Every time the demon-serving Establishment come up with a new Litmus Test for The West, there are a lot of new fails that follow a standard pattern of self-justification by a this-worldly-expedient, materialist, Satanic trope of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em".
We saw it with the Birdemic: the lockdowns, social distancing, masking, pecking policies - were seen as backed by the entirety of the Establishment, therefore irresistible in this-world, inevitable here-and-now...
And the inference was drawn that since these seemed inevitable; "therefore" on "pragmatic" grounds we "might as well" accept these policies...
Argument was apparently pointless "therefore" we should make the best of things and go-along with them without (probably) self-harming argument or fuss...
So (in the end) we might-as-well approve these policies, and make the best of the situation for ourselves - since there was "nothing we could do about it" in practice.
If we leave aside the arguments about probabilities and practicalities - what is truly inevitable; and also leave aside the question of lack of courage, and merely making excuses for cowardice...
Then we can focus on the deep issue at stake for Christians; which is that by focusing on this-world, "effectiveness", and pragmatism in the here-and-now - they have ended-up supporting the wrong side.
They have switched sides in the spiritual war: they have taken the side of purposive evil - they have become advocates on behalf of Satan's strategies*.
This happened again in relation to the self-styled "AI" that was suddenly (at the end of 2022) world policy, top-down implemented, and emanating from the Establishment institutions of global totalitarian
This is a Litmus test issue that has (so far, apparently) been failed by some of those who had passed previous Litmus Tests including the Birdemic-Peck and the Fire-Nation War; who now engage-with, explore, and advertise what they say are the possibilities of AI for "Good": for spiritual and/or Christian purposes...
This superficially seems bizarre - since the evil nature of AI ought to be obvious from its provenance (i.e. who developed and is pushing it), and the focus and nature and stated goals of propaganda in its favour.
Yet the usual pattern of spiritual corruption is evident - and with same-old usual "can't beat 'em. join 'em" justifications.
The root of this repeated pattern of failed discernment; Christian apostasy; and changing sides from God to anti-God, from Christ to Antichrist in the spiritual war of this world - is failure to understand and live by the fact that the kingdom of Jesus Christ really and truly is Not of this world.
What this means (or should mean) is the practicalities and probabilities of this world should mean Nothing when it comes to discerning Good from evil, and choosing our sides.
Ultimately; who cares what you or I feel about what is and is not possible in particular circumstances? Who cares whether we are courageous or cowardly.
(Jesus came to save sinners - and cowards certainly are that - but it does not matter to salvation.)
The point is that salvation is not about what is practical or possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and neither does it depend on exceptional personal qualities.
But salvation does depend on wanting what is good, on wanting salvation - which is everlasting resurrected life in a heaven that is wholly good, and which excludes all evil.
Salvation does depend on knowing and choosing The Right Side.
Therefore, when we fail a Litmus Test and as a result end-up by innerly supporting the side of evil; then we have made an actual choice against salvation - and this inner decision is typically very evident from the perspective of those who have made the choice for salvation.
People start-out by trying to calculate this-world expediency; and end-up by picking their spiritual alignment on that basis.
The Litmus Test fail has actually merely unveiled an un-Christian mind-set.
It does not matter what are the (real or guessed) worldly probabilities and practicalities - if we are choosing our spiritual alignment on a this-worldly basis, then we are behaving un-Christianly.
What we should do is clear, simple, and within the capacity of everybody in all possible circumstances.
(Jesus opened an achievable path to salvation for everyone.)
We should discern Good from evil - which in the case of Litmus tests is easy - as easy as such discernments ever have been.
(Evil here-and-now is as obvious as evil ever gets.)
Then by inward act; we choose the side of Good, recognize and reject the side of evil.
That's it, that is all! - yet little as it seems; it's too much for most people to do. And that is because their eyes and minds and aspirations are overwhelmingly and ultimately fixed on this world, and not the next.
+++
*NOTE: It has always seemed clear to me that advocating sin is much worse than practising sin. This, because we cannot help but be sinners - that is, unaligned with divine creation - and almost all the time. While to act as an advocate for some sin is voluntary and purposive.
(This also entails that "hypocrisy", in the sense of pretending to be something we are not, or better than we really are, is of itself less-bad than defending and arguing in favour of a sin. The main evil of hypocrisy is, in fact, simple dishonesty.)
2 comments:
Surely it would still be better to reject them and die than to join them even if Christ's kingdom were to be of this earth, and even if you personally had no hope for eternal resurrected life.
We can come to know this because it is woven in our nature
@Hagel - " reject them and die"
My general point is that the Litmus Tests are just one very restricted class of sins, and we sin all the time, necessarily, unavoidably - the thing is to acknowledge and repent sin, and want salvation.
And it is futile (as well as unnecessary) to recommend martyr-level heroism wrt to whatever is the current Litmus Test situation - it won't happen, and it isn't the point.
It also seems dubious to advocate heroism in online and impersonal (often anonymous) situations as blogs and comments - when the the personal courage and integrity of the recommender is merely being asserted, yet is usually unknown and unknowable.
Post a Comment