Part 3 – Family, Friends and Acquaintances
Alright, so I expect most people will have sort of skip-read Parts 1 and 2 and may tend to skip read this part 3 too, thinking that they already know most of the points I made. I assure you, most people reading this don’t know where it’s going, and for the most part, don’t understand the implications of Part 1 and 2 that have been written so far. I hope, that they will all begin to make more sense here and a lot more sense in part 4. So much so, that you might want to go back and read the previous posts.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume you have got your spiritual aspects right, which means you have an iron-clad mind and very tough mental strength, and that you also have picked for yourself, bought, and paid off in full, the ideal piece of land, in the right part, of the right country for you.
I know this is absolutely NOT the case for almost everyone reading this, but play along with me and let’s assume you have already got, or could get, those first pivotal two parts. Let us now look at how it affects things from the most intimate of social aspects to the outer circles of mere acquaintances.
Family
There are two types of family. The one you were born into, and the one you will make. For the most part, the one you were born into determines where you came from, a large chunk of what your character and personality are like, the most important aspect of which is what you found in part 1 of this series. It also, mostly, will have determined to an extent or other where you are now and what resources or lack of them you have. The important thing to realise, however, is that regardless of the handicaps you have been handed down, where you end up, who you become, and how you decide to live your life, is almost entirely up to you. I personally have known people that came from horrific situations that made lives for themselves that would not be thought possible by most people.
More important is the family you will, or want to, or have already made. And in large part, again, this will depend on where you are with respect to the points discussed in Part 1. Hopefully you are starting to grasp why Part 1 is the foundation of everything.
If you are a nihilistic atheist, or even just a doubtful agnostic, it is unlikely that you will be aiming to have seven children. The more materialistically and hedonistically you’re inclined, the less likely you are to want to bring children into the world. Realise that this is by design. There are very powerful people and forces at work for many decades, that have a long-term interest in ensuring that the population growth of everyone overall drops, but most of all, of European-descent Christians. And Catholics in particular. The reasons why are somewhat beyond the scope of these essays, so you will have to figure this out for yourself, or ignore it at your peril, but it remains a fact, whether you like it or not, whether you assume it’s paranoid, delusional, or most likely of all, “anti-semitic”. The closer you are to having a real Catholic spiritual base, and therefor, invincible spirit of mind, the more likely you are to be wanting to have, and actually make, as many children as you can. After all, Catholicism does not permit divorce, or contraception, and the main purpose of marriage in Catholicism is to create, love and raise good Catholic children. And whether you like it or not, the future belongs to those who show up for it. If you are not making babies, your line will end with you.
Of course, you want to provide as best you can for your family, but I assure you, that if my wife and I somehow manage to feed our five children and ourselves daily, with very little income to speak of, and with what is essentially as yet a non-productive farm that has lain fallow for years, then you’ll probably manage too. Having been both an atheist and an agnostic, well into my thirties, I was fairly sure I never wanted children. The world sucked, people are idiots, life is pain, and why on Earth would I want to inflict that on a poor innocent child of mine? That is how I thought and therefore, although I did look for one woman to share my life with, When that didn’t work out after my best and repeated efforts, several times in a row, I simply decided to not bother, and I then spent some years just going through a number of women. In most cases, I didn’t even bother trying to have any long term relationships anymore, as soon as the woman in question irritated me beyond a certain point, I simply moved on. After a few years of this, I realised that I could spend the rest of my days this way, or try a new challenge. I was in my late thirties by then, and only after I passed 40 did I think it might make sense to have and raise a child. While I had developed a certain skill at being with women that appealed to me from a physical point of view and even found a few that I could get along with intellectually, my first choice of woman to procreate with turned out to be spectacularly the wrong choice. After that exploded in my face in one of the worse possible ways, it was then that I had a true Road to Damascus moment that changed my life-long Zen-Agnosticism into something far stronger and more personal, though, it did take a few years to evolve into it. After four years of intense study of Christianity and Catholicism in particular, and once I had changed my whole perspective on the spiritual aspect of life, against all possible statistical odds you might think of, I ended up finding that woman that I had essentially no longer even assumed was possible to find. A thought I had as certain for several years at this point. And yet, here was the miracle.
