The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)

When the Beatitudes are a justification for the ignoble.

Readership: All; Men; Single Men;
Theme: Faux-Masculine Archetypes
Reader’s Note: In this essay, suffixes have been added to ressentiment to form different inflexions.
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Foreword

When I started this study of The Decadent Christian, I expected decadence to be related to hedonism, as I covered in the last post. But during my research, I came across an incisive description of The Disease of Decadent Christianity (2022-4-29), written by J. M. Smith over at The Orthosphere, in which he described another type of decadence related to ressentiment (to be described in the following section).

After gaining a better understanding of ressentiment, I’ve come to see it as a kind of social Anarchy, and that it is practically everywhere! This type of decadence is even more prevalent than hedonism and perhaps even more damaging and definitely more debasing.

So this post will borrow excerpts from Smith’s essay to explore the nature and motivations of the ressentimental Christian. [Images and section titles added.]

Image credit: Sam P. K. Collins

Ressentiment

In The Disease of Decadent Christianity (2022-4-29), J. M. Smith at The Orthosphere describes ressentiment as follows.

“Decadent Christianity also exhibits the perversion of ressentiment, by which is meant a system of inverted values in which everything low is exalted, and everything high is pulled down.  This is Nietzsche’s argument that Christianity is at bottom a “slave morality” with which inferior men take their revenge on the natural nobles with a “transvaluation of values.”

“It is important to understand the difference between resentment and ressentiment.  An ugly woman may resent the fact that she is ugly, but ressentiment would be the system of inverted values with which she (and others like her) attempts to take revenge by denigrating the beauty of beautiful women.  A stupid man may resent the fact that he is stupid, but ressentiment would be the system of inverted values with which he (and others like him) attempts to take revenge by denigrating the intelligence of intelligent men.”

We have seen this inversion of values taken to a new level in the politically correct West.

  • Masculinity is “toxic.”
  • Headship is “abusive.”
  • Christian morality is blasé.
  • The common man is “deplorable.”
  • H0mosexuals are branded as “special.”
  • Illicit affairs are a “healing experience.”
  • Abortion is called “planned parenthood.”
  • Recognizing gender differences is “sexist.”
  • Being indignantly offended is a virtue signal.
  • Authenticity is debased or dismissed as raw “white toxicity.”
  • “Natural” is commonly misinterpreted as barbaric individualism.
  • Advocates and seekers of truth are tamped down by the tone police, even within the church!
  • Virginity has become a byword. Virgins are ridiculed in public and sold to the highest bidder in private.
  • Men who have a more natural and healthy attraction for young, beautiful, fertile, nubile women are compared to ephebophiles.
  • Cacomorphiles insist on recasting obese women as “full-figured” or “shapely”, and those blimpophobes who disagree are roundly dismissed as cruel and heartless.
  • Jaded aging harlots are presented as “sex symbols”, and sadly, many men have come to agree, even to prefer women who are “experienced”, oversexed, and past their reproductive prime.

The shocker is that these metanyms are not euphemisms — every person is fully expected to adopt these terms as standard English vocabulary in order to be accepted into “polite” society! Anyone disagreeing with any of these delusions is denigrated as a misogynist, a racist, “Edwardian”, “Victorian”, etc.

Ressentiment within Christianity

Returning to J. M. Smith’s essay.

“Christianity opens the way to ressentiment when it teaches that ugliness and stupidity are not marks of God’s curse, and that the ugly, the stupid, the poor, and the lame may therefore have as good a hope of heaven as those who are not so ill favored.  The perversion of this teaching occurs when the lowly use Christianity as a pretext to act on their envy and take revenge on the natural nobles.  They do this by instituting a system of inverted values in which their lowliness is a mark of holiness — in which ugliness, stupidity, poverty and infirmity are marks of a spiritual superiority.”

“This is the “revolt of all that creeps on the ground against what is elevated,” and it of course mirrors the revolt of Satan and man against God.

We can see that this ressentiment is a perverse and decadent Christianity if we look at its locus classicus, the beatitudes enumerated in the Sermon on the Mount.  When Jesus says, “blessed are the meek”, He is not saying that “the meek” are henceforth a new nobility that can lord it over those who are bold.  Indeed, to say this would be a contradiction because the meek would no longer be meek if they declared that their meekness entitled them to power and prestige.

Humble folk stop being humble the moment they begin to wear their humbleness as a crown!

