Premises of amoral egoistic Christianity

Amoral egoistic Christianity is the re-emergence of the Manichean heresy as expressed within cultural Christianity, as a natural response (i.e. not of God) to the heretical gnosticism of modern Churchianity (i.e. liberal Protestantism). AEC is a very evil philosophy which, as a logical consequence of replacing Christian deontological morality with the consequentialist morality of good statecraft, will reproduce the theocratic torture chambers of the Spanish Inquisition (and likely within our lifetimes). It is a necessary step in co-opting Christian iconography for the recreation of antediluvian Zodiacism, which is the religion of the spirit of Antichrist. In my opinion, it is a worse development than Jungian paganism (little ‘p’), which merely subverts culturally Christian low-church atheists, because it is intended to invert the already-subverted church itself to oppose God.

Implicit within the behavior and statements of people leading the New Manicheism are the following tenets:

1. (Amorality) “I don’t owe anything to anyone except Christ.” This is a direct contradiction to the latter of Jesus’ two Great Commandments. See also my post Christianity without love for the brethren:

You may think this is a silly question, but keep in mind this is the version of Christianity that Generation Z is inheriting, absent institutions to transmit the cultural memes. glosoli’s advocacy thus far has been entirely logical, if you start from the premise that self-sacrificial brother-love is not commanded by Jesus. I’ve provided him with three hypothetical scenarios, one of which was over Skype, and in all three he sentenced every single person in all three stories to death. And if you take away the expression of sacrificial love as exemplified by Christ, this is the correct answer! The Law condemns us all to death—its very purpose was to convict.

Christianity without brother-love is the most monstrous ideology ever conceived by humanity, as judged against an impressive pantheon of monstrous ideologies, and will spell the end of the Western church if we don’t stop it (but that’s another post). I want you to imagine a scenario where glosoli, or a group of men who similarly believe that not a single Western congregation deserves to survive, takes power and begins to implement their program. Imagine an entire generation whose capacity for charity has been surgically removed by socialism’s weaponized empathy taking the role of the Accuser, all in the name of Christianity, persecuting the church and believing they’re doing God’s will.

2. (Egoism) “Virtus is identical with moral standing, and is indicated by social status, health and wealth.” This is a natural heuristic which conflates meritocracy with morality, and weakness with Evil. For more on this read Chapter 3 of Status Anxiety by Alain de Botton and this analysis of the theology of works in the book of Job:

Regrettably, Job’s friends are not able to endure the mystery of his suffering, so they jump to conclusions about its source. The first of the three, Eliphaz, acknowledges that Job has been a source of strength to others (Job 4:3-4). But then he turns and puts the blame for Job’s suffering squarely on Job himself. “Think now,” he says, “who that was innocent ever perished? Or where were the upright cut off? As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same” (Job 4:7-8). Job’s second friend, Bildad, says much the same. “See, God will not reject a blameless person nor take the hand of evildoers” (Job 8:20). The third friend, Zophar, repeats the refrain. “If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, do not let wickedness reside in your tents. Surely then you will lift up your face without blemish; you will be secure, and will not fear.…Your life will be brighter than the noonday” (Job 11:14-15, 17).

Their reasoning is a syllogism. God sends calamities upon wicked people only. You have suffered a calamity. Therefore you must be wicked. Job himself avoids this false syllogism. But it is very commonly accepted by Christians. It is called a theology of divine retribution, and it assumes that God blesses those who are faithful to him and punishes those who sin. It is not entirely without biblical support. There are many cases in which God sends calamity as a punishment, as for example he did at Sodom (Genesis 19:1-29). Often, our experiences do bear out this theological position. In most situations, things turn out better when we follow God’s ways than when we forsake them. However, God does not always work that way. Jesus himself pointed out that disaster is not necessarily a sign of God’s judgment (Luke 13:4). In Job’s case, we know the theology of divine retribution is not true because God says that Job is a righteous man (Job 1:8, 2:3). Job’s friends’ devastating error is to apply a generalization to Job’s situation, without knowing what they’re talking about.

