by family and good friends.

We are born alone, live alone, and die alone.

Subscribe

Share

This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here