GunnerQ and The Beast’s Mark

In my recent posts, I’ve been discussing the theme of the noble Berean approach: verifying and validating the claims of the New Testament and later church tradition by comparing them against the Old Testament. Over at GunnerQ’s Substack, he nobly tries the same thing here:

The Tefillin Connection To the Mark of Beast — Gunner Q
I learned something new while studying the Kabbalah. I learned why the Mark Of the Beast must go on the forehead or hand.

Why only those two locations?

Here’s the answer.

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

Hidden in plain sight.

For those unfamiliar with my post “Eschatology: The Image and Mark of the Beast” (and in this recent comment) there are three primary references in the Old Testament that reference the “forehead or hand” (the tefillin):

Of these, only the first—the unleavened Passover bread—permits fulfillment of all the requirements for the image and mark of the Beast:

– The image will come alive
– The image will speak
– The image will be worshiped
– Those who do not worship the image will be killed
– The mark is received on the hand or forehead
– The mark is received when the image is worshiped
– No one without the mark will be able to buy or sell.
– Ugly and grievous sores on those who received the mark

I’ll explain more about that below. For now, what about GunnerQ’s explanation? He continues:

There is a type of phylactery called the Tefillin.

A phylactery is a box containing written verses from the Torah that are physically attached to the arm or forehead.[1] What is the Torah? Gunner Q explains:

We Christians use the word Torah as a synonym for the Old Testament, but Jews define it oppositionally to mean verbal teachings later codified by the teachers of the law. Whose stinking guts Christ hated. That was one of many linguistic barriers in my studies.

The phylacteries are intended by Jewish practitioners to implement the third of the Old Testament references to “forehead and hand” above. What is the origin of this practice? Wikipedia explains:

At least as early as the 1st century CE, many Jews understood the verses literally and wore physical tefillin, as shown by archaeological finds at Qumran.

Sometime around the time of Christ, the Jews began interpreting the reference to the “forehand or hand” literally. Prior to that, “tying them up” was understood figuratively (of God’s Covenant, Law, and principles), as in to tie them up—or ‘write them’—in your heart.[2]

Psalm 40:8 (NIV)
I desire to do your will, my God; your law is within my heart.

Proverbs 3:3 (NIV)
Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.

Proverbs 7:3 (NIV)
Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart.

Jeremiah 31:33 / Hebrews 8:10 (NIV)
This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time, declares the LordI will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

When GunnerQ took issue with the Oral Torah—the verbal teachings later codified—replacing the written Torah—the Old Testament—he was right to do so. But in his haste to find an explanation for the Mark of the Beast, Gunner Q mistakenly accepted the Oral Torah as the authority which must be used to identify the Image of the Beast, concluding:

So, the MotB must be on (or in) the hand or forehead, as a verifiable, personally accepted display of loyalty to G-D. That is, the Antichrist, the False Christ, the First Beast of Revelation. I bet it won’t be just the microchip, but also a tattoo of some kind. It certainly won’t be just a credit card.

Notice how Gunner Q adds “or in” to his explanation, though neither the Old Testament nor Jewish tradition support such a literal claim of something physical (e.g. a microchip). This is the first indication that something is wrong with this explanation, as he is going outside the Berean approach into the realm of human tradition.

Recall that list of requirements above for the image and mark of the beast? Gunner Q’s explanation doesn’t fit them all, not literally and not figuratively. But the list of requirements has already been completely fulfilled in something else, and literally, not figuratively, so: the “real presence” of the unleavened Passover bread of the Roman Mass sacrifice.

Sorry, GQ, it’s not the Jews.

The image will be worshiped

This has been fulfilled literally.

Roman Catholics believe in the “real presence”, that the bread—called The Host—is literally Christ’s body and the Mass is a sacrifice of Christ’s real and actual body which is offered to God. Because it is literally Christ, it is worshiped as God while kneeling.

The image will come alive

This has been fulfilled literally.

The bread has come alive on a number of occasions and are documented by Roman Catholics themselves. For example, in August 18, 1996 The Host turned into bloody heart muscle, which was verified by eyewitnesses and medical tests. This is considered to be a Eucharistic miracle by Roman Catholic apologists.

The image will speak

This has been fulfilled literally.

The Host has spoken on a number of occasions, usually to Roman Catholic mystics. This includes Clare of Assisi, Anna Maria Taiga, Paul of the Cross, and Alan de la Roche. These are considered Eucharistic miracles by Roman Catholic apologists.

Ugly and grievous sores

This has been fulfilled literally.

This is known as the stigmata. It is considered to be a miracle reserved only for the very faithful. At least ten Roman Catholic saints have been so afflicted, with many other examples throughout history. Their association with the Host—from Thursday to Friday afternoon, the times when Jesus was on the cross—is undeniable. The suffering that these people receive for worshiping the image is quite real as well. These too are considered miracles by Roman Catholic apologists.

Those who do not worship the image will be killed

This has been fulfilled literally.

Throughout Roman Catholic’s rule as the head of the empire, many were killed for refusing to take the bread in the Mass sacrifice. This is well-attested throughout history.

No one without the mark will be able to buy or sell.

This has been fulfilled literally.

When the Roman Catholic Church didn’t kill heretics outright, it banished them and forbid commerce with them. For example Pope Alexander II at the Council of Tours in 1163 in Canon 4 forbid commerce with the Albigensians—who rejected the Mass sacrifice—for their heresy.

The mark is received when the image is worshiped

This has been—and still is—fulfilled literally.

An image is an idol. An idol is a thing made by human hands that is worshiped. The Host is the unleavened Bread of Passover. When a person takes The Host in the Roman Catholic Mass and worships it as if it were Jesus himself, they receive the Mark of the Beast. Literally. The mark is not a physical object, see below, but it is literally received as a consequence of this idolatry. Revelation is not using a figure-of-speech here.

By contrast, even if a person received a microchip on their hand or forehead,[1] they wouldn’t be literally worshiping it as an idol.

The mark is received on the hand or forehead

This has been—and still is—fulfilled literally.

This is probably the most confusing part for the American evangelical who was raised thinking that the Mark of the Beast was a computer chip. Most of the difficulty here is not with scripture, but with unlearning indoctrinated tradition.

Let’s review scripture:

Exodus 13:6-9
Seven days you must eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day there is to be a feast to Yahweh. Unleavened bread is to be eaten throughout the seven days, and no leavened bread is to be seen with you, nor may yeast be seen with you within all your territory. You will tell your son in that day, saying, ‘It is because of what Yahweh did for me when I came out of Egypt.’ It will be for a sign to you on your hand and for a memorial between your eyes, so that the law of Yahweh will be in your mouth. For with a strong hand Yahweh has brought you out of Egypt.

The commemoration of Passover—the remembrance of the Passover events, including the eating of the bread—are to be a sign on your hand and a memorial between your eyes. They are, literally, signs, symbols, and memorials: marks. Marks are representations of something signified.

The image of the beast is the unleavened Passover bread of the Roman Mass sacrifice. The Host is the same Passover bread that Jesus himself broke, the same Passover bread spoken of in Exodus.  In the Roman Mass sacrifice it becomes the image of the Beast. Just as the Jews commemorated Passover and so received its mark on their hand and forehead, the mark that the worshipers of The Host receive is the representation of its being worshiped.

The mark—by the worship of The Host—literally identifies what the Beast is and who its followers are. It is manifest in the fullest understanding of the word the mark of the Beast, its identification. Roman Catholics are marked by their physical act of a spiritual worship. Non-Catholics are not permitted to receive The Host—the image of the Beast—for they lack the necessary identification of unity with the Beast.

The mark of the beast unambiguously marks the active recipient.

When a person receives the Mark of the Beast—by their physical and spiritual act of worship—they have identified with it with their core being. To wit…

Deuteronomy 11:18 (REV)
Therefore you are to lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul and you are to bind them for a sign on your hand, and they will be for symbols between your eyes.

…in their hearts is a crude imitation of the Word of God. But we have in our hands and in our foreheads—deep in our hearts and souls—the literal Words of God.

The mark of the beast is not like a tattoo or a microchip, it is a specific physical and spiritual act of worship. But even if it were not, The Host is only received on the hand and the tongue,[1] equally fulfilling the same physical receipt requirement as a microchip.

Tradition

There is one more human tradition that must be dispelled. It has been taught that once one receives the Mark of the Beast that one cannot be redeemed from that point forward. But that is human tradition. One can, at any time, repent and cease to identify with the Beast, thus losing its mark and being sealed by the blood of Christ.

Recent tradition has also been mainly obsessed with the identity of the mark, which is itself an identification. In other words, tradition obsessed with the identity of the identification of the beast, rather than the identity of the beast itself. This is why few are concerned that the suggested identity of the mark itself doesn’t fit the signs, because no one is paying attention to what the mark signifies. Gunner Q can only vaguely hint at the specific identity of the beast, let alone demonstrate how it fulfills the signs, but somehow he’s completely sure of what the mark is!? This is extremely suspect.

But these traditions are not even very ancient, especially the hyper-modern belief that the Mark of the Beast is a microchip. The belief that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon has been known to Christians long before the Reformation.

Consider the difference between a credit card and a microchip. From the perspective of the sin of greed, the difference between the two is merely incidental. Whether one buys by credit card or implant makes no practical  or spiritual difference. It is a non-essential—or in terms of the philosophy of things “accidental“—detail that doesn’t meaningfully alter its meaning or function. By contrast, the worship of the “real presense” in The Host in the Roman Mass sacrifice is absolutely essential. It is unique and fundamental: it cannot be swapped for another equivalent concept. This is why the microchip explanation is arbitrary but the Passover bread explanation is not.

Gunner Q is right to look to scripture—to the Old Testament—to understand the reference to the hand and forehead, but he inadvertently accepted Jewish tradition in the Oral Torah in order to come to the conclusion that he did.  Gunner Q’s error was not when he looked towards the Old Testament (as the Bereans did), but rather it was by his momentary failure to do so. When this is corrected, he’ll be forced to accept the only possible alternative.

Footnotes

[1] The meaning of the terms used for “hand” and “forehead” are unclear. In light of the Bible’s use of this imagery elsewhere (e.g. Proverbs 7:3), it is likely that this is the figures-of-speech synecdoche and metaphor. They may be equivalently referenced by the fingers, hands, arms, neck, head, “between the eyes”, forehead, heart, mind, etc.

[2] This is similar to how the Pharisees of Jesus’ day were so concerned with following the literal letter of the law, that they missed its spirit (as with Jesus’ teachings on divorce and the greatest commandments). It is also similar to how Roman Catholics cite the rabbinic “binding and loosing” (negative and positive, as in disallowing and allowing) to justify “apostolic succession” instead of citing Isaiah’s “binding and loosing” (positive and positive, as in binding the brokenhearted and loosing the captives).

The professor comments:

93 Comments

  1. Lastmod

    Plenty of Christians have a “cell phone” or smart phone. If “the beast” (the US government, or the anti-christ comes to power….and that has been predicted since Jesus ascended into heaven) *really* wants to find you. They can. It can. It will.

    Most Christians if not all modern “bible first christians” have a social security number. Many have a military pension. Many get “free” health care from the VA. The “evil government” knows where to find you. You bank bank knows exactly what you spend on, how much is coming in and out. That info can be accessed easily and handed over by the stroke of a pen by a judge, a bureaucrat, or local county sheriff to “moloch” or whatever the aniti-christ will be……….

    Yes, you have your guns, enough ammo to take on everyone for weeks…..your son was a sniper in the military, you are an expert marksman, your wife was taught by you on how to handle a weapon. Except when the local para-military police / riot squad show up with twenty and not one officer…..”bablyon” or “moloch” will have no problem firing on its own citizens, and “rights” what few we have left at this point…..can be adjusted to fit the moment.

    Thing is, christians……all of them focus WAY too much on “pretrib / post-trib / rapure / second coming / all the signs that its gong to happen at any moment”

    Jesus said to be ready. He didnt mean a bunker. He didnt mean “tactical” superiority, nor did he mean a “back to land” movement.

    Ready as in: Heart, mind and soul to be ready for eternity.

    People have been predicting the end since the beginning.

    Few remember, or even bother reading about “the black death” that hit Europe in 1347

    The plague was so vast, and so deadly…….people then did indeed think the end was upon them and the world. It hit rich and poor. Serf, slave and Lord. I am sure “scripture” was twisted at that time to mean…by the experts…….that this was indeed the sign that Jesus was returning.

    Fields went fallow. People died quickly and then starvation set in. Trade grounded to a standstill. Bandits roamed and pillaged.

    I read in a Welsh document from 1352 from the church records in Cardiff ”
    y farwolaeth ddu” (the black covering / coldness). It spoke of a pestilence on the land. People speaking of ill luck, and bad fates. Gods judgment upon the people and clans. The mass graves in 1348, 1349 and 1350. Priests were even afraid to conduct final rites because they were afraid they would “catch” it. Empty villages, and hamlets. Empty manors and castles. dead cattle and feral, vicious pigs everywhere and rogue bandits robbing anything that passed on the remote roads outside of the townes / manors.

    Then starvation setting in throughout the “kingdom” in pockets because no farmers to husband the land.

    Of course….throughout Europe (and Wales) it did “burn” itself out. The survivors after that terror in the late 1340’s and into the 1350’s pointed out in letters, in edicts and other writings “future generations would never believe them! Would never believe it happened!”

    Records also show that this was in the Far East as well. It caused havoc in China, Korea and even in Japan in this period…..from what records survive from this period.

    During that period, it was believed the “end” was here and they had the “scripture” to prove it.

    Christ said he will return like a “thief in the night” and nobody has any prior or insider info to what God will do….as much as men caim.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Plenty of Christians have a “cell phone” or smart phone. If “the beast” (the US government, or the anti-christ comes to power….and that has been predicted since Jesus ascended into heaven) *really* wants to find you. They can. It can. It will.”

      There is nothing essential about…

      a microchip…
      a cell phone…
      AI-monitored cameras…
      social security numbers…
      a QR code tattoo…
      a social credit score phone app…

      …that uniquely identifies it as “THE ONLY AND ONLY” mark. If every human can legitimately choose a different one, then we are forced to admit that it is completely arbitrary, and so meaningless: there is no way to identify it, even after the fact.

      Thing is, christians……all of them focus WAY too much on “pretrib / post-trib / rapure / second coming / all the signs that its gong to happen at any moment”

      This also is completely arbitrary, without any root in objectivity. The assumption that nothing has yet been fulfilled—the great pause of Revelation—allows for any and every explanation. It is completely unmoored from objectivity.

      “Few remember, or even bother reading about “the black death” that hit Europe in 1347. The plague was so vast, and so deadly…….people then did indeed think the end was upon them and the world.”

      My son asked me if Revelation is true and predicted the future, why wasn’t it fulfilled in the Black Death, the deadliest event in all of history? Because there was one thing that was worse than the Black Plague alone:

      The 4th Trumpet (Revelation 8:12-13) describes a darkness (a “third” reduction in the light received) that covered the earth. Just like the Image of the Beast in the OP, there isn’t much ambiguity with this one. This notable event has happened precisely once in recorded history: the Volcanic winter of 536 (see also here). It is, not coincidentally, known by historians as the worst year in history to be alive.

      It is also related to the Black Plague. The event led directly to the Justinian Plague (AD 541–549) a few years later, the first known European outbreak of the Black Death. On a per capita basis, it was apparently deadlier than the one in the 14th century. It also has the dubious privilege of being the first recorded pandemic.

      In other words, a Volcanic Winter causing the worst year to be alive led to the introduction of the Black Plague to Europe and all that came with it and after it (including many different subsequent waves of the plague).

      John saw it coming.

      “People have been predicting the end since the beginning.”

      And some were right!

      There were Christians who saw the first bubonic plague as God’s judgment and were correct, just as Christians who witnessed WWI and WWII—the 6th Trumpet—saw it as God’s judgment and were correct. How did they miss it? Was it mass deception?