No honest Christian can deny that there is a decadent Christianity in which “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” has been perverted into “blessed are those who hunger and thirst for revenge.”  And no honest Christian can deny that those who hunger and thirst for revenge will, if sufficiently numerous, take their revenge with ressentiment, a “slave morality,” an inverted system of values.”

How many “Christians” do you know who actively support inflammatory social movements that have no clear goals and even condone violence in support of these social causes?

Black Lives Matter riots in Seattle, 2020.

Summary of Ressentimental Decadency

Ressentiment is the end goal of liberal progressivism and it is also the preeminent zephyr overshadowing 21st century Christianity. As such, nearly every modern social and religious issue has roots in the ressentiment of some facet of life.

The ressentimenal individual discredits and disrespects the beautiful and excellent people of the world by calling them various derogatory names, “privileged” being the most popular one at present. Instead, the ignoble are celebrated and elevated, and those who disagree with these inverted values are shamed.

Those who engage in such kinds of social politicking are thereby acting as an ethical and moral anarchist.

  • The ethical anarchist is the type of person who subscribes to non-Christian philosophies, such as Critical Race Theory, Feminism, cultural Progressivism, certain aspects of Wokeism, etc.
  • The moral anarchist compromises long revered Christian principles by condoning, affirming, or even participating in social movements such as gender equality, pro-abortionism, g@y rights, and QTBGL+ flourishment, and the brash gasconade thereof.

Christians who do the same are participating as unwitting minions in the evils of Progressivism.

As Vox says, nominal Christian ressentimentalists and authentic Christians cannot coexist.

Masculinity Rating

Strength: 0-2
Honor: < 0 (detracts from what is honorable)
Authority: < 0 (relinquishes authority)
Respect: < 0 (repudiates what is respectable)
Purpose: 0-10 (however, these purposes are self-centered and work against the nobler aspects of Christian values)  

Average Score: 0

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Abortion and Birth Control, Adultery and Fornication, Agency, Authenticity, Collective Strength, Convergence, Counterfeit/False Paradigms, Culture Wars, Faux-Masculinity, Feminism, Holding Frame, Homosexuality, Misogyny, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization, Politics, Psychological Disorders, Psychology, Purpose, Racial Relations, Sex, White Wash, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The Decadent Christian (Ressentimentalism)

  1. cameron232 says:

    Thanks for highlighting that important Orthosphere post, Jack. I think it was in response to young reactionary commenters.

    We’re so used to attacks on Christianity from the left, we can’t forget to respond to the “Christianity is the grandmother of Bolshevism” crowd.

    Some good comments in that Orthosphere post. As someone points out, Biblical context must be taken into account, e.g. the rich and the poor. In the 1st century cultural context, the point is that being rich isn’t necessarily a sign of God’s favor just as being poor (or sick or lame) isn’t necessarily a sign of being cursed by God.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      Jesus was against those who are rich in his day and country because of their faith in their riches rather than God.

      Rather than putting God at the top as he deserves they mix up their priorities and hence many of them worship themselves.

      Its not that the gifts and privileges themselves are bad. Given how God himself is the most privileged and gifted and perfect in beauty(Psalm 50:2) among all that exists.

      But that they fail to ultimately put God first and using their gifts for his ultimate glory.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. redpillboomer says:

    In the light of the Bible’s, “There’s nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), I’ve started the practice in my head of taking some of these modern euphemisms we come up with for just about everything, and then asking myself, “What is the Biblical terminology for that?” In the case of Ressentimentalism, it made me think of Isaiah 5:20-21.

    Isaiah 5:20-21 (NKJV)
    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
    Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
    Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
    And prudent in their own sight!

    Liked by 6 people

  3. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  4. Lastmod says:

    In June 2017, I was back in my native New York State for that long hike I took….. Anyway, there was a “g@y marathon” being held in Schenectady where I was staying and visiting the few relatives I have left. My line is dying out. As of 2022, we’re almost all gone.

    ALL these churches were there at the finish line, St. Mary’s Catholic, Trinity Methodist, and several other “Christian Churches”, there at the finish line. The youth from these respected churches were running up and hugging every walrus that crossed the finish line, saying, “We’re sorry for what the church did to you…”

    They had pamphlets and the like on their respective tables, “What We Got Wrong” and “What the bible REALLY says about h0m0sexu@lity”. Some pastors and a few priests were there.

