13 October 2012

A brief explanation

I believe that it is entirely possible to live a moral life without Christianity as the guide. The belief that a person cannot reach the conclusion that certain things are bad for them (e.g. sexual liberation) without the context of God is absurd. I am above all a consequentialist. That some actions had negative consequences and should therefore not be engaged in is a logical conclusion. That most of the world seems to continue to engage in behaviors that lead them to ruin is a function of human denial, not a lack of God.

I do believe that God and Christianity serve a great purpose. I also believe that modern Christianity has lost a lot of what it needs to be a functioning guide. It has absorbed too much of the liberal world's ideology. The last thing people need is a church that changes with the times and reflects the modern world. The church should be a place of refuge from the modern world, not a mirror of it. As a result of this misguided attempt at relevance, churches have alienated the very people it has tried to reach.

This is why I believe that the only way to change the world is through a logical approach. It worked with cigarette smoking. We all know the consequences of smoking on health. The same is true for a number of sacred cows in the world: premarital sex, cohabitation, gender and race equality, world peace. These holy icons of the modern age need to be slain and they can be so destroyed through the employment of logical thought.

As much as I wish that this could be done through some universal belief in God and Jesus, this just isn't going to happen. We need to defeat the evils of our time and win others to our cause through inspection of the facts and an understanding of reality. Because as much as liberals want you to believe that reality can be something we can all construct through positive thinking and visualization, that's just not the case.


  1. I think this is an essential point: while religion may be a good idea, and an invaluable part of a civilization, all of the ideas of the right can be explained as necessary without it. Among other things, this allows people who are new to the right to come into understanding it without getting hit by a high ticket price of requirements they are not ready to accept.

    To understand Traditionalism or "roots conservatism" is to understand Plato's law of cause and effect, which naturally leads to a religious understanding, but per esotericism, all things in good time. Making religion the cost of entry is alienating to those who are discovering this on their own.

  2. An interesting blog you have here. However, I think on average most people are motivated by emotions rather than logic. Even the non-religious have emotional attachments that motivate them in their day to day life (music, movies, great art, etc). However, I think a society can still be motivated by philosophy rather than religion. China achieved great heights when they embraced Confucianism.

    I have a blog on getting back to natural values that motivates people through art, music and the ancient Pagan values that preceded Christianity. Check it out:


    1. I agree that most people are motivated by their emotions rather than logic. I think this is probably why most people need religion as a moral compass and cannot trust their emotions for guidance.

      Emotions can be fleeting and fickle, and can lead us astray from the things that are ultimately better for us. This is why I think the best course is to temper emotional reactions with a healthy dose of logic.