I quote u/CrusaderPepe's most recent podcast guest and would like to add my own thoughts because it got me thinking. By successfully framing the debate, satan wins. We see this issue in all theaters of western politics. We usually refer to it as the Overton Window.. this being "the frame" in which socially acceptable opinions must fit into lest they be automatically dismissed as being "obsolete, insensitive, bigoted."
There are always many actors involved in creating this frame and it is not one sided. Four sides are involved in creating the frame. In American politics, we have the democrats, progressives, conservatives and republican conservatives. Each side works together in tangent to frame acceptable politics. The liberals create a position, the democrats support the position, the republicans legitimize the position and the conservatives entrench the position. This is evident when looking back on the issues of the past century, segregation for instance. The moment the conservatives largely accept any position, regardless of how vulgar it *once was*, it becomes a definitive part of Americanism.
Interestingly, the segregation debate has been renewed. However this time it is the vulgar and unAmerican progressives renewing it. Satan has built a frame, ensured that segregation lies far outside of it, yet now tempts the frame with his own version of the argument. "Black people need black spaces." This is done to evoke a reaction from white conservatives. Now it is white conservatives defending desegregation, the places have flipped 180 degrees and this is done for a specific reason. The establishment will not put up a meaningful fight against this rhetoric because they have no intention of actually segregating. It is done only to create confusion and restructure social alignments to certain issues. Again, whatever formerly progressive position the conservatives adopt will be utterly established in American politics. It is now "conservative" to be a desegregationist, and you are a blue haired liberal snowflake if you think whites should be entitled to white spaces.
We saw the same issue (both successful and unsuccessful) in the Church during the last two millennia, though protracted not between the generations of men, but of empires. Even as early as Paul's epistles, we see Judaizers appearing among the recent converts, preaching circumcision and the adoption of the Mosaic Law. We read in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho of how the Jews in that time were attempting the define certain parts of scripture: as how Justin says in chapter LXII, "And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert..."
We see certain material things being established with the rise of Constantine. We see compromises and conversations with the adherents of Orthodoxy, the very name itself attempting the frame a certain narrative. As the ages passed new ideas were accepted and established into the Church, and these things lead to where we are now.
In the 16th century, the Lutherans framed a narrative, inflamed revolts against the Church all over Europe and the Church was inclined to defend its doctrine. This was the greatest mistake it had ever made. It became, in some parts, a reaction against a reaction. It allowed itself to be drawn into debate and instead of resolute steadfastness, there were compromises eventually made. By engaging in various philosophic debates they legitimized them, and backpedaling on some points of material administration, the masses perceived some fault in the Church. The infallible Church at once became something to be questioned.
Further down the line we see dispensationalism, liberation theory and such things slowly seep in. We see certain members of the Church question abortion, female participation, gayness. By attempting the justify their reaction against these things, the Church itself legitimizes them. The Church is drawn into "the frame" and the most visible discussion is held where Satan wants it to be. Satan accuses and the Church defends. This is always a losing strategy. While Satan takes action, his mortal enemies speak.
There are always many actors involved in creating this frame and it is not one sided. Four sides are involved in creating the frame. In American politics, we have the democrats, progressives, conservatives and republican conservatives. Each side works together in tangent to frame acceptable politics. The liberals create a position, the democrats support the position, the republicans legitimize the position and the conservatives entrench the position. This is evident when looking back on the issues of the past century, segregation for instance. The moment the conservatives largely accept any position, regardless of how vulgar it *once was*, it becomes a definitive part of Americanism.
Interestingly, the segregation debate has been renewed. However this time it is the vulgar and unAmerican progressives renewing it. Satan has built a frame, ensured that segregation lies far outside of it, yet now tempts the frame with his own version of the argument. "Black people need black spaces." This is done to evoke a reaction from white conservatives. Now it is white conservatives defending desegregation, the places have flipped 180 degrees and this is done for a specific reason. The establishment will not put up a meaningful fight against this rhetoric because they have no intention of actually segregating. It is done only to create confusion and restructure social alignments to certain issues. Again, whatever formerly progressive position the conservatives adopt will be utterly established in American politics. It is now "conservative" to be a desegregationist, and you are a blue haired liberal snowflake if you think whites should be entitled to white spaces.