Job and Work
Theology of Work

3. (Pragmatic Christianity) Individually: “I go to church and pretend to believe in it because I want my kids to grow up with a moral framework.” Civic Christianity: “In order for our civilization to be great, we must be good. Therefore, wise men must pretend to be pious in public, as defined within the historical European tradition, so that the masses can act in accordance with their best natures.” This is a pathological reaction to the ennervating epistemological nihilism which paralyzes low-church radical individualists.

Wilsey employs five themes to sort out the differences between open and closed exceptionalism. These themes, indebted largely to America’s Protestant heritage and appropriated from Christian theology, are 1.) chosen nation, 2.) divine commission, 3.) innocence, 4.) sacred land, and 5.) glory. When abused, each of these ideas poses a danger to the nation and to authentic Christianity. All go back to the beginning of American history, all have shown that they cause mischief at home and abroad, and all need to be guarded against or corrected. Some, such as America’s identity as the chosen nation, cannot be salvaged because of how far they intrude on Christian theology and rob the Church of its identity. Likewise, belief in divine commission is “theologically problematic” because only the Church has been entrusted with anything like the Great Commission. The real missionary enterprise does not belong to America.

A more sober, responsible American exceptionalism would resist the delusion of national innocence and instead cultivate habits of self-examination, recognize the nation’s failures to live up to its ideals, and make its peace, in the fashion of Reinhold Niebuhr, with a world of moral ambiguity and irony. Instead of reveling in triumphalist vanity, open exceptionalism would acknowledge the dark moments in America’s past and not long for a “golden age” that never existed. And it would no longer misapply the biblical “dominion mandate” by exploiting the land but instead care for it, as good stewards of God’s creation should.

Richard Gamble
Civil Religion—Or Christianity?

For an explanation of how this ties into historical European philosophy and the rise of Zodiacism, please see my “Culture War” series of posts.

Alexis de Tocqueville believed that Christianity was the source of the basic principles of liberal democracy, and the only religion capable of maintaining liberty in a democratic era. He was keenly aware of the mutual hatred between Christians and liberals in 19th-century France, rooted in the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. In France, Christianity was allied with the Old Regime before 1789 and the reactionary Bourbon Restoration of 1815-30. However he said Christianity was not antagonistic to democracy in the United States, where it was a bulwark against dangerous tendencies toward individualism and materialism, which would lead to atheism and tyranny.[11]

American Civil Religion


About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Premises of amoral egoistic Christianity

  1. Cloom Glue says:

    Alain de Botton misused Luke 13:4, by incorrectly saying, “However, God does not always work that way. Jesus himself pointed out that disaster is not necessarily a sign of God’s judgment.”

    Luke 13:4 and 5
    4 Or those eighteen upon whom the tower fell in Siloe, and slew them: think you, that they also were debtors above all the men that dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 No, I say to you; but except you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.

    That Douay-Rheims version says, “Do you think those eighteen were worse sinners than all the men of Jerusalem”? No, you will have the same outcome without penance.” I think that is the opposite of Alain’s conclusion. I have not looked at the other bible quotes, to see if they back his case correctly.

    • Cloom Glue says:

      I think Alain might have meant that as an example of calamity and he wrote it in an out of order way and the Job example it the converse case.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        What Jesus said was “Those men didn’t sooner because they were more sinful, they died because they were mortal, and they are mortal because they are sinful (like you).”

        • Cloom Glue says:

          Oh, yes, I am a sinner, mortal, and I will perish.

          However, you omitted the “except you do penance” or “except ye repent”. I looked at more translations. The causal link between penance or no-penance and later death, or sooner death, respectively, is not omitted in any translation.

          The lines which follow, Luke 13:6-9, is a parable, not a news event of the eighteen men who died sooner, and thus it leaves no room for misunderstanding. 6 He spoke also this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came seeking fruit on it, and found none. … cut it down. (Actively cutting it down is not the same as an old-age death of the fig tree).