    I had just left the faith a year before. I said to myself as I milled through the crowd, “I may be damned eternally, but if this is allowed in church/heaven, I made the right choice to turn my back on this.”

    Liked by 4 people

    • Those “Christian” Leftists are Romans 1:32 poster children. They love themselves and the world and they don’t love God and their neighbors. Keep them talking and you’ll find that they deny the atonement, Jesus’ exclusivity for salvation, the authority of scripture, etc.

      Romans 1:32 (ESV)
      Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Oscar says:

      What? You mean to tell me that there are tares among the wheat, and wolves in sheep’s clothing, just like Jesus said there would be?

      Like

  5. thedeti says:

    “Christianity opens the way to ressentiment when it teaches that ugliness and stupidity are not marks of God’s curse, and that the ugly, the stupid, the poor, and the lame may therefore have as good a hope of heaven as those who are not so ill favored.”

    Interesting. So if you’re ugly, stupid, poor, and/or lame, you have less a hope of heaven than the beautiful, intelligent, rich, and able-bodied? So the pretty, the smart, the flush, and the strong have more of a claim to salvation than those who aren’t so “blessed”?

    I thought we were all equal before God. I thought salvation was for all, including the least among us. I thought the scripture was “believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and ye shall be saved.” I didn’t see in there, “but it’s easier if you’re hot, smart, have some money, and are physically strong too.”

    No, their ugliness, stupidity, lowliness and infirmity don’t make them spiritually superior; but those characteristics don’t make them spiritually inferior or less valuable. And others’ beauty, intelligence, wealth, and strength don’t make them superior either, at least not before God.

    Perhaps Smith is saying that our human failings and imperfections lead us to drawing spiritual distinctions based on physical worldly characteristics. If that’s so, then the misunderstanding is on me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      deti, the post is a response to left wing Christianity and the Nietzschian / Oswald Spengler’s caricature of Christianity as the forerunner of Marxism / Bolshevism, Nietzsche’s slave morality, and Christianity as inherently leftist and socialist. He’s showing where that view comes from and why it’s wrong.

      Like

    • info says:

      There are people who use Christianity as a cover for the resentiment. Hence those with imperfections and problems are tempted by Satan to invert Good and Evil. Beauty and Ugliness. Excellence and Mediocrity.

      But to tear down the naturally gifted is to Wage War against God who gave them such gifts. And God is the most excellent of excellences, therefore he is their ultimate target.

      They also have an opportunity to look beyond their own situations and gifts and look to God for refuge.

      In this way they are blessed. Not in the resentiment offered by Satan in a faux-Christianity.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. jorgen says:

    The teaching that “we live in a fallen world” is the cause of this. We do NOT luve in a fallen world. Nor are all people fallen. We live in a good world with way too many fallen people. But neither is the world nor all humanity fallen.

    But if you say “the world is fallen” or “all humanity is fallen” then you are setting things up for the “change the world” sexual fetish the Left has. Tilkun Olam in Jewish terms, “fixing the world.” The world doesn’t need fixing; the assholes who claim the world needs fixing are the ones who need fixing—they have a God-complex.

    The story in Genesis does NOT support the notion either of a fallen humanity nor a fallen world. The only “fallenness” is vines choking plants. God neither says that Adam’s descendants will be born disabled morally or spiritually nor that they will be born condemned to hell. Nor does Adam’s sin effect the world generally except in that vines will come to make agriculture harder. All the later mythology of fallenness is from Satan because it is his setup for the secual fetish of Tikkun Olam “change the world” BS that his demon possessed servants get off to.

    Then as far as child birth, Genesis 3 doesn’t say childbirth is a punishment for the woman’s sin but “increased pain” in childbirth. Which doesn’t even effect all races because some have very little pain in childbirth if any so maybe everyone doesn’t come from Adam and Eve after all.

    It is better to altogether drop the story of Adam and Eve or view it as an allegory with an unknown point than to teach fallenness either of humabity or the world because that only enables busybodies and lunatics. And its an obvious logical principle anyway that God had to make humanity mortal from the very beginning or we’d have been out of land in 100 years after creation! Because if everyone was immortal, the earth wouldn’t be big enough for even a century. So the story can’t be literally true since it posits God intended an immortal race on a finite earth. And without this foundational myth of “oh my god the world is fallen so we must fix it” busybodyism can be beat back and driven away like the dust before the wind.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Nope. Can’t accept this.