We saw the same issue (both successful and unsuccessful) in the Church during the last two millennia, though protracted not between the generations of men, but of empires. Even as early as Paul's epistles, we see Judaizers appearing among the recent converts, preaching circumcision and the adoption of the Mosaic Law. We read in Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho of how the Jews in that time were attempting the define certain parts of scripture: as how Justin says in chapter LXII, "And that you may not change the [force of the] words just quoted, and repeat what your teachers assert..."
We see certain material things being established with the rise of Constantine. We see compromises and conversations with the adherents of Orthodoxy, the very name itself attempting the frame a certain narrative. As the ages passed new ideas were accepted and established into the Church, and these things lead to where we are now.
In the 16th century, the Lutherans framed a narrative, inflamed revolts against the Church all over Europe and the Church was inclined to defend its doctrine. This was the greatest mistake it had ever made. It became, in some parts, a reaction against a reaction. It allowed itself to be drawn into debate and instead of resolute steadfastness, there were compromises eventually made. By engaging in various philosophic debates they legitimized them, and backpedaling on some points of material administration, the masses perceived some fault in the Church. The infallible Church at once became something to be questioned.
Further down the line we see dispensationalism, liberation theory and such things slowly seep in. We see certain members of the Church question abortion, female participation, gayness. By attempting the justify their reaction against these things, the Church itself legitimizes them. The Church is drawn into "the frame" and the most visible discussion is held where Satan wants it to be. Satan accuses and the Church defends. This is always a losing strategy. While Satan takes action, his mortal enemies speak.
I meant that as a joke. The typical miga joomer response to anything pro white or anti Israel is "hurr you're a leftist hurr."
As for the great arguments of the past..
These were handled a bit differently, and yes, much more intelligently. The Church took on the role of absolute authority. It was usually the ambition of heretical apologists to defend themselves against the Church, rather than make any significant headway. Like today, they became bogged down in a slew of accusations. The Church would say "you are wrong here and heretical, and this is why." It left the new heretics scrambling to defend themselves against well entrenched dogma.
When debating the philosophies of antiquity, once again, the Catholic apologists retained the authority. The Philosophers in a sense took the part that the "people who argue dogma without the proclivity or ability" take today. The Philosophies say "we do not know" when pressed. The Catholics said, "we know, and this is how we know." There was firm tradition, indisputable principles and a thousand precedents which the Catholic religion fell back on. These were tried and true methods to dismantle the arguments of the time and were unable to be properly countered, hence paganism and the philosophies ceased to exist.
As far as I know the reformation was the first instance where the Church significantly backpedaled and was forced onto the defense.
Today, the same Church traditions which defeated nearly every issue to ever arrive on the European land is being replaced with a "we don't know" attitude, where the Satanists say "we know, and this is how we know: it *feels good.*"
That is very true, sometimes my "one race the human race" alarm gets triggered too easily.
> As far as I know the reformation was the first instance where the Church significantly backpedaled and was forced onto the defense.
From my understanding, (full disclosure, I'm a Protestant) the RCC counter reformation doubled down on their stance at the Council of Trent after the reformation. The did not back pedal. IIRC, part of the Council of Trent was declaring that salvation by grace alone as well as assurance of salvation was anathema. This was also the council where they officially canonized the current version of the Catholic Bible and doubled down on things like the legitimacy of indulgences. Prior to Luther, there were other people like Jan Huss who opposed the RCC from a theological position but even before Luther's time, there were Catholics who believed there were ethical issues with the RCC (I'm not enough of a scholar to name specifics but Martin Luther didn't just pop out of the ground and split the RCC church for no reason).
In the 25th session, these points are brought up.
>And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished;
>Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed
And on the topic of Indulgences,
>In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated.
This at least suggests that there were certain sects associated with the Catholic name which were misusing relics and certainly there were those misusing the process of indulgence. The Council washed their hands of it, saying "no, this wasn't us and we don't encourage it." The Protestants were probably not belligerently exaggerating certain abuses.
Either way, they did *eventually* make concessions to the Protestants, although maybe it's taken a few hundred years.