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            You’re right that I mischaracterized Jesus by failing to note that I was highlighting one component of the dynamic and neglecting the rest. He made the statement that all sinful creatures are doomed and man is sinful, but he also said other things in the statement which matter to the general picture.

            It appears that you’re arguing in favor of what the Theology of Work article calls a theology of divine retribution: all tragedy corresponds to relative levels of sin. But I don’t think you believe this, exactly. So, what position exactly are you arguing in favor of?

            • Cloom Glue says:

              I was not arguing any position. I was only saying that Allain ended a sentence with a reference (Luke 13:4) which means the opposite of the sentence. I was not refuting your “2.” premise. I just thought Luke didn’t say the premise so I went and read it. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned it since I was not broadly addressing the topic of your three points.

              Allain wrote: “Jesus himself pointed out that disaster is not necessarily a sign of God’s judgment (Luke 13:4)”.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              That’s not a correct understanding of the reference. Jesus asks a rhetorical question, where the implied answer is “no”. This agrees with what de Botton said.

            • Cloom Glue says:

              I think Jesus would have replied to his rhetorical question with, “No, the worse sinners were not judged”, if he wanted to emphasize the “not judged” side of the story. He did not. He said “No …”, emphasizing the judged”.

              Are you giving standard bible-study understanding of this scripture? It is unknown to me.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >Are you giving standard bible-study understanding of this scripture? It is unknown to me.

              The syllogism is simple and at least valid. I considered the interpretation obvious, and if it’s sound the syllogism is as well. But I can look at some commentaries if you want.

            • SirHamster says:

              > I was not arguing any position. I was only saying that Allain ended a sentence with a reference (Luke 13:4) which means the opposite of the sentence.

              There is some imprecision there, but it can still work.

              Death is God’s general judgement, but disaster is not necessarily God’s specific judgement. (Sodom and Gomorrah -> specific judgement; Job -> test, not judgement)

              Jesus’s words refute the idea that all disaster is God’s judgement, “disaster” => “God judged him” would have the logical inverse of “no disaster” => “God doesn’t judge him (he’s not that bad)”.

              Having made that distinction, the point is then made not to relax, but to recognize we are in peril and must repent. That disaster could have happened to us.

            • Cloom Glue says:

              SirHamster: I think Jesus’s position on judgment comes from elsewhere, as a starting point for most people, and somebody said today that I should not read a specific scripture separately from the whole New Testament. I accept that.

              I understand your logical sequence. I see that your last sentence would then have to mean “The disaster could happen to us, although we are not judged by it”.

              However, does the fig tree parable trouble you? It is about judgment too; ie. cutting down before natural death. It is a few lines down in Luke.

            • SirHamster says:

              > However, does the fig tree parable trouble you?

              Trouble me for what reason? That parable is about cutting down a fruitless fig tree. (similar to account of fig tree cursed for lack of fruit in other Gospels)

              It applies in context to the generation of Jews Jesus was speaking to. It echoes what John the Baptist had preached. .

              Luke 3:7-9
              John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

              That generation would eventually receive a judgement in the Sack of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.

              It does apply to us in that Jesus will return, and we will be judged on our fruit. So take stock of our life, and love our Christian brother deeply.

            • Cloom Glue says:

              Aeoli Pera: I will ask someone here, who is in a bible study group, if that is obvious to them all, or was it debated. Thanks for offering to look at some commentaries. That’s not necessary.

  2. Ø says:

    Basically, this stuff is good; it’s a good guide on what to avoid

    But the main problem we’re facing is that average white joe normie has inherited from his surroundings, academic upbringing and cultural mileu a basic inability to even believe in supernatural phenomena in the first place

    People don’t need a giant kantian metaphysical proof instructing them on how to follow the ten commandments

    they need to be made to *fear God* again–but they must first be able to *believe* in God.

