Look at the Protestant “Logic”

Regarding my post on why Denominations Matter, I asked for any logical objection on SG.

Predicatbly, there was not a single valid logical objection made against any single premise or argument I presented. The sum total of them was the intellectual equivalent of “Nah-uh! You!” In effect, both in the comments at the blog and on SG the response has been… crickets.

The only person who even tried to make an argument presented it poorly, to be kind. As a recent rule which was instituted due to your truly is that comments made on there, regardless of how retarded, shall not be exposed outside the platform with reference to their originator, I will not include the person’s details, although he has stated he will post the same comment at the blog in due course, so I assume it’s fine to post his “argument” such as it is:

Let me now dispense with every one of his “arguments” in turn. And please note how long it takes to explain every single “point” he makes in full. There is literally nothing of substance at all in his argument, but unless you are prepared to think and work your way through every falsity, error and straw man presented, you might be persuaded by the sheer rhetorical argument, which is no more substantive than the other comments, but at least rises above the level of the “Nu-huh! You bad!” that has been presented thus far.

1. Random good fortune/events/people as some kind of universal “proof”

So… the link to a TikTok video of some lady being helped by strangers through the hurricane presumably, in his opinion, proves what? That her prayers and belief in God helped her and that somehow should be proof positive that Protestantism is superior to Catholicism? Or that Protestantism is correct? Does he really believe even random atheists can’t do good deeds? or that random Muslims praying to their God were never helped by strangers? It’s a bizarre, non-sequitur and very female in approach. It’s the equivalent of me saying most men are stronger than women and the general response almost every woman will give, which is to make it specific to one statistically insignificant counter example that doesn’t address the issue at all. By that level of “proof” and “logic” one must expect that all Catholics inevitably die in all natural disasters. It’s a solipsistic and nonsensical non-point.

Then let’s get to the part where according to him I…

2. Fail to counter Vox’s quote.

How exactly did I fail to do this? Here is Vox’s quote:

One of the reasons I refuse to tolerate the never-ending internecine Christian civil wars is that I see no point in paying attention to labels and dogma when the spiritual version of WWIII is currently in full effect. If, at this point, you can’t recognize the difference between those who are actively and knowingly serving Clown World and those who are doing their best, however misguided they might be, to serve Jesus Christ, your opinion is irrelevant.

and here is what I wrote about it after pointing out a general flaw in the full post of conflating the Novus Orcians with Catholicism:

It is quite clear from the full context of Vox’s post, that the implication is that anyone who points out the errors of the various Churchian sects, which are legion, is being pretty much summarily equated with someone who can’t distinguish between an intentional Clown Worlder and an idiot that facilitates Clown World unintentionally; or as he puts it, someone that despite his many errors means well.

And for all that I consider Vox a friend, he is not immune from my criticism of his flawed reasoning any more than anyone else, nor am I from anyone else’s incidentally.

Make the analogy of a being in a trench warfare situation. Then ask me how “forgiving” am I going to be of anyone in my trench that lights up cigarettes at night, regardless of how “well” he means; or thinks leading other soldiers out of the trench while singing kumbaya is the way to stop the war.

I would put a bullet through such a person’s head myself if they didn’t immediately and permanently correct their behaviour. And I would use their corpse to protect the sand-bags of the trench.

You are not going to fix anything in the wider world without first fixing the underlying issue. And that underlying issue is the completely rotten foundation of Churchianity, of which Protestantism is the root cause above all.

Vox being a generic strategist thinks he is looking at the “big picture” and usually he does a decent enough job of that, but me being far more partial to being a tactician (with overtones of overall strategy being on far longer timelines than most, and perhaps even than is sometimes good in human affairs) I immediately note the structural flaws in the overall strategy.

His approach in this regard is akin to the US military that is currently saying “Sure, let the trannies, women, mentally ill people, fat ones, unfit ones, and their dogs all join the military! We’re all on the same side and our strength is in having such huge numbers, no matter how freaky, incoherent, disjointed and counter-productive they are. After all, they are all on our side!“

Yeah, no. Not at all thank you. You keep all the freaks on your side and I don’t care if I have only ten guys against your ten thousand. Maybe you’ll win by sheer numbers, but:

1. In military history it has clearly been the case that at least some of the time, a much smaller force of absolute zealots will win against a foe many times its size.
2. In the history of Catholicism this has literally happened hundred of times.

There is absolutely no decent argument for keeping people that are essentially “useful idiots” for the enemy, and at the very best will use up time, resources and effort to “convince” or “educate” or get them to shift their mostly useless carcass in the right direction on “your side”.

It is why the Kurganate I am trying to build, in the real world, regardless of if it succeeds in my lifetime or not, is strictly composed of Sedevacantists. We had a more open policy before and in every instance we eventually had to eject everyone that was not a sede. In fairness they mostly self-ejected, but in every instance the only common factor they had between them is that they were not Catholics.

