There is much that can be said about secularism and its history. Much to ponder in regards to how this pernicious beast was placed at the highs of society to be worshiped by all. And certainly, there is much to say concerning the many ways in which it has corrupted the vision of men. But in this instance, I would like to point out a crucial absurdity in this ideology: its inability to provide guidance.
When surfing through the web and its social networks, it doesn’t take long to see the fruits of the liberal and luciferian education that has become normative in most of the world. For the rejection of any coherent metaphysical training, and the relegation of philosophy to modern heretics, has led to a population that fails to recognize the importance and inevitability of faith.
It is now increasingly common to see arguments such as this:
“I don’t need religion, or the threat of hell to be a good person but you do… What does this say about you?”
If we were to truly think critically about such arguments, we would find that their flaw can seem subtle but in reality it is quite immense. But before demonstrating the foolishness of this comment, I would like to make a small pit-stop to show just how profound is the lack of analysis and understanding of such individuals.
This person dares to argue that he does not need the threat of hell to be a good person. That is one hell of a claim! For what then, I must ask, stands as an alternative to the fruits of benevolence if not the fruits of malevolence? And what are the fruits of malevolence if not all sorts of poisonous and bitter fruits that destroy us at a fundamental level? Isn’t this destruction hell itself?
So, you must see that everybody who seeks the good naturally avoids the bad. And they avoid the bad because of the toxic fruits it brings about. You could call this “the threat of negative consequences”, but we simply call it “hell”. In any case, the very idea of “good”, which he claims to possess, implies the threat of the bad that he denies to accept.
But this is just a pit-stop.
The key axiom that is being taken for granted here is that of the “good person”. We need to know what a good person is. Actually, what is “good” in the first place? The oxford definition would be “morally right” and yet, again we must ask, what is morally right? And if one were to ask these questions one would get a variety of answers; some of them appropriate and other less so. But in most cases, I dare to say, people simply take these ideas as if they were self-evident.
If you were to press on and ask them to justify their belief in “the good”, it would be increasingly obvious that their understanding of “the good” is based on an underlying faith. Often times a faith that is not recognized as such. Although the atheist, in order to maintain their affirmations, or lack thereof, might opt to deny any inherent “good” in reality.
Such was the position of David Hume, 18th century skeptic thinker, who claimed that “the good” was simply a classification of convenience exacerbated by our feelings, rather than an intrinsic universal truth. This was the only logical conclusion to his skeptic mentality. However, the unavoidable reality is that even the staunchest irreligious materialist must pick and chose a set of goals to delineate their lives around. Value judgements are indispensable.
The delusion of those who attempt to live a secular life consist of indulging in faith-based claims while pretending to be faith-less. For there is no way to empirically measure that which ought to be considered as “good”. Yet the secular masses of today strongly believe in a good; they always have an opinion, always a mission, always a struggle for some kind of social justice. They believe in that transcendental axiom of a “good”, which they define in a number of different ways, while branding as backwards those who claim transcendence. Well, if this is forward then I’ll remain backwards.
Now, to be fair, their education has failed them. The government, under the principle of secularity, has endeavored to teach them about the world only via a compilation of meaningless scientific facts while at the same time instructing them about certain state-sponsored values under the pretense of their supposed naturalistic self-evidentiality. Escaping, this way, the need to offer the due justification for their moral claims.
This leads to further erroneous claims and beliefs such as the ones in the following comments:
“Europe has pretty much got over religion. We treat people’s faith with a degree of curtesy… but we don’t let it inform public policy anymore.”
This is very interesting as one must then ask what in the world informs public policy then. Scientific facts? Of course not, they are incapable of doing so. Perhaps they inform us in regard to the goal we have selected but certainly they do not suggest any goal at all. As Hume himself realized, you can’t derive anought from an is.
When Anna Kasparian, from the uber liberal media organization “The Young Turks”, asserted a similar position in an anti-religious rant at her show, she went viral. It happened a few years back and the post is still getting reposted all throughout social media as a triumph against the arguments of the religious conservatives.
The kind of rant that fits the common low level discourse around us.
In this widely disseminated clip, Kasparian asserts that it is not right for a “mythical book” to be a factor on the dictation of public policy. Now, why should this be or not be the case? I don’t know. She does not offer an argument for this because she simply does not see the irony and hypocrisy in her own line of argumentation. Think about it, by stating that religious scripture should not influence policymaking, Kasparian is already making a faith-based claim that allows her to make this value judgement.
Why should her values be favored over the values of Christians? Only because it is right in her own views. But for these views she cannot offer any impartial, empirical, or scientific backing since these values reside outside the realm of scientific empiricism. And if she were to realize this, and then continued to deny the importance of faith, she would simply have to admit that her desire for policy is guided simply be her own subjective whims and not by anything that is inherently true or good.
Moreover, a consequential issue is exposed here: It is inevitable, in any functioning society, for beliefs to be imposed on others. There is no way around this. This is why, when political reforms are made and immigration policies are debated, or when economic systems are weighed out and freedoms are discussed, faith-based claims must be invoked or at the very least implied. Afterall, only transcendental ideas are capable of providing value judgement and therefore the moral compass needed for policymaking.
Nations are always guided by faith. They are the result of the struggles of men and women with specific values. Where did these values come from? It was not science but cult that brought them about. For this reason, this has been a religious battle since the beginning, and it will be until the very end. How foolish can we be to deny the sacredness of our origins and of our future? Foolish enough, I’d say.