      The world is fallen. The world and everything in it is corrupted by sin. Eve introduced sin into the world; Adam followed suit. Eve’s sin was listening to Satan; Adam’s sin was listening to Eve. What redeems the world is belief in a Savior.

      There is good in the world, and in humans. That ‘good’ is present by God’s grace. We are not “good” by nature. We are ‘good’ only because God uses us for that purpose. We are empowered to do good or be good only through God. “There is none righteous, no, not one.”

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        You don’t get around the internet enough. Jorgen is a wrath of gnon type in the style of Jim’s Blog (linked in Jack’s list). This type of Christianity attempts to interpret Christianity in terms of how the natural world works as understood in the 21st century by people on the internet who have so much knowledge at their fingertips. Orthodox doctrine, the content of the scriptures (even Paul can be deleted) can be altered to fit reality. The faith and its traditional content is subordinate to nature. For example, Paul could be discarded if he’s purple pill, Jesus didn’t really interact with the adultress, we’re not fallen, etc. Correct Jorgen? It’s usually young, disaffected men following “Jim”.

        It’s not Christianity.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “The world is fallen. The world and everything in it is corrupted by sin.”

        This is a difficult theological question that I addressed in a previous post. To make sure I got it right, I teamed up with NovaSeeker and Ed Hurst to help me write and double check everything.

        Σ Frame (NovaSeeker, Jack, Ed Hurst): Is Our Fallen Nature as God Designed it? (2021-10-4)

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        “The world and everything in it is corrupted by sin”

        Ok Leftist communist.

        Cats are corrupted by sin? Dogs? Grass? Gender? Well go get your dick chopped off then dumbass.

        Read the AcTuAl text of Genesis 3. It doesn’t say AnYtHiNg was corrupted by sin. Nothing at all!

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Ok then. Humanity is fallen, creation is not.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Venomous animals and poisonous plants kinda proves that humans weren’t the only ones who fell…

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Venomous animals and poisonous plants kinda proves that humans weren’t the only ones who fell…”

        Thornbushes and tarantulas aren’t sinful. They’re self-defensive. At best, we could say they are “unclean”, according to the Old Testament. There is irony in how Jesus wore a crown of thorns.

        One thing about nature (and by extension, God) that a lot of Christians find difficult to accept as being “good”, is the brutal dog-eat-dog competition to survive, dominate, and procreate. “Gentle” and “gentile” come from the same root word origin. If you want a real eye-opener, replace the word “gentile” with “gentle people” whenever you read the Bible.

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        “You don’t get around the internet enough. Jorgen is a wrath of gnon type in the style of Jim’s Blog (linked in Jack’s list)”

        I’ll have to look into that. Wasn’t aware of it.

        “For example, Paul could be discarded if he’s purple pill, Jesus didn’t really interact with the adultress, we’re not fallen, etc. Correct Jorgen?”

        As to the woman in adultery manuscript evidence proves feminists corrupted the gospel of John so they could commit adultery. Not in the earliest manuscripts.

        As to Paul he is wrong on the story of Adam and Eve as a reading of the text of the story in Genesis shows clearly it ain’t about all he makes it about. And Jesus’ lack of hinging his entire advent on thw story also shows Paul is dumb on this. The whole creation groining because of Adam’s sin — give me a break. And Jesus says not one word about coming to undo Adam’s sin. Neither does AnY OT passage claim that’s what the Messiah is about. Paul’s theory is gnostic, world hating Jewish nonsense to the point he ought to be suspected as a Jewish infiltrator who fake converted.

        But I’ll have to look into this “wrath of gnon” thing. For now I will just say this: Anyone who thinks the whole world is fallen and corrupted by sin should chop their dick off to appease “the wrath of gnon” against their gnostic antireality lies! If dirt is corrupted by sin, stop walking on it. (Manicheans did believe walking on the ground was a sin because it could hurt bugs, as do Jains.) If air is corrupted by sin, stop breathing it. If CO2 is corrupted by sin, stop exhaling it. Or just stop believing this gnostic garbage.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        OK then. That’s enough SigmaFrame for one day.

        Take it easy, jorgen. You’re kind of crapping on the carpet here.

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        “Ok then. Humanity is fallen, creation is not.”

        Since you think your dick is corrupted by sin, cut it off. See how dumb this is? People sin, so repent and stop sinning as much as you can. “Corrupt” though only applies to whores and people witb tattoos. Unless a sin has continuing physical effects on your body, how is it “corruption”? It goes away. It’s not a permanent stain. Except for those that are.