      Just as some men must have identified the 4th trumpet, some men must also have noticed that in the 6th trumpet the mouths and tails were the same (i.e. Limbers and caissons) and defense was now offensive (i.e. gunfire), but in the 5th trumpet the breastplates were still just standard breastplates made of iron. Men must have identified these trumpets, having seen the transition to gunpowder warfare, but been treated as loons because they were drowned out by all the others who had been and will be wrong. So we don’t know about them.

      I suspect this is how it is done. When 99% of people are wrong, you never notice that 1% that are right. And so everyone thinks that Revelation is completely indecipherable, because they cannot identify the 1% who saw it plain.

      “Christ said he will return like a “thief in the night” and nobody has any prior or insider info to what God will do….as much as men claim.”

      This is correct. No man can know the time or date of future things, but they can, of course, see what has already happened and act accordingly. What American evangelicals do is ignore what happened in the past and focus exclusively on what will happen in the future: precisely the oppose of what they should be doing.

      “Jesus said to be ready. He didnt mean a bunker. He didnt mean “tactical” superiority, nor did he mean a “back to land” movement. Ready as in: Heart, mind and soul to be ready for eternity.”

      History tells us that we have completed the seven Seals and are nearing the end of the Trumpets and Bowls. But we are not there yet, and we cannot know when it will be. But, the difference now is that enough has been fulfilled that it now could actually happen in a matter of days… or a century more.

      Be ready indeed.

      1. Lastmod

        I dont take stock in what this or that trumpet means. In the new agey stuff, everytime a bad event happens……they all come out “actually Nostradamus predicted that…”

        Which is nonsense. His writing was vague and many writings could be “interpreted” to mean anything tragic that happens in the future or vague enough for people to say “see, its clear, right there. This means that”

        Revelation according to John mentions a lot of things. Mind you, it wasnt written for all the “heathens / Beta / Blue Pill thinking men like me” in the world. It was written for the Believer evidently.

        The messages to the “seven churches” (boy, THAT is never brought up, no self righteous American evangelical protestant church would ever be like “those” churches. Crass materialism is alive and well in the modern American protestant church. All to get sex and a hot wife…….

        Ughhhh……and the stupid sermons “Hey devil….we win, its in the back of the book you hate! We read it, we know it and we believe it” (thunderous applause). Mind you the devil, satan and /or the anti-christ will be able to quote scripture better than your average church goer today. In fact, the modern “western” evangelical protestantism is a prime place where he would show up 😉 . Its a place of biblical illiteracy, baby-songs, awful sermons, study-guides, weak ministry and making everyone feel great about who they are.

        John says in Revelation that when he saw The Lord, he fell face down to the ground in FEAR probably almost in sheer terror of the glory of him. In churches…..all of them…..Jesus calls you “friend” and we have pictures of him with little angels, babies, and lambs! John was the man mind you, who laid his head on him and the one Jesus “loved”

        So coming as God himself or however or whatever its supposed to mean, doesnt phase me. What does is how “un ready” just about every self-proclaiming Christain is. More concerned about fellowship, sex, women, a wife, a family, what “career” you are supposed to have. Provision of course……your LAMPS or PSALAMS or whatever new thing they are all inventing to make you *hot* and a real man.

        In James, it is mentioned “in the coming year we will go here or there…buy and sell here” and James per usual cuts through the dross:

        “God *willing* we will go here or there…buy and sell here”

        If a Christian really wants to know what is coming and really wants to be ready:

        “Love the Lord, your God with all your heart and mind and body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself”

        That is from Jesus. Jesus spoke of the end times, but didnt dwell on it. He told them to not “leave this area” or “that area” and make sure you have land to farm, and ammo, and “have a church that has these ten doctrines, and a bishop, and a deacon and elders, and this or that ministry, and painted icons, and incense, and a youth pastor, and bible camp, and, and, and…”

        He said to watch. He said to not worry. Like with women, and attraction…….these modern protestants talk about sex a lot…………and they spend WAY too much time debating all these symbols, and signs and wonders.

        My old man (RIP) used to say in his Polish accent “Scout, the reason why worry kills more people than work is because more people worry more than work”

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          “I dont take stock in what this or that trumpet means.”

          I didn’t even begin to suspect that you would. The knowledge of what is to come is largely of no value to a great many people, and that’s perfectly fine. And so, take my comments with a grain of salt.

          But it’s worth noting that the prime value in Revelation is not knowing what is to come but understanding what has already taken place.

          ” Jesus spoke of the end times, but didnt dwell on it. He told them to not “leave this area” or “that area” [..] He said to watch. He said to not worry.”

          Given your knowledge of the words of Jesus, I’m surprised to hear you say this. It is incorrect. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus told people to flee and gave them signs as to when they should leave. He told them it would take place within one generation.

          “Which is nonsense. His writing was vague and many writings could be “interpreted” to mean anything tragic that happens in the future or vague enough for people to say “see, its clear, right there. This means that””

          See, I don’t agree that his writing was vague. I think we’ve decided it was vague and so it has become. Rather than look for non-vague answers, we see mystical mumbling that can mean literally anything.

          What Gunner Q and I have done is narrowed down the possibilities substantially. This is either going to get Roman Catholics or Jews in a tizzy. But it isn’t an invalid approach.

          “John says in Revelation that when he saw The Lord, he fell face down to the ground in FEAR probably almost in sheer terror of the glory of him.”

          Interestingly, that’s word for “fear” is the same as that used by Paul to describe a wife’s “respect” for her husband and for everyone to submit to each other “in fear” of Christ.

          1. Lastmod

            “Given your knowledge of the words of Jesus, I’m surprised to hear you say this. It is incorrect. In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus told people to flee and gave them signs as to when they should leave. He told them it would take place within one generation.”

            Have no idea what the Olivet Discourse is, and frankly dont care. Was he referring to the destruction of Jerusalem? The temple in 70AD? I dont know.

            “Two men will be working and one will be gone”

            I have also heard said. Every real, true Christian is not going to be able to “flee” to the hills, the woods, uncles farm in Trump country or the bug out location. Does this mean they didnt obey, and now are “cast into the Lake of Fire”?

            No.

            Christ says to “flee” from evil and sin. That is something Christians have to do daily. I certainly dont see it. In fact, I sin “justified” and “acknowledged” as “aw shucks…you know”

            I was watching some Christian counselor affilliated with Dave Ramsey. He has tattoos so he is “relatable” he’s got the dimple chin and nice hair. A caller to the show mentioned how her “fifteen year old daughter is having sex” and he just plays that “young people are going to what they do” and the caller mentioned “they met in church, and my husband an I do like him” (meaning, so now its okay) and then this counselor “Well, your relationship with your daughter is strong because she doesnt hide it from you, and thats the mark of great parenting”

            Fleeing from sin? Hardly. Glorifying it! “They’re gonna do it anyway”

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Was he referring to the destruction of Jerusalem? The temple in 70AD? I dont know.”

            Yes, and Jesus’ instructions were so important that they were repeated in three of the four gospels. Jesus gave specific instructions for what people should look for so they they could plan to leave Jerusalem when they saw the signs. He told them that they must flee when they saw the signs. We have historical documentation showing that all of the signs were fulfilled in the years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.

            “Christ says to “flee” from evil and sin.”

            The destruction of the Jerusalem was an act of evil and sin, and Jesus told his followers to flee it.

  2. professorGBFMtm

    ”But these traditions are not even very ancient, especially the hyper-modern belief that the Mark of the Beast is a microchip.”

    i remember one night on the NBC nightly news heralding the internet(world wide web version) age around May ’95 and then a few years later on various TBN related shows everything was about the microchip being the mark of the beast.

    Most of it was based on the first ”left behind” book from ’95-that they were making the first films of then.

    ”Most Christians if not all modern “bible first christians” have a social security number.”

    Some Christian MEN around ’96 brought a court case involving the DMV -as i remember it from a certain book i bought decades ago saying ”be prepared to suffer for your beliefs with government’s increasing crackdown on American citizens rights since the completed fall of the USSR in 1991”(DEREK i think knows what ”privacy”BOOK from 2000 that i bought in early ’01 i speak of) in it using their social security numbers for identifying them-which they ”sincerily believe is the mark of the beast” as the judge wrote.

    Then the judge ordered the DMV to just use another number for identification.

    ”Few remember, or even bother reading about “the black death” that hit Europe in 1347”

    ”Then starvation setting in throughout the “kingdom” in pockets because no farmers to husband the land.”

    Actually something happened similarly before as only a few ”teachers” knew what year it was as most ”commoners” didn’t know the official numbering system of years in 999 thought the year 1000 would be the second coming of JESUS Christ and many people didn’t farm because of it and starved.

  3. Bardelys the Magnificent

    This is blasphemy. If the Host is Christ, it cannot also be the anti-Christ, or the mark of it. Simple as. You even refer to the various eucharistic miracles that confirm that the host becomes Christ. The Host is not worshipped because it’s a “symbol” of Christ, but because it IS Christ. Sorry, the mark is not the Host. And you post this on Holy Week, of all times…

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      BtM,

      “This is blasphemy.”

      When I said the same to Kentucky Gent back on Sigma Frame, he said this:

      “I’ve already twice prayed for Lord Jesus Christ to have mercy on you for such blasphemy.”

      I’m not exactly happy to be saying any of this (again). I do it out of love. To wit:

      “Brother, I wouldn’t make an issue of it if I didn’t think it was so serious. Idolatry is bad enough, but it’s no different than adultery or lying. But Revelation holds out this particular idolatry as especially egregious, with consequences that go well beyond the normal consequences for sin. If I could save even one person from this, I would do so.”

      Regardless, I challenge ideas, no matter what they are. Truthseeking obligates me to do this. I won’t attack persons, however, so I do not and cannot judge the state of a person’s eternal soul. I have not denied the salvation of any Roman Catholic, for judgment is God’s realm.

      I’m saying nothing that my forebearers wouldn’t have also said centuries ago. People also get upset when I point out that the Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants murdered the Anabaptists for these same beliefs, as if “whoops, my bad.” No, I’ve read a trial transcripts: the magistrates understood exactly what they were doing because it was pointed out to them explicitly. The difference is that I can no longer be murdered for these beliefs.

      “You even refer to the various eucharistic miracles that confirm that the host becomes Christ.”

      I believe that those miracles are real, yes, but they are clearly demonic in origin.

      But you are correct on one thing: the lack of ambiguity regarding the Eucharistic miracles forces each person to choose a side. Unlike a microchip, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind which side is taken. None at all. It is completely unambiguous. No one cannot be accused of taking the mark by accident. It is always chosen freely by one’s own free will.

      This applies to everyone, including the other commenters. Most Protestants are unaware of the Eucharistic miracles, let alone how they directly fulfill the prophecies of Revelation. Who knows, some may side with you on the Eucharistic miracles and be forced by logic to convert.

      “If the Host is Christ”

      It is not. That is blasphemy, and to accept that blasphemy is to mark oneself. That’s what the mark is, and it is quite visible and easy for people to see.

      “The Host is not worshipped because it’s a “symbol” of Christ, but because it IS Christ.”

      Except that this is a deception of Satan, and so the worship is idolatry, regardless of intention.

      “the mark is not the Host”

      The Image is the Host. The mark is how one is identified with the image, which is to take the Host.

      “And you post this on Holy Week, of all times…”

      It is the best time to make this reminder, in the hopes that it bears the fruit of salvation. Would you prefer that I hated on Jews instead?

      Peace,
      DR

      1. Bardelys the Magnificent

        The Host is Christ and there is no arguing against it. I find it funny that Protestants and other anti-Catholics will argue scripture ’till the cows come home, agonizing over the meaning of every tiny little word, but completely skip over Jesus saying “this is my body, this is my blood.” Those are His exact words. He didn’t say “this is like my body.” No. He said “this IS my body. This IS my blood” No ambiguity, no parables, no bullshit. Next to the Passion, the Last Supper was the most important thing Jesus did and he wasn’t screwing around that night. The host is Christ and that cannot be argued, unless you want to stand here and claim Jesus to be a liar at His last supper.

        The apostles went forth and performed the eucharist from day one. If they are wrong, then all of Christianity has been wrong from day one. Is that the argument you’re going to make? Have mercy on your soul if it is, and I mean that truly and literally.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          John Henry Newman by Sir John Everett Millais

          “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” ― Cardinal John Henry Newman

          BtM,

          “The Host is Christ and there is no arguing against it. [..] The host is Christ and that cannot be argued, unless you want to stand here and claim Jesus to be a liar at His last supper.”

          And yet countless millions—by viewing it as a metaphor—have argued against it. The list is very long and distinguished of those who—according to your private interpretation—call Christ a liar:

          Clement (191AD) wrote that the faith was the body. Eusebius (325AD) wrote that the bread was a symbol of Christ’s body. Shall I quote Ignatius’ use of bread as metaphor?

          Is Ambrose making Christ a liar because he said that the dismissal of the catechumens occurred before oblation? Is Hippolytus a deceiver for offering olives, cheese, and oil in the Eucharist? Is Justin Martyr anathematized for calling the offering of the elements as “solid and liquid food” by “transmutation” in “the remembrance?”

          Shall I also cite the Didache? Cyprian? Cyril? Irenaeus? Tertullian? Origin? Cornelius? Dionysius? Gregory Nazianzus? Athanasius?

          Are these all blasphemers? Or is it not permitted to argue against it by citing the testimony of the early church?

          Red Beet Bread Fresh

          “No ambiguity, no parables, no [Editor: children read this blog].”

          Jesus often talked about himself metaphorically. Jesus himself referred to the bread and body metaphorically, even as he himself provided the key to unlock the metaphor. Jesus appealed to the testimony of the Old Testament in Isaiah in the midst of his teaching on the bread of life from heaven:

          John 6:27 (KJV)
          “Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.”

          Isaiah 55:1-4 (KJV)
          “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness. Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.”

          Isaiah 54:13 (KJV)
          “And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD.”

          So when Jesus says…

          John 6:35 (NIV)
          “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”

          …and later when the Pharisees didn’t understand the metaphor

          John 6:41 (NIV)
          At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.”

          …he is very clear that the bread—which is his body—is the Word of God that Jesus had received from his heavenly Father, and that one receives by believing in what one has heard.

          Matthew 12:37 (KJV)
          “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”

          Do you wish to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ? Then hearken diligently and incline your ear.

          “The apostles went forth and performed the eucharist from day one. If they are wrong, then all of Christianity has been wrong from day one. Is that the argument you’re going to make? “

          But they were not wrong! It is your assumption that is wrong. The Apostles did go forth from day one and proclaimed a thanksgiving offering and a remembrance, but it was very different from what Rome teaches. Rome took the thanksgiving offering of the tithe and turned it into a sacrifice by altering the order of the liturgy. It is precisely because of the Apostolic Eucharist that we all—including you—must categorically reject the mutually incompatible Roman Mass sacrifice.

          Roman Catholics are woefully ignorant and deceived about the history of the Eucharist prior to the late 4th century and of the many innovations that began there.

          “Have mercy on your soul if it is, and I mean that truly and literally.”

          Your concern and kindness is noted and appreciated, but ultimately it should be directed inward.

          No writer in the first 300 years ever presented Christ’s death to the father. No writing ever instructs the church to offer Christ’s body and blood to the father. It does not exist anywhere. It simply does not exist in history. It is an idolatrous anachronistic heresy. Though we all need the mercy of God, the blasphemy is solely Roman.

          Most Roman Catholics are stunned when they find a Protestant who cites early church history. They are used to making bold—but unsubstantiated—claims about history and the Eucharist while remaining unchallenged.

          When I brought this up (here, here, here, and here) to Kentucky Gent—a Protestant to Catholic convert—he had been unaware of these issues, but clung to his new faith nonetheless.

          Now that you know, what will you do?

          Peace,
          DR

          1. Lastmod

            All a bit over my head.

            In The Salvation Army the sacrament of communion in this manner was never done, and still isnt. I was told by offical “doctrine” of the Army that “they are not against it, nor have a problem with Salvationists taking communion”

            It was also told to me that “Do not be mistaken that this practice will get you saved, or allow you into heaven”

            One of the reasons why the Army doesnt practice it is because in their early days (1860’s in Victorian London) they were considered a “Holiness movement” not a denomination and for the first fifty years of the Salvation Army, they would try to direct people to a “proper church” for membership, their role was solely to “feed the hungry / clothe the naked / preach the Gospel, all in His name” more of a “christian social services”

            Which in theory it still kinda-sorta is today.

