Paul's Passing Thoughts

I have been in nursing school for some time now, and before that, I was in school for a medication tech certification, so any time to write has been scarce. Nevertheless, I see Churchianity stuff posted on the internet here and there, and per the usual, it is low-hanging fruit. So far, I have resisted the temptation to write an article when I should be attending to school studies. Several weeks ago, I had an exchange with a former Facebook “friend” that was very postworthy, but I set it aside until I had a day to spare. That day is here.

Nothing is more illogical than church intellect. And unfortunately, church is thought to be synonymous with Christianity because that is what church has emphasized for almost 2000 years. I have written extensively on why that isn’t true, and will only touch on it lightly in this writing. Church is an institution by every definition and consideration. God’s literal family is not an institution. The utter foolishness we see unfolding in churches is the same foolishness common to any institution. Authoritative hierarchy, infrastructure, politics, and money walk hand in hand with institutionalism. The church defines Christianity through the prism of institutionalism. That means its theology is going to focus on maintaining the institution by obtaining loyalty through authority.

Christianity is defined by being part of God’s family in a literal family sense. The beginning and ongoing mode of operation by the assembly of Christ (ekklesia) was that of a family. There were no offices of authority; in contrast, there are gifts to be administered among God’s people. The mode of operation is that of a cooperative body, much in the same way a human body functions as a natural cooperation.

Several weeks ago, I posted a short article on why church ideology is a contraindication to nursing. It didn’t go over well with a Churchian who was on my Facebook “friends” list. The exchange was absolutely classic, and a blue-chip example of how church-goers think.

Basically, church ideology is dual-minded. Its intellectual confession is different from its practical functioning. Hence, people who go to church, for the most part, don’t function according to their intellectual confession. That doesn’t make them hypocrites per se, it’s merely a result of their ideological framework. Here is the framework: 1/3 ideological pretense, 1/3 ideology that matches function, and 1/3 functionality. I know, that’s not a dualism, but the dualism is between intellect and function, with the intellect being divided into two ideological constructs under the same category. This construct is how church gets away with being overtly illogical. And, we can’t forget this; both parties, the deceiving church leadership, and the “deceived” parishioners have something to gain and are receiving what they want. You are not going to be successful in convincing a parishioner that anything in this post is true because they are getting what they want from church, which we will discuss in the conclusion.

Again, the exchange I had with the aforementioned person several weeks ago is a classic illustration of what I am writing here. It started with an article I wrote about the 1/3 Protestant ideology of total depravity/total inability (under the category of intellect) of man and how it is a contraindication to nursing. Due to time constraints, it was a very short post, so I will cite the whole post:

I don’t see nursing and Protestantism fitting together well. Protestantism focuses on the weakness of the individual and subsequent need for seeking ongoing mercy from God. Nurses hardly see weakness as a sin. One does harm, the other invokes needed care.

Protestantism focuses on the inability of mankind. Nurses can’t do that; nursing demands perfection. Someone in nursing school may do really well on a test, say they only missed three questions out of 100 on a test. That’s pretty good. The only problem follows: theoretically, three people could be dead.

In nursing school, we are learning that the initial introduction to a patient must establish trust. What do you think of this as an introduction?

“Hi, my name is Jake, I am the RN who will be working with you pre, and post op. Say, I am seeing on your chart that you are a fellow Baptist, and so am I (does this establish trust via the Christian label?). So, as you know, this is all in God’s hands and I am just a totally depraved sinner saved by grace. By no means put your trust in me, a mere sinner. We want God to get all the glory on the results, so I won’t be very diligent because I don’t want to please God ‘in my own strength.’ I will do the assessment, and then we will pray.”

