New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
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.












You must log in or sign up to comment
15 comments:
WhatWouldMountainDew on scored.co
1 year ago 6 points (+0 / -0 / +6Score on mirror ) 1 child
In paragraphs two and three in which you deal with segregation, you frame the policy change in terms of ideals that have "flipped 180 degrees". I would say that there has been no "flip" and we are on the same trajectory as we were in the 1950's and 1960's. There is actually zero "blue-haired liberal snowflakes" who think that White people should be entitled to White spaces. That is literally what "civil rights" sought out to destroy. Yes, blacks want "black only" spaces but the idea of a "Whites only" space is still repugnant to *everybody* and not *just* conservatives.

On the subject of Judaizers I have the opinion that they had a very similar view of justification to the contemporary theologian N.T. Wright. They viewed salvation as something that happened to you because you were a part of God's people (i.e. the Israelites) rather then a legal declaration of justification by the judge (i.e. God). So yes, they were teaching Mosaic law, but I think the reason *why* the Judaizers were teaching Mosaic law was because they wanted to legitimize Judaism (not merely legalism) as a necessary condition for being accepted into God's people.

Also, the idea that "by engaging in various philosophic debates, they [the church] legitimized them" does not bear itself out in church history. It is precisely because the church was willing to debate the heresies of Arianism, Docetism, Eutychianism, the kenosis theory, modalism, monophysitism, Nestorianism, tritheism, etc that we have the Nicean and Chalcedonian creeds. The problem isn't that the church is engaging in debate, the problem is the church is full of people who argue dogma without the proclivity or ability to show why people are wrong on their own terms. If you take any Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox debate, everybody will confidently assert why they believe the truth, but they can barely defend what they say they believe, much less accurately dismantle what the Christian they disagree with believes.


JesusSupporter33 on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
>There is actually zero "blue-haired liberal snowflakes" who think that White people should be entitled to White spaces

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.*"
WhatWouldMountainDew on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror ) 1 child
> 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."

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).
JesusSupporter33 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
If that's the case then my understanding is wrong. I thought they made slight concessions in doctrine concerning administration and monetary indulgences. Not exactly outright concessions, as in saying "we were wrong," but by more particularly and gently defining certain things. Thinking about it I'm not sure how I came to this conclusion so I'm probably be wrong.

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.

BlippiIsAPedo on scored.co
1 year ago 5 points (+0 / -0 / +5Score on mirror )
Yup. Communism and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. Satan framed it as if those are the only choices.

Satan quotes scripture to frame debate.

Remember it does not matter who wins to Satan, as long as you dont look to Jesus.

The people that rule over us play by that same playbook.
ApexVeritas on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
The most common form of framing by liars and subversives is by giving you/us a false choice dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy, a lie used in arguments, to manipulate people. They try to present a false reality, where there are only two options, but the two options they offer are both false, so no matter which choice you choose, they win. This happens all over politics and the false choice left vs right "debate". They get the useful idiots to argue viciously over the false choices, while the liars retain power and push forth their plans, unimpeded by the useful idiots who are incapable of stopping them, as their worldview is shaped by false choice philosophies which neuter and weaken them.
ValuesLiberty on scored.co
1 year ago 3 points (+0 / -0 / +3Score on mirror )
Some quality commentary today on Con Pro
Dps1879 on scored.co
1 year ago 2 points (+0 / -0 / +2Score on mirror )
The church is of this world
SFAM1A on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Bump
MartinRigggs on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror ) 1 child
I enjoyed reading this…many thanks.
JesusSupporter33 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
Thanks brother
TakenusernameA on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
The key to defeating modernism is to completely reject the spirit of compromise that ushered it in in the first place. The only proper response to "reformers" attempting to force new forms of heresy on to the church should be "LMAO, no", followed by them being kicked out like the man who was caught committing incest in one of the letters of paul.
deleted 1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
Here's a [little example](https://communities.win/c/ConsumeProduct/p/17txoeaO1s/scott-presler-was-financed-by-a-/c/4ZDt7ukuNd2) of how this works. Look at my conversation with the green faggot.
Captain_Raamsley on scored.co
1 year ago 1 point (+0 / -0 / +1Score on mirror )
The church was never infallible.
Toast message