            After it became its own denomination the practice was not instituted partially because they ordained women as Officers (pastors) and the belief that only a man could administer “the Lords Supper” and also the people they helped…….alcoholics. Giving wine to an alcoholic was a “no no” back then.

            They just accepted the practice of not doing this, and clearly stating “we will recommend local churches of other denominations that will allow you to partake in this, if you so choose”

            One Officer did tell me once “Communion in this fashion is a beautiful symbol and it can be a wonderful expression of Christ’s love. We are not against it, but we do not practice internally”

            My father remembers as a boy in the Catholic church, you could not take the Lords SUpper unless you were indeed a Catholic, and you did go to Confession as well. Today, that isnt the case.

            Even my visit to the Anglican Church in Manchester. I did come to the altar rail crossed my arms and the Vicar did pray, give a blessing and a sign of the Cross.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            “All a bit over my head.”

            Roman Catholics have made this extremely technical! I will try to dumb it down for you.

            (1) The Roman Catholic ceremony begins with an epiclesis or consecration, which is just a fancy way of repeating “This is my body; This is my blood.” It is with this declaration that the bread is bread only “in species”, but ceases to be bread “in substance.” Once the words are spoken, the bread is now Christ. This is all defined in so many words in the Council of Trent.

            (2) Following this, the “Eucharist” takes place. Eucharist means “thanksgiving” and it refers to the thanksgiving offering in the Old Testament. As an offering, it is, literally, a sacrifice. Thus, because the bread is Christ, Christ is being sacrificed. That is why it is called a “mass sacrifice.”

            (3) Then an “Amen” is spoken over the offering, the sacrifice of Christ’s literal body, which confirms transubstantiation.

            (4) Following this is the consumption, where the Roman Catholic eats Christ’s flesh in worship.

            (5) The service is then completed in the dismissal (Latin: “ite missa est”) from which is derived the name “Mass” from a supposed “unessential detail.”

            So you see, the order of the liturgy is essential to the Roman Catholic. If it changes even slightly, Christ is no longer offered as a sacrifice in worship, or the Christian does not eat his literal body.

            The major problem is that this liturgical order does not exist at all before the late 4th century.

            By contrast, the Protestants are to dismiss the unbelievers, bring their tithes before the church, offering them to God with a prayer and “Amen”, say the words of Christ over some of the food selected, and then eat a meal together while remembering Christ’s sacrifice.

          3. Lastmod

            Very “Roman” I guess.

            Thank you for dumbing it down.

            People do need a symbol of sorts. I can see why this evolved the way it did. I mean, I still wear my mothers small cross under my tee shirt everyday (the original gold chain is frail, as is the clasp so I put it on a skater-style beeded chain, along with my grandfathers WW II dog-tag).

            I mean, the cross is a symbol of death, a Roman torture device. It would be like wearing a small replica of an electric chair around your neck today I suppose.

            Would you agree that the symbolism was done and created at a time when most people were indeed illiterate?

            Traditions do have a place in the faith, I mentioned this previously when I attended a high Anglican service in the UK. I did find it moving in some aspects.

          4. Derek L. Ramsey

            “Traditions do have a place in the faith”

            I believe that traditions are often a mark of devotion and so part of the outpouring of true faith. Traditions can and do go off the mark, but that doesn’t make the idea of tradition itself invalid. Consider all the purity guidelines that God had the Hebrews perform. These were mere traditions, sure, but they also had a distinct and legitimate purpose in the holy life. All that pomp and ceremony you find in churches is not binding, but it has a purpose nonetheless.

            I find the old hymns most moving.

            “People do need a symbol of sorts. [..] Would you agree that the symbolism was done and created at a time when most people were indeed illiterate?”

            I do agree that people seek symbolism. I think that’s why Jesus used symbols and parables so much, because they speak to people at a deeper level. Symbols can convey a depth of meaning in a way that words alone lack.

            “Very “Roman” I guess.”

            Yes, indeed! Read what the Catholic Encyclopedia, under “The origin of the Mass”, says:

            “The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question, We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of the Church of Rome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different. Justin’s account represents a rite of what we should now call an Eastern type … The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy.” — Adrian Fortescue

            What I’ve described is called the “Roman Mass” by Roman Catholics. Notice also that I cannot be accused by Roman Catholics of misrepresenting history when Roman Catholic historians agree with me. In fact, most of my citations come from sources claimed by Roman Catholicism.

            The Catholic Encyclopedia calling this discrepancy a “difficult question” and “chief difficulties” is a vast understatement. The Roman rite wasn’t found in its completed form (as defined as a uniform Missal by the Council of Trent) until the 6th or 7th century. The novelty started development in the late 4th century and took centuries to complete its novel development.

            My objection with it isn’t because it is a tradition, but because it is a tradition elevated to the level of “apostolic” and dogmatic without even being original.

          5. Bardelys the Magnificent

            No Derek, it is you who do not understand the eucharist. Our Orthodox brothers have celebrated it in basically the same way as Catholics since the beginning, with only procedural differences. If you are right, like I said before, then all of Christendom, 2000 years of Orthodoxy and 1500 years of Catholicism before the Protestants “corrected” the Church, are wrong about the most basic and fundamental part of the faith. Again, you cherry-pick scripture but cannot refute Christ’s EXACT words of “this is my body”. You cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit and get into Heaven. It’s the one sin that cannot be forgiven.

            If you’re right then basically nobody has gotten to heaven since Christ left the earth, and we have effectively had no Church. That does not square up with Christ saying he will have a church on earth and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You’re simply wrong here, and I will not argue with you further. Good luck to you, I hope your false interpretations bring you comfort on judgement day, because you’re going to need it.

            [DR: see this response by surfdumb]

          6. Derek L. Ramsey

            BtM,

            “You cannot blaspheme the Holy Spirit and get into Heaven.”

            You are speaking of Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28–30, and 1 John 5:16. Jesus said that blasphemy against the Son of Man may be forgiven, so the denial of Christ—the Son of Man—in the Host or refusal to worship it is forgivable.

            Again, you cherry-pick scripture but cannot refute Christ’s EXACT words of “this is my body”.

            I must admit confusion. A metaphor is—by definition—a direct comparison of dissimilar things. It is commonly in the form “X is Y.” So when Christ says “this [bread] is my body” he is using the standard grammatical form for a metaphor. Jesus also spoke in metaphor when he said “I am the vine” and “I am the door.” Jesus cited Isaiah, who explicitly made a metaphor by equating eating and drinking with hearing the Word of God and receiving eternal life. Moreover, a large number of early church writers attest to the body and blood of Christ being symbols and figures. Since bread and body are dissimilar things, IMO, the default explanation must be that Jesus was using a metaphor. It borders on special pleading to say otherwise.

            “If you’re right then basically nobody has gotten to heaven since Christ left the earth”

            Since you emphasize the EXACT words of Jesus, does Matthew 7:4 address your concern? “But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

            “…and we have effectively had no Church. That does not square up with Christ saying he will have a church on earth and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You’re simply wrong here, and I will not argue with you further.”

            This is a valid critique of my position, perhaps the most critical one that doesn’t actually address my ideas directly. I’d need another comment or even another post to respond to this, but for shame that you make an important point only to abandon the discussion entirely.

            “it is you who do not understand the eucharist.”

            I’ve examined many sources, so my understanding is well-founded and well-attested. You may challenge anything I have presented, or to ask for a clarification/defense of any point.

            “…are wrong about the most basic and fundamental part of the faith.”

            Why do people find it so difficult to belief that Satan, through the Anti-Christ, could have already deceived the vast majority of people who call themselves Christian? Most American Christians think this is possible—a near certainty—in a future Anti-Christ, but their own biases do not allow this possibility for the past. Why is this?

            Peace,
            DR

          7. Lastmod

            So the “Orthodox” got it right…..

            Still looking for “grow a beard, pray to a painted piece of wood, wear dark robes / vestments / incense / read liturgical scripture to said painted piece of wood” like a chant or incanation

            My cousin married a Greek Orthodox…..went to services many times with them when I visited before he divorced her. I was in their wedding.

            Dancing around the altar, crowns….and those crowns are and will be waiting for you in heaven! Service itself was a couple of hours. Still looking in the Bible for any of these requirements to be a Christian or specifics for a wedding ceremony……..opening of “curtains” and another icon that all had to stand for. Another prayer and chant. Another homily.

            What if a man is homebound and dying, doest get the “weekly holy supper” does he go to hell now? No, he doesnt.

          8. Derek L. Ramsey

            Regarding the Orthodox, there are highly technical (lol!) differences, described in their own words:

            “Orthodox, however, do not hold services of public devotion before the reserved sacrament, nor do they have any equivalent to the Roman Catholic functions of Exposition and Benediction, although there seems to be no theological (as distinct from liturgical) reason why they should not do so. The priest blesses the people with the sacrament during the course of the Liturgy, but never outside it.” — Timothy Kallistos Ware, “The Orthodox Church.” p.292

            The most notable part here is that Ware completely missed the theological significance, which we will see below. Notably, the doctrine of “Eucharistic Adoration” originated after the split. It is not practiced by the Orthodox Church:

            “Eucharistic adoration is not encouraged in the Orthodox churches of the East neither has this form of worship been practiced everywhere for all the time by all churches. For a practice or doctrine to be considered orthodox: it must have been received by the undivided Church (East and West), stood the test of time, and agreed upon by the consensus of the early fathers. This triple test of ecumenicity, antiquity, and consent is called the Vincentian canon and it is the overarching test for genuine Catholicity. In my view, the practice of Eucharistic devotion, that is displaying a monstrance containing a consecrated host for worship and prayer, does not pass the test of the Vincentian canon. Therefore, Eucharistic devotion does not meet the criterion as an acceptable practice within the Great Tradition and is not to be considered a theological conviction of the ancient faith.”

            “Eastern Orthodoxy’s Eucharistic focus is not on the change in the elements, but on the presence of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the mystery of faith encountered in the ancient liturgy.” — Glenn Davis, “The Error of Eucharistic Adoration

            All those words aside, whatever else they may have in common, the Eastern Orthodox do not practice the worship of the bread through Eucharistic Adoration. Anyone interested can read about the Orthodox Divine Liturgy here, which is notably different than the Roman Catholic Eucharistic liturgy.

  4. Surfdumb

    [NOTE: This is a response to this comment]

    BtM,

    FWIW, if you are going to quit so easily, then consider asking someone else to take this up for you. Your quick-temper and vulgarity are losing points. Maybe you are just having a bad day and it’s coming out. Even if you are in reality a foul-mouthed curr, I suppose it’s the argument that counts because it is an idea blog. However, as Christians, a person’s fruit has some weight with an argument.

    Derek, you used so many words and citations, I can understand why BtM doesn’t want to discuss this further. Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see where he asked you for a list of citations and quotes. And after all that, he went back to the quote and consequence. But now everyone is tired and moving on. So maybe not as useful as you hoped it would be?

    BtM. I don’t see how everyone is wrong and unsaved follows from thinking communion is a remembrance and not the actual body of Christ. You repeated Jesus’s quote twice, but didn’t ask what a Protestant thinks of it. I don’t read it and think it must be miraculously turned into His body. Wouldn’t that just make me miss out on the significance of it that you have? So why the anger?

    Derek provided quotes that shows many believers thought it symbolic, so why are you concluding most Christians have been wrong and unsaved if they are taking a more literal read? Derek suggested it, and that seems like a good point of discussion to benefit readers.

    BtM says its blasphemy to not believe the bread is actually Jesus. Why not go slower and spell that out? I have to assume ,since your anger skipped the album to another song, that you mean Protestants are blasphemous because we are calling God a liar. Is that a correct assumption?

    Derek, can you address that with shortness and directly? Blasphemy is dire and should be addressed in a more direct way than a history lesson.

    My answer for that is that I don’t think it’s blasphemy because Jesus uses hyperbole. And my conscience isn’t troubled (that’s an imperfect factor). I see it more in the vein that we are His body and further, we are individually different parts of the body. I am not saying figures of speech are beyond BtM, what I’m explaining is that your alternative of “He could have said, ‘ like my body.'” isn’t persuasive to me. Jesus didn’t add those qualifiers in other places.

    Why eat the real body “in remembrance ” of its the actual body? If that is so, then there is no need for remembrance, the sacrifice is actually happening.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Surfdumb,

      Thank you again for helpful your comment.

      “suppose it’s the argument that counts because it is an idea blog. However, as Christians, a person’s fruit has some weight with an argument.

      Logically, one’s behavior shouldn’t matter to their arguments…but for many people it does anyway. Now, since vulgarity is never necessary, it can only harm one’s argument. I don’t like it because my sons (and their classmates at school) may read anything posted on this blog, but I nonetheless will not censor. But I can tell you that when my teenage son reads these types of comments, they certainly impact how receptive he is to those alternative viewpoints, and not in a good way.

      “Derek, you used so many words and citations, I can understand why BtM doesn’t want to discuss this further.”

      I don’t think this is indicative of my methods, so much as the differences in the audience. My lengthy conversation with a trio of well-read Roman Catholics on Timothy Kauffman’s blog took 3 months or so (!!!) and involved over 700 comments, often quite lengthy. My lengthy and heated conversation with Kentucky Gent at Sigma Frame took two weeks, and was significantly more disorganized and less-concise than this discussion.

      The more I write about this topic, the more concise and focused I become. My summary here is by far the most concise (and yet dense) summary of the material that I have ever made. With each new iteration, I find more compact ways to explain it. I’m open to comments on how to improve my arguments, but it is rare for me to receive that kind of constructive feedback, so I don’t know what works and doesn’t work.

      My goal is simply to present the material and let people make up their own mind. The citations are there for people who want to spend more time considering the topic on their own. As is my practice, many of the external citations I make are made by those who hold the viewpoints I am arguing against. If even the arguments of my ideological “enemies” support my claims, then hopefully it shows that I’m arguing in good faith.

      I don’t mean this in any way to offend anyone, but if anyone takes issues with the volume of my citations, I may question their sanity. They really should consider whose blog they are visiting: citations are literally my thing. Like, I’ve been really obsessed with sourcing and citing related material for decades and that’s not a secret in any way.

      “Derek, can you address that with shortness and directly? Blasphemy is dire and should be addressed in a more direct way than a history lesson.”

      Short and direct? I try, I really do, but I’m not good at it.

      I’ll repeat what I said here. [BtM is] speaking of Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28–30, and 1 John 5:16. Jesus said that sins and blasphemy against the Son of Man may be forgiven, so the denial of Christ—the Son of Man—in the Host or refusal to worship it is forgivable.

      Many things are sin and blasphemy, but IMO, the only thing that is unforgivable is the person who makes their own heart so hard that it is impossible for them to ever repent, and so can never be saved. I think what Jesus was saying was a description of a person who is completely lost by their own free will, not him making a threat of damnation for crossing the line.

      Everyone here confesses Christ in one way or another, so I do not think anyone here can be guilty of the unforgivable sin. I think taking the Mark of the Beast by worshipping the image is blasphemy by the testimony of the Word of God in scripture, but it is like any other sin: it may be forgiven. Nevertheless, the Bible does describe it as a more serious sin than other sins, but I’m unclear precisely what the consequences are. Is it dire? Perhaps? I don’t know.

      In any case, I generally do not think doctrinal disagreements are blasphemy. A great many disagreements are subject to personal discernment, not dogma.

      Peace,
      DR

    2. Bardelys the Magnificent

      I will admit I saw red when I read this post. I replied at work so I’m not going to have a veritable stack of sources at my fingertips to back me up. Advantage Derek. However, at the end of my last reply I realized what happened. I cannot argue with Derek here because he’s made up his mind. You don’t post something like this as an inquiry. It’s a statement. As well sourced as this post was, Derek of all people would know that there’s just as much, if not more, evidence on the other side (Fisheaters has a great write-up on the eucharist). He even admits some of it is true. However, he has obviously done his research, and rejected it. I will not be able to change his mind because any sources I pull up he will have already seen. I can do nothing here. Call me a loser or a quitter, but I’ve been on the internet a long time; I’ve seen this movie before and I know how it ends.

