This is a small digression, but it does have a connection to Christianity. A while back I was researching family history and it turns out one of my great grandfathers fought in the Sepoy Rebellion (aka Indian Mutiny), on the British side of course. His name was William Thompson. He was in Colonel Havelock’s Brigade.
Among other actions, William was apparently at the retaking of Cawnpore, a town in northern India that had been the scene of a massacre of European civilians. Because of this massacre, William and his comrades felt that merely killing the captured combatants wouldn’t suffice. Hence they first forced them to clean the scene of where the Europeans had been killed with their tongues. Then they rammed large quantities of beef and pork down the throats of the Hindu and Moslem captives respectively. Then they sewed them up in pig skins and hanged them. Then they buried the Hindus and cremated the Muslims – i.e. the opposite of what their religions required.
What can we take from this? Clearly the Sepoy Rebellion was, like many wars, a Holy War. This explains some of the not terribly nice behaviour on both sides and I would argue also explains why we (“we” as in Christians and in my case Anglo-Celtic people) won so quickly. We used to win wars because we had God on our side. If we want to win again we are going to have to get him back.
There are several unique difficulties in proving the existence of God to the satisfaction of modern people, in addition to the usual difficulties we face when trying to prove facts about things we are separate from in time or space and so can’t subject to direct analysis.
Unlike much of what people believe, they will not believe in the existence of God based on some the word of authority. Modern elites find Christianity inconvenient and discourage it, so the usual trust in authority doesn’t extend to Christian authorities.
People will not believe personal accounts. They respond to the untold thousands of accounts of religious experiences, often of a similar nature, by dismissing all these accounts as delusional.
People will not believe their own senses. If they witness events they deem “supernatural” they will assume they are hallucinating. Seeing is not in fact believing.
It is not possible to provide historical evidence of miraculous events. Historical evidence works by showing that a certain version of events is the most probable, but miraculous events are by definition among the least probable.
So where do we go from here? More about that in later posts.
The short answer is “no” for the following reasons:
Part of the duties of a priest is to represent God to the congregation. The Christian God is a masculine God who uses masculine iconography. It therefore does not make sense for a female to try to represent this.
Part of the duties of a priest is to be a moral leader to the congregation. Females are biologically incapable of complete moral development. (See Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development).
Females should not be placed in leadership positions over men. The female role is to birth and raise the next generation and for most of history they would have spent most of their lives pregnant or caring for young children or both. Therefore they have been selected to place a high value on themselves and to want to accrue as much resources and influence as possible for as little in return as possible – basically to be selfish parasites. Hence letting them have control over anything is a recipe for disaster.
It is quite simple. If one supports female priests and female leadership, one is not a Christian. In general, the notion that people are interchangeable and their biological roles don’t matter is a curse of the Satanic death cult of liberalism that must be combatted at every turn.
A topic that the Bible isn’t really clear on is the precise relationship between Jesus the man and the creator God. The emperor Constantine’s position on the issue was that people shouldn’t have a position on the issue, but clearly lots of people over the years seemed to think it was critically important. I don’t claim to know the answer, but this is an example of how you might make a best guess based on the information we have.
The Gospels are clear on the issue that Jesus is some kind of divine being rather than just a prophet. The Book of John is fairly explicit that He is some kind of incarnation of God. Even if we were to discount John and go by the Synoptic Gospels, God impregnates Mary somehow but doesn’t come down in human or animal form directly in the manner of Zeus and there is some suggestion that Jesus has some kind of connection to God and pre-existed his conception. Hence the interpretation that Jesus is the literal son of God would appear to not fit the information, so the Arian Heresy really is a heresy.
The best clue we have is the beginning of the book of John, where it says once there was the word and the word was with God and the word was God and the word was made flesh… The word used for “word” was the Greek word logos, which as I understand it means something like mind or plan or blueprint. So we have the always existing God, the always existing Jesus and they have this logos in common.