A really good example of my theses is the Tim Callies blog, authored by a shameless celebrity pastor shill. His blog features both sides of church intellect: pretense, and total inability. But what is the pretense exactly? The pretense is the idea that the church believes in good old-fashioned practical living and wisdom that leads to good deeds. How this is condoned is a complicated philosophical matter only discussed among church elites while hanging out in venues most parishioners can’t afford. Anyway, examples of these ideological contradictions, pretense of human ability, and total inability, can be seen throughout his blog. A few examples are here: https://www.challies.com/sponsored/have-you-believed-the-false-gospel-of-productivity/ compared with this: https://www.challies.com/book-reviews/work-its-purpose-dignity-and-transformation/

How does this work? Practical metaphysics, that is, what is evident to all people through God-given, God instilled common sense, is taught as a pretense to play on assumptions. Yes, this is a deliberate deception. It is done to attract the unchurched and to keep fairly new parishioners intact until they are fully indoctrinated into church Gnosticism, which is a form of simple dualism, which is the idea that the material realm is evil, while only the spiritual realm is good. Furthermore, those in the material realm cannot know any truth of the spiritual realm except everything under the heading of total inability, viz, “True wisdom is knowing that you cannot know.” Obviously, total inability would also include the ability to know stuff. However, it is important to know that there is somewhat of an exception to this under the auspices of total inability: as those illumined by the Holy Spirit, if we go to church and sit under “gospel preaching,” and submit to the authority of “gawdly men,” we can understand the depth of human depravity (including the “saved”) as set against the holiness of God. This, in a nutshell, that is, the mere understanding thereof and its depth, is the Protestant definition of sanctification in totality. It is a mere “seeing” or perception and not a doing; sanctification is done TO you and not BY you. This was Luther’s Gnostic construct, while Calvin framed it primarily in inability to fulfill the law, which led to the doctrine of double imputation or double substitution.

Hence, leaders of the church institution are the sultans of knowing we cannot know and anointed by God to oversee His salvation on earth. Salvation, according to this ideology, really boils down to being under the authority of God’s anointed. But, how is this all reconciled with a church full of chemists, professors, engineers, and secular educators of all stripes? In Dualism, Platonism, and Gnosticism (basically the same ideology), wisdom is divided into material knowledge and spiritual knowledge. So, worldly knowledge about science etc., has a practical material purpose, but is totally separate from spiritual knowledge. According to Protestant orthodoxy and the early (medieval) Catholic Church driven by Neo-Platonism, using practical knowledge to interpret the spiritual, or any crossing over of material knowledge into spiritual wisdom, was/is the essence of anti-gospel functioning.

I want to add an aside before we move on to the actual discourse I experienced several weeks ago that demonstrates all of this in real time. Church, by definition, is a cult. Why? The definition of a cult follows: it is any system that combines a spiritual belief with authority. Dualism is predicated by authority over the masses by an elite few. Remember, the primary nemesis of the first century ekklesia was a Gnostic cult called the Nicolaitans. Note:

The name “Nicolaitans” is derived from the Greek word nikolaos, a compound of the words nikos and laos. The word nikos is the Greek word that means to conquer or to subdue. The word laos is the Greek word for the people. It is also where we get the word laity. When these two words are compounded into one, they form the name Nicolas, which literally means one who conquers and subdues the people. It seems to suggest that the Nicolaitans were somehow conquering and subduing the people.

https://renner.org/article/who-were-the-nicolaitans-and-what-was-their-doctrine-and-deeds/

Now we can move on to the aforementioned experience of which the introduction is complete, so here is the screenshot:

Keep in mind, her response was to the article I reposted above. It offended her. The first thing she notes is her belief in a metaphysical dichotomy between the lost and the saved. Remember, this is a typical churchgoer using common church jargon. The saved are strong; the unsaved are weak. Now, note her definition of being strong: being weak. Got it? I hope you see the correlation with my above theses. Being strong in a practical sense is altogether different than being strong in a spiritual sense. There is opposite meanings. The spiritual is separated totally from the material. She had the strength to choose Jesus because she recognized her total worthlessness. Got it?

Also notice that regardless of what any unsaved person does, there whole life is “sin.” Got it? And they are also weak because a sinful life always chooses the easy way and is, in fact, “easy” and essentially “arrogant” in every regard. And the church wonders why the lost don’t find their gospel appealing.