Consequently, we indulge in the pretense of a secular civilization. Then we trick the masses into believing that whatever they deem as good emerged from a simple naturalistic and materialistic understanding of the world. This claim could not be more absurd. However, this fallacy has come to dominate the modern world and it’s exposure could help us understand the value and importance of our faith in public policy and in our personal lives.
I have not taken the vaccine. There are various reasons behind my decision but my main reason consist of taking a stance against the vaccine pass. Many accusations have been hurled against me and others who are taking similar stances. But in this post I will demonstrate why there is a reasonable concern regarding the vaccine mandates.
We have been manipulated from the start of this pandemic into accepting the tyrannical rule of the future. And the evidence for this is not even in secret but in the history of our past three years. Now they attempt to bury their trail by hiding it from social media through the banning of certain users, of certain videos, and with the promotion of so-called “Fact-checkers”.
Here I will present my arguments, with sources, as to why we should take a stand against the Vaccine Pass/ID.
They Lied To Us About The Pass
Months before the apparent start of the pandemic, Bill Gates had been active propagating his anti-pandemic plan at a conference (Event 201) and with his new product the ID2020. The theory being that this ID would serve as a health tracker that would be used as a pass for people to access goods.
So when the COVID pandemic started and it first reached the western world, this conference went viral as it was shared, mostly, by what we now know as “conspiracy theorists”. They had been connecting the dots: the convenient time in which the pandemic started with the introduction of digital vaccine trackers. Hence, they theorized that this pandemic was going to serve as an excuse to introduce this “ID-2020” technology.
In response to increasing concerns regarding “health passes” and compulsory vaccination, many leaders around the world promised that there would be no covid pass in the future. And the mainstream media then classified proponents of this theory as “conspiracy theorists” bent on spreading misinformation.
Two years later now and we find that although the virus is more controlled than at other points in the past, governments all around the world are actually twisting our arms with increasing force. And the star of these measures is the very thing they denied at the beginning: a dreaded COVID PASS.
The President of France Said That The Vaccines Were Not To Be Compulsory. But Now They Are.
Therefore, we can clearly see that the “fact-checkers” were wrong and that our leaders blatantly lied to us by saying they would not force the vaccine on us, or enact vaccine passes. Furthermore, they have been slowly adjudicating more and more power to these vaccine passes by eliminating alternatives such as negative COVID tests.
Why have they done this in this manner? Well, I am sure that if they had introduced these overly restrictive and forceful measures at the beginning few would have accepted them. Hence, they have lied and been slow to show their hand in order to get the masses to compromise on smaller changes that would then accumulate into the drastic change they desired in the first place. This tactic has been described with expert conciseness by Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, a psychologist who has studied totalitarian movements:
One Tiny Step At A Time
They Have Lied About the Natureof the Virus
In the countless debates I have seen online regarding the use of the “trust the science” slogan, many people have exposed the numerous times in which this so-called “science” has changed. In response to this evident truth, some have attempted to counter-argue by saying that, well, change is in the nature of science.
With new discoveries, the scientific consensus changes; some measures are retracted and other enacted due to evolving information. This, of course, presents natural questions regarding trust. Why should we trust the so-called consensus if a further discovery could change things all over again?
There is plenty to debate here but I don’t want to go down this route. Instead, I want to show evidence that strongly suggest that many of the changes in the fabricated “scientific consensus”, have not been motivated by solid information but by public relations, politics, and other corporate concerns.
“Trust the Science” Became A Mantra
At the beginning of the pandemic, videos were surfacing on the internet of people in China collapsing in public places as an apparent consequence of an emerging epidemic. As the news of this virus reached the rest of the world and it became apparent that we had reason to worry, people began to be strongly concerned. Logically, this began to affect the relationship between China and the rest of the world (business, travels, etc.). Money and diplomacy were at stake.
So, on January 14, 2020, the WHO tried to calm us down. They said that, contrary to popular belief at the time, there was no evidence that the COVID-19 virus could be transmitted from human to human.
The WHO Chooses to Believe the CCP
Interestingly enough, one day later the first case of COVID-19 appeared in the United States. But the most appalling part was that “conspiracy theorists” on internet forums noticed that China had been silencing Chinese doctors who had been sounding the alarm. Surely, the WHO and many governments around the world must have had the same information that random people on 4Chan and Reddit had. And yet, the Chinese whistleblowers were dismissed.
Dr. Li Wenliang, one of the doctors who sounded the alarm early on but was silenced.
As it was becoming apparent that the WHO was wrong, or perhaps deceiving, and that human-to-human viral spread was indeed a reason for concern, President Trump decided to BAN travel from China (with the logical exception of US-Citizens and their spouses who would have otherwise remained stuck overseas).
Because it was Trump who did this (and it was election year), the Democrats and most of the MSM blasted the president saying that his measure was bigoted and xenophobic.
On February, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi encouraged mass celebrations in San Francisco’s Chinatown. At other places we had mass hug campaigns and such. Did viral transmission matter? Not more than politics.
In time, however, people panicked. By the time the WHO admitted there was human-to-human transmission, people were hoarding masks. There was this idea that surgical masks could actually provide protection from an airborne virus in a pandemic. As far as I know, hazmat suits and very specific type of masks provide significant protection against these kind of biological agents, not surgery masks. But many didn’t think too much about this, they desired their surgical masks (and toilet paper).
Now, because there was an abnormal demand in surgical masks, factories couldn’t keep up and doctors at hospitals were suffering from the shortage. In order to stop this madness, Dr. Fauci came out and told everyone that surgical masks barely worked to stop a virus such as the COVID-19 and that the masks were better left for the surgeons and hospital workers.
