Why Atheism Has Supplanted Christianity as Our Nation's Creed - eXile MM

Why Atheism Has Supplanted Christianity as Our Nation's Creed

On the Spiritual Level,
Vanity and Will

On a spiritual level, atheism is synonymous with the rising influence of Satan, and thus it can be said that the spread of atheism is due to Satan's success converting the souls of the American people.

But Satan's success has complexity as well as simplicity. How is it that Satan was able to convince our once Christian nation to forsake its soul? What has he promised us? How has he lied to us?

Genesis gives us the answer for all time. Satan promised the first man and woman, that if they ate of the forbidden fruit, "You will be like God." Gen: 3:5. Satan knows that man resents abiding by God's ordered plan for his life. We are creatures, not creators, but we resist the limits God places upon our lives - no matter how kind or beneficial those limits may be. We wish to live our lives without limitations of any kind. Despite being able to eat the fruit of all the trees in the garden but one, the first man wanted to eat from that single tree and its forbidden fruit. Every man since born has wished the same. And every evil coming into our world has entered through this same door - believing Satan's lie - reject God's law, and you will become like Gods.

The modern form of this lie, this persistent and always broken promise, is that man can reject not only God, but the reality of God's creation. The lie is that man is the measure of all things, that man can create his own world and ignore or flout God's law, with impunity.

The persistent appeal of this lie is to man's vanity and the indulgence of his will. The vanity is that man is capable of ordering the world without reference to the will of the world's Creator. The indulgence of will is the wish that the world can be ordered to fulfill our every want, not merely our needs. God created the world to provide for man's needs. Man's vanity is that the world is a test of his ability to fulfill his wants. Indeed, it may be said that appeal of debauchery is its appeal to man's vanity - fulfillment of the want of debauchery, is by definition, man's successful self-fulfillment, rather than his reliance on God's providence, because God did not provide that man should be debauched.

This is why so many crusade for a cure of AIDS rather than for a cure for other mortal diseases. AIDS represents a natural limit on man's debauchery - in this case, homosexuality. Men can promote homosexuality, call it "normal," and divert the sexual impulse away from procreation, which is what the official approval of homosexuality is designed to do. Men can pretend that we live in a world authored by men, and that pretense is that we can do whatever we wish to do. But in fact we live in God's creation, not man's, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise, and homosexuality is a violation of God's law, as He has repeatedly told us in the Bible. And so homosexuality is limited by the mortality caused by the incidence and spread of AIDS. The crusade to find a cure for AIDS is not one of compassion that others be spared an untimely death. If that were true, these same persons would work for a cure for other diseases as well - cancer, multiple sclerosis, etc. The crusade to find a cure for AIDS represents man's stubborn will to repudiate the limits placed on us by our Creator.

Man's vanity and will lead him to resent, abrogate and finally deny the reality of God's plan for man. Ultimately, vanity and will may cause him to deny the very existence of God. Of course, man's vanity and will cannot change reality. But it is important to realize that atheism, at the spiritual level, is not an intellectual phenomenon, nor is it a product of detached reflection. The impetus towards atheism proceeds from man's emotional weakness, his predilection to indulge in wish-fulfillment and conceit. Atheism is not a description of reality, but the denial of reality. At the spiritual level, atheism is first and always a disease of the human heart.

On the Material Level,
Tolerance and Stability

The particular appeal atheism holds for contemporary America is: If we leave behind Christianity, we can manage human beings in such a way as to remove the impulse towards destructive conflict and provide for man's materialistic wish-fulfillment.

It is understandable that the heirs of the twentieth century would seek a solution for human conflict, having suffered through a century of wars. The two primary philosophical perpetrators of those wars, Communism and Nazism, are based on pagan or atheist beliefs. One solution was for the entire world to reject these false beliefs and embrace Christianity, to "go forth, and make disciples of all nations," forsaking materialism, and even nationalism. This option was rejected.

Instead, in a supposed attempt to eliminate human conflict, "social scientists" are making their own rules. [1]

First, social scientists attribute aggression not to original sin, as does Christianity, but merely to the degree of competition for scarce resources. Therefore, they believe that aggression can be limited or eliminated by population control. Population control is the thread that ties together contraception, abortion, feminism, homosexuality and "assisted suicide." For decades, elites have promoted these five ideas as their top priorities. By the late twentieth century, political elites had become "Neo-Malthusian."

Since Christianity, and indeed all major world religions, condemn abortion, homosexuality, contraception and feminism to varying degrees, the modern materialist requires the official religion to be atheism. Orthodox Christianity, which teaches that individual human lives are sacred because each man is created in the image of God, opposes government efforts to impose population control. A secularization of government ensures no religious objections to population control will be entertained.