And then the big payoff: when I referred to how nurses function in the real world, what did she say? “Two different plains.” So, you thought my theses was far-fetched didn’t you? That’s what she said; in essence, two different realms. That’s pure unadulterated Gnosticism, which is how churchgoers function. They are functioning Gnostics. Notice one more thing: my “intelligence,” like many others, was going to keep me from Jesus. Got it? That’s the reason (the use of logic) that Luther hated so much. This is the rejection of applying empirical observation to spiritual matters. She said it; not me.

Notice, per the normal, that most Protestants are clueless regarding what the Reformers taught or what medieval Catholic scholarship proffered, but they actually function according to that ideology. This is a direct reflection of what they are taught indirectly in church. Pretense knowledge is taught to listeners who are assuming a connection between material functioning and spiritual functioning while they transition to a full Gnostic understanding and functioning.

What church leaders gain from all of this is obvious; power and money. Control lust is a major pillar of sin itself. These are people who live in ivory towers that are unable to survive in the real world. Picture this: John MacArthur in a position where he has to get a real job. Of course, like all of these guys, they have amassed enough money to easily live on the rest of their lives compliments of the great unwashed. But, what do parishioners gain from this? The answer follows: the easy believism that evangelicals claim to fustigate. Remain faithful to the church till the end, and you are in. And, of course, don’t “touch God’s anointed.” All of your thinking is done for you, and you can put your trust in something that you can strongly perceive: human authority. Actually believing that ONE person is the final authority in our lives is beyond their faith paygrade, while boldly proclaiming the “authority of Scripture,” which has always been determined by church authority.

Notice the contradiction; that’s what dualism is. In church ideology, EVERY precept has a contradictory element regarding the 5 senses and empirical observation. Strength is weakness. Knowledge is ignorance, etc. Furthermore, those who rule over you are experts in regard to what can’t be known, so how can they be questioned?

It’s good work if you can get it.

paul

Hang on a tick. Let’s back up.

American’s are all revved up over the Canadian trucker “Freedom” convoy. Yea, I get it. We think we see political solidarity and want to support their cause, because we, American’s, are living through similar oppressive political realities. We want to link arms and sing Oh Canada with our freedom loving like minded patriots from up north.

But let me do  . . . me. I’m going to poke the bear, or break some icons or butcher a holy cow.  You get the idea.

So a brief (familiar) history to anyone over fifty: For the whole of my adult life I’ve listened to Canadian smug condescension over their “free health care,” their kinder gentler version of western democracy, their choice to spend money on the poor and social services instead of emulating the gauche American military industrial complex and the divinely inspired care of the vast natural resources.

Never mind that any of those hoity-toity French wanna- be’s, who need more than a pap smear flood across the US border, pay the CD to US exchange rate run by capitalist (sort of) American doctors so they don’t die. Never mind that Canada hides behind US military might so they don’t need to do any national defense heavy lifting. Never mind that Canada is never on the world stage shaping global politics.  Never mind that it’s easy to preserve the Canadian hinter land because no one wants to live anywhere between Quebec and British Columbia. And never mind that anyone with any talent flees to Hollywood. (Please can you guy’s take the Biebster back and keep him there?  I happen to like Ryan Reynolds so he can stay.)  So, like every other “kinder gentler” Western democracy the socio-economic system only “works” because it rides capitalist coattails.

This begs the question, how then does Socialism really work? 

Socialism is vaunted as a compassionate alternative to greedy Capitalism. Socialism is a benevolent middle ground between the “excess” of Capitalism and the “misplaced harshness” of Communism.

But is it?

Beyond the global effort to mischaracterize capitalism, Socialism is no different than any Marxist socio economic variation because they all have the same moral premise: From each according to their ability TO each according to their need. Or said another way, the state is morally justified to seize the production of one man and give it to another. Or said another way, the first mortgage on every individual life is to pay whatever the state demands. Or said another way, Man is first, last, and always state property. Or said another way, Man is a state slave.