        The doctrine of fallenness was invented by whores to say we are all like them. They took AWALT and applied it to men. AHALT, all humans are like that. But it’s false.

        Jesus himself says, “a good man brings forth good things from his heart, an evil man evil things from his heart.” Paul can misquote “none is good no not one” from a Psalm condemning atheists, which starts, “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” all he wants. Jesus outranks that gnostic imbecile. Jesus said there are good men and evil men — not some universal fallenness.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ahhh. A red letter Christian. That’s usually the liberals and feminists who don’t like the naughty things Paul said. Right wing red letter Christianity is new to me.

        Like

      • info says:

        1 Corinthians 14:35-38
        36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?
        37 If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command.

        Except in places where Paul said what he writes isn’t a command from the Lord. It is a command from Jesus himself through the Holy Spirit:

        1 Corinthians 7:25-28
        25 Now about virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you committed to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you free of commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        “Ahhh. A red letter Christian. That’s usually the liberals and feminists who don’t like the naughty things Paul said. Right wing red letter Christianity is new to me.”

        Nah. Turns out your “wrath of gnon” comment was onto something. You made me realize I should only use those verses that align with nature and throw the rest in the trash. It’s not Jesus vs. Paul, but true vs. false. When Jesus praises communism saying, “lend to everyone who asks” and “don’t ask them to pay you back”, I’m gonna use Sirach 12 to trash that: “Help not the wicked. Give alms only to the righteous. Hold back even your bread from the wicked lest he use it to overmaster you.” So I accept only the scriptures that bear the authentic voice of Gnon. Interesting. Learned something about myself today.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Jorgen,

        “So I accept only the scriptures that bear the authentic voice of Gnon.”

        I am not very familiar with Gnon philosophies, but from what little I’ve read, it is an account of the structures of the natural order and of the power hierarchies within that order. As far as that goes, it is true and quite useful, and it has the potential to enhance one’s wisdom. The shortcoming is that it only concerns the mortal world. If you can discover the power of God expressed within those ideas, please let us know.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        The Orthosphere (Kristor): On GNON (2016-3-31)

        Liked by 1 person

      • jorgen says:

        @Jack, I’m not familiar with it beyond the meaning of the acronym (or whatever it is) as God of Nature or Nature’s God, and apparently referencing the phrase “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence. In any case, equating “Nature’s God” with the creator, one would have to say that a scripture from the creator should equate with the nature he created. If a scripture is contradicting nature, how can it be from the creator? This argument would be used against the Koran where Mohammed has Dual Karnain travel a round to the extreme West and see the Sun setting in a muddy pool. Why can’t it equally be used against a scripture that demands people hate their own kin in preference to strangers, or that is purple-pilled once it is shown purple-pilledness is unnatural and destroys the relations between the sexes? Or that by pushing faith alone too hard it destroyed the natural inclination towards morality even in the best of its followers.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Jorgen,

        “If a scripture is contradicting nature, how can it be from the creator?”

        As far as I know, scripture doesn’t contradict nature per se. The examples you’ve given are contradictions to structures of power and authority within the natural order, and here, the context matters significantly.

        The power of God maintains overarching power and authority over all others, including those within nature (Matthew 28:18; Luke 10:19), but only if we wish to utilize it through faith, prayer, and obedience to God. Scriptures are full of examples in which, by faith, men changed or evaded (1) the hierarchical authorities of men, (2) spiritual powers, and (3) natural occurrences. Here, it should be noted that exercising the power of God can only occur when done in accordance to God’s purposes.

        We cannot claim a contradiction unless we first identify the correct context. But in general, the correct context is always in relation to God’s prerogatives. This of course opens up a new debate about “what is God’s will?” which emphasizes that having a proper awareness of the context requires spiritual discernment, otherwise, it is all contradictory nonsense and vain thinking, as info describes in the next comment.

        The Red Pill recognizes principles of the natural order (e.g. hypergamy, seed vs. need, the 80/20 rule, etc.) and attempts to utilize this knowledge to better one’s state in life (managing women, getting laid, etc.). The Christian Red Pill recognizes that there are eternal prerogatives that supercede the mortal moorings of human desire and frailty, and attempts to reach for that higher nature which God desires of men. The difference between the two implicit goals is the choice between being an apex predator in the sociosexual food chain, or attaining an eternal standing and peace with God. Very few men can do both. Few men find the Red Pill, and those who do usually pursue the former with varying degrees of success. Some men, like Roosh, do the former, and then the latter. Some men can’t do the former, so they turn to the latter. Most men do neither.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        “If a scripture is contradicting nature, how can it be from the creator?”