We got baptised together, and I then married for the third time, but the first and only time in Church as a Catholic. We are now 3 children later in only 5 years of marriage. And not only am I not concerned about the terribleness of the world, but rather, I will be doing my utmost to ensure my children have the best possible chance to thrive, in whatever world awaits us all.
Part of that process includes writing this series, because the higher the number of people that agree with me, and the more of those people live near me, the more they create similar situations wherever they are in the world, the more likely that my children, and theirs, will grow up free and happy; instead of chip-implanted, insect-eating, wage and sex slaves of the psychopathic satanists that meet in Davos regularly.
So that’s just presenting you the limits of the frame with respect to family: From lone-wolf, monk-like, ascetic, to large family Catholic patriarch.
As they say, take your pick. You can still do good wherever you are on this spectrum.
But assuming you plan to have children, then, understand that you really need to try your best to have the top level choice from part 1 and a distant, but very important second, the best situation you can muster from part 2. It is certainly easier to achieve those things as a single man or a young couple, quickly and “good enough”, than with 3 or 4 small children to care for. After all, a single guy can live in a tent for a year or so while he builds or restores a smallish cabin, then makes it bigger to accomodate a family. Doing that in winter with small children would be foolish at best if not downright irresponsible.
But the point is, if you are NOT going to have children, then at best you are a “helper” but you are not a “builder” of the future. Your contributions may be great and awesome and absolutely necessary, and there is certainly a huge sacrifice in that, priests do this, and it is absolutely noble, but then be at peace with that choice and know this is who you are and choose to be.
If you do choose to have a family, then, it is important that you understand and have —as best you can and above all— the mental and spiritual determination to do the best you possibly can for your family in a joyful and tireless fashion, with the best possible life partner that who understands that this is for life, until death do you part. After which, the next most important thing is like-minded (old) family, as long as they are supportive and on the same page, and your friends.
Friends
As the old car sticker I used to love said: Friends help you move. Real Friends help you move bodies.
Over the last three years I think we have all had the opportunity to better appreciate that saying. You want the kind of friends that would help you move bodies, not just the ones that are happy being your friends while things are good, but the ones willing to dig a foxhole next to you. The more such people you can surround yourself with —within walking distance of each other’s homes ideally— the better. And such relationships are naturally easier to form in small rural settings. And contrary to popular belief, can be formed from scratch, as long as you know how to fit in there. Which once again, goes to you picking your spot as per part 2 well.
Interlude on Geography (Part 2 element)
This, of course, brings up a point that perhaps many younger people, with a dream of exotic travel, might not appreciate. If you are born into one of these small rural communities, you may already have pretty much everything you need right at your doorstep. Giving it all up for some hedonistic wish to travel and see exotic places, might not, in fact, be all it’s cracked up to be. Personally I come from a long line of explorers, and fighters, our family roots are traceable to the crusaders returning from the Holy Land in the Outremer, and being Venetians, perhaps it’s in our DNA to have been travellers and explorers from a very young age as far back as I can find of the history of my ancestors.
I have indeed travelled most of the world, and seen many countries and places, and vastly different cultures, but as a result, I was able to set aside the wealth to purchase a property only rather late in life, and then only with the help of my father. Had I spent my twenties and thirties saving prudently and investing, I could probably simply retire in a similar property as I own now, with passive income from other properties. But I did not live that way. I am lucky, in that I lived as both grasshopper for a time and yet had enough brain, luck and help, to morph into an older and battle-scarred ant later in life. But most people will not, and cannot, have such a life. By any definition, I am an outlier, and while I certainly don’t regret my life, please trust me, it is not for most people. You need to be able to survive life-crushing blows on a regular basis, be both talented and lucky, and it is a very hard way to live. In such a life, not only do you exist with no guarantees of the future, but rather with mostly only the certainty that all you have before you is the unknown, usually no safety net to speak of, and most steps are bad ones. Like running through a forest blindfolded.
Keep in mind just two data points of my own life:
I am 53 years old and have moved home 54 times. I have started from zero multiple times, losing both material possessions and any roots I may have had in a place more times than I ever thought about in detail.
I have been married and divorced twice, with one child in the middle of that second one, and then I finally married a third and, as far as I am concerned, final time, at age 48 and had three more children since, while moving into a rather run-down property 2 years ago.