How can any social system that presumes the state right to enslave be kinder, or gentler or moral?

Let me expand this point because people have been indoctrinated to believe that socialism has a fundamental virtue because “some” government redistribution is good.

If you learn nothing else from this article engrave this principle on your mind: Every argument that concedes the premise is an argument over how much.

If you make potato salad and concede that mustard goes in the recipe the only thing left to fight over is HOW MUCH mustard is in the recipe.

If humans are free to reject the reality of gender then the only fight left is how much reality can human’s reject.   

If man must pay one dime to the state to justify his existence then the fight is over how many dimes he must pay to the state to justify his existence.

Once you conceded the premise the argument is only and forever HOW MUCH.

So if you concede the premise that “some” government redistribution is good, the only fight remaining is HOW MUCH redistribution will the government perform.

It sounds virtuous when the socialist says—in the name of compassion— they just want to take 2% of your production, but if the state owns 2% of the individual then how can you object when the state insists it owns 30%, 60%, 100%? How can you object when the state insists it has the right to jab you with a vaccine?

You can’t because you have already conceded that the state owns people. Every other government fight is over the percentage of slavery. Despots are smart enough to know they will eventually get to a number they can’t justify so they are merely looking for the tipping point where enough people are enslaved and resistance for the remaining population is imposable. So herein is the fraud underneath Socialisms kinder gentler face.  Socialism is merely the early stages of the slide into totalitarian rule. Socialism is the pot slow boiling the frog. Socialism is the small drops of socio-economic poison driving the population towards despotism.   

And speaking of enslavement by degree, let’s talk about Canada.

If the state is morally correct to take the productive life of others for grandmas healthcare it is morally correct to lock people in their house in the name of grandma’s health. If it is morally correct to lock people in their houses, it is morally correct that the government jab people with whatever toxin they choose in the name of public health.  So fuss all you want but the policies enacted by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are the logical conclusion of Canada’s root premise: Canadian’s are slaves to the state.  

Wait, John, they didn’t know that what they voted for meant Justin Trudeau’s tyranny.

A )  Bullshit!

B )  Never forget, adults get the government they deserve.

If they didn’t know who Justin Trudeau was then they deserve what they got. There is zero excuse for failing to understand Justin Trudeau’s unabashed Marxist aspirations. And make no mistake, Canada has a long history with romancing Marxist’s dictators and has elected sundry Marxist officials throughout its history.  

Here is the barest review of the Canadian love affair with all things communist. 

Pierre Trudeau, Justin’s “father” (a major Canadian political player) was an admirer of all things Marx and an open supporter of Fidel Castro.

Even with the free love movement sweeping through the world in the late 1960s it was imperative that an aspiring Canadian Prime Minister have a family so Pierre (53) married Margaret when she was 23. He picked a woman thirty years younger for a reason.

What was that reason?

Pierre had no children with any of his other paramours—Margo Kidder, Liona Boyd, Kim Cattrall, and Barbara Streisand—among the many, many names rumored to be etched into his bedpost.  A 53 year old man and notorious playboy with no children (even rumored) it was logical to assume that he was infertile.  How do infertile men get children they don’t adopt?  They find sperm donors. In the 1960s sperm donation was done the old fashioned way.

Just look:

Before I move on I need to clear something up. It turns out that the first picture (Fidel holding a child beside Margaret Trudeau is NOT Justin, but rather his older brother.

However, does she look like a woman standing beside a strange man who also happens to be a brutal dictator?  Or does she look like a lover proudly standing beside the man who fathered her children?

That is a rhetorical question.

I’m not saying that philosophy is genetic, but I am pointing out that Pierre Trudeau’s ideological pedigree is so deep and so unequivocal that he was willing to have a Marxist leader father his children so he could ascend to the position of Canadian Prime Minister. Consider the ideological commitment this represents which also means there is zero possibility that Pierre Trudeau’s ambitions, policies and actions were a secret.