Perhaps we could use an analogy not available to people in the past – the software/hardware analogy. The logos is like software – the mind of God. With God the Father, this software runs on, depending on who you ask, either the entire Universe or some form of hardware outside the Universe. Jesus consisted of this same logos running on a modified human brain. Thus Jesus was not identical to God in the same way that software running on different hardware might not behave identically, but He was in a sense one and the same with God while at the same time in a sense being a kind of son of God, thus resolving the apparent contradiction.
I don’t know how literally true this is, but that is how you might make a best guess.
In Christianity, what causes you to be “saved”, faith or works? Or to put it another way, what you believe or what you do. Most Protestants would say you are saved by faith in Jesus Christ alone. They seem to think this for historical reasons that don’t really make sense any more.
Paul emphasised faith over works, but this was because his mission was to spread Christianity from ethnic Jews to non-Jews. He figured an emphasis on works would be interpreted as converts having to obey all 600+ Jewish religious laws, including circumcision for males, which he thought would cause consumer resistance. Paul did however try to sneak behavioural standards in through the back door by excluding people with certain habits.
Martin Luther claimed that salvation happened through faith alone. This was because he wanted to reduce the power of the (Catholic) Church, and good works at the time was interpreted largely as doing what the Church said and giving them money.
Modern revivalists wanted to get people losing their religion to come to church, and they went about doing this by allowing people to call themselves Christians without the bothersome requirement of actually acting like Christians. So it became all feel-good stuff with no mention of Hell, no need for struggle or sacrifice, no need to change your sinful ways and everything will be fine if you just love Jesus.
This is all understandable from a historical perspective, but doesn’t make sense for saving your soul, much less for structuring an orderly society or getting people to work together for desirable goals outside of themselves. So what will cause you to be passed forward into the hereafter essentially whole rather than becoming the spiritual equivalent of mulch or being cast into the lake of fire, as it might be? I would suggest it is neither faith nor works but who you are – the information contained in what you call yourself and the types of traits you have developed. Of course becoming the right sort of person will require both faith and works.
So how do we know what real Christianity really is? To traditional Roman Catholicism, the Roman Church was founded by Jesus via Peter, who appointed his successors etc. so for this apostolic reason Christian doctrine was whatever the Catholic Church said it was. I’m not sure whether anyone takes this particularly serious any more and thankfully the current state of the Catholic Church should be able to convince anyone that if they ever were in God’s grace, which is unlikely, there is no sign of it now.
In reaction against this, Protestantism held that the Bible, after they had removed certain texts from it, was the inerrant and complete word of God. This was an understandable position to take at the time but has obvious drawbacks. Even if the Bible was dictated by God, the scribes that wrote it down were presumably not infallible and nor were the editors. There are obvious contradictions and editing errors. In any case the text that made it into the Bible were a selection from a wider library, with the selectors presumably not being inerrant. As well as being intellectually indefensible, the idea of sola scriptura is damaging in that it excludes many potential sources of guidance.
I propose that our understanding of Christianity be based on the following sources:
The Bible and related texts from the time, for example texts which didn’t make it into the Bible such as the Gospel of Thomas, provided these appear to be consistent with the overall Christian narrative.
The writings of the early Church fathers.
Certain Greek philosophy and previous religious texts needed to understand the New Testament in the proper context.
Historical, archaeological and religious studies related to the above.
Historical studies related to what was actually practised and appeared to work in functional Christian societies.
Reasoning and logical extrapolation based on all of the above.
Greetings and welcome to the Final Version Christianity blog. Clearly the world badly needs the return of Christianity. The evil anti-human religions that sought to replace Christianity stemming from the Enlightenment have finally run their course now that they lack the resources to prop up their dysfunctionality. We need to get back to a real religion capable of supporting a decent, sane organic society, and Christianity is the only option still standing.
There is a problem though. Mainstream Christian options are simply not up to the task. A big problem is that they have been corrupted by liberalism, both directly and due to pandering to a corrupt liberal population in order to bolster attendance. They have been bought off by various evil political factions. They were doctrinally stupid to begin with for historical reasons.
We need to establish a Final Version of Christianity that all sensible people agree on and then promoted it and the associated societal norms it implies to the world. Initially this will need to be done by small groups via home churches and the Internet. Here it begins.