      I will remind the room, though, that Satan knows the scriptures inside and out, and that he tried to corner Jesus with scripture in the desert. Anyone can come up with fancy little snips to make their point. I learned that in college. I also learned you can’t change someone’s mind once it’s been made. That takes divine intervention. I know I said a couple days ago that I don’t mind disagreements, but this isn’t some Coke vs. Pepsi argument. Saying the physical presence of Christ is actually the mark of the beast IS blasphemy. It’s calling God Satan. Not cool, and yes, I’m going to lose mine over it. I’m certain I will be mocked for what I said. So be it. Make your follow-up posts and all that. I must depart from you. I can’t consider you a brother in Christ if you deny Christ. Simple as.

      [NOTE: See this response by Derek]

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          I was confused, but I just let it go. I’ve edited your comments to fix them. If you felt mocked, you have my apologies. That is not my intention in any way.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        “As well sourced as this post was, Derek of all people would know that there’s just as much, if not more, evidence on the other side (Fisheaters has a great write-up on the eucharist).”

        When I saw this, I was both excited and disappointed. I was excited because finally my views were legitimately challenged directly by the actual evidence, but disappointed because I’m unaware of any historical reference at all to the Roman liturgy in the first 300 years of the church. The evidence against it is overwhelming, probably unanimous (though this can’t be proven conclusively). Even the Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me:

        That “much, if not more, evidence on the other side” that Bardelys mentions only exists starting in bits and pieces in the late 4th century until the 6th or 7th century. The Roman liturgy is an anachronism!

        The chance was extremely low that an Italian-American woman on the internet would stumble upon “much, much more evidence on the other side” than the Roman Catholic scholars behind the Catholic Encyclopedia. But I figured that Bardelys had done his research with his glowing recommendation alongside his confident condemnation of my viewpoint.

        Here are two examples of what I found in FishEater’s “What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist“.

        First, she cited this quote from Clement of Alexandria:

        This certainly sounds like something like the Roman liturgy, doesn’t it? Christ’s actual body and blood being consumed? Yet, all I had to do is expand the cherry-picked context by one paragraph to show Clement explaining how he understood the body and blood figuratively:

        Remember when Jesus cited Isaiah to show that the bread was the Word of God which leads to eternal life? Clement uses the exact same metaphor of Christ’s body and blood.

        Second, she cited these quotes from Ignatius:

        Notice that third quote there. All I had to do was expand the cherry-picked context by one sentence to show that Ignatius wasn’t arguing for a Roman liturgy:

        Ignatius is saying that the Gnostics don’t care for the poor, as demonstrated by their abstaining from the tithe (the Eucharist). She left this single sentence out because its inclusion shows that the Roman liturgy was not present in the early church. The original eucharist (thanksgiving) was the tithe: the thanksgiving offering. The Roman Catholic has to come up with a contrived explanation for why Ignatius is talking about helping the poor in the context of the Eucharist.

        The Protestant need only say “these are the same thing”: the eucharist is helping the poor.

        I’m going to continue writing a post proving that the Roman eucharist is completely absent from the first 300 years of the church by looking at a dozen or two writers from that period, but so far it isn’t proving to be much of a challenge. Where, precisely, is this mountain of evidence on the other side? As the Catholic Encyclopedia shows, it does not exist.

        FishEater’s “evidence” is very weak and dependent on cherry-picking. Perhaps someone more qualified will make a better presentation. It won’t be Joshua T. Charles, whose scholarship is much more detailed but not more accurate.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          Roman Catholicism truly believes that since Jesus died and was resurrected, there is an unbroken historical narrative—an apostolic succession if you will—that overwhelmingly supports its view of not only the Eucharist, but of all its doctrines. That’s why Bardelys says:

          “there’s just as much, if not more, evidence on the other side”

          The Roman religion believes this deeply. Its circular axiom is that all evidence supports Rome. Logically, the Protestant position cannot exist—except perhaps in scattered, but non-successive, heretics—until the Reformation. They fully believe that they can cite any and every early writer and expect overwhelming agreement.

          But…. that’s simply not the case. It’s an assumption. It is completely inverted from the reality that the Roman liturgy is, if not completely absent, overwhelmingly missing for the first 300 years. Any sober examination of the historical evidences shows that the Roman liturgy was developed over many centuries before being codified officially by the authority of a church council.

          Roman Catholics, like Kentucky Gent and Bardelys, are simply unprepared for the historical reality, because their church—and especially its apologists—have lied about the strength of evidence. Bardelys confidently cites FishEater, expecting persuasiveness from a shallow, inaccurate view of history. If you are on the side of God and not Satan, then whatever your church says must be true!

          Many Catholic scholars and members of the Magisterium know about the historical gap, just as the Catholic Encyclopedia declares: but because the church relies on (arguments from) authority, not historicity, it doesn’t matter. If history stands opposed, authority declares belief to be invariably true, no matter the actual history. History is expected—1984-style—to conform to dogma.

          What laymen read scholarly sources, where this isn’t a secret? It’s why I can cite Catholic sources to easily, as they are relatively honest. Laypersons remain ignorant because personal interpretation is disallowed. The people spinning falsehoods are mainly the zealous apologists who “don’t speak for the church.”

          The Catholic Encyclopedia is telling the truth: the Roman Eucharistic liturgy as we know it began in the 6th and 7th century, hundreds of years after Christ and the Apostles, and Eucharistic Adoration didn’t even begin until after the East/West split. The Roman liturgy isn’t apostolic in the slightest. But this doesn’t bother the Roman church because the Pope and Magisterium can declare axiomatically anything they want to be apostolic and it must be, regardless of the evidence. It is truly blind faith.

  5. Derek L. Ramsey

    [This is a reply to this comment]

    BtM,

    If this is our final interaction, I hope that you read what I write here and consider it as soberly as I intended it.

    “I replied at work so I’m not going to have a veritable stack of sources at my fingertips to back me up. Advantage Derek.”

    You have years to reply if you wish. I am in no rush and will respond to comments, no matter how old the article. I fairly often take months or even years to respond to objections.

    I refuse to be held to the modern ADHD standard where complete articles have to fit in 280 characters, contain no citations, and all conversation be completed within 24 hours. Our spiritual ancestors once debated with lengthy treatises, so why can’t we?

    Truthseeking is a lifelong pursuit that may take years to bear fruit.

    Nor am I political: The truth doesn’t care who is declared winner or loser, or who has the advantage or disadvantage. What matters is discussing ideas and subjecting them to the light of truth by examination under the light. If you are correct, then you have nothing to fear from debate even if you are disadvantaged and “lose” a stacked debate, for the darkness cannot overcome the light.

    “I cannot argue with Derek here because he’s made up his mind.”

    Let me answer that directly by seeing if you’ve made up your mind: are you willing to call your statement a lie and repent of it if I can show, below, that it is false?

    Before I wrote my extensive review of John C. Wright’s “Universal Apologia for the Catholic Church,” I made clear in my introduction that it was an honest, open-minded matter of conscience, for each man to decide for himself as guided by God. In doing so, I acknowledged that Roman Catholicism might be true.

    I’ve demonstrated on many occasions that I can and will eagerly change my mind in response to error (see: “Bespoke Epistles, Part 2“) Falsification does not mean that I just yield because someone wants me to. I’ve made a great many potentially falsifiable claims. Unlike most people who are unwilling to even question their own beliefs, at least I’m willing to give it a fair shot. But, minimally, it has to be proven, and you have not attempted this in any meaningful way.

    I’ve cited more viewpoints hostile to my argument than you have, because if no one is going to challenge me, I’ll find ways to challenge my own viewpoint on my own. That’s what a dedication truthseeking requires.

    When I discussed this topic with Kentucky Gent, he refuted none of my claims, in large part because his faith was new and untested and he wasn’t knowledgeable enough to engage with the evidence I presented, so of course I did not change my mind then either.

    But my months of discussions on Timothy Kauffman’s blog have required me to deeply reevaluate my beliefs on a number of topics, including binding-and-loosing and end-times prophecy.

    When Gunner Q viciously attacked me, he also raised a few valid points of critique, so I edited my articles accordingly. He recently apologized to me for his manner and I continue to view him as a Brother in Christ who cares, as I always have.

    When Scott came here to attack me and tell me what to do, I edited my posts. I even deleted—self-censored (!!)—our comments because he was concerned about our disagreement being a stumbling block for other Christians.

    Deti recently didn’t like how I portrayed his words, saying I put words in his mouth, so I edited my article to clarify what he believed.

    In my lengthy and difficult conversation with Sharkly, he finally managed to correctly identify one of my errors. Good for him! But, then he wrecked all possible good faith by accompanying his point with a personal attack. Nonetheless, I must now take his correction seriously anyway.

    In my discussion with Roman Catholic Tyler Journeaux we had an extremely productive conversation. Neither could convince the other, but he did acknowledge that if my words were ever persuasive, rather than agree with me, he would cease to be a Christian as a matter of the necessity of his view of logic. This arrangement was understood: neither of us demanded that the other convert to their own side. It was so immensely positive an experience, that I put a Roman Catholic on my blogroll! Is this the hallmark of someone who cannot change his mind or consider other viewpoints?

    But here’s the thing. I shouldn’t have to defend myself against your spurious claims. You are imputing a motive on me that you cannot possibly know without knowing my inner mind, and yet you didn’t even ask me what I believe. That’s a personal attack, and so you are not even entitled to this response, or any response at all. That I respond at all is because I care about you enough to put logic and rights aside.

    So you falsely accuse me of having my mind made up, but it was my open mind that led me to change to the conclusions that I now hold, and I present those conclusions now in the hope that if I am wrong, someone will persuade me.

    “I will not be able to change his mind because any sources I pull up he will have already seen. I can do nothing here. [..] I’ve been on the internet a long time; I’ve seen this movie before and I know how it ends.”

    So you judge me in advance for something I have not yet done, based on how you have judged others in the past? Is this your version of Christ’s Golden Rule?

    “Satan knows the scriptures inside and out, and that he tried to corner Jesus with scripture in the desert.”

    I notice that your experience with debating is similar to the one that Tim Kauffman regularly experiences when talking to Roman Catholics, only in reverse. But notice how he takes criticism for “answering at all” (how dare I write this post so close to Easter!), “not providing an answer that aligns with Rome’s traditional interpretation” (you got actually angry that I did this), and “eisegeting” (i.e. Satan can also quote scripture).

    Are you also willing to consider that you might be wrong? Are you willing to consider that you might be serving Satan rather than me? Or better yet, that neither of us are? If not, then it is your mind that is made up.

    When Satan challenged Jesus, Jesus responded by quoting the Old Testament, which is precisely what the noble Bereans did, and it is what I have done here.

    You wanted to know what “this is my body” meant, so I showed how Jesus quoted Isaiah to show that bread which he gives us is a metaphor for the words that he received from his Father. It was Jesus who quoted the Old Testament.

    Do you fear that if you debate me, I may indeed change my mind as in the past, but that I won’t change it in the way that you prefer? This isn’t arguing in good faith. You have no right to demand that anyone in a debate agree to terms that presume that you will be one who “wins.”

    Nobody owes me anything. If you don’t want to discuss it, that’s fine, but leave out the vulgarity, the personal attacks, the ‘mortal’ calumny that I serve Satan, and the “bearing of false witness.” This is a blog that focuses on ideas. Leave the other stuff at the door. But, if you cannot, as a fellow confessor of Christ, you are still welcome to dirty up the floor, though your words will likely do no good.

    One final note: you can’t accuse me of cherry-picking while simultaneously complaining that I provide too many sources. Providing additional and more complete sources is the refutation of cherry-picking! You can only complain about one of these things. Which shall it be?

    Peace,
    DR

  6. professorGBFMtm

    thedeti

    *grabs popcorn* along with the rest of the GBFM assembley and fellow-ship.

    i thought you were not suppose to be here(or something from a while back)?😉

    Glad to have you here!

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Professor,

      You gather up people and bring them in.

      I chase them away.

      People don’t appreciate precisely how much traffic you help generate. I know you talk about it a lot, but I don’t think people believe you. Perhaps half the people who comment on this blog only do so because of your subtle—and sometimes indirect—persuasion in getting them here. Professor puts out an ad, and that very same day people are commenting. Hmmm….

      Peace,
      DR

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      Professor,

      It’s funny that I said…

      “You gather up people and bring them in. I chase them away.

      …even as the meta-discussion at Sigma Frame says the same thing:

      It’s worth noting that they are very good at missing the point: I’m not talking about end-times prophecy…

      I’m talking about what has already happened in history and what people in the past have said. History is of far greater relevance than what may or may not happen in the future.

      I would bet that Red Pill Apostle didn’t actually read my post. If he’d done so, he’d know that it was Gunner Q who is talking about some future Jewish-identified anti-Christ. Nobody criticizes Gunner Q, who brought it up in the first place. That’s because it isn’t the topic which is forbidden, it is which conclusions are permitted.

      This is very much like Progressive Wokism: the approved narratives are uncritically accepted and the unapproved ones are condemned without consideration.

      Peace,
      DR

  7. Lastmod

    Off topic: In Texas, a judeg has approved that Stephen Crowder (“Louder With Crowder” fame) has to pay an additional 25,000 a month to his now x-wife so she can pay her lawyers for the divorce she initiated

    *Crowder is an “alpha” evidently. Good looking. Has all the ‘answers’ married a pretty blonde woman in the toxic marriage environment. Has an excellent career. He “vetted” properly. Had more than his share to “date” and “pick from” when he was single. He was a breadwinner. She was a “stay at home mom” (evidently she gave up her amazing career for this).

    *Good ‘ol Texas where they have sane laws and everyone is a “hard workin’ man on a farm” and every gal is “down home” and christian. Divorce Court there look just like “Commiefornia”

    *Crowder about two years ago, like Vox called single men on his show like me “losers” who just needed to “man up” and “go to the gym” and “move out of mommys basement” and “women dont bite, gotta shoot your shot and ask them out”

    They dont bite to men like Crowder. Most other men find themselves nuclear rejected or in an HR office, or police called on them.

    He now says “he didnt choose the right one”

    Right. Okay. He should have studied Rollo more I guess.

    Between the current support and now his wife’s defense lawyers, he is going to be spending over 300K a year. Guess who is going to sleep better tonight? Him or LastMod?

    The answer is Lastmod

    Finally……..why didnt he just tell his wife “If you divorce me, you will get nothing. Zero. Not the kids. Nothing” Have heard that said many a time on other forums by the popcorn eater above.

    Right……….with marriage, it becomes a legal matter. Even in Texas.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Remember how Crowder got into this mess? You can rewatch it here. This reminds me of that time that Jack said he peed all over the bed. Very strong alpha vibes there! Or is it sigma? Ah, who cares.

      1. Lastmod

        exact Red Pill language and “Frame” Crowder used. Textbook. How come his wife didnt obey? How come she didnt respond? I thought women responed to “authority” and “status” and Frame. And you correct it to set boundries.

        We should go with “real” science and check the wedding pictures for a visceral, and see if his wife has it. The look that “cannot” EVER be faked. That is how you know you will have a wife who obeys.

        My father never once spoke to my mother like that. My mother also knew the boundry with my father because it was built with trust, with genuine love and respect for the mother of his children.

        Excellent example. The x-wife says she has a lot more videos like this she is going to present in court. If I were a man, and my wife spoke and treated me like this. I’d be the one filing and leaving.

    2. professorGBFMtm

      He now says “he didnt choose the right one”

      Right. Okay. He should have studied Rollo more I guess.”

      You got that right 4 sure bro!😉

      Rollo has been succesfully married for decades and he gets no reason to get louder like crowder with his voice commands as mrs.rollo cheerfully obeys his every ”iron rule” in the tool kit as she drools!