Now, in spite of Google’s effort to burry anything disparaging about Justin Trudeau ten search engine pages deep, this is what I learned in an hour of research.  And this is the barest review of Trudeau politics or Canadian political history but there is plenty more.

To be clear, this means that for decades Canadians have been enthusiastic in their embrace if the underlying Marxist premise and sold themselves into state slavery. Only the willingly blind can fail to understand who and what the Trudeau’s (Pierre and Justin) represent and who Canada has voted into power over the span of 70+ years.  There is zero excuse for Canadians to misunderstand who they voted for or what Justin Trudeau intended to do was Prime Minister.

They accepted the “soft” slavery of Socialism fooling themselves that “western style checks and balances” on government protected the people. And now they are living the consequence of their delusion because all arguments that concede the premise are really fights over how much.   There is no middle ground between water and poison.  A little bit of poison will still kill you, only slower.  Canadians have been sipping larger and larger doses of socialist poison and now they have an unapologetic Marxist forcing them to drink the whole bottle.

Now Canadian’s are shocked?

Now they decide who they elected is “going too far?”

No, No. Canadian’s, in their smug moral condescension, have made a 70+ year Socialist Faustian bargain and now the devil thinks enough people are enslaved that it is too late to resist.  The lockdowns, vaccine mandates, the social media monitoring, the social credit scores, contact tracing, are the inevitable conclusion of the socialist premise: men are slaves of the state.

And this is the real lesson of Canada’s Freedom convoy.  There is no kinder gentler social economic middle ground. The choice is binary: Freedom or enslavement. Man’s life is his own or he is owned by the state. There is only individual liberty or collectivist tyranny. There is only Capitalism or the inevitable slide toward totalitarian rule.

Will honking horns and waving flags be the undoing of a Marxist thug or the entrenched Canadian communist ruling class? 

Don’t be childish.

Dear Americans we should know better.  Parades never win wars. Our last election was preceded by rallies and parades the like of which had never been seen and yet, our political class, from the local to the federal level participated in the most brazen electoral corruption since our founding and to my knowledge not one person has gone to jail.

As you read this article, the Canadian government is increasing its resolve to crush the political dissent. The stakes are far too high to let this protest persist. It will not take long before the guns come out and people either disband or perish. Make no mistake this fight will be resolved with force. Speaking of which, history makes it clear there is only ONE way to halt the slide into tyranny. Spoiler alert children playing patty cake, honking horns and waving flags are not even close to the right answer.

Never forget adults get the government they deserve.

John Immel

As I was doing my nursing school studies/reading this morning, I was struck by a particular paragraph I read:

“A new understanding of health is dawning. This new understanding reflects changes in both attitude and approach, and is often referred to as holistic medicine. This is a small part of a profound transformation now taking place in the way our culture views itself and the issues that affect it. This has been called a paradigm shift: a change in the patterns of belief and perception that our culture holds about itself. Such shifts have happened many times before. From a historical point of view, the transformation of society from the medieval worldview to what we now call the Renaissance is strikingly clear. However, to the people of the time, the process of change was either imperceptible or totally confusing, except to those with the vision of, for example, a Leonardo da Vinci.”

The father of medieval ideology was Plato, and when it gets right down to it, he was the mentor of the church fathers. This is unambiguous church history. Church orthodoxy was founded on medieval ideology and Enlightenment ideas were considered the church’s greatest threat. In addition, clearly, the Bible was interpreted through the prism of Platonism by the early church fathers.

The Protestant Reformation was a pushback against Enlightenment ideas that were being integrated into church orthodoxy. A complete reading of Reformation documents and decrees reveals this in no uncertain way.

The church was dragged out of the Medieval era kicking and screaming. Beginning in 1970, the New Calvinism movement sought to return the church back to its medieval roots, and continues that quest today. A lack of understanding concerning true church history is what makes the New Calvinism movement confusing to many.

paul