    The main bigbrain nibbas on the dissident right (think MPCdot, Mike Enoch, etc) are basically intellectually formulating/ratiocinating a return to Christianity, but they are unable to seriously, legitimately believe in supernatural phenomena (this is why Martin Luther said that faith without deeds is dead)

    The conclusions of Einstein’s mathematics (Le big bang theory and Le scienmagistry) is the current metaphysical foundation of the average westerner’s beliefs (this is yet another reason i hold the synagogue of satan in such contempt). This makes it easy for people to exert their inborn religious drive toward the cause of shit-libism (you say people have a repressed religious drive, but imo it’s more accurate to say that they have a *diverted* religious drive). It’s essentially a bait-and-switch with traditional Christian morality that is founded upon lies and allows bugman mcshitlib the ability represent him as a virtuous person and think of himself as virtuous without actually having to be virtuous.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      It’s a mistake to think ordinary people and bugmen and so forth have no philosophy of life, just as it’s a mistake to think that the correct thing for philosophers to do is argue them out of it (they can’t). Normies follow the philosophy that was implicit within the art and culture they grew up with, which were implicit because they dominated in the war of ideas before the normies were born.

      • Ø says:

        >It’s a mistake to think ordinary people and bugmen and so forth have no philosophy of life, just as it’s a mistake to think that the correct thing for philosophers to do is argue them out of it (they can’t).

        Yes, see muh Martin Luther quote above. Just as the tree of liberty must be watered with blood, so too must the tree of faith be watered with deeds

  3. Ø says:

    *represent himself

  4. Boneflour says:

    What is the prescription for this heresy in your view? What do you do to prevent/change this? I would guess “self-sacrifice for the brethren”?

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Self-sacrifice is a couple abstraction layers too high for analyzing this question in a meaningful way. Yes, I have a duty to the church, but what to do about it specifically?

      As a practical matter, when someone is professing it within my sphere of influence I ought to confront them, correct the error, and then if they persist throw them out of the assembly in disgrace.

      If you’re discussing heresy from the perspective of subverting civic religions, then good statecraft requires public torture to the point of recanting, then execution. I oppose theocracy for this reason: it mixes Christianity up with moral pragmatism (or amoral pragmatism, if you like). The good statesman has a duty to his people and, if he does not observe the amoral activities that are necessary to his function, it is a breach of trust and therefore evil. Or at least, that’s what I think nowadays.

  5. VidereLicet says:

    Our culture is also permeated with the other heresy, Nestorianism. The Age of Double-Mindedness.

    Though the ultimate Christian heresy is Islam. Yes, Islam is a heresy of Christianity. And as the West is now completely apostate and into heresies Big Time, it’s no wonder the ultimate Christianity heresy, Islam, is making giant strides throughout the erstwhile Christian Occident.

  6. Z says:

    Just correcting one detail which confused me in the comments. The text about Job is not by Alain De Bottom, just Status Anxiety, but the paragraph quoted is by someone else (I thought it strange that an atheist and I think jewish would write that).

  7. bicebicebcie says:

    Is this really a problem? Seems more like people are fighting over a husk than an actual legit concept. Spastic treestump nu-paganism mixed with harry potter worship and a dash of severe rootless dysgenics in the name of the moon mother isn’t going to topple the teachings of jesus christ or the word of god. Quite the contrary.

    If anything itz just satanism 2.0, and if falls apart when women realize their soyboy minions can’t fix a leaking roof because of a bad incident in workshop class 20 years ago that left them very triggered and problematic.

    With the growing incel rebellion in the west surely there isn’t a shortage of manpower almost craving archaic church void of womyns and misc creatures. I’m not american so I do not have the problem of ever living through when western christianity was a pillar of society, it was always shit in sweden, but I am sorry for your loss. The indignity of it. It wasn’t theirs to destroy but they did.

    >when the getaway driver is also the anti-hero

  8. Pingback: The future of class warfare | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s