      ”Finally……..why didnt he just tell his wife “If you divorce me, you will get nothing. Zero. Not the kids. Nothing” Have heard that said many a time on other forums by the popcorn eater above.

      Right……….with marriage, it becomes a legal matter. Even in Texas.”

      Yeah but he clarified that by saying at spawnys once before ”i will hideout in some nowhere place in europe and you’ll get nothing woman!”

      1. Lastmod

        I just watched Tim Poole’s podcast on this “crowder divorce” he actually took a very balanced take. Wasnt hating on either of them.

        This has dragged out now over a year because of the “awesome speed of the court system” and this is Texas…..where people love God, country and the police.

        It was painful to listen to:

        *all the subset he said and she said stuff and in context to this statement v that statement

        *that one video of her pregnant and Crowder in the chair griping about her not doing “wife things” is not good optics for Crowder. Doesnt matter the context or the situation. Him behaving like an ass to his VERY pregnant wife about her not doing “wife things” looks really bad

        *The cost is going to explode soon to well over a million dollars in lawyers costs alone

        *Following his hero to plan…Trumps divorce in the late 1980’s was of tabloid legend as I recall. “My Divorce Is Worse, Convince me Im wrong”

        *Her family, his former employees are now being dragged into it, mostly by her

        *we have not even got to the custody part yet, or alimony or child support

        A lesson from every high profile and low profile divorce going back to the 1980’s:

        She is gonna get half. He might as well drop it right now. Him fighting this and dragging it out only makes him look like a fool to the family court system and ti will be used against him during the custody phase. Lawyers, judges and juries and clerks, and support staff of the court system HATE this country and people like Crowder. People like Johnny Carson. People like Trump. He isnt going to “pull a Trump” and make a mockery of them.

        Afte the dust settles, she will be with another guy very quickly. He will never retract or apologize to over 25% of the men in the USA who he called “wimps” for not getting married like he did.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          The whole Crowder situation shows that spouting Red Pill stuff and acting like a jerk—err… showing proper frame—will just accelerate you towards divorce and horrible outcomes in court.

          Where are all the Red Pill sites who say “it is extremely risky to follow our advice if you are actually married.”

          For a movement centered around authority, they don’t like taking responsibility for their actions.

          1. The truth is that most people aren’t willing to let go of their blue-pilled delusions until after they’ve been through the divorce wringer, or a very horrible stretch of marriage.
            FWIW most of us were blue-pilled when that first happened to us. Our crap marriages happened despite trying to use every possible bit of the church’s blue-pilled bullshit on an unrepentant whore in marriage 2.0

            We just want to help others to avoid the evil mess we found ourselves in.

            Y’all here like to paint the red-pill and the manosphere with a broad brush stereotyping us all as being the same. Besides that comment by Jack, I don’t know of anybody who has intentionally peed the bed, nor do I think that is representative of what most of us do. I tried everything but that. LOL But keep picking nits with the manosphere, and maybe they’ll return to your churchian Feminist plantation, after enough nagging and derision. They’ll ignore what happened to them and return to your failed cunt-worship cloaked in the holy name of Jesus our Lord.
            ————————————————–

            FWIW, I wondered how long a Mennonite and a Papist would fellowship. It seemed doomed from the start, just based upon my limited knowledge of church history. I’m a bit disappointed that nobody has called the current poofter pope a pedophilic antichrist, yet. You’re letting our Mennonite ancestors down, Derek. I guess just bitching about the manosphere and God’s holy order of patriarchy together wasn’t enough common ground to sweep you and the Papist off together in a flood of ecumenicalism. What a pity. /S

            There’s not much real brotherhood to be had for men under churchian Feminism, just commiseration. I remember what you had to say about the cucked leaders of your two churches when I mentioned possibly writing to them. LOL

            Every day more men are getting red-pilled by reality and by the manosphere and are walking away from the Beta-male-factories that the churches have become. Yet some of y’all stubbornly refuse to remove the Feminism out of your doctrine. You’d rather lose all of us “toxic” men with fully descended testicles so that y’all can double down on praising and worshipping women. Where will this woman-worship lead y’all next?

            LOL
            “… Jesus fed us as from the milk from the breast, clearly a feminine portrayal of Jesus breast-feeding his followers the Word of God. “

            That there ain’t in my Bible! But I can see how effeminizing Jesus might appeal to y’all who reflexively rebel against the Christian-manosphere and those men who support God’s holy order of patriarchy. How soon until you give your breastfeeding Jesus an “honorary” vagina, so he can wash y’all in the decaying blood of his periods?

          2. Lastmod

            “The truth is that most people aren’t willing to let go of their blue-pilled delusions until after they’ve been through the divorce wringer, or a very horrible stretch of marriage.
            FWIW most of us were blue-pilled when that first happened to us. Our crap marriages happened despite trying to use every possible bit of the church’s blue-pilled bullshit on an unrepentant whore in marriage 2.0

            We just want to help others to avoid the evil mess we found ourselves in.

            Y’all here like to paint the red-pill and the manosphere with a broad brush stereotyping us all as being the same. Besides that comment by Jack, I don’t know of anybody who has intentionally peed the bed, nor do I think that is representative of what most of us do. I tried everything but that. LOL But keep picking nits with the manosphere, and maybe they’ll return to your churchian Feminist plantation, after enough nagging and derision. They’ll ignore what happened to them and return to your failed cunt-worship cloaked in the holy name of Jesus our Lord.”

            Communists and Marxists sound exactly the same. You bring up the failure of their doctrines and policies from The Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, Ethiopia, Burma, Loas, Cambodia…..

            And they still spew “Yea, but that wasnt *real* Marxism / Communism, if they just followed it my way it would have worked perfectly….next time in (insert country) it will work. They still were blinded by capitalistic thinking and it wasnt really Marxism / Communism”

            So now Stephen Crowder was “blinded by blue pill thinking” his entire marriage and that really wasnt a “marriage built on and through a red-pill lense”

            The man who knowingly got married in a *toxic* environment. Had tons of opportunities to “vett” and “test drive” and date loads of women before he chose Hillary. Rich Cooper as well.

            I feel bad for his divorce. I wish that on no man. None. I, and millions upon millions of single men also remember him telling us to “be like him” and just “be a man” and “take responsibility” and “get married” and “women dont bite” and “you all are weak and cowardly for not being masculine / a leader to attract GOOD women”

            Maybe he should have followed his own advice.

            Again, lets use the “foolproof” *science* of visceral looks women use in their wedding photos that they cannot ever, ever fake!

            He behaved like an incessant ass, wife got tired of it she used and is using the courts to her advantage to leave him.

            Of course there is LOTS of cash n prizes at stake here. Lets be real, that also has helped her in her choice to divorce. If he was a struggling mechanic in a small city or town would she have done this?

            No, because she would have never married a “small struggling working class slob” in a small town. Nothing to get and by her own physical looks, she would have never given a guy like that the time of day.

            Crowder, as I have said before was the kind of guy that would flush the nerds head in the boys bathroom in high school, slapped his buddies on the back with a “har har har” and thought it was funny.

            He is hardly “blue pill” he’s just an ass

  8. Pingback: What the Earliest Christians Wrote About the Eucharist

  9. Surfdumb

    BtM,
    I wasn’t trying to mock you. Did it come off that way?

    I didn’t bring up, or think of, the RC understanding of communion with the mark of the beast. That’s new for me, and I have to think about that assertion more. However, I am interested in understanding the thinking of an RC on it, so I am glad you jumped in, and really meant that you should turn over the arguing if you were quitting. And you did provide the Fisheater link, which Derek found helpful, so good.

    For myself, this is interesting like the charismatic unordered services are. I read “Charismatic Chaos” by John MacArthur, but that lacked an explanation from the charismatic side why they ignore the verse requiring an orderly service and an interpreter if someone speaks in tongues.

    Likewise, I have a similar interest in knowing why an RC thinks communion is a miracle and not a symbol.
    Derek mentions, successfully in my opinion, about a lack of verification of the RC view for the first 300 years. I can see that as useful for what he is saying, but for me, that gap isn’t important. I think I would still see it as Protestants do, as symbolic, even if Ignatius hadn’t also thought of it as symbolic.

    You say Protestants are calling God a liar by saying the bread is the mark of the beast. Agreed, but if we agree on the premise. I think you are jumping to the conclusion and getting angry (which you should based on how you see it and your conscience) but it is my understanding that the discussion is about the premise, not the implication, with the premise being if God is speaking literally or symbolically about the bread being the body of Jesus.

    I wish Deti hadn’t left, because I find it such an interesting question and I want to hear other ideas about what other believers think about the bread of communion.

    I will say this, Derek’s formulation has this going for it, it’s providing an opportunity for clarity and reflection for RCs, whereas I wouldn’t have brought it up, and not provided you with such an opportunity.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Surfdumb,

      “You say Protestants are calling God a liar by saying the bread is the mark of the beast.”

      A big problem is confusing the Image with the Mark. The unleavened Passover bread—the ‘Host’—is the Image of the Beast. Many don’t even know there is an Image, despite it being more important than the Mark. But, even if it was a microchip, it would be the Image, not the Mark.

      By definition, worshiping a man-made object as God is idolatry. Any Christian who rejects the “Real Presence” or “Eucharistic Adoration” must conclude that it is idolatry. To do otherwise is cognitive dissonance. (Calling this a “lie” is equivalent to demanding that only Roman Catholicism is true, which is just as inherently inflammatory as my claim)

      Per Revelation, those who worship the Image bear the Mark, that is, their worship of the image signifies to everyone (including God) their union with the Beast. The worship of the image is the mark. The identification of those marked is trivial.

      “I didn’t bring up, or think of, the RC understanding of communion with the mark of the beast. That’s new for me, and I have to think about that assertion more.”

      The idea is not novel. The 12th-century Waldensian creed “La nobla layczon” associates Rome Catholicism with the Great City Babylon of Revelation where the Whore of Babylon sits. To be a creed, the idea itself must have been around for longer than 800 years for it to have been so codified.

      The more Revelation was fulfilled, the more people identified Roman Catholicism with the Whore of Revelation. So by the Reformation, so much of Revelation had been fulfilled that it became too undeniable that Revelation spoke of Rome’s alignment with the Beast. (Thus, the Counter Reformation)

      This was once commonly accepted among Reformation Protestants. For example, the Westminster Confession 24:3 forbids marriage of Christians to infidels, papists, and other idolaters. Once most understood that the Papacy, Eucharistic Adoration, and veneration (Marian; Saint; relic) were all idolatry.

      Even the modern Christians who read the Bible don’t know about this. Now, Roman Catholics take it as a blasphemous insult if you even mention what few would have denied a century or two ago. In modern times, Rome’s status has been replaced by a desire for friendly relations, universal harmony, and pleasant songs around a campfire. Just see how many times Gunner Q and Jack have lectured me about being divisive: harmony and uniformity suits their goals.

      “I am interested in understanding the thinking of an RC on it”

      When one’s belief relies on a false portrayal of history..

      “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” ― John Henry Newman

      …then the only thing left is conversion or dismissal/flight.

      The Roman Catholic has no answer but to retreat into the axiom of sola ecclesia: the church alone, which is epistemologically equivalent to sola scriptura. This observation is why I spend so much time talking about this.

      The Roman Catholic likes to claim that history is overwhelmingly on their side and can do so because most Protestants are ignorant and Roman Catholics have stacked the deck (i.e. rewritten history, as demonstrated in the in-progress series).

      The Roman Catholic tries to claim that sola scriptura is inherently flawed. But what I show is that the Roman Catholic axiom is logically no better than the Protestant axiom. All of Roman Catholicism’s authority—of doctrine, practice, or canon—provides no additional benefit. There is no logical benefit to Roman Catholicism from an epistemological standpoint. Therefore, it makes sense for the Roman Catholic to choose the biblical eucharist with the best and earliest historical support.

      The key is to try to get the Roman Catholic to admit that he does not have the moral high ground that he thinks he does, but is, in fact, on equal axiomatic footing with the Protestant. In recent times, neither Sharkly and Bardelys—despite believing opposite extremes on Roman Catholicism—were able to deny that they possess the moral high ground.

      This applies to me as well: I have no moral high ground from which to say that my axiom is epistemologically superior to any others, so I am forced to argue that my ideas are better within the established understanding of competing axioms.

      As with any debate, this requires the recipient to argue against the ideas in good faith. I’ve experienced this with others in the past, but those who hold to the double-authority-whammy of Christian patriarchy and Roman Catholicism are extremely resistant to any challenges to authority.

      Peace,
      DR

  10. Derek L. Ramsey

    In light of Deti’s dismissal comment and criticism comment, it’s interesting to see his follow-up comment to Surfdumb at Spawny’s Space (since he doesn’t wish to post it here):

    Larry G has weighed in as well:

    I have no issue with Larry’s comment. If he isn’t sacrificing and worshiping the bread, then it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t understands Eucharist. To be fair, what church is teaching the history? If people want to know they can read my series or read Timothy Kauffman’s blog (which has much more content)…. or just read their Bible which contains no Roman liturgy. But many—millions? billions?—demonstrate that they don’t seek to know the history. As the Bible attests, the truth of Jesus divides. Deti’s belief in truth is subjective: based on his personal experiences (e.g. prayer and reflection).

    So now it appears—though it is a bit ambiguous—that Deti believes in the literal body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine, though precisely what this means (in terms of liturgy, sacrifice, and worship) he does not say. For this reason, it now makes sense why he attacked the validity of my ideas and not Gunner Q’s: his belief only conflicts with mine (so, only I’m divisive because of… why exactly?). Yet, it is his “refined” faith that is not informed by the overwhelming reality of history.

    But, at least he is being honest in acknowledging that his axiom of truth is whatever he believes to be true.

    Unsurprisingly, he does not like to separate Christians, a trend I just noted in this comment:

    “Even the modern Christians who read the Bible don’t know about this. Now, Roman Catholics take it as a blasphemous insult if you even mention what few would have denied a century or two ago. In modern times, Rome’s status has been replaced by a desire for friendly relations, universal harmony, and pleasant songs around a campfire. Just see how many times Gunner Q and Jack have lectured me about being divisive: harmony and uniformity suits their goals.”

    It’s not that I’m wrong—the history is firmly on my side—it’s that I’m not being nice enough.

    So why isn’t Deti a little nicer when it comes to people whose own “prayer and reflection” lead them to approve of gay marriage, women’s anti-patriarchy rights, and transgender transitions? Where is the criticism over Gunner Q’s antisemitism?

    Dismissing someone’s views because that viewpoint is divisive—”doctrinal differences that separate Christians”—is logically fallacious, a type of ad hominem. Deti obviously doesn’t apply those rules to himself, immunizing himself against investigation. I’m not surprised that he is unwilling to debate the ideas here. A lot of people in the church just avoid such confrontation as a matter of course.

    I feel bad for surfdumb, who just wants an honest conversation.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      I don’t enjoy being gaslit, which is why I take issue with people assuming people’s motives: attacking people and avoiding ideas.

      Deti inserted himself here and made a related comment on two external sites that I read, then complained about me stalking him when I responded, then complained that I complained about his attack, and proceeded to attack some more.

      After I posted the above comment (in case surfdumb missed the one at Spawny’s or saw this one first), the following exchange took place on Spawny’s:

      Deti didn’t even know why he was guilty of his own accusation—and he can’t because the real facts that prove his falsehood are hidden from public and won’t be disclosed—but he’s completely sure that I was lying about that too.

      ProTip: if you don’t want me to respond, don’t talk about me.

      ProTip: if you don’t want me to respond, don’t make false accusations against me.

      I think Jason is years ahead of me on “letting go.”

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        In a twist that I didn’t see coming, they are ruminating over banning me for my solitary, four sentence comment—a reply to an attack where Deti mentioned me by name—in which I merely pointed out that he wasn’t telling the truth. Deti didn’t like that, so now I’m going to be banned for lying?

        Oh no! Not a ban for having the gall to tell the truth. What ever shall I do? Surely that will teach me not to tell the truth again. I’m sure they’ll be reaching out to me any day to hear my side of the story… lol. Christians do love to censor.

