Well, G’day. -18 degrees Celsius, sunny and windy. Really quite pleasant were it not for the wind … but I guess that’s why parkas were invented. Shoveled the walk again, salt is very slow acting in these temperatures. One of the interesting things about a cold climate is that one doesn’t last very long if one does not responsibly and competently do what is required to survive. That is the way things were when we came here in the 1630’s and over the generations we have developed a fine network to protect and safeguard the folks such that there are now a large number of folks kept safe in that network who would quickly die without it but really don’t understand or even notice the network and look down upon those who maintain it. This is one of the best jokes or ironies of our time, that the “Brights” would die in a minute if it wasn’t for us redneck proles keeping the machinery going. Hey! Beautiful People! What happens if that prole in the coveralls doesn’t do his job responsibly and professionally and accurately and carefully when he is maintaining that elevator to get you to your highrise apt? Right, beautiful jelly at the bottom of the shaft is what.
Thinking about what I posted last night and sipping my coffee while watching the talking heads chattering about all their pseudo concern regarding the be-headings in Libya. On every network and every program they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge reality, casting frantically about for some secular logic to events that are not secular. They simply cannot yet bring themselves to accept that the only explanation is the only one that they are not allowed to talk about because it flies in the face of their self centered secular humanist universe. We seem to have intentionally misplaced our sense of sin. That is a really convenient coincidence if your self is all that matters. I’m OK, you’re OK, every thing we do is OK, even if it involves cutting off peoples heads … hmmmm now wait a minute, well maybe that IS “extreme”. Unintended consequences, maybe this is going off the rails?
The secular progressives are unable to actually discuss the events in the terms that the perpetrators themselves present them because they are all about the secular narrative rather than Truth. Rome falling in slaughter is not about secular Rome, or Europe, or the Mediterranean, or concealing where they are, or any of that crap. These chatterers are like a troop of monkeys desperately slinging shit at the intruders moving into their domain. They are loosing control of the narrative and that is the greatest sin for a progressive. The only time a progressive brings religion into the narrative is in blaming Christians for “provoking” Muslims … it simply cannot be that the Islamics are telling the truth about our evil culture. It must be the Christians fault they are doing this. Just like Obama’s recent Crusades rant, they conveniently leave out the 500 years of slaughter leading up to the Crusades plunking all the blame for everything inconvenient on the heads of the Christians who started all the troubles during the first Crusade. Of course most of them believe history started with Kennedy, or maybe Eisenhower if they are older, and they are certain that they are absolutely safe insulting Christians.
At this stage it is simply not possible for them to abandon their narrative because they have so much of themselves invested in it. Eventually, for some, the light will come on. The Light will penetrate. This is all about the living seat of Christianity, the one force that has always stood unwavering against Islam and it’s 1400 year history of atrocity. Christianity is the only thing standing in the Caliphate’s path now because the traces of values that generate this feeling of horror in even the most hardcore progressive have their traceable roots in Christianity. This reality is simply not acceptable to the progressives even when this reality is burning them alive and cutting off their heads and screaming it’s reality in their faces. In the end it will all come down to God’s Battalions versus Lucifer’s Battalions but only after the progressives are dog food. This is the inescapable lesson of history. If anything actually gets done about ISIS it will be because of Christian values which still survive in our culture to this day.
I actually have some regard for forces that have the courage of their convictions and are willing to die for what they believe in, even when what they believe in is evil and their actions are universal atrocity. So having said this in the clearest way I can, are the actions of the head choppers “Social Sin”? Is what I am saying about it “Social Sin”. I am definitely not feeling loving charity towards my Islamic brothers. What is my sin in this. How does one actively oppose evil without becoming evil? Lets face it, there is not much that can deter a believer who is willing to die for what they believe in. Historically the only response that works is to give them what they are looking for … eg. make the other guy die for his beliefs before he can make you die for yours. If you have no beliefs in anything except yourself then you are dead anyway and not worth caring about. Are those kind of thoughts “Social Sin”?