Keeping the fake “Christians” away from real ones (i.e. Actual Catholics) has always been a dogmatic principle of the Church. Heretics, fakers, the deceived, Pagans, Heathens, Agnostics and Atheists are simply NOT Christians. They may turn out to be really nice guys. I certainly am on very good terms with many people that are not Sedevacantists. Some I have literally stood shoulder to shoulder with in various dangerous situations and would do so again. But that is not going to change the fact they are not Christians and they are spiritually in error. I can pray for them too, of course, but their false religions remain false and flawed, and they will have absolutely no meaningful part in anything I set up that is based on correct spiritual principles of Catholicism. Would I be friends with them? Sure. Would I treat with them fairly in business or anything else? Absolutely. Would I give them any kind of say in how we do things regarding the spiritual underpinning of anything I am involved with? Never.

In short, I refute Vox’s statement in a number of ways:

First, in its unstated but implied equating of criticism of Churchianity as being equivalent to not being able to distinguish a generic and well-intentioned Churchian from an evil and conscious Clown Worlder. The implication is a strawman and not relevant to reality, other than if such people do exist, I agree that their opinion is irrelevant, but it absolutely is NOT the case that making distinctions between false religions and the real one means you are such a person. It just isn’t so even in the majority of cases.

Secondly, the again, implied implication that pointing out errors makes your opinion “irrelevant” is, again, clearly nonsensical and illogical.

Thirdly, the entirety of history of Christianity can be seen as two millennia of heretics, pagans, heathens, Satanists and Churchian’s of every stripe, trying to pollute Catholicism with their nonsense, regardless of the endless squeals of those impostors, fakers or ignorants that they too are just “serving Jesus Christ”. And keeping them out of the gates of actual Christianity, that is, Catholicism, is what allowed any level of actual human progress that is a genuine betterment of humanity and the human condition to take place. And conversely, the permission of such nonsense to pollute Christianity, that is, Catholicism, with the inevitably Satanic secularism, is what has reduced us to the present level of Clown-Worldery. And Protestantism is singularly, by far, the most pernicious of such efforts.

3. The quote from John 13:35

Now we come to the “words of Jesus” part, namely, John 13:35:

By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.

As is typical of Protestants, who have an iron level of incomprehension of the written word, all this is, is a dishonest (albeit unintentionally so, I am sure) cherry picking of a quote out of context. It is a logical fallacy known as “Quote mining”.

Let’s read John 13 as a whole in context, shall we? What is this chapter about?

It covers Jesus washing His Disciples feet, the treason of Judas and the commandment of love. So, in the first place who is Jesus addressing when He speaks in this chapter?

His disciples, that is the 12 apostles, who are the root of all that will become apostolic succession. They are, in effect, the very first “Bishops” of the Church they hold a special place in the Church because they were instructed DIRECTLY by Jesus, so we don’t call them Bishops, but Apostles. HOWEVER, every other person that was deemed to be a VALID teacher of the Gospels had to have APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. To this day, the Catholic Church has an unbroken line of Bishops whose ordination includes the passing on of the ability to teach that was first conferred on others by the Apostles. In fact, this was the ONLY way to know if a teacher of the Gospels was in fact legitimate. If he could not have his pedigree traced back to an unbroken line of Bishops back to the Apostles, AND the Pope and other Bishops agreed he was in fact a VALID Bishop, then they were deemed impostors and to be scorned.

In John 13, Jesus is talking only to the apostles. He has the last supper with them, and when Judas leaves in the night to call on the Pharisees for his betrayal in the Garden, later, Jesus thus addresses the remaining apostles:

It is absolutely clear then, that the commandment, while in a larger sense applicable to all Christians (who REMEMBER are only the Catholics, that is the people Jesus specifically tasked with spreading His Church on Earth) is in this instance specifically being stated to the Apostles for the express purpose of ensuring unity of purpose between them.

The person who posted his “argument” makes the usual error of simply ass-u-me-ing that any random passer by can be a “disciple”. No.

First of all there is a hierarchy:

Jesus –> Head of the Apostles (Peter and then every valid Pope after him) –> Valid Priests–> Practicing Catholic laypeople who become martyrs (Saints) –> Practicing Catholic laypeople who serve the church/Jesus in various capacities that make them Saints –> Practicing Catholic laypeople

At least in general terms of jurisdiction/instruction. But of course, any layperson can and should call out heretics and heresy, and the lowliest peasant can become a revered Saint.

Secondly you need to belong to that hierarchy and structure to be considered part of the team. And yes, if you do belong to the team, then your behaviour should reflect your love for one another.

Absolutely NOTHING prevents a non-Christian or even a wild beast, from acting lovingly towards others though. And anyone suggesting otherwise is obviously a moron. But just because you behave well doesn’t make you a Christian anymore than my occasionally throwing a ball into a hoop makes me an NBA player.

The context of Jesus’ words apply most specifically to His Apostles in that passage, and even if taken in greater context they apply exclusively to his (generic) “disciples” i.e. baptised Christians; which guess what… from Peter being the first Pope on, to all the other Popes that existed before the Catholics put the Bible together, and all the ones that came after that too, are… you know… Catholics!

So should Catholics behave lovingly to one another? Sure. Does anything prevent non-Christians from doing so? Nope.

Does the fact a non-Christian behaves lovingly suddenly make him Catholic? Nope.

And that concludes the SG denizen’s “argument”.

So, once again, a big fat zero in terms of any logical and valid critical response to my post.

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Clown World, Hard Facts, Heretics, Sedevacantism. RSS 2.0 feed.