Blogsplaining myself

Sometimes I look back over old posts and catch things that need explaining.

Last night, I saw a post about feminism, in which I said I was not a femin-ist but a human-ist.

That might confuse readers who note that my other posts are generally written from a Christian perspective, to which “humanism” is opposed.

Humanism refers to the Enlightenment philosophy of human reason as the arbiter of all things.

I am not that kind of humanist.

However,¬† in that post, I was differentiating myself from feminists. I wanted to be clear that I was concerned for women as human-beings…not as some special gender elevated above men. That was the sense in which I used the word human-ist in the post.

There and elsewhere, a casual reader might get confused by the conflicting view-points  published on this blog.

They’re easily explained.

I publish anything that strikes me as containing an important insight, even if it contradicts my own world-view.

It’s my way of keeping myself honest and not succumbing to ideology.

The second point I wanted to make is that I am not an anti-Semite in the traditional sense, despite my tendency to rummage through white nationalist/so-called anti-Semitic sites.

I consider global government a very bad idea and I see its roots going back to the rabbinical dream of world conquest under a Messiah-King.

Deciphering that project requires plain-speaking…but I am not motivated by hatred for Judaism itself, either Torah-based or Talmudic, although certainly there are things in