If you think you can keep that sort of pace going throughout your life, think again. I don’t say this in any way as some way to present myself as “better” or more capable than anyone else. I say it as a real warning to those unfortunates that share my mix of real curiosity and general lack of fear. It’s a combination that invariably will get you in big, big, trouble. The upside is that you usually don’t have any chance to get bored. But then, neither do people getting shelled while in trench warfare. Or, as some would say, fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.
Forgive this long aside, but I wanted to try to give a bit of realism to younger people romanticising the life of “adventure”. Adventure is usually defined as an unplanned for disaster, that if you’re lucky, you survive. And even if you do, for the most part, all you’ll have to show for it are some scars and retrospectively funny stories. If you’re really lucky, you might get to tell a few of those stories to your grandchildren and then only when they are very little, before your final long sleep. But even that is not sure at all.
End of interlude on Geography (Part 2 element)
While in certain settings and for a few more years to come, you might be fine as a lone wolf, or even a lone family, hidden in the forested mountains of some rural spot, sooner or later, if the wolves come to your door, you’re not going to fare well. Regardless of the original intent and nature those wolves, you will be an outsider to them with no links to them. They will have no incentives to take care of you or your family.
Like it or not, however much the average humans may feel to you as the apes in planet of the apes, you need to have enough friends to give you a better overall chance, to both your family as well as theirs. And this can only happen if there is a coherent group of you. And the best coherent groups tend to have the same spiritual foundation. It is true that you can get a smallish group composed of a zealous Catholic, an honourable heathen with samurai ethics, and a hardcore schismatic Orthodox, to work well and co-operatively for years even under tough conditions, but they will be far easier to fragment than a cohesive group that is composed of only one of those three ideologies and philosophies. Friends can and do mutate from one ideology to another if they see benefit to it. We are personally aware and to one extent or other, “responsible” (the glory is always only of God, we merely act as His instruments at times, I think) for the conversion, engagement and marriage of more than a couple of people. And they in turn, I am sure will be responsible for further conversions. Sedevacantism by the way is growing very fast, and the acceleration seems to be if not exponential, at least far more than linear. And you have the added advantage of knowing that real Catholicism has an unbroken history of two millennia of being able to create, defend, and expand, the best communities for human beings that has ever been produced on Earth.
Supposing you have managed to have a good spiritual and hence mental foundation, a good physical and geographical situation, have a good family and even a few like-minded friends all living next door to you. Are you now secure from the zombie, SHTF, apocalypse, end-of-the-world scenario?
In a word, no. But you’re a lot likely to fare better than most.
But the title of this series if how to beat clown world for real right? Right.
And I do not aim to be hyperbolising or bullshitting you.
I mean that for real. Now, clown world can and does come at you in multiple ways. And it’s time we take a look at a few of these and why parts 1 to 3 reduce your exposure to the attacks from clown world, but it will be only in part 4 that you will begin to see how to actually be able to push back against clown world. Before we look at the ways clown world comes at you, we need to examine that border between you and clown world.
Acquaintances
The truth is that you don’t really know who your acquaintances really are until the proverbial, really does hit the fan. Here is a few interesting historical points for you.
In most sudden and violent revolutions throughout history, people went from perfectly friendly neighbours to people that would kill your whole family. Because they had a different ethnicity, a different religion, or a different political ideology from you. And sometimes just because they were assholes. And these things happened overnight. Moderate Muslim neighbours suddenly killed your children. Happy-go-lucky dope-heads suddenly rape your wife and murder you for cash and booze.
It happens. Humans are nasty monkeys when there is no one with a big stick to enforce the rules. Now, if you have a decent family, preferably a large one, and have solid friends, then even in most apocalyptic of scenarios, you’re going to probably fare ok. But sadly for some of us, the zombie apocalypse is not the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is what is happening now:
They tax you from the air you breathe to everything else. They imprison you for thought crime. They poison your feed and your water, and introduce poisons in your food source. GMOs are everywhere, and trading in heirloom seeds is becoming more difficult than trafficking in drugs apparently. They want to outlaw wood stoves and gas stoves. They want you to eat insects and meat made from plastic. This is how they grind you down, and even if you are an off grid, super prepared family, surrounded by a dozen like-minded families and a hundred close-by friends, ultimately, you are still, from a military point of view, a dot on the landscape. You will be isolated and in time ground down over a decade or two.