Did Dr. Fauci lie to us or did he give us incorrect information due to sheer ignorance? If the masks did indeed provide significative protection from COVID-19, would he have said so knowing that it would put the hospital workers in a worse situation? Let’s think about this for a moment. It should be obvious to us that authorities give or conceal information from the masses as they see fit in order to control them. Once the hospital mask crisis was averted, Dr. Fauci gave surgical masks a go.
Dr. Fauci Has Been Hailed As A Saint by Some
And what about The Chinese Virus That Came From China?
Calling COVID-19 the Chinese virus plays on the same thread as the calling of the Spanish flu (Influenza), the Mexican swine flu in 2008-2009 or the Russian/St-Petersburg flu. But Trump was saying it, and it was election year. And as I’ve previously said: for some people, politics matter more than other people. Anything that Trump went on to affirm about the virus, whether it was true or not, was going to be blasted by Democrats, the MSM and the major social media platforms.
So, when Trump spoke about the possibility of the virus coming out of a laboratory in Wuhan, the Ministry of Truth was quick to deny it. I am talking, of course, of the mighty fact-checkers. And the Ministry said that the lab leak theory was nothing more than good ol’ conspiracy nonsense juice. They had effectively “debunked it”.
However, once the election was over and President Biden arrived at the White House, there was a small flip in the narrative. It turns out that the US government was actually investigating a leak at the Wuhan Lab and that this theory was indeed a serious possibility. It is now clear that MSM dismissed this theory at the beginning simply because it came from Trump’s administration. Did the truth matter to these journalists? Not more than politics.
Remember: The MSM told us that the “Science CLEARLY showed that the Lab Leak theory is false” but the science conveniently changed. Yet, this is the type of scientific consensus that we are supposed to trust.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a probable source of the COVID-19 Outbreak
There is Distrust in the Vaccine
All around the world, there have been major protests against the vaccine mandates. Most of them have not been televised. (Remember when it was said that the revolution would not be televised?) MSM has worked hard to censor and cover up any “anti-vax” movement. Social Media Lords began to place more and more of their elected fact-checkers under vaccine posts and are now outright banning accounts and taking down posts that express “anti-vax” sentiments. There are not two sides to this argument to them. It is their side the only one that counts, and any dissenting view must by relentlessly squished.
But why are people engaging in mass protests? Well, many of these protests are not against the vaccine per se but against the vaccine mandate. Some people simply see that vaccine IDs are problematic and unethical. Others, simply distrust the COVID vaccine itself but have no problem with other vaccines. Should the government force them to be injected with their product anyway? Well…
When Trump enacted Operation Warp Speed, in order to significantly advance the speed in which the COVID-19 Vaccine was developed, the Democrat party strongly opposed it. Some claimed that rushing the vaccine was a reason for distrust, implying that the cure could be worse than the disease.
However, once the Democrats came into power, they embraced the product of Operation Warp Speed and are now forcing the very vaccine they distrusted into the arms of their people. What’s screwed up about this is that they themselves doubted the vaccine for their own reasons and now act as if people didn’t have the right to distrust the vaccine for any reason whatsoever. This is plain evil.
Protesters In France Against The Sanitarian Pass
Yes, “the science” changes. But then why am I obligated to trust your ever-changing consensus? When the vaccines began to be distributed, the oh-so-wise health authorities declared that vaccinated people could stop wearing masks and return to normalcy. Quite an incentive for a people who had to give up their routines, who had not been able to meet with family members, who couldn’t celebrate a birthday or, even worse, participate in the burial of a loved one or even say goodbye to them in their deathbed.
Many took the vaccine. And after this initial wave was vaccinated, the health authorities came out with yet another convenient change. “The science” had discovered something new: the vaccines do not prevent the transmission of the virus. Therefore, vaccinated people still need to wear masks and are still unable to return to normalcy.
But a new problem arises for The Authorities: the vaccination rates are low, some people simply don’t want to “take the jab”. How do we get those cornered? How do we push them towards vaccination? Well, it was decided that some benefits belonged to the vaccinated, such as eating in restaurants, even if they could still spread the virus. And then they would make life hell for the unvaccinated by banishing them from even more social opportunities, even necessary ones like going to the doctor.
The naïve will say this is not how they think about these matters despite the mountain of evidence that exposes their trickery. But I mean… look at this:
Now, if the vaccine doesn’t work quite as they expected it to work, then how can I trust that the third and fourth booster will work as they expect it? How can we trust the vaccine when the health authorities behind it have not earned our trust? Well, their tactics have worked to a great degree since vaccination rates are now much higher.
But were people wrong to doubt the AstraZeneca vaccine?… The authorities don’t seem to be on such a firm ground when they are retiring vaccines from the market due to suspicion of blood clots. Of course, no medical treatment is without risks, but this is exactly why we must be allowed to choose.
While it is hard to know how many people have died due to the vaccines, and it is likely to be a tiny percentage, the fact of the matter is that people have actually died because of them. And when the governments are twisting our arms into compliance, who should be held responsible for these deaths? Shouldn’t people be free to choose, considering individual risk and benefits, what medical treatment to take? Shouldn’t we face the consequence of our free actions and not the consequence of the actions we were forced to take?
Who are these authorities anyway? Who are these that are anointed by the government and the international agencies? See, some people say that instead of trusting the conspiracy libertarian aunt from Facebook, we should trust those who have been trained in the field and have received their golden PHDs.