        This is probably the most deeply ironic thing I have ever seen, a more complete inversion I have not seen.

        They are so sure that Deti is honest. It’s like a girls club, where they ostracize the new girl’s because she’s different: new girl makes the existing girls feeeeeel bad. The Head Girl decides and the regulars fall in line. It’s the way that girls ensure that everyone in the group holds the correct opinions and stays in line.

        Did Deti prove that I was lying? Nope. He couldn’t possibly do that, because his attack was completely unsubstantiated. I’d have to disclose why it is a lie, but I’d prefer not to do that for reasons undisclosed. But the fact is, Deti is wrong. I know it, he doesn’t. His only legitimate action would be to recant of an unprovable accusation (i.e. nothing more than his unsubstantiated opinion).

        So what are they going to do? Hold a popularity contest? If they were truly honest, they’d ban Deti for lying, but I guarantee that they won’t because they like him. If they do only ban me, we’ll know the answer to that question.

        Also, if anyone cares, Deti is still unrepentent.

        1. Liz

          Well, he just repeated the same thing he has insulted me for saying in the past (essentially “we are what we do”). Stuff like that makes me throw up my hands in exasperation. I should just stop reading, the repeating what I have said so often after attacking me offensively for saying the same is incredibly frustrating.
          Per the topic:
          (responding as best I can, not being a religious scholar as others are here).
          First, I disagree that the bread is the beast, and eucharist by extension.
          On the other hand, I am not aligned with those who believe in transmogrification of the communion bread and wine.
          To me, communion is metaphorical as Christ said (“in remembrance of Me”).
          It is essentially a reenactment of the last supper.
          The ritual that supersedes it (repentance) is beneficial. And I do feel the Holy Spirit when I take communion (though it is not the only time I feel the holy spirit).
          The crucifix is similar in that it also is symbolic. Not the actual cross, but a remembrance.
          It is not worshipped in itself.
          The original Christians did not use a crucifix.
          It developed symbolically over time.

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            Liz,

            “I disagree that the bread is the beast, and eucharist by extension.”

            The way you said it, I agree with you. The bread is not the beast, nor is the beast the eucharist.

            The beast is Satan. Babylon is Rome (as it was known when John wrote Revelation) and The Whore of Babylon—which sits on Rome—is Roman Catholicism / The Papacy. The Image of the Beast is the unleavened Passover bread, and the Mark is the worship of that bread, something only emphasized in Roman Catholicism.

            Revelation tells us that the Beast—Satan—deceives his his followers by making them worship the image, and so are they marked as his.

            But, I don’t ask that anyone agree on the Beast or his Image and the Mark, even though no alternative is even close to viable (“yet”). This is the kind of thing where one has to accept a whole host of other conclusions before one can comfortably arrive at this. Perhaps in a few months or years one or two readers here may start to believe this after much examination.

            All I ask is that readers withhold judgment until my lengthy series is complete and then let me know—after the historical record has been examined—if anything I presented on the Eucharist has changed their viewpoint or not.

            “On the other hand… [much said here]”

            I agree, and so do the patristic writers of the first 300 years.

            “Well, he just repeated the same thing he has insulted me for saying in the past (essentially “we are what we do”). Stuff like that makes me throw up my hands in exasperation. I should just stop reading, the repeating what I have said so often after attacking me offensively for saying the same is incredibly frustrating.”

            Notice all the projection and gatekeeping—”you shouldn’t be engaging with what I’m saying”—on a site dedicated to engaging with what others say. It’s just like when Jack told me to stay in my lane right after complaining that I put words in other people’s mouths. The whole point of blogging is to eliminate gatekeeping from limiting what authors write!

            After telling everyone that he didn’t want to get into doctrinal discussions about doctrines that separate people, he proceeded to have a doctrinal discussion. The only difference is that dissension—that is, me and me alone—was first removed, so no true disagreement could occur. The doctrines themselves are, of course, still just as divisive as always.

            The ironic part is that Deti was discussing something directly relevant to what we were discussing here. Directly relevant, as in, he wouldn’t even be discussing it at all if it were not for my post. He could have just posted here, but he chose to go elsewhere. But his comments (and those of everyone else) are still relevant to the topic here. So I’ll continue to post screenshots here while focusing primarily on the ongoing series.

            Peace,
            DR

      2. Derek L. Ramsey

        Surfdumb’s reply to Deti is a relevant counterpoint.


        To clarify, the Protestant and Roman Catholic belief is functionally different, and most Protestants do not even know what the Roman Catholic belief is. So here is a selected description from FishEaters:

        “Christ’s ordained priests offer Christ to the Father under the appearances of bread and wine. Christ is really and truly present, under the appearance of bread and wine, in every way: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.”

        “The Sacrifice of the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, that is, it is made for the remission of sins and for the appeasement of the Father. The Old Testament sacrifices were ineffectual, but the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, which the Mass re-presents, is effectual because Christ Himself is both the High Priest and the perfect Victim. Partaking of His Body (with right intention, as with all Sacraments) remits venial sin and sanctifies.”

        “Interestingly, even the Jewish rabbis said in the Midrash that, when the Messiah comes, all offerings will be abolished except the thanksgiving todah offering (Vayikra Rabba 9,2).”

        “Read the prophecy of Malachi again: [..] How can there be predicted pure sacrifice in every place in the New Covenant if Protestant theology is true, if Christ’s once and for all Sacrifice is not to be re-presented as it is at the Catholic Mass?”

        “It’s so sad, and so infuriating, that Catholics are accused of “worshipping bread.” Yes, the Blessed Sacrament looks like bread and tastes like bread. If one were to walk into a traditional Catholic Mass (that is, a Mass offered according to pre-Vatican II rubrics), one might think Catholics are crazy as they kneel down when the priest holds up what looks like a “piece of bread” for them to adore. “Why, those Catholics are bread-worshippers! I guess that hunk of dough must be some serious “Wonder Bread” to those idiots, hahaha!” — but the Creator of the Universe said that it is not bread but His very Flesh, which is meat indeed. What God Almighty, Who made the earth and the moon and stars says, is. Once God, through the priest, has changed the bread and wine into the Body and Blood, they should never, ever be referred to as “bread and wine”; they are the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ Jesus. In other words, we don’t worship bread; we worship Christ!”

        “It takes the eyes of faith to “see” that the apparent mere bread and wine are truly the Body and Blood of Christ; it takes an intellectual assent to divine revelation, not emotional “feelings” (though one might experience tremendous emotion, too; I’ve wept out of sheer gratitude to my Savior for humbling Himself for me in such a way at the Mass!). Sometimes one might struggle to “feel” that what appears to be “bread” and “wine” are what He said they are, especially at many modern Masses during which the Body and Blood are so often treated with irreverence. The proper response to doubt, though, is, “Lord, I believe! Help Thou mine unbelief!” (Mark 9:24), not mockery.”

        “Bottom line: one either reads Scripture, listens to the Church, and intellectually assents to what they’ve taught for two millennia, in spite of one’s “feelings,” in spite of the accidents (the appearances) of “bread” and “wine,” or one doesn’t. To those who not only don’t, but feel compelled to mock, well, mock on. They scorned Jesus, too. Just know that you are in bad company; many walked away in the 1st century, too”

        2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

        There is no doubt that Deti’s believes that “The Eucharist is the Blood and Body of Christ”, but the church in the first 300 years explicitly did not believe this. It is an historical anachronism, but one that has acceptance among many modern Protestants, who in large part don’t know much about it. This was not the case during the Reformation and for a long time thereafter. Modern Protestants do not expect Roman Catholicism, nor their own leaders, to deceive them.

        Deti’s view is so similar to the Orthodox viewpoint, that it is hard to tell the difference (if any). For example:

        “I don’t know how bread and wine become His body and blood, and I don’t need to know. I take it on faith. We are to consume the Eucharist, to take it into our bodies, to become one with Him.” — Deti

        “Eastern Orthodoxy’s Eucharistic focus is not on the change in the elements, but on the presence of Christ, the power of the Holy Spirit, and the mystery of faith encountered in the ancient liturgy.” — Glenn Davis, “The Error of Eucharistic Adoration“


        “he was not unclear”

        I wish I could comment there and ask how they are so sure that Christ wasn’t speaking metaphorically, when he used the exact same grammatical construction to do so on other occasions. Maybe surfdumb or someone here who is not banned on Spawny’s (if that is anyone) ask the question?

  11. Lastmod

    For all this confidence in Red Pill and how it works and how it makes men “better” lots of really frustrated and angry men out there. Christians moreso than others

    My observations over the decade: They want it to work so bad, its just so “simple” and “basic” and then add the Christian faith into this and you then have a huge tome of 66 books dropped on top of this. Trying to navigate the secular and sacred and still….in the end…..the words of Jesus himself:

    “In this life you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome”

    I’ve noticed for myself and men in my situation (growing by the day), the faith has little appeal. “No wife, no girlfriend(s), dates, options to meet one? Well, look at Jesus! He suffered! You are just going to have to burn and deal with it. This is a faith of suffering.”

    Contrast with the anger from a few posters that has been getting actually *worse* over the years. The peace that the Savior they profess is to bring them, isnt working or not working fast enough and full of projection “if only women did this and that….”

    A poster mentioned that men will die without sex. It is a need like aire and food and water. Then shifted “well, you are lesser man because you have not had it”

    Tell that to Jesus. Tell that to unknown monks over the centuries who did live by the guidelines they entered into with God. Tell that to the Catholic priests who DID live a celibate life and took their calling to the faith seriously. Tell that to the young man who is really grounded in his faith traditon, and wants to please God and not “fornicate”

    I’ve just noticed they make excuses for their own sin and then throw scripture on those who dare question.

    Perhaps, some of these people should actually *leave* their respected churches for a few months to reflect, read the Bible. Pray. Contemplate. I did not say “leave Christianity”

    I think in the end, its their own churches causing this harm to them on top of what they are already facing. When you are suffering church usually is the last place….especially a man….will get help in the spiritual realm. Sure, there are exceptions but its not the norm. Also this strict adherence to a Red Pill Doctrine on anything and everything. Revoltions in this matter are tiring.

    Why did all the protest and social unrest of the 1960’s really begin to die down in the mid 1970’s? Not because the problems were fixed…….but…..its freaking tiring. Hence we all had to all suffer through “disco”. You cannot live by a strident activist stance on every cause, issue or situation. People get tired, they leave….not because they “went back to blue pill thinking” but they got tired of being and feeling miserabel on every issue and stance. Hence disco. Nixon was gone. Vietnam had ended in defeat, the major civil rights items had been put into “Law” (not that it helped more than hindered in some areas). People just wanted to dance, and forget. They did. Activists and strict “ideologues” are not fun to be around. They’re not. As the 1970’s pushed on, many on the left realized this and well…..hence disco.

    As I have grown older, you just have to pick the cause or that one or two defensive fronts and stand on that if you are so inclined. I had to leave the church for the fact I was feeling miserable. I got tired of striving, still no results and still being shut down as “stuck in blue pill thinking”

    I’ve always been a bachelor and single. I knew many far reaches of Red Pill lore than any of these people could imagine……with that said, most are very miserable people. Maybe that’s why your marriage isnt working.

    To each their own, but leaving the church actually did get me some breathing room to look back and think. Maybe it was a good thing.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “In this life you will have trouble, but take heart, I have overcome”

      I’ve noticed for myself and men in my situation (growing by the day), the faith has little appeal.

      This is absolutely true. To wit:

      The consensus on the Bible’s teaching on the Eucharist is “it isn’t relevant to the problems of men today.” It’s the same thing I said in “On Suffering.”

      “Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation. Modern man seeks reduced suffering as its highest ideal. This isn’t a Christian ethic. It is utilitarianism.”

      “This illustrates Charlton’s point precisely. Modern man does not view the promise of salvation and glory as the solution to suffering, for modern man views suffering as an impediment to a properly functioning Christian life; an indication that his walk with Christ is somehow inferior. He cannot understand what 1 Peter is saying because he does not have the mind for it. It is an alien concept that he has rejected.”

      Red Pill Men are here for positive real-life physical results and they want them now. It’s just the Red Pill Prosperity Doctrine: do these supposedly biblical red pill things, get a good marriage. It never works.

      The biggest crime in the manosphere these days is to be divisive by talking about divisive issues: for this “causes” more suffering and suffering must be reduced at all costs.


      Faith, by itself, has little to no appeal, because it isn’t seen as being helpful. So whatever the Bible teaches isn’t important to talk about unless it involves positive societal changes: i.e. is useful for activism.

      Jesus didn’t involve himself in politics.

      “It has become a commonplace observation that Modern people tend to lose faith when they experience pain, suffering – in a word evil. Nowadays in the West it is quite normal for previously devout churchgoing Christians to experience that their faith is At Least strongly challenged by extreme adversity; by personal experience of the evils of this mortal life. Yet, there really is very little evidence of this happening in the first 3/4 of Christianity – it is recorded, but exceptional – despite at-least equally great (perhaps greater) human suffering. Indeed the opposite was more usual: the assumption that the more humans suffered, the more devoutly Christian they became. It was indeed a commonplace that peace, prosperity, and comfort were the main enemies of Christianity.” — Bruce Charlton

      The very question “how relevant is this doctrine to social issues?” betrays the modern progressive mode of thinking.

      With regards to this post, do people expect Satan’s deceptions to be so obvious that no one they know will be taken in? Where in the Bible does it state that you only need to be concerned about errors that affect your quality of life in society? It seems to me that these are blinders that make one much more susceptible to accepting error that doesn’t seem important but actually is.

      1. Lastmod

        They all sound like “Adam” in the Garden “But, but it was that woman you gave me!”
        The original sins are alive and well.

        Red Pill in the end again points at women “but, but we cant be real men or achieve or do, or be because of all these feminists”

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          And all you’ll get from pointing that out is:

          “Stop telling men to Man-Up, Lastmod!”

          Or as Sharkly would say, God accepted that Adam was correct to blame the woman.

    2. Derek L. Ramsey

      “As I have grown older, you just have to pick the cause or that one or two defensive fronts and stand on that if you are so inclined. I had to leave the church for the fact I was feeling miserable. I got tired of striving, still no results and still being shut down as “stuck in blue pill thinking” [..] To each their own, but leaving the church actually did get me some breathing room to look back and think. Maybe it was a good thing.”

      This seems to be nearing the point where it is a mandatory requirement for many men, at least in many areas where even okay churches are hard to come by.

    3. Liz

      DBD at Jack’s just brought up “green line and box theory”. Think that one is batting 0 for 1000 now over the long term.
      But, a photo never lies. **
      It’s just pecs and biceps all the way down, bro.

      **except every photo for every other situation. But this one is a sound theory. No girl can fake that.

  12. professorGBFMtm

    MOD

    Have you watched this film?
    i’ve watched some of it and liked it.

    WOŁYŃ / Volinia – Wojciech Smarzowski (2016) film about 1943 Poland ?

    Earlier today a commenter at another site brought it up and how it’s free on yt.

    ”Also this strict adherence to a Red Pill Doctrine on anything and everything. Revoltions in this matter are tiring.

    Why did all the protest and social unrest of the 1960’s really begin to die down in the mid 1970’s? Not because the problems were fixed…….but…..its freaking tiring. Hence we all had to all suffer through “disco”. You cannot live by a strident activist stance on every cause, issue or situation. People get tired, they leave….not because they “went back to blue pill thinking” but they got tired of being and feeling miserabel on every issue and stance. Hence disco. Nixon was gone. Vietnam had ended in defeat, the major civil rights items had been put into “Law” (not that it helped more than hindered in some areas). People just wanted to dance, and forget. They did. Activists and strict “ideologues” are not fun to be around. They’re not. As the 1970’s pushed on, many on the left realized this and well…..hence disco.”

    That’s how i saw the whole disco thing too years later after it’s collapse.

    1. Lastmod

      Lol….my memories of that time (disco) are faint. I do remember every TV show at the time having a scene in a “disco”. There was that period when EVERY radio station seemed to be a “disco” station. I remember “Disco Duck” for the kids my age. I remember Disco dancing classes all over the radio For young and old alike. I remember even “Star Wars” had a “Disco” hit on the radio. From fashion, hairstyles…..movies, popular culture…it was everywhere for the second half of the decade.