        No.1 Because said scripture is connected with predictions that all came true. Hence their inclusion in the Canon of Scripture.

        Deuteronomy 18:21-22
        21 You may ask in your heart, “How can we recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.…”

        No.2 Because the Spiritual influences the physical:

        “Applied to the individual, the Semitic Totality Concept means that “a man’s thoughts form one totality, with their results in action, so that ‘thoughts’ that result in no action are ‘vain’.” [ibid, 60] To put it another way, man does not have a body; man is a body, and what we regard as constituent elements of spirit and body were looked upon by the Hebrews as a fundamental unity. Man was not made from dust, but is dust that has, “by the in-breathing of God, acquired the characteristics of self-conscious being.”

        Thus, Paul regards being an un-bodied spirit as a form of nakedness (2 Corinthians 5). Man is not whole without a body. A man is a totality which embraces “all that a man is and ever shall be.”

        Applied to the role of works following faith, this means that there can be no decision without corresponding action, for the total person will inevitably reflect a choice that is made. Thought and action are so linked under the Semitic Totality paradigm that Clark warns us [An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, 10]:

        “The Hebraic view of man as an animated body and its refusal to make any clear-cut division into soul and body militates against the making of so radical a distinction between material and spiritual, ceremonial, and ethical effects. Thus, what we would consider separate actions of conversion, confession and obedience in the form of works would be considered by the Hebrews to be an act in totality. “Both the act and the meaning of the act mattered — the two formed for the first Christians an indivisible unity.” [Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, 111]”

        In all of this, one should not make the rather elementary and childish mistake of thinking that the Semitic Totality Concept (STC) means that a corresponding action (like baptism) must follow the personal decision of an individual to accept Christ and confess their sins. What follows from STC is not that a person MUST follow choice with action; what follows is that a person WILL follow choice with action. The difference is one of water flowing down a hill versus water being forced up a hill.”

        Tektonics: Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? (2021-11)

        Next question.

        “Why can’t it equally be used against a scripture that demands people hate their own kin in preference to strangers, or that is purple-pilled once it is shown purple-pilledness is unnatural and destroys the relations between the sexes? Or that by pushing faith alone too hard it destroyed the natural inclination towards morality even in the best of its followers.”

        Loyalty to God and his Church that is fellow believers is far in more important than loyalty to kin that are rebels against God. Should one be Satan’s minions because such a thing is considered “Loyalty to kin”?

        Of course one must take care of one’s kin (1 Timothy 5:8) except when they demand allegiance to “kin” who likewise wants us to be disloyal to God.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        Oh great. Now Jorgen thinks the Apostle Paul is a “gnostic imbecile”. I mean, people are still reading St Paul’s letters 2,000 years later. St Peter referred to St Paul’s letters as scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16), and St. John said St. Paul’s name is written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:14), but St. Paul is the “gnostic imbecile”. Talk about arrogance.

        2 Peter 3:14-16 (NKJV)
        Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation — as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

        It’s almost as though St. Peter met Jorgen.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        Cameron,

        “This type of Christianity attempts to interpret Christianity in terms of how the natural world works as understood in the 21st century by people on the internet who have so much knowledge at their fingertips.”

        In other words, it’s not Christianity at all, but a pseudo-religion invented by a bunch of fools who think themselves wise.

        Like

  7. cameron232 says:

    Dude just dump the whole thing and go with Odin or Crom. Seriously. Odin is way cooler than Jesus. You can blaspheme Crom and still go to Valhalla.

    Christianity ain’t easy. I was sitting in mass Sunday listening to the priest (who’s ultra tradish) and thought, “Man! Why does this faith have to turn us into punching bags!!”

    Liked by 1 person

    • jorgen says:

      Good suggestion! Gnons plural. Sounds good. Monotheism is just the tool Jews invented to take over the world by making everyone worship their national “deity”, if you want to call it that.