But having a PHD is only an indicator of knowledge, not of wisdom or honesty. I don’t think that the distrust in the vaccine is simply because people think that the scientists at Pfizer are dead from the head up. So that argument just doesn’t take much flight.
However, when we notice that the so called “scientific consensus” is based on a selection of chosen experts then we must ask ourselves: what about the rest of them? The government and the MSM wants to pretend that the consensus means that all health experts around the world agree on the same thing. And they achieve this illusion by forbidding a certain group of health experts from giving their takes on TV.
But the truth is that many relevant experts have been sounding the alarm on the vaccine mandates and the vaccines themselves. Some have argued that certain treatments are more effective than the vaccines, others that the vaccines can be dangerous for certain categories of people, and others simply believe that many of the measurements such as lockdowns have been worse for the public health than the virus itself.
Here is a list of only some of the most popular Doctors who have put their careers on the line to speak out against the scientific dictatorship:
– Pr. Didier Raoult (Marseilles, France): World recognized epidemiologist. Offered different treatment early on, very cheap and well-known, with limited side effects.
– Dr. Martin Blachier (France): changed his opinion on wide vaccination and vaccination of children.
– Dr. Benoît Ochs (Luxembourg): is banned from exercising his profession for providing a treatment to his patients. None of them died. He claims to have cured over 700 of people with it.
– Dr. Robert Malone: a medical doctor and an infectious-disease researcher and contributor to the creation of mRNA technology (used for vaccines)
– Dr. Jean-Michel Claverie (France): virologist who opposes vaccination of children and thinks they’d benefit better from natural immunity.
– Dr. de Chazournes: spoke up during protests about side effects of the vaccine and against the pass.
-Dr. Peter A. McCullough (Texas): an American cardiologist. He was vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center and a professor at Texas A&M University. Says that vaccine interest has been favored over more effective treatment plans.
-Pr. Bret Weinstein (Los Angeles): evolutionary biologist. He believes we have been lied about the efficacy of the vaccines and is against their mandate.
These are just a few of the health experts that have tried to have their voice heard but have been vilified for not agreeing with what the authorities have deemed as “the consensus”. Why are these scientists not allowed to debate on TV? Why cant we see an exchange of views? Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. But they surely have my attention when the propaganda machine tries to silence them.
The Measures Don’t Make Any Sense
When a significant portion of the world united under a plan to lockdown for “14 days to slow the spread”, they had my support. I shared the memes, I fact-checked people, I updated my feed. Yes, the fourteen days were going to flatten the curve and then we’d go back to normal or something close to it. But we didn’t.
Many in the conspiracy corners of the web were saying that these measures were here to stay. That we were being programmed. Basically, that the lockdown was a test into compliance and that further and more radical compliance was awaiting down the line. I observed and gave it time. And when the vaccines rolled out, I thought to myself “this is the end of this, we’re going back to normalcy now.” But we didn’t.
Then they began requiring proof of vaccination or a negative COVID test of 72 hours. Then the proof of vax or negative test of 24hr and then only the proof of vax was admitted. That is the actual trend worldwide.
Quarantine camps have been lifted and filled with people. Essential markets have their costumers segregated between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Some doctors and hospitals are letting people die from other diseases since they refuse to see them without a vaccine. And the vaccinated are already being lumped with the non-vaccinated if they don’t have their fourth booster shot. For that reason, the vaccine ID is getting more complex. It is not only evidence of having received the vaccine, but it is a digital mark that must be updated every few months. The conspiracy theorists were right.
But maybe these measures are for our own good. Maybe this force is being exercised for our own protection. After all, the unvaccinated cannot be people who are legitimately concerned about the vaccine or about the ethics of the vaccine pass. No, the unvaccinated must be vile people, right-wingers of course, who only care about their own personal freedoms and not about the well being of others. The Ministry of Truth has spoken.
I don’t buy that take though.
Consider this: a business is enacting the measures as mandated by the government. They ask that in that business only vaccinated people OR those with negative COVID test be admitted. Now, we know for a fact that vaccinated people CAN spread the virus. This means that the unvaccinated person that arrives to this business with a negative COVID test is actually less likely to spread the virus than a vaccinated person. Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask for negative COVID test from the vaccinated also?
Is there a real concern for the people or is there an agenda in place to force everybody into Health ID/Passes regardless of the consequences? Seems like the latter. Otherwise, the measures make no sense at all.
Is it not absurd to have people in planes and restaurants with their masks on until they decide to start eating? We all remember the nonsense of a few months ago when people would supposedly take our temperature at the entrances of every shop. Or having us put our hands where hundreds of people have placed them before to squish a sad drop of hand sanitizer out of a bottle. What a joke. At least I’ve seen less of that act now.
Finally,
“The Science” Can Never Tell Us What to Do
Scientists gather data through a rigorous methodology. Then this data is analyzed by humans with individual insights, and theories are formed. Some can be convinced by any given theory and others can challenge it. A study can’t claim absolute authority on any given topic, and any consensus can be challenged because, as I’ve been told hundred of times, the science is constantly changing.
But there is a more important truth that must be considered: scientific data cannot tell us what to do with it. The low fatality rates of COVID 19, the high infection rates, the different effects the virus or the vaccine has on people of different age and sex. None of these factors really tell us what measures to take. Why? Because scientific data cannot tell us what to value.
Some value security more than freedom, others value freedom more than security. Some care for their neighbors by encouraging their safety and others do so by encouraging their freedom. Most, I believe, try to balance freedom and security.