Furthermore, since the Christian religion holds that man is made in the image and likeness of God, it provides that man may not be treated as an object or resource, as are material things. This interferes with the managerial latitude of the governing elites of the New World Order. For example, in order to allocate medical resources throughout the global population in an economically efficient manner, it may be necessary to refuse medical treatment to persons over age 70. The Christian religion does not allow human lives to be devalued because of infirmity or dependency. Again, the Christian religion poses an ideological threat to the managers of the New World Order. Again, atheism, which ordains no special treatment for humans compared to other material things, is a preferred ideology.

Second, social scientists believe aggression can be muted through propaganda and mind control e.g. by the ubiquitous promotion of "tolerance." Their definition of tolerance is not the traditional one: the ability to endure or bear something harmful. This definition concedes that the beneficiaries of tolerance are likely to injure the "tolerant" person. So the definition has been revised. To the modern mind, tolerance means "accepting without protest the opinions or acts of others" (OED).

The modern definition leaves out the crux of tolerance, that one accepts without protest opinions or acts of others with which one disagrees. Even modernists acknowledge that tolerance is not one Southern Baptist accepting the opinion of another Southern Baptist. So why leave out the "disagree" part? Because to the modern, the most virtuous person, the most tolerant person, is the person who believes nothing. Such a person is incapable of "disagreeing."

"Intolerance" is defined as "Not tolerating opinions or practices different from one's own, especially in religious matters" (OED). Thus, moderns define "intolerance" as "not accepting religious opinions different from one's own" and tolerance as "accepting the opinions of others." In other words, it is not that the intolerant disagrees and does not accept, while the tolerant disagrees but accepts anyway. Rather, moderns say that the "tolerant" neither agrees or disagrees with another's religious beliefs, because the truly tolerant person has no beliefs at all, especially religious beliefs. That is, the truly tolerant person is atheist.

This "lack of belief" must be part of the definition of the modern virtue of tolerance. Because having religious beliefs is the dangerous first step towards intolerance, and therefore cannot be part of being tolerant. If you have religious beliefs, the next thing you know, you may not accept the religious beliefs of others, and of course by then you have become INTOLERANT.

Of course, this conception of "tolerance" is a false value. One ought to seek the truth, and if one finds truth, one should believe it to be true. He who believes something to be true, ought to persuade others to believe it. Belief in the truth of Christianity brought Western Civilization from tribal culture to world dominance. Now that the ideas and values of Christian Man have conquered the world, it seems odd that he should surrender his belief in their truth, all in the name of TOLERANCE.

But for the atheist, the existence of truth is itself an uncertain proposition. He is able to declare only that there are many truths - and therefore no truth at all. These declarations are called pluralism, multiculturalism, relativism, positivism and a host of other "isms" all of which deny the existence of a real truth.

Many atheists, such as Nietzsche, assert that the truth is merely what proves useful - the so-called "utilitarian theory of truth." Atheists who deny the existence of any truth discard "ideas" and "values" as soon as they become "useless," i.e., cease to further their purposes. To them, truth is merely a proposition that assists a subject in furthering his own purpose. Truth exists in as many forms as there are different persons with different purposes.

This contrasts sharply with the theist's definition of truth. For the theist, someone who speaks a proposition solely to further his own purpose is usually known by the name "liar." But to an atheist, a lie is merely the speaking of his own truth.

He who believes the lie of another subjects himself to the purposes of the other. To the extent that he believes the lie, he loses his freedom of thought, and therefore his freedom of action. Satan is the master liar, and therefore the supreme slavemaster. John 8:44.

Civil government has always been skeptical of truth claims - earthly power is often unwilling to countenance truth. Cf. Pontius Pilate to Jesus Christ: "What is truth?" John 18:38. Acknowledging the existence of a truth impedes the government's ability to propagandize - to inculcate its subjects with propositions that further the government's purpose.

Having conquered the world, at least for the time being, Western Man no longer seeks to expand, but to consolidate his gains. He wishes, above all else, stability, because stability is the highest value to one who has gained the most. Western Man now wishes to "STABILIZE" situations. Religious disagreements often DESTABILIZE situations, which is why TOLERANCE must be extolled as the chief virtue. European Man therefore abandons the idea of TRUTH, and the beliefs that brought him those gains, in favor of promulgating an emptiness of thought he thinks will pacify the world, and bring STABILITY. For the sake of STABILITY, and the ultimate goal of materialistic security, he will abandon his church, his family and his nation. Within the past ten years, Western Man has consummated this Faustian bargain by constructing a NEW WORLD ORDER.

Footnotes:
[1] An excellent essay by Michael J. Minnicino on the "Frankfurt School" of "social scientists". In it, Mr. Minnicino details how this communist and atheist group of academics planned to undermine the principles of Western Christian Culture.