      Until now, I had been thinking of Gnon as the OT God and Jesus as the Better God, and that they are antagonistic in ways and cooperative in ways. Now I see that the Greek/Roman and Norse pantheons are superior. No more arguing over poorly written Semitic books like the OT, NT, or Koran, and whether they are inspired by a “one and only God” — nature has many gods, hence why some plants are good and some poisonous, as well as all other phenomena in which some are good and beneficial to man and some are antagonistic to him, because there are gods many and lords many and some love man and some hate him. Some love whites and some hate whites and love blacks, as in Virgil’s Anead, how Juno was a coal burner who wanted Carthage to rule the world, but Zeus kicked her @ss in the end. It appears Juno is back at it these days. Oh Almighty Zeus, kick her @ss again!

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Not monotheism. Just Christianity. They were playing like 69D chess – that takes 2000 years but they’re very patient.

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        They were at least playing 3d chess because Paul pretends to teach that man is head of the wife and she must submit but undermines it with his sneaky jew “submit to one another.” When the Bible was only in the hands of the priests that was ignored as the jew masterminds knew it would be, but they had a reformation scheduled to put the Bible in everyone’s hands so that time-bomb could explode. “But how could they be so smart?” Their demon-god is their smarts. He planned it all. Loki is his name, the trickster trying to bring about Ragnarok. He already accomplished a ragnarok on the institution of marriage with that practical joke!

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        (((Martin Luther)))

        He just pretended to be an antisemite – very clever.

        Like

      • jorgen says:

        cameron232, you are chock full of eye opening information man. It does make sense that Martin Luther only pretended to be an antisemite in order to get foolish goyyim to accept faith alone to the destruction of their morals (especially sexual) and society as the jews always wanted, so that they would let jewish men sleep with their women (and men) as jews always wanted. Also jews are always about booze, and it was jews to ran the moonshine business during prohibition and ended prohibition ultimately, so it makes sense even more considering what a drunkard Luther was.

        Like

      • jvangeld says:

        “They were at least playing 3d chess because Paul pretends to teach that man is head of the wife and she must submit but undermines it with his sneaky “submit to one another.”

        The Bible does no such thing. First God tells people to submit to one another, then He tells us who should submit to whom. Servants should submit to masters, children should submit to parents, wives should submit to husbands. The natural order that God created agrees with the instructions for life that He inspired.

        Ephesians 5:21-24 (KJ21)
        21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
        22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
        23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
        24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

        Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJ21)
        1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
        2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
        3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.

        Ephesians 6:5-8 (KJ21)
        5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
        6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
        7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
        8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

        Jorgen, you should read the Bible itself. Not the feminists who twist the Bible. Not the naturalists or GNONers who deem themselves smarter than God. Jesus is the one who will raise you from the dead and judge all of your actions and thoughts. Listen to Him.

        Liked by 3 people

      • jorgen says:

        @jvangeld, Now that you explain it that way its clear to me verse 21 is not a verse at all but an ancient “chapter heading” some publisher put in there that later got mistaken as a verse. I will have to go looking for more of these now, because that obviously happened here so it must have happened elsewhere too.

        Liked by 1 person

    • jorgen says:

      Wasn’t it also Martin Luther who first brought the name Jehovah into usage among Christians in place of the traditional Lord? He Judaized the way Christians refer to God. So cameron, my man, you may indeed be on to something.

      Like

  8. Bardelys the Magnificent says:

    BLM is an inversion of Original Sin. You have your sin that you are born with (racism), and for which confession and penance must be done. However, unlike Christianity, there is no salvation, for the sin of racism cannot ever be fully forgiven. You must pay, over and over again, to appease an angry master (not God, but the mob) who can never truly release you from your stain of sin. It’s evil through and through.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. locustsplease says:

    This and the last one are good posts. I’m gonna have to read them many times to unpack.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      LocustsPlease,
      Thanks! The authors at The Orthosphere have many profound insights that are often hard to comprehend in terms of the real world application. I hope I’ve made it a little easier to digest.

      Like

  10. Oscar says:

    Off topic: angry feminists (is there another kind?) embrace traditional marriage to own the Patriarchy.

    https://gab.com/thelaurenchen/posts/108330293656668585

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Maniac says:

    Gunner’s page has been suspended.

    Like

  12. Pingback: The White Knight | Σ Frame

  13. Pingback: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: Ressentiment, Shame, and Accusation within Progressive Identity Politics | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Ressentiment within Feminism has become a Generational Curse | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: The 12 Harbingers of Masculine Doom | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Black Pill Competition | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s