Acquaintances are to be considered the generic NPCs (Non Player Characters) of the game of life. Drop mind-seeds, be polite and helpful, educate gently, and sound them out for ideology, religious convictions and so on, and begin to categorise where they would fit in a SHTF scenario. Make your core group of friends aware of potential allies and potential enemies, and have them follow up on your own positive seed-dropping and helpfulness to potential or actual allies and seeds of, fear, uncertainty and doubt, (FUD) to your potential enemies.
Learn to influence the acquaintances so they eventually take a stand. Remember, even Jesus said that those who are not with him are against Him. And nothing has changed here. Learn to at least have a general sense of who would fall where in an eventual SHTF scenario.
In part 4 we will bring all the last 3 parts together, and hopefully you will then see why this is the best way to ensure victory, regardless of what clown world, homoglobo narratives, and bankers’ efforts and force gets applied against you. But I really hope you read and internalise and appreciate parts 1 to 3 first, and then maybe go over them again once you read part 4 tomorrow, to appreciate why I have produced them in this order. Going from step to step, gradually, logically, to tie it all together in a final part 4, coming tomorrow sometime, where hopefully you begin to see you can only achieve these things by in fact taking these steps.
The Creed – Battle Royale Theology Remix
Now, as you all know by now, if you read here at all, the nickname given to me by others: The Kurgan, applies not only because of my happy-go-lucky and sunny disposition, but also for my intolerance of heretics. We all know: There can only be One (True Church).
What started as some kind of internet bumfight between theological retards, Jimbob and Owen Benjamin, has grown, as an avalanche started by their simultaneous thundering fart, to include the questioning of the very nature of the Trinity by scores of autists across the web.
And prompted Vox Day to clarify his position, as he has often been (incorrectly) accused of denying the Trinity.
The resulting discussion from Vox’s post on SG actually had some interesting commentary (as well as also the “thoughts” of various drooling retards).
So… although the topic is of very little interest to me personally, since my position is pretty ironclad, I thought it might be interesting to others, or at least entertaining. And perhaps they might find some historical background, or some logical thinking related to it, or, ultimately, my personal position, useful.
In that vain hope then, allow me to quote The Creed as the (real, Sedevacantist) Catholic Church currently has it:
Credo
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terra; et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus et sepúltus; descéndit ad inferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis; inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos. Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctum Ecclésiam cathólicam, sanctórum communionem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam aetérnam. Amen.
Which, translated into English for you heathens, heretics and schismatic is:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day he resurrected from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; He will return to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. Amen.
And that, of course, is the only Creed you need or should care about, since it is the one of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, which, I remind you, is infallible and will remain with us until the return of our Lord The Christ.
However… let me now take you through the various iterations and why this is so.
Beginning with Vox’s preferred credo, which he clarified is the one of the “Faith of the 150 Holy Fathers” also known as the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, but which I believe he clarified (and I hope he corrects me if I got this wrong) meant the first version, as used by St. Cyril who was a catechist in 345 AD, and is also known as the Jerusalem Creed because this is where St. Cyril taught.
There are two forms of this. The first, a very abbreviated form used for the baptism of a new convert:
I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
And the second one, which was used when they made their vows of renunciation and faith before the whole congregation, in other words, when they were essentially confirmed as adult members of the Church.
It reads as follows:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father, very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made, and was incarnate, and was made man, was crucified and was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life eternal.
Given that the second one was the one recited formally by the baptised adult (or at least of age of reason), it is obvious that the first is a condensed version just identifying the most important points, and the second one is a more complete version. That in and of itself already makes it clear that a so-called “revision” of the Creed, is acceptable; because it is not a revision or corruption, but merely a more complete and detailed version of the first one. So in principle, the one used by the Catholic Church is perfectly fine.
But far be it from me to deprive you of the thrill of a larger internet bunfight about theology. In essence then, what, if any, is the difference between the Credo I subscribe to and the one Vox subscribes to?
I posit it is very little. Let’s see them side by side and concept by concept with some commentary by yours truly. Always keeping in mind, I am not a priest or Bishop, merely a layman that submits to the infallible magisterium of Holy, Catholic, Mother Church.