There is another meaning sometimes given to social sin that is never legitimate or acceptable even though it is very common in certain quarters today. This meaning contrasts social sin and personal sin, in a way that leads to the watering down or complete abolition of personal sin, and the recognition only of social guilt and community responsibilities. It is this mechanism which renders slaughter an acceptable tool for the advancement of goals attributed to a god only as a cover for the evil of men. This meaning can readily be seen to derive from non- Christian ideologies and systems which have been discarded today by the very people who formerly officially upheld them. In this meaning practically every sin is a social sin, in the sense that blame for it is to be placed not so much on the moral conscience of an individual, but rather on some vague entity or anonymous collectivity such as the situation, the system, society, structures or institutions.
Over the course of generations, the Christian mind has gained from the Gospel a fine sensitivity and an acute perception of the seeds of death contained in sin, as well as a sensitivity and an acuteness of perception for identifying them in the thousand guises under which sin shows itself. This is what is commonly called the sense of sin. This sense is rooted in man’s moral conscience and is its thermometer. It is linked to the sense of God, since it derives from man’s conscious relationship with God as his creator, Lord and Father. Hence, just as it is impossible to eradicate completely the sense of God or to silence the conscience completely, so the sense of sin is never completely eliminated.
Nevertheless, it happens not infrequently in history, for more or less lengthy periods and under the influence of many different factors, that the moral conscience of many people becomes seriously clouded. “Have we the right idea of conscience?” “Is it not true that modern man is threatened by an eclipse of conscience?” (JP II) Too many signs indicate that such an eclipse exists in our time. This is all the more disturbing in that conscience, “the most secret core and sanctuary of a man,” is “strictly related to human freedom…For this reason conscience, to a great extent, constitutes the basis of man’s interior dignity and, at the same time, of his relationship to God.” (JP II) . It is inevitable therefore that in this situation there is an obscuring also of the sense of sin, which is closely connected with the moral conscience, the search for truth and the desire to make a responsible use of freedom. When the conscience is weakened the sense of God is also obscured, and as a result, with the loss of this inner point of reference, this moral compass, the sense of sin is lost. “The SIN of the last century is the loss of the sense of sin.”
Why has this happened in our lifetime? A look at contemporary culture can help us understand the weakening of the sense of sin, precisely because of the crisis of conscience and crisis of the sense of God already mentioned. “Secularism” is by nature and definition a movement of ideas and behavior which advocates a humanism totally without God, completely centered upon the cult of action and production and caught up in the heady enthusiasm of consumerism and pleasure seeking, unconcerned with the danger of “losing one’s soul.” This worship of the god of “SELF”. This secularism undermines the sense of sin. At the very best, sin will be reduced to what offends man.
But it is precisely here that we are faced with the bitter experience, namely, that man can build a world without God, but this world will end by turning against him. In fact, God is the origin and the supreme end of man, and man carries in himself a divine seed. Hence it is the reality of God that reveals and illustrates the mystery of man. It is therefore vain to hope that there will take root a sense of sin against man and against human values, if there is no sense of offense against God, namely the true sense of sin. As discussed in a previous post, Liberalism IS Sin.
Another reason for the disappearance of the sense of sin in contemporary society is found in errors made in evaluating certain findings of the human sciences. Thus on the basis of certain affirmations of psychology, concern to avoid creating feelings of guilt or to place limits on freedom leads to a refusal ever to admit any shortcoming. (Poppins Syndrome) Through an undue extrapolation of the criteria of the science of sociology, it finally happens that all failings are blamed upon society, and the individual is declared innocent of them. Again, a certain cultural anthropology so emphasizes the undeniable environmental and historical conditioning and influences which act upon man, that it reduces his responsibility to the point of not acknowledging his ability to perform truly human acts and therefore his ability to sin.
The sense of sin also easily declines as a result of a system of ethics derived from historical relativism. This may take the form of an ethical system which relativizes the moral norm, denying its absolute and unconditional value, and as a consequence denying that there can be intrinsically illicit acts independent of the circumstances in which they are performed by the agent, the human. Herein lies a real “overthrowing and downfall of moral values,”and “the problem is not so much one of ignorance of Christian ethics” but ignorance “rather of the meaning, foundations and criteria of the moral attitude.” The effect of this ethical turning upside down is always such an attenuation of the notion of sin as to reach the point of saying that sin does exist, but no one knows who commits it. Finally the sense of sin disappears completely when – as happens in the education of youth, in the mass media and even in education within the family – it is wrongly identified with a morbid feeling of guilt or with the mere transgression of legal norms and precepts.
Really not much to cheer about here, eh? Such a drag … we are a little more than one toke over the line nowadays …