      The boom went “bust” fast sometime in 1980 / 1981 or thereabouts. Overnight.

      In the 1970’s if you were not into “disco” the flip side was the 1950’s revival which was just as huge. “Happy Days” anyone????? “American Grafitti”? “Sha Na Na” on TV (I did meet ‘Bowser’ in the late 1990’s. Works with special needs kids at the time, cool guy). The massive revival of “World Wrestling Federation Elvis” (Vegas years) and his death in 1977?

      I joked in the 1980’s “in the future if there is a 1970’s revival, you are going to have to have a 1950’s revival with it” and I was wrong. There was a 1970’s revival in the 1990’s without the 1950’s.

      Disco culminated its end in 1979…..where shock jock DJ did a “disco bonfire” during a double-header baseball game and started the “disco sucks” movement. Some disco has aged well as time marches on….but yeah, most of it was terrible.

      Disco Demolition, August 1979

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zN-oLCKo4

  13. Pingback: The Eucharist, Part 6: Irenaeus of Lyons

  14. Surfdumb

    “To each his own” Mod says. Ha, ha, Jason is showing his age with that phrase.

    You’d better hope that none of the younger readers turn you in for a thought crime. Remember, if you are not actively anti-racist, then you are racist. Team Good People doesn’t allow any lackadaisical slackers on the Team. “To each his own!” You might as well say you don’t care that we are killing the planet and that we are causing it to burn up in the next 12 years.

    I will use the above to respond to Charlton lament about the lack of analysis. Both can be true, there is a lack of analysis with worse outcomes and sometimes it’s wise to know one’s limits. To each his own is a sign of charity, and even the Bereans must have had limits and extended charity to one another who didn’t study as much as whomever was the most-studied Berean.

    1. Lastmod

      I have no doubt that my end will not be peaceful. I will die at the hands of being put into a state run medical “rehabilitation” facility in my old age or I will be led to the re-education camp in cuffs and the crowd will be cheering….including many professing Christians.

      My life and self died years ago. Just going through the motions now. Like Winston Smith in Orwells “1984” there was a thought that hit him……..

      “Now that I have assumed I am dead, or will be dead……it is the imparative to stay alive as long as possible”

      No one will miss me when my time comes. No grandchildren or relatives really left….a scattered cousin or two across the USA. A few Aunts and Uncles in Wales. A few cousins there. Not wishing for it, but I can say with truth. In so many ways, I have been dead a very long time.

      So I am not too worried about the thought police, or the Red Pill Purests, or the church, or if Trump wins or not.

  15. Derek L. Ramsey


    There are more than a billion Roman Catholics whose central religious observance is the Sacrifice of the Mass in which The Host is worshiped as God. A billion. Contra Sharkly, I can think of no greater cultural issue than the salvation of a billion people who are deceived by historical fraud (with many more examples to come) into worshiping the Image and taking the Mark. The issue of feminism (and frivorce) utterly pales in comparison. People do not appreciate the scope of the deception because they don’t care about it personally.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      Speaking in my comment above of how faith has little appeal, here are snippets from Bruce Charlton’s posts today:

      “Truth is a Christian value – indeed, without the historical influence of Christianity; then the seeking and speaking of truth would likely be a mere personal idiosyncrasy. “

      “It is therefore important that Christian theology explains why truth is a necessary virtue – absence of which is sinful, and needs to be repented. “

      “The dwindling strength and influence of institutional Christianity is a reason why truth has become perhaps the most neglected virtue. “

      “Probably also that churches have themselves failed to acknowledge and repent their own many and gross lapses from truthful values (lapsing almost invariably into expediency) – thereby destroying even surface credibility of their claims. “

      — “Truth as a Christian Virtue

      …and…

      So much of religious discourse through the ages revolves arouf the expectation or hope that people can be made good – that some external influence, some deity, can take Men and make them good. And yet this is impossible – conceptually impossible.

      Men can only be made to behave in good ways by an external influence; Men in and of themselves, as Beings, cannot be made good.

      Indeed, so far as I know, the only claim to be able to make people intrinsically good is that by Jesus Christ; which involves: 1. the collaboration of an external deity with the full consent; and 2. the will of the individual person – and involves 3. the literal death of that individual, followed by 4. his subsequent re-making – in the process of resurrection. To make Men good by resurrection is therefore a complex, multi-step process of un-making, before a two-sided re-making.

      But thinking of the problem of “making good Men” in this way, does at least give some individuation of why Jesus promised eternal life – not now, nor soon – but only on the other side of death; and a heavenly life that is not of this world.

      — “People Cannot Be Made Good

      What I’ve identified regarding the manosphere above can be best described in that one word: expediency. Neither truth nor salvation are important, indeed they are unimportant. Only expedience matters. The results–literally trying to fix people now—are all that matter.

      I don’t know how else to say it: this is not a Christian virtue. The Christian manosphere is not Christian. Why does the Red Pill have no credibility? For the same reason the churches and feminists that it hates have no credibility: expediency over truth and salvation.

      As Jason highlights with nearly every comment, the Red Pill doesn’t even have surface credibility.

      1. Liz

        Expediency indeed.
        After this morning’s reading (I’m about done forever with this garbage) at Jack’s I’m convinced DeadBedroomDating is a bot.
        An advanced bot certainly.
        Probably a China bot handler.
        There is always the possibility he is simply a garbage human.
        But his peddling of ideas found in the grifterest of all grifterville makes me think bot.

        1. Lastmod

          For someone who claims “english” isnt his first language, he does speak and write like a post-graduate professor at some rank n file university. He can convey these deep theological and philosophical concepts about women, Hebrew texts, and hair splitting about Game, and other psycho-babble that most average men will not be able to apply or comprehend…and per usual…the defensive line is:

          “You just want to fail / blue pill thinking / these concepts are not that hard to grasp / you must like being miserable”

          I’m seeing more and more that these people are not evil, or bad. They’re not. I was always accused of “bitterness” and perhaps true on certain topics but the platitude these men lay out for yonger men to “find and vett” a wife border on the absurd now. There even seems to be some part that they DON’T want other men to be happy or find that unicorn, that doesnt exist or are everywhere. It depends on the topic and the context.

          They are more concerned about sex like prudish old ladies who find “red flags” with every woman, and yet judge her soley on how hot she is….and like PUA before it. Hot = Good / Mature / Ready to be bred / nice / good wife / marriagable

          But, but, but ONLY if the list of 1000 conditions are met. They are like the women with their “lists” and “requirements” to date a man today.

          On Jack’s page, he mentioned “Scotts marriage is on the rocks” and I dont know what that means, nor do I care to know. Will they now all be the “mr wheelchair general” or “monday morning quarterback” on this and mention they all knew from day one his wife was not good????

          Yeah, a few will. Its an endless loop of conditions, new terms, complex female-socio-sexual biology and pretty much useless at this point.

          Miserable people will attract miserable eople. RIght??? 😉

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            “On Jack’s page, he mentioned “Scotts marriage is on the rocks” and I dont know what that means, nor do I care to know.”

            Although the internet is forever, that is now sort-of-no-longer-public information, even though we all saw that and remember it. Jack edited the original post and the comment to remove all references to it.

            It is tragic whenever any man’s marriage is troubled, no matter what his personal beliefs are or what he said in the past, whether Red or Blue Pilled, Christian or non-Christian. I hope we all can learn from each man—whether through their successes or failures—without personal attacks. And I wish Scott only success.

          2. Lastmod

            I dont believe I was attacking him.

            If my above comment was taken that way. I apologize. The Internet is forever. There is a picture of me from 1991 on my college alum page that is never going away (passed out on couch in the dorm lounge, hand in pan of warm water) yup, you know the results. It made the rounds when I was a Trustee of the college and it was posted to the Alumni webpage. “This Is Your Trustee, Alums” was the headline. The comments were brutal. Will never live that down. It also made me a spectacle to Alums of previous generations. Not a good look.

            The only saving grace, is that I still had a nice head of hair and my youthful sleeping face.

            Perhaps what I am trying to convey, in accordance to what Liz mentioned above. There were his wedding pictures he posted years ago. Yes, I am sure that posted has been removed.

            The comments of: You can tell she will submit to him on everything / she wants tof*ck his brains out every second / she only wants to be led by him only

            I mentioned casually off-hand at he time. You get this from a wedding picture? You can tell?” What I saw was gorgeous wedding shots that were posed, touched up by lighting and good filters. Picture perfect. They were lovely to look at.

            Well, evidently, that look that the wife had “cannot ever. EVER be faked. Never. Impossible.”

            So then I mentioned that all marriages should be based on wedding photos to see if they succeed or fail? I live in California. I was at GAP photo shoots in high school and college when the models would come to the store to have poses taken. The cameraman / photographer…a good one knows his craft (or hers like Linda McCartney). They know just when to click that shutter. They have that eye to capture a moment perfectly.

            Exactly what a good wedding photographer should know and does know how to do.

            I hate my appearance. I still have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror while shaving. However…….in September 1987, I went to Varden Studios in Albany, NY to get my senior picture taken for high school

            It is the only photo of myself that I have liked and dare I say….loved. Its not a wow photo, but I do look good. The poise, angle and setting of the shot by the photographer was well….from that now long ago year…..was perfect.

            I was trying to bring upon the absurdity of this……Red Pill / Frame now is being reduced to how your wife is looking in a wedding picture which determines………..according to them……….success or failure of your marriage.

            The “science” proves it evidently. They are not proving anything, just an echo chamber of really crazy theories now.

          3. Liz

            I’d say of all the theories, the one that you can tell everything from a photo (especially a professional, staged one) is at least a 15 on the zero to 10 nonsense scale.

          4. Liz

            Seems like people will defend anything and everything that validates what they want to believe.
            Someone draws a random graph, puts in some numbers based on absolutely nothing, and suddenly it’s not just true but absolute “genius”.
            But again, nothing beats the photo “green line test” for nonsense.

          5. Derek L. Ramsey

            “I dont believe I was attacking him.”

            No, I was just speaking in general of people who beat a man while he is down. You were not doing so.

  16. professorGBFMtm

    ”But again, nothing beats the photo “green line test” for nonsense.”

    Liz right again as usual like when she was @Spawnys !😁

    i just found this in a newsweek site post on it’s ”science” from April ’22.

    What Is the Green Line Test? Viral Relationship Rule Explained
    Published Apr 20, 2022 at 11:39 AM EDT
    Updated Apr 21, 2022 at 7:50 AM EDT

    i havn’t been exactly studying all the new ‘sphere related things in any real detail for years or ever if truth be told since much of it is similar to things i learned before ever going on the net.

    ”According to the rule, the individual leaning into the other person, who is standing straight instead, is the one with the strength and power in the relationship. The one leaning is the one “entering the world” of the other.

    The rule, its believers suggest, can be applied accurately to all relationships from just photos. Mac in a follow-up video used Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Brooklyn Beckham and Nicola Peltz and Jada and Will Smith as other examples – all of them showed the woman in the couple standing straight, meaning they “failed” the test.

    ”But the test doesn’t exactly have scientific backing. In fact, it was simply invented by a Twitter user who has a history of discussing pick-up techniques and incel-backed theories like the “red pill.”

    According to the original theory, as explained in the tweets: “When a man leans into his girl, he reveals that he feels needy and lower value. He reveals that he has a weak mindset, and that he feels dependent on her.

    This is exactly what turns her off. She is looking for strength and confidence in a man, not weakness.”

    ”The suggestion of the “green line rule” went viral on Twitter after its introduction in 2020, but it was mocked as much as it was supported. It sparked the “Don’t lean in” meme, which joked about men steering clear from leaning into their partners.”

    1. Liz

      Heh, professor. Now the DBD guy over at Jack’s is asserting that you can tell if a person owns a car from a photo also.
      If they lean into it, they don’t own it. Gee. Could also be a dirty car?
      Looked it up and found all sorts of images of Jay Leno leaning into his cars, and at least one of Trump. Poor guys can’t afford to own a car.
      Nonsense.
      Okay, I’ve used up enough minutes of my life on this nonsense.
      Hope you all have a great evening.

      1. Lastmod

        My dad leaning on his 1959 Dodge Cornet he bought after he got out of the USAF……I guess he never owned it.

        Me leaning on my Volkswagen Jetta after I sent the last payment in (October 2023, paid off in less than three years)….nope, I am “blinded by blue pill thinking and the illusion of ownership that can be traced to a gynocentric upbringing and a feminist education with Nice Guy thrown in, and I am overcompensating / humblebrag about my status with a low status vehicle” (sarcasm there but you all get it)

        Remember “its a look that cannot, ever. EVER be faked!” lol!

  17. Derek L. Ramsey

    As part of my research on my series, I found “Christianity and the Apostasy Narrative” by Roman Catholic Douglas Beaumont. In light of our—my?—desire for other views, I wanted to reference parts of it:

    It is true that apostasy (not THE apostasy) was predicted by in the Bible in several places (e.g., Amos 8:11-12; Mt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; etc.) – but this is not contrary to the existence of an authoritative, true Church (e.g., Mt.13:24-43, 47-50). Further, these verses are either so general as to be useless for specific historical prediction, or they are so precise that they cannot refer to the time periods these groups say they do (usually either with the death of the last apostle or during the time of Constantine). For example, Amos 8:11 specifically names the northern tribes as the object of his prophecy (2:6-16). In chapter 8 he says it again: “The end is come upon my people of Israel.” This was fulfilled around 723 B.C. when the Assyrians invaded. Thus, the prophecy had been fulfilled for over 2,500 years before most of these groups came into existence.

    In another example, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 indicates some future falling away. It could have been immediately or it could have been 1,000,000 years in the future. What is worse for these groups here is the solution that Paul gives just a few verses later: “stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” So it is the tradition of the Church that safeguards believers against apostasy – but these groups would have us believe that this tradition died with the apostles (or a few centuries later – even before the biblical canon was settled).

    I wanted to cite this because he speaks out-loud what few are willing to admit to: his belief that the prophesies of scripture are useless: they do not serve to inform as to what will happen, and they do not serve to inform as to what has happened (except, of course, in the very distant past when it doesn’t challenge Roman Catholicism).

    This is, in large part, why people don’t care about what I write. They’ve bought into the lie that the prophetic words of Daniel, Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, or John in Revelation are useless and always have been: too specific, too generic, or fulfilled before Christ. The explanations are never just right.

    This is special pleading, where a specific position “is made relatively immune to investigation” without rational justification. The only thing you must not do is investigate Biblical prophecy. You can do anything else but that: you must conclude that scripture prophecies are useless.

    Speaking of special pleading, notice that while he doesn’t want you to interpret 2 Thessalonians 2, he has no problem using verse 15 to set up a Holy Tradition governed by the Roman Catholic church, even though the wider context supports precisely the opposite. It is inversion again.

    I’ve written about this inverted double-standard in “Scripture is Tradition” and about 2 Thessalonians 2 in general in “The Man of Lawlessness.”

    The apologist also failed to note that in the 16th century, Catholic Counter-Reformation Jesuit writers Luis de Alcazar and Francisco Ribera created Preterism and Futurism, respectively, to counter the Reformation’s teaching of the Great Apostasy. Apparently it’s okay for Catholics to do it, so long as Protestants are forbidden.

  18. Lastmod

    Bob Newhart Show (1972) “nobody likes me” and Bob with his deadpan expression and perfect timing…….comic gold. Also sums of the field of therapy. In an ironic twist, Bob was actually the only normal on this show. Everyone else, including his wife…..were indeed crazy. I think in the end this is what made the show so funny. Also….his perfect comic timing.

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-SL18_OnjRs

  19. Pingback: The Eucharist, Part 10: Origen of Alexandria

  20. Derek L. Ramsey

    Up thread, Bardelys attacked me being as close-minded:

    “I cannot argue with Derek here because he’s made up his mind. “

    He did so despite also saying this:

    “The Host is Christ and there is no arguing against it. [..] The host is Christ and that cannot be argued, unless you want to stand here and claim Jesus to be a liar at His last supper.”