And here is my commentary then, see the note number above for reference.
This then, to my mind, puts to rest the appreciable differences that I might have with Vox’s theology, and to sum up, what are they, as far as I can see?
The bolded portions, at first glance.
I have not asked Vox his position, as I wanted to write this first, and then let him comment on it if he choses to, so any assumptions I may make on his behalf are subject to correction, and if he lets me know where I may have made a wrong one, I’ll be sure to let you know and update.
Right then, on point number 5: There are potentially up to three issues:
On point number 7: I doubt Vox believes Jesus did not descend into Hell, but I suppose he might. Even if he does, I don’t see how that would affect his day-to-day actions or belief system. It would be an error as far as the Catholic Church goes, but I fail to see the consequences of it at a practical level. At a spiritual level, of course, having such an erroneous belief would diminish the work done by our Lord for those souls that remained in purgatory or limbo until he freed them, as well as diminish His power and ability to do, go and act as He deems required.
On Point number 15: Here may be the only real differences. I am not sure what Vox’s views on the need for Holy Mass, transubstantiation and the communion of (dead) Saints. As he is of a generically Protestant non-denomination, I assume he probably does not subscribe to transubstantiation. I assume he believes there is a need for going to Church, though I am ignorant of what aspects of what passes for Holy Mass in Catholic Churches is replaced by any specific beliefs Vox may have in this regard.
Overall then, I would sum the possible differences between Vox and myself, as far as our theology goes are probably limited to transubstantiation, the need for confession and it being a sacrament, an item that is not even mentioned specifically in the credo of either side (though it is implied within the context of Catholicism, by point number 16), and the possibility of asking for intercessionary prayer from the departed, including Mary.
Potentially, at a stretch, we might even guess at some unspecified difference of opinion or view of maybe women or mothers in general because of his Protestant leanings versus my Catholic ones, but frankly, I doubt it. And if there is, I doubt it would be very significant in practical terms. Lastly, and this only from a very brief conversation I had with him on the matter a few years ago, I believe that he may take the position that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God (I am not sure whether he means from God the Father only, like the Eastern “Orthodox” do, or from both God the Father and Jesus the Son) that He sends to us, rather than a “third person” as such as is generally conceived by most people who call themselves Christians.
Adendum: A commenter helpfully referenced this post from 2013 which sheds more light on Vox’s position. To summarise it then, he questions the change from the original Nicean Credo regarding the position of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that he does not equate the Holy Spirit with having the same quality of Godhood as Jesus or God the Father. Specifically, he objects to the description of the Holy Spirit being as “the giver of life” since life was already present and eternal as the result of Jesus’ arriving before the Holy Spirit (I assume here that Vox means that those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah even before Jesus was baptised were already given life eternal). Interestingly, Vox seems to also hold that the Holy Spirit must be able to proceed from both the Father and the Son. I am not certain, however, since he also, reasonably enough, states that God the Father and Jesus the Son cannot be wholly and totally interchangeable at all times, but he does not specify if he thinks the Holy Spirit precedes only from the father. I do not think that the position that Jesus and God the Father are both God, yet not exactly interchangeable at all times and in all ways is heretical. the very fact there is a distinction means there are differences. Similarly, being Catholic, it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as is, in any case, made quite clear in the Bible. As for Vox’s contention that the Holy Spirit is later raised to a status that is quasi identical to Jesus and God the Father, I honestly abstain from having an opinion on the matter. I don’t see it changes anything one way or the other how this aspect is viewed, and personally, do not even see that it makes a difference if the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Triune God as Vox interprets it or as he assumes the Catholic Church interprets it. I mean… it is literally a mystery, so I find the quibbling over it to be a complete waste of time in practical terms, and at most, a personal point of curiosity as to how another human being might perceive it, as observing such things often can give us new insights.