I have read of elderly people who had not seen their family in over a year. Some of them prefer to take the risk and see them while they can. Can science dictate what is more valuable for them? It can’t.
Policies are informed by data but not guided by it. It is morals, values, ethics, ideologies and spirits, which guide our policies. When the government says “science tells us to do this” they lie. Science is only giving them numbers and cold data. Therefore, we must ask which are the beliefs and ideologies guiding their policies. What is their ulterior motive?
To Conclude This
I deeply appreciate science. We have been blessed with incredible medical advancements that have helped us attend so many ills and I am vouching for more of that. However, science without wisdom is dangerous. We should not allow that a vaccine, which should be a blessing, turns into a curse. Let’s make sure that truly sensible measures are in place.
The technocracy, the international interests and the political agents are not unbiased; they do not love, they only desire. And for a very long time we have been warned about excessive control and deception. Moreover, there is proof that we have been lied to. Until when will we fall for their hidden tactics?
A pandemic brings division by its very nature. It strengthens borders and demands order. It separates the stranger from the well-known. But let us keep balance. A truly catastrophic pandemic would call for overwhelming measures and martial law. This, however, is not that one apocalyptic world-ending event… Unless we let it be. More people aged 18 to 45 are dying from fentanyl overdoses than from COVID-19. Just imagine if we get the daily count of fentanyl deaths on the news.
Prophets have spoken and have been ignored once again. The Vaccine ID sets a scary precedent of technocratic control unlike anything we have ever seen. The clues point at a future where practically every aspect of our lives will be controlled by an ID Pass. The dystopian world we have imagined for decades is at our door. Will we let it come through? I hope not.
I am not anti-vaccine; I am anti-lies and anti-pass. Let us choose based on our conscience; this is all I ask.
Song of Solomon (Song of songs) by Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld
One of the most difficult subjects for me to address these days is that of the hierarchical nature of the sexes. Primarily, because we have become suspect of the idea of hierarchies themselves. What once was obvious has now become obscure and even forbidden in some circles. Philosophers with new doctrines have taken a strong grip on an ever-increasing secular world. Distancing us from the wisdom and understanding of old, but more importantly of Scripture.
Therefore, many people, including Christians, have come to accept questionable notions of sexual equality that allow for ever-growing grits to threaten fundamental societal structures. And yet, this is often done with the best of intentions as these many have come to believe, just as modern ideologies suggest, that what is not equal is inherently oppressive. As a result, many within the Christian community dismiss crucial portions and aspects of the Scriptures as if they were misinterpretations or non-essential elements that should be left behind in favor of more “enlightened” views.
Now, the difficulty of this subject consists, largely, in countering the current dismissal of ancient cosmology and of basic metaphysics revealed in Scripture. In addition to this, many of us already have a wide range of deeply held assumptions on the topic of the sexes that, if not put on hold, could prevent new (or should I say old) ideas from being understood properly. For that reason, I ask you to please bear with me a little as I lay all the pieces to the best of my limited ability.
1 Corinthians 11:3
The Long Summoned Historical Context
Much has been said about the importance of understanding the historical context of Scripture. And context is indeed important, but I have noticed that it is often brought up, ironically, to judge the text with modern lenses. “They did not know better”, we would often say. But we should be careful not to use those kinds of remarks too liberally because it may be that, at times, they actually knew better than us. Other times, it may be that ancient men simply did what was appropriate for their time. Therefore, let us actually take our modern lenses off for a quick moment and truly consider what were the circumstances of the sexes for most of human history.
Few things are more obvious than the physical differences between men and women. It could be argued that it was, primarily, the women’s capability for birth and child rearing that shaped the core of civilization. For them, men had to go out into the distance and use their particular strength to work on the most perilous of occupations and to risk their lives in the most gruesome of battles.
For the average woman, childbirth and care was a full-time job. Few had a choice. Not because of inherent social oppression but because nature made it so. Of course, that is not to deny that some men at different places and points in time took advantage of this (to their own detriment), but this is secondary. Only elite and exceptional women would have had the resources in the first place to accommodate themselves in other affairs.
And men, well, they always have been the most expendable of the sexes. They could die by the hundreds, as they often would, and civilization did not necessarily end. But if women died at the same rates, collapse would have been inevitable.
It is then understandable that as society grew in complexity, men were the ones generally more abled to occupy bureaucratic positions and leadership roles, as women were occupied with the most important occupation of all. Additionally, we could consider other biological factors that could favor dominance and interest in particular activities. And if we carefully consider these things and maintain an honest look at the grander picture of history, we will see that humanity has survived thanks to a complementary and resilient alliance between men and women. But these factors are easy to forget or dismiss because we live in much more comfortable times.
For example, many fail to consider that feminist-type ideas have existed for thousands of years but they only took power at the time they did because it was the time in which they could. It was only when the necessary technological and medical advancements came about that the average woman had the opportunity to engage more freely and consistently in a wider range of occupations.
Then, let us consider these factors and how they tie to the punishment given to Adam and Eve. So that we can come to appreciate the evident: That spiritual reality precedes physical reality and not the other way around.
Adam and Eve by Gustave Doré
A Reason for Hierarchy
Whether we like it or not (and we ought to like it) reality lays itself out in a hierarchical manner. And it is the Christian faith to believe that God made it so because it is good. But, of course, we live in a fallen world and because of that we can expect to see such things as tainted hierarchies. However, we should not allow these badly practiced hierarchies to make us resentful or else we dip our feet in dangerous waters. Instead, we should seek to understand their purpose and how we can participate in them in the rightful manner.
So far, I can observe some obvious benefits of participating in a hierarchy. The one above has to carry a larger or special burden of responsibility while obtaining a particular sense of meaning and purpose. And the one below has to exercise a level of submission while obtaining the benefit of directions and of receiving various gifts from above. Therefore, both have benefits and duties for their mutual wellbeing. A good example of this would be a villager working and giving taxes to a vigilant king while the king provides direction for the village and help for the villager when he needs it the most.
A tainted hierarchy, on the other hand, would be the one where the villagers are always in revolt, working poorly or withholding their taxes. Or a king who abuses his villagers and does not provide for them, and also mistreats them out of carelessness, arrogance or selfishness. Or both of these problems happening at once. And the result of such a tainted hierarchy would be its doom or, at the very least, its failure to reach its full potential. None of these things will last.
But a Christian hierarchy is a proper one. Where love reigns and the one below submits without grumbling while the one above gives it all. A reciprocal union in good will for the benefit of all who participate in it. And this is how Christ lifts those who are below, not by inspiring them to be rebellious but to be obedient and to work with good intention, and by demanding from the ones above to lead wisely and provide in all things.
Therefore, we must not fall for those ideologies where freedom is supreme or where equality is a god. If Christ himself submitted to a hierarchy, then how could we dare to grow resentful at a call to submission? We should do the contrary and rejoice. For Christ submitted in order to save us, and now we are able to imitate him by submitting in love as well. I know it is not easy because of the fracture that I am about to explain, but it is for our benefit. And if you think about it, not submitting was the sin of Lucifer. That is not a coincidence.
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you
Hebrews 13:17
A Sexual Nature in Hierarchy
Genesis 1: God created the Heavens and the Earth. This is the first revelation of a hierarchy that we find in the Bible. And as we know that Heaven is above Earth, we should also know that all of creation follows this pattern at different levels of reality. Land and Waters, Spirit and Body, Male and Female. Thus, Man naming Woman. (Naming being an action from above.) Moreover, we can see that Woman was extracted from Man as a helper. Not because Eve was less human than Adam but because he was the first principle in relation to her.
What we observe here is the broader pattern of the masculine and feminine. And it is the reason why we can see The Church, for example, embodying the feminine symbol in relation to Christ despite being composed of both men and women. Or the laypeople embodying the female in relation to the male priesthood. Or even our physical bodies symbolizing the feminine in relation to the mind. Because the active masculine principle is the one which imparts from above while the passive feminine principle receives that which is imparted. And the finality of this sexual expression is the finality of the hierarchy itself: Union.
Song of Solomon by Domenico Morelli
Back in the Garden of Eden, Heaven and Earth coexisted in harmony. But upon the taking of the forbidden fruit and the resulting fall, a fracture occurred between God and humanity, Heaven and Earth, Spirit and Body, Man and Woman. And these are the things that the ministry of reconciliation is meant to reconcile.
It is because of this fracture that the hierarchy becomes difficult for us, since what is above and what is below do not agree with each other. But when the one above and the one below practice their roles properly, they enter an agreement and with it comes an harmonious unity in which the difference in levels becomes practically unnoticeable. Conversely, if the one above becomes tyrannical or the one below grows rebellious and resentful then disagreement will persist and threaten to bring destruction, making the hierarchy more obvious and increasingly harder to participate in.
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
Colossians 3:18-19
Therefore, a wife is ordered to submit to her husband and the husband is ordered to love his wife as himself. An abusive husband or a rebellious wife would never enter in agreement and would therefore fail to become one. And this is the great contrast between the proper (Christian) hierarchy where love reigns, and the pagan one where union is never the finality.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24
In Conclusion
When the apostles are ordering male leadership in two key structures: the Church and the family, they are not simply catering to their times. Instead, they are using profound cosmological arguments to direct Christians into participating in the hierarchy properly.
It is true that many in the old world practiced a tainted hierarchy, but we should not combat mistakes with more mistakes. Denying the hierarchy only causes further trouble, even if it is trouble of a different kind. And this is precisely why the Church has pursued to keep it straight instead of flipping it upside down.
Submission was ordered from the wife, but utmost care and fidelity was ordered from the husband, contrary to pagan standards. So, we are deceived if we think this is unfair or that being below is a negative thing. After all, we are below the angels and angels have abandoned their abode to come to us in past times. What’s more, we should know that Christ’s submission to the Father has never made him less valuable. Hence, we should also know that the levels of a hierarchy do not necessarily speak of intrinsic value but of roles and responsibilities.
But a hierarchy does provide us with the possibility of ascension. If we are below it is so that we can ascend in grace. And when we direct ourselves to the same center, which ought to be Christ, the hierarchy becomes practically invisible as we become of one will, each fulfilling our role in the larger body. And this is all part of the greater reconciliation project that will one day culminate in the total unity of creation, where God and humanity will become one. Is that not more transcendental than simply being equal?
Perhaps the one freedom we should be concerned about is the freedom to choose our master. After all, one cannot take a step out of bed without submitting first to a hierarchy of values. Yes, from which coffee we ought to drink to whom we shall save or condemn, no one can act out in the world without this hierarchy. And that which sits atop of the hierarchy is our god or gods. Once we realize this, God’s jealousy and the strong condemnation of idolatry in the bible begins to make sense.
It was a small group of people, roaming around in the the desert, the ones best known for receiving the revelation of an Almighty God. The Alpha and Omega. The Creator of All. A Being that, by definition, transcends everything. And yet, this infinite Being was very concerned about the worship of other gods. Jealous, even. Why?
Well, it was not strange for polytheists to believe that their gods were, somehow, in need of their prayers and worship. And that their power would be tested as they fought against enemy gods when their people went to battle with foreign forces. Thus, one could conceive that a god could be jealous when enough attention was not given to him or her. This could then influence not only the outcome of battles but the very prosperity of the people.
Of course, most of us would easily dismiss this. We could deem these ancient people to be woefully ignorant; products of their time we could say. And indeed, they were ignorant but only for believing in faux gods. See, I do believe they were onto something. After all, what factor could possibly be more significant in determining the outcome of a society than who they worship?
Who they worship becomes their north, and from the gods a hierarchy of values descends, and from these values their laws and costumes come into place. Having this in mind, jealousy is warranted. For God, being limitless, would not lose power or knowledge or any faculty due to lack of attention but the people, whom he cares about, certainly would.
Psalm 135:15-18
If the people forsake the Infinite One, who is alive and transcends all shapes, in exchange for gods that they mold in the likeness of animals and of hybrids, then disarray will surely come as a result. And if these idols who are mute and in need to be fed, are elevated in the high places of society, wont they simply reflect the unequilibrated desires of the masses? Or the hidden agency of lower beings?
It is no wonder why idolatry was so heavily condemned. We become like the gods we worship! It was never superstitious foolery but the most pressing concern these people could ever have. And we must not forget this. No greater aim can we have than to worship the only uncreated God. Because, contrary to popular modern belief, we cannot even step out of bed without worship.
In these times, where the abysmal mouth of the secular dragon threatens to swallow all of civilization, it is of paramount importance to anchor the Christian teachings on their solid cosmological foundations. No longer can we afford to explore the faith solely within a scientific framework. No, we must go back, tracing the footprints that our ancestors left for us, into the world as they understood it. A world full of symbols, patterns, values, and meaning. Why have we forsaken such wisdom? That is a topic for another time. For now, I must recommend a peculiar book that attempts precisely this: to have us remember the ancient language of creation.
The Language of Creation by Matthieu Pageau claims to be a commentary on Genesis and it is, but it is also so much more. Pageau shows us that within the foundational stories of Genesis lies a distinctive language and if we do not know the language then we could easily miss the message being conveyed. After all, what is a strange and lost language to the common folk if not gibberish?
For this reason, I make the invitation to open the book, sit down and prepare for class. Pageau would then present us with the four fundamental concepts of the cosmos: Heaven, Earth, Time and Space. But more importantly, he invites us to leave behind our materialistic and scientific presuppositions around these concepts and instead embrace the knowledge of the ancients.
Perhaps this is the most important lesson the book has for us; that our materialistic understanding of reality is not near enough, and that science can only take us so far. And I believe that this is also the hardest lesson to grasp. For I have noticed that even the most credulous among us struggles to think outside the modern paradigms. After all, how often do we find ourselves trying to identify celestial beings with the same parameters that we use to identify animals on Earth? Quite often I’d say. And how often do we identify the purpose of these animals on Earth solely by their biological needs and functions? We know the answer to that. And yet, in this mind, we read obscure biblical texts that talk about the management of animals in oddly specific ways, or the management of textures, or of a variety of fluids, and we raise our eyebrows while at it. Of course it would seem bizarre to us, but should we be satisfied by that?
That a skeptic, pushing his mind into the unnatural state of empirical scientific thinking, reads these things and finds them strange and superstitious is something that we can afford. But that Christians themselves look at these obscure texts and find them the same way, is something that we absolutely can not afford. Because a Christian could illuminate the way for the skeptic but if he, who says that believes, cannot understand the cosmos that he inhabits and the language that permeates the Holy Book, then we are lost at some level.
Symbol
Now, I have read a few comments that put into question Pageau’s ability to detect and demonstrate symbols and patterns simply because, at times, his commentary can seem subjective and arbitrary. I myself must admit that there are some concepts, mainly towards the end of the book, that I’m still trying to fully understand. But I have found that, with perseverance, the concepts not only begin to make sense but become obvious. (This occurs as one sees the patterns repeat themselves over and over again throughout different stories.)
I do hold against the book that it did not spend more time exploring the many examples one could find in the bible. Perhaps that is a call for a sequel since Matthieu avoids stepping too far from Genesis (as the subtitle of the book suggests). But it also seems evident to me that this is not a book for the uninitiated. If one knows at least the basic stories of the bible, then it is much easier to digest the rich and heavy diet of symbolic insight that Pageau provides. Furthermore, I believe that, even within the initiated, there are many who won’t get to understand everything that is explained in the book. Not because it takes too large of an intellect to understand, but because it does require a good deal of patience, something that not everyone will have. But this should be expected because, after all, one does not simply learn a new language overnight.
That said, if I was able to pique your interest, please get the book. Christendom desperately needs to embrace symbolic knowledge, these times more than ever. And The Language of Creation is a fantastic place to start. No one is paying me to say this. I have not even been able to contact Pageau, whom I have heard is living a somewhat secluded rural life. But I firmly believe that God has used him to, at least, shake us out of the limits of scientific thought and awaken the interest of many in the grand language of the cosmos.
It may surprise some that racial classifications, as we know them today, came about not long ago through scientific illustration. And, just like any other scientific data, the phenotypical classification of the peoples in itself amounts to little meaning, if any. However, these new classifications of race were taken by some to mean that some people are more human than others, or more capable, or more worthy. Whatever true might there be in such claims did not really matter as these became nothing but excuses to continue the age-old enterprise of slavery. And here lied the crux of the problem: that scientific data was used to hide, if not justify, the greed and pride of a certain elite.
This was not a new phenomenon as these same type of people had used other excuses in the past, such as those of religious or national nature, to justify the darkness in their hearts. It was never their intent to care for the true faith, or for the right national spirit, or for scientific integrity. And so, pointing our fingers at any of these elements is nothing but waste. For the real darkness was in their hearts all along and not in the disciplines they sought to hijack. More specifically, it was in the sins that have been denounced from long ago: greed, pride, gluttony, envy, etc.
I think that this is the reason why our current society is still so obsessed with race and with a number of godless ideologies. Because a multitude of people can easily gather in any particular landmark and manifest their resentment (and perhaps their own greed and pride also). And it is tempting because it ignores the underlying problem. If injustices to some people are corrected, injustices to other people will arise. Maybe in a different form, or maybe in a familiar one. Why? Because racism, in this case, is nothing but an excuse.
The real darkness consists of the fallen nature and, given that we look, we will find it in ourselves. If we truly denounce greed, pride, envy, among other sins, would racism not disappear? (Or, at least, be touched at its roots?) Ah, but it comes at a cost. It means to also denounce our own greed, pride, envy and other sins. Today, I find it quite easy to post a black picture or banner with whatever trendy catchphrase is being used to denounce social injustice, or to go out and march and even vandalize if needed. But no true change can arise from this. Darkness, like water, molds and adjusts, and can take any shape it needs in order to continue its task of separating man from God. But confronting the real problem means also confronting oneself. It means that darkness is not just in the fringes of society, or in some far away elite, or in a race or group of people, but also in ourselves, as long as we’re not attentive to the sin crouching at our door.
Perhaps one of the finest examples of puzzling accounts in the bible is that particular one where the patriarch Abraham was asked by none other than God himself to climb up a mountain and sacrifice his only son, Isaac. A premise that easily raises some eyebrows.
Naturally, many across the centuries, and especially many of us in the twenty-first century, have found this story to seem both absurd and cruel. Absurd because God happened to give Abraham that one son in a miraculous manner only to ask for him to be taken away. But even more so because it is God himself who we later see prohibiting human sacrifice with great fervor. Does that not seem contradictory? And then cruel because, well, ordering a father to kill his son is one of the cruelest things one can imagine.
Of course, we know what happened next: God halted Abraham in the nick of time and revealed that it was all a test and that his son did not have to be sacrificed. Unfortunately, this part only makes the story seem slightly better, doing little to repair the sense of absurdity and cruelty that it has already provoked.
And yet, upon close inspection, one can find that this story is full of hope and kindness. For the story of Abraham and Isaac is the story of the prohibition of human sacrifice. Truly, I have come to realize that the absurdity I used to find in this story was only so because of my own misplaced sense of understanding.
Today, it is rather easy to ignore the reason why human sacrifice seems so barbaric and absurd to us. And, in the same way, we often fail to take into consideration that, back in the old pagan world, human sacrifice was not so rare. In fact, it was almost as universal as animal sacrifice. When we look at the records of this now distant history, we can find horrific frenzies of human sacrifice by different groups of people at different corners of the Earth. Even with animal sacrifice being available to them (which was often their primary option), they would still resort to the sacrificing of humans in desperate attempts to obtain something worthwhile in return.
It is in this context, before the Mosaic law, that we find the story of Abraham. God’s call to this old man, from out of the pagan world, set in motion the most important story there is to tell. And when we pay close attention, we begin to see it all come together.
Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac by Federico Bencovich
While God’s order might have seemed somewhat puzzling to Abraham, the old father moved forward with it because of his extraordinary faith. See, God had already promised Abraham a lengthy and world changing lineage through his young miracle child. Therefore, Abraham figured that, whatever was to happen at that mountain, the promise had to be fulfilled.
This is the reason why Abraham told his son, as they climbed up, not to worry as God would surely provide for the sacrifice. Those words were not the words of a father who was cynically hiding from his son a terrible fate. No, those were the words of a father who genuinely believed that God would indeed provide. And Abraham was so confident of this that he reasoned that, even if his son were to die at the mountain top, God would resurrect him and complete his promise.
By the time they had reached the top, Isaac had proved to trust his father akin to the way in which his father trusted God. For a young child always pays close attention to the example of his father, and carefully follows his footsteps when stepping into the unknown. And so, Isaac laid on the wood, without complaint, in preparation for the incoming sacrifice. But only shortly after, they were interrupted and Abraham was proven right.
God detained Abraham and there, right at the summit, an animal was discovered. God provided. And in this series of remarkable events, something of unprecedented greatness was revealed. That mankind does not need to endure the harshness of human sacrifice, and that a father does not need to give up his son. Because God himself has made the necessary arrangements to always provide. Certainly, it is God himself who would offer his only Son to give humanity something worthwhile in return.
And it is with this promised attached, that the horrific act of human sacrifice became prohibited. God never desired for mankind to go through something so dark. Actually, the misleading act of sacrificing others was defeated by the truly repairing act of self-sacrifice. This is so deeply true that, at the summit of a mountain, Christ obediently laid on wood in order to provide for the whole of creation. Only God could solve this equation, being The Father and The Son and fulfilling the pattern of sacrifice to its maximum expression. Thus, proving Abraham right, infinitely so, when he declared that God would provide.
Layman Thought 