Society is not 'becoming increasingly polarized' - what we are witnessing is far deeper, and amounts to two separate and rapidly diverging realities between-which most people have already-chosen; and over time the few remaining 'undecided' are being compelled to choose.
These two realities are the mainstream, global, secular-left, official-public-media Virtuality; and the reality rooted in God.
By now, these two realities hardly overlap at the level of public discourse, and are getting to be more-and-more opposed - which is natural and inevitable in that the Virtuality is based upon systematic value-inversion of the God-derived system.
An important point to recognize is that the choice of realities really is a choice - because neither can disprove the other, and either can be sustained as true, after one has made the choice - and entered-into System-reality or Religious-reality.
This is (briefly) because - increasingly over the past centuries, and especially since around the millennium - each Man co-creates his reality by means of the fundamental (metaphysical) concepts he assumes.
'Facts' are neutral, indeed meaningless; so that it is our concepts (our religion or ideology) that make our world.
This was not always the case; because in the past Men did not choose, but unconsciously and habitually used the concepts they had been raised-in. The 'common sense' of all Men was therefore very similar, and all religions had taken-for-granted broad similarities behind their detailed differences.
But now - this is not the case.
Men can and do choose to believe anything or nothing; according to their allegiance to one of the two realities.
To put it another way; the two camps divide upon whether they believe or reject the Virtuality: The System.
Now, it is 'theoretically' possible for someone to reject The System without adopting a System based on God; but in practice this is happening less and less. In practice, it seems that the only sufficiently-powerful motivation to reject the Virtuality is God.
And, for The West - sufficiently-powerful faith in God means (again in practice) Christianity.
This seems to apply to a large majority of the population. By far the largest group accept the Virtuality; and believe and live by... whatever the Virtuality is currently telling them.
The largest group who reject the Virtuality are those who have God at the centre of their beliefs.
But there are a few still remaining who are neither wholly one nor the other; and what we have seen over the past couple of years is wave-after-wave of mass-propaganda - each of which sorts these 'stragglers' one way, or the other.
So we have the leftist or liberal-sympathetic Christians - who, if they continue to put their faith in The System (even in one single respect - such as a Litmus Test issue of birdemic, climate, antiracism, sexuality or the Fire Nation) are getting sorted-into the Virtuality.
And on the other side, there are a few 'secular Right' and not-Christian religious who - if they continue to reject The System, are getting sorted-into the reality of theism, then Christianity.
At some point, almost everybody will either be whole-hearted believers in The System ideology (because whole-heartedness is mandatory); or else genuine Christians.
They will choose one or another reality - and those realties will continue to diverge; because the Virtuality is rooted in opposition to God.
And once the choice is made; complexities and confusion falls-away, and everything becomes easy!
(Living life does not become easy: of course not! But sustaining belief in one's reality becomes easy. Thus it has probably never been easier for a committed Christian to discern and reject evil than it is now. Therefore, those self-identified Christians who fail in discernment are - simply - revealed as having-been Not Really Christian.)
@MD - You can work-out the FN's identity from today's earlier post.
@BC Sorry, I feel silly, didnt see it there!
@MD - It's a problem arising from blogs being displayed in reverse chronological order.
It's a refining process and the refining will become ever more examining of inner motivation as each new event arrives.
that would explain the almost incomprehension many or most have when I try as gently as possible to explain my "view" of things.
Is it even worthwhile to oppose the latest madness, or to express one's opposition to a thing, or should one just bodily leave the group that seems to be embracing it?
@William - A bit like refining flour; though finer and finer sieves...!
I can only comment on your question from my personal perspective. I no longer attempt to engage in what used to be called "rational discussion" with others on the "other side" because it reminds me of internet arguments. Like teaching a pig to sing, it wastes your time and only annoys the pig. As you stated, it is a "madness" and as such is not amenable to rational discussions. That being said, the choice to try and explain to others is a persona choice and I believe there is merit either way.
Post a Comment