On this last point, I am not sure if it even makes a difference even at a dogmatic level in Catholic thought. I mean, I know that the Holy Spirit is presented as the third part of the triune God, but as to the exact specifics of the nature of the Holy Spirit, I really and truly believe such speculation is well above my ability or even concern to know. I am perfectly happy to submit to infallible Church dogma, whatever it may be, on the matter. And honestly, I cannot see that in practical terms as far as the way Vox may or may not act it makes any difference at all. For all I know such a belief may well land him in Hell, but I honestly have no knowledge of that, nor understanding of why, and more importantly, no concern at all to find out. As I said, like the great philosopher Harry Callahan, I know my limitations and am perfectly happy to take the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church on this subject.
So, that takes care of the view Vox has of the Trinty.
Now for the others…
This is a much simpler issue.
Owen Benjamin’s take on the Trinity has, without any doubt, been utterly, completely blasphemous, since he compared the relationship between God the father and Jesus the Son as a homosexual liaison with the Holy Spirit as the ejaculate. And no, I don’t for one second accept the cowardly excuse that he was “only joking.” Let me put it this way: Jean Parisot de Valette, who eventually became the leader of the knights of Malta and was possibly the man who single-handedly might have been most responsible for Islam not putting the whole of Europe to the fire and the sword, once beat a lay member of the order of Knights nearly to death. Allegedly for blasphemy. For which he did four months in prison. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And in fact, if nearly killing a man for blasphemy was requiring of four months in the hole (it was literally a hole in the ground in which food and water were lowered to the prisoner) that seems about right to me. And if such laws were implemented across the civilised world, we would soon return to a saner, cleaner, more respectful and kind world.
In short, Owen’s take is absolutely retarded, blasphemous in the extreme, and he had best keep such an idiotic idea to himself. Especially is he’s ever near an actual Catholic who might have a temperament similar to good old de Valette.
It does need to be stated that if Owen holds such a belief, which I charitably doubt, or even just whatever belief allowed him to make such an absurd and blasphemous statement, it is quite clear he has a disordered mind, and that, at a rather obviously deep level of degeneracy to even come up with such imagery. Which, if what I am told about his streams by others is even only partially accurate, would also be obvious since apparently he spends a goodly part of his hours long streams referencing homosexual acts, male genitalia, or ejaculation, in graphic detail. Clearly, not the sign of a healthy mind.
But in any case, no one that made the comments he made concerning the Trinity can ever be taken to be a Christian of any kind, not even of some random version of absurd Churchianity like Mormonism. We can therefore only define Owen as a complete heretic (assuming he was ever validly baptised, which I don’t know). And if he was not validly baptised, then he is simply some kind of deranged non-denominational heathen or pagan. In short, we need not concern ourselves with his take on any aspect of christianity, theology, or frankly, much of anything else, since it is wholly irrelevant.
Whatever Jimbob’s take on the trinity is, I have no clue, as I have never watched any of his videos or read anything from him except the odd cartoon he draws, of which, I am not a fan. I just don’t like the look, but that’s a matter of taste and of no consequence. I really do not know anything at all about his view of the Trinity, but I am led to believe that Jimbob considers himself and Eastern “Orthodox” if this is the case, and if he holds the classic views of that schismatic sect, then the most likely difference he would have with me is that being as the schematic “Orthodox” don’t read their Bible very well, he assumes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone, when it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both if one can read in normal human context. In any case, if this is the extent of the discrepancy between us, it is, again, of rather little consequence at a practical level and I doubt would lead Jimbob to act in any specifically degenerate fashion. As I said before, it might lead him to Hell spiritually, but as to the details of the how or why, beyond the fact it goes against Catholic Dogma, I do not profess, nor care, to know, I am happy to simply submit to the Catholic Church’s view on this.
Conclusion
So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The only interest I have in this whole topic would be Vox’s specific views, and that purely on a personal level, because I find him interesting and his views usually present facets of reality I might not have considered before. From a personal theological perspective however, whatever Vox’s views might be in their detail, it is extremely unlikely to change my own. It might, possibly, add some level of detail or nuance though, I might not have considered before, and as such, it could be interesting.
The views of Jimbob and Owen on the Trinity (or pretty much anything else) are completely uninteresting and utterly irrelevant to me in the extreme. As are pretty much anyone else’s, unless I find your takes on a number of topics and your level of intellectual thought experiments to be engaging.
I now take my leave of what, no doubt, will be further fuel to the Internet Trinity Bumfight Dumpster Fire of 2023.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 3 March 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedeprivationism, Social Commentary