    Thus he also attacked me as a liar for (allegedly!) implying that Christ was liar. So even though he is completely unwilling to argue with me and only willing to engage in personal attacks, somehow I am the close-minded one?

    I launched an entire month-long series because I am open-minded. Presenting and examining the actual evidence matters to me (and given the lack of any comments, presumably only to me). Meanwhile, Bardelys has completely abandoned the field of inquiry, not even responding to the comments by surfdumb.

    So as I was doing my research, I wanted to ask Bardelys (if he still reads here)…

    …let us partake as of the Body and Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to you His Body, and in the figure of Wine His Blood; that you by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, may be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are distributed through our members; thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter,

    we become partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4 .

    Christ on a certain occasion discoursing with the Jews said,

    Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood, you have no life in you. — John 6:53

    They not having heard His saying in a spiritual sense were offended, and went back, supposing that He was inviting them to eat flesh.

    …was the church father who said this in 350AD—just over 300 years after Christ’s ascension—calling Christ a liar when he called his flesh and blood figures to be taken in a spiritual sense? Was the church father calling Christ a liar when he pointed out that those Jews who heard his bread of life teaching misunderstood Jesus to be talking about his literal body, rather than as a figure in a spiritual sense? Do you not take the same offense—seeing red and crying “blasphemy!”—that those same Jews also took over Christ’s words?

    Contrast this to what FishEaters said:

    That He was understood to mean this literally is obvious when one reads that people were offended, disgusted, when they heard Him say so! They were so revolted, that many walked away — but Jesus didn’t stop them and clarify, “You idiots, you misunderstand! I speak in spiritual terms and am not talking literally!” No. What He did was let them go

    Talk about missing the point!

    1. Lastmod

      This is all above my brain cell count.

      For the Last Supper in the Upper room, Jesus said to “do these things in remembrance of me”

      My body broken for you, my blood shed for you. It wasnt his real blood or his real body when he first did this. Nor did the 12 understand fully what was about to happen, and I dont think comprehended what the whole “last supper” they were witnessing implied.

      I attended an actual real “passover meal” while in the Salvation Army. An Officer (pastor) made the lamb, the herbs, horse radish, oil, unleavened bread….there were many “cups” drank during the meal as in representation. We even layed / sat on the floor and had the meal presented in a way that would have been done in the time of Jesus, in a place like Jerusalem.

      This is where he proclaimed a “New ” covenant and concluded it with the washing of feet.

      I know its a beautiful and moving experience for many. I also know many “devout” taking the “holy supper” every week and have no profound change or conviction or even understanding of why they are doing it.

      1. Derek L. Ramsey

        This is all above my brain cell count. For the Last Supper in the Upper room, Jesus said to

        “do these things in remembrance of me”

        Yes, yes he did. It is above my brain cell count as well. It is above every other count of brain cells. It defies reason and sows confusion.

        Forty years after Luther posted his theses, an ex-Catholic priest was charged with heresy. During his trial, he argued that Roman Catholics infused the simple word “do”…

        “do this in remembrance of me”

        …with sacrificial significance:

        Thus, they mystified the simple command “you do” into “you sacrifice.” Of course, no one during the apostolic era or long after ever thought that. It’s just the word “do.” So in 1557, they burned a old man to death who failed to ‘understand’ the word “do” that Jesus spoke must mean “a priest must offer as sacrifice.”

        I wish I was making this stuff up. I really do. It’s so absurd. There is a reason I compare the Roman Catholic church to the book 1984. It’s my understanding that Orwell wrote his work (at least partially) as a response to the authoritarianism and totalitarianism found in the Roman Catholic Church. I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason he was an atheist was because the Church required one to leave one’s rational mind outside the doors of the church before entering.

        The normal heuristic for telling if something is propaganda is if exploring more evidence or acquiring more knowledge is considered a threat.

        1. Lastmod

          [DR: Sorry, your comment got stuck in moderation.]

          Orwell was a devout Socialist but he also saw where a “brotherhood” of man would and could be easily made into what 1984 was. A dystopia.

          I have read the novel countless times, and I didnt see any real referral to “church” or “Christianity” in any form. Nor the mention of Jesus. Winston and Julia did meet in a belfry of an old church once. Winston spoke of a rhyme from the time before the Party about the bells of St Clements……but again, n mention what happened, or the churches role or during the downfall before the ascension of The Party.

          To me? The church was “inconsequential” or ineffective of what happened. Meaning, they even didnt matter at that point.

          It didnt matter because what was the religion of “Air Strip One “?

          The Party. Only The Party. Only “Big Brother”

          When being “re-programmed” Winston Smith was told through pain, through subtle words “I could turn myself into soap bubbles and levitate if the party wishes it! Since the Party does not wish it, it wont happen”

          The world was doomed, and newer “revisionists’ say “but the appendix to the novel talks about the language Newspeak, and that means in the future the party was removed / overthrown”

          NO! The appendix was to explain how the language operated and how Newspeak worked and some sociological aspects of how and why it came to be.

          In the 1984 BBC made for TV movie “Threads” (which was and still is) a terrifying leading up to and aftermath of a nuclear war….there is a scene in a church when prayers are done. The church was inconsequential to stop this. At a ant-war protest, The Salvation Army band marching past the protest oblivious to what was possibly at hand for England and the world.

          I believe in “1984” Orwell didnt make mention of the church for the fact, they did nothing to stop what was to come, nor could they and it was already a “weak” institution to prevent what was to happen…inconsequential, not a force and really not important

          1. Derek L. Ramsey

            Lastmod,

            That’s an interesting perspective. I was thinking about this article which suggests that Orwell was especially hostile towards Roman Catholicism, but less so against his home Church of England.

            According to this article Orwell was especially obsessed with Roman Catholicism.

            The Catholic Herald says this:

            “For much of his life, Orwell was openly hostile towards the Catholic Church. The Inquisition had provided a template for future dictatorships, he believed, while Catholic capitalists did not seem to be perceptibly different from any others, he noted acerbically. And as a man who spent so much of his life among or writing about the poorest of the poor, the apparent hypocrisy of some avowedly religious public figures appalled Orwell.”

            In other words, his biggest beef with Roman Catholicism was its authoritarian and totalitarian nature as the template for a dictatorship. He ranted over and over about Roman Catholicism to the point of obsession.

            As I suspected, having read 1984 and studied Roman Catholicism, it seemed to me like the dictatorship in 1984 was inspired by the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, 1984 was not a plot about the Church, but it was more likely that the government of 1984 was inspired by the totalitarian and authoritarian Roman Catholic Church. The government was modeled on the template of the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, what other government in history had inquisitors?

            Peace,
            DR

          2. Lastmod

            Perhaps so Derek and perhaps it was a template of sorts while putting together “1984” and “Animal Farm” and his other essays during the 1940’s. His most prolific period of his ideas and thoughts.

            In “1984”, Winston Smith is told during his torture, re-education, and grinding down of his spirit the following about “Big Brother” and “The Party” learned from the mistakes of “regimes” like them that came before.

            They could not just force people to accept, they had to want to MAKE them accept on their own volition. In the novel, one can see that The Party was indeed on that path.

            There was no mention in any manifesto of The Party about “catholic church or religioious structures and beliefs” nor Goldsteins clandestine “book” about the “real face behind The Party and their real motives”

            The Party was about destroying any potential friendships. Between men, and even romantic intentions between men and women “we will eliminate the orgasm, we have scientists working on it!” It was declared to Winston Smith. No one had “friends” in 1984. Everyone was a “Comrade” and there were no “laws” per say because The Party had made everyone “free”

            This utter destruction of friendships and romantic marriages would help also create obedience only to The Party and no trust for anyone else. They wanted each person isolated and dependent on The Party.

            I can see aspects of this during a period in The Catholic Church, but with that said, I can see that with any religious / cult styled movement. I see it in Red Pill right now.

            “Its liberated men! Its saving men daily! Its opened their eyes! Its freed them!”

            While enslaving them to “purity” and “adhearence” of Red Pill Lore or “LAWS” or “Maxims” and the usual confusion of psychobabble while male suicide is skyrocketing across the Western World.

            From 1984 paraphrasing “more shoes produced, more babies born, more food, more, more and victory everywhere!”

            Yet most of the population walked barefoot, chocolate rationed lowered, cigarettes a rarity, but a mish mash of dry paper and weeds. Gin that would make you wince and bring tears to your eyes

            Like Soviet Russia and Imperial Japan, and even the later Nazi regime……and even Red Pill. Its the ideology over everything while more men kill themselves, get stuck in red pill rage and then submit to the ideology that “its the only thing that will keep them alive”

            Free wil doesnt exist and when it does exist…….it is only to the benefit of The Party, Red Pill, The Catholic Church, Marxism……..

            Hence the control of language and destruction of it. Hence the cold isolation of “You and God alone” and the runiation of relationships in the name of the “ideology”

            Even Red Pill now…….women must, women will, women cannot……..while declaring they have “freedom” and “agency” then slighting the hand of “they cannot control their nature and who they are”

            Even in 1984 The Party sneered and joked about the massive “proles”

            “Only animals and proles are free”

          3. Derek L. Ramsey

            In the Chronicles of Narnia, C.S. Lewis made an obvious Christian allegory. In the Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien—a devout Roman Catholic—specifically wanted to avoid allegory, but his work is rather obviously inspired by his Roman Catholic faith. Aspects of his faith make it into various fantasy elements, even though nowhere in his book can you identify anything overtly Roman Catholic.

            I’m no expert on Orwell. You clearly know more than I do. If he was influenced by Roman Catholicism, he was intelligent and creative enough to be inspired by it only. As you’ve aptly demonstrated, 1984 is no allegory. Orwell was no C.S. Lewis.

            I think your comparisons to the Red Pill movement are insightful and worth more consideration and thought.

          4. Lastmod

            Not saying its a “parallel” exactly to Red Pill, but I do find the sticky language of “Red Pill” very dogmatic and it treat men as if they are all “equal”

            Which is not the case. Not all men have equal intellect, looks, status, money, inherited wealth, social skills, and other things. All men are not “peg boards” that neatly fit.

            With this stance, they then delineate between Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Gamma….in the manner and style of “Brave New World” (another dystopian novel….not as frightening or chilling in some aspects). They claim it is easy and foolproof….and if it it isnt? Well, you as a man are not “putting enough effort in” and then of course…….add the Christian faith to this soup, “this is a faith of suffering!”

            Red ill. Its base ideology is ALWAYS given a pass or a “human” exceptional to why it “didnt work”

            Like Marxism before it.

            The “freedom” comes basically when you “leave the ideologues” to endlessly hairsplit, invent new words, terms, and delve deeper into very complex aspects of human psycho-sexual biology. Still while claiming “it is perfect”

            Bordering on the absurd with the study of facial shapes, photos and other 19th century types of “science” that is proven and unchangeable and unable to mask……except when they decide for a circumstance or situation. Always with a “new” word or term or area “to study”

            Yet…again……its freedom, its liberating, its making men make good choices in relationships / sex / dating

            While more and more men are divorced, always single, always “stuck” on steps, levels, platforms.

            Its a cottage industry of perpetual endless self-help, studies, debates, splicing, anger. Lots of anger…..despite Red Pill “freeing” a man.

            Its becoming daily a sociological niche of academia like Feminism was before it in the 1970’s before colleges started giving “degrees” for it (Womens Studies)

            When Communism was on the wane in Poland in the late 1980’s….The Soviet Union sent “communists scholars” and “communist theologians” to the Polish Governemnt to meet with the growing anti Marxist movement. These men were “learned” and “steeped” in their doctrines, laws, rules, and the like. They could not communicate with these people other than the “part line” on everything. They returned to the Soviet Union arrogant and smug about the “proles” that they just could not educate. When the fact was……..they couldnt invent any more lies for these people to believe anymore.

            The marriage of Red Pill / game / Frame I dont know when it happened…..but it is a marriage and like purse lipped puritans during prohibition…..they actually look down and hate the men they claim they want to to help and “love”

  21. Derek L. Ramsey

    Let’s go on a small tour of history. It will be illustrative at the end. The cited links are only there for people who don’t believe that this actually took place, or who need a review (you probably don’t).

    It all started with Deti’s post “An Open Letter to Christian Wives” where he advocated that Christians sin. I responded in “Correcting Sin in the Church” by gathering witnesses and confronting Deti with his sin, in accordance with Matthew 18. He did not repent.

    Six months passed and I wrote “Despair” where I talked about how Deti’s suffering was likely behind his slide into apostasy. A few days later Deti wrote “The Covenant Cross”, to which I responded with “Talking About Old Women.” He responded like this:

    “Your lying, disingenuous post is nothing more than you putting words in my mouth.”

    I responded by noting that I had done nothing of the sort. Next Jack agreed with Deti.

    Then I wrote this post. Deti stopped by, mocked the whole thing, and subsequently made a personal attack and doubled down on “putting words in my mouth” claim. I responded, noting that he was the one spreading fictions. He called me a liar again. Deti would then acknowledge that he believes that “The Eucharist” to be “the blood and body of Christ”, that is, that the bread really becomes his body. Finally, the critics would all agree that it doesn’t matter what people believe on the subject.

    Now we get to the substance of what I wanted to say, and the extreme insanity of the above will form a very good illustration.

    In “Part 6: Irenaeus of Lyons,” I referenced how the Roman Catholic Church had corrupted his words to make it seem like a church father in the 2nd century believed that the eucharist was the consecrated bread and wine. But I left out important details.

    Before 1743, we only had the Latin version of “Against Heresies” which said

    “[The bread] once the words of consecration (epiclesis) have been said, is no longer ordinary bread but becomes the Eucharist.”

    So during the Reformation, when Protestants cited scripture against the Roman Catholic Church, the Church would argue “but Irenaeus agrees with us: our view is ancient.”

    But in 1743, the Greek version was found and it didn’t say “consecration”.

    “For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the summons (ecclesin; έκκλησιν) of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly…”

    The summons is what God does when he calls for the tithes to be put in the storehouse (Malachi 3:10). Irenaeus was calling the eucharist a tithe.

    So what did the Roman Catholic Church do? Did it say “The Protestant Reformers were correct and we were in error?” No, of course they didn’t. They doubled down.

    For a millennium and a half, the Roman Catholic Church had been wrong. They had literally been putting words in the mouth of Irenaeus. Yes, putting actual words in his mouth. The Protestant Reformers had been right. But they refused to correct their error. They continued to put words in his mouth because his actual words destroyed their viewpoint. It proved that the eucharist was just a tithe offering.

    This all ties together everything that I shared above because we who point out the truth are tarnished as blasphemers and liars who put words in other people’s mouths (see how common this is here, here, and here). But it is those people throwing stones who are guilty of the very thing they accuse others of doing.

    Recall what Bardelys said above:

    If you are right, like I said before, then all of Christendom, 2000 years of Orthodoxy and 1500 years of Catholicism before the Protestants “corrected” the Church, are wrong about the most basic and fundamental part of the faith.

    If you’re right then basically nobody has gotten to heaven since Christ left the earth, and we have effectively had no Church. That does not square up with Christ saying he will have a church on earth and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. You’re simply wrong here, and I will not argue with you further. Good luck to you, I hope your false interpretations bring you comfort on judgement day, because you’re going to need it.

    This is known as a fallacious argument from consequences.

    Faced with a new difficult reality—that what he thought was the true church was deceived for centuries—the Roman Catholic just denies that it is possible, in the face of all the evidence. He certainly isn’t interested in identifying what or where the real church was at that time.

    If someone pushes the truth aside for a comfortable lie, they are not on the side of truth. No matter how much they protest that the truth must be on their side. Strong religious fervor (like we see often from Deti, Sharkly, and Bardelys) does not make a fiction true. Blind faith avails nothing.

    For what its worth, there is an answer to Bardelys’ (and others) objections, but he isn’t ready to hear it. He must first come to accept the truth for what it is (rather than what he wants) before he can wrestle with his assumptions about what constitutes the “true church.” When he is ready, a couple sites on my blogroll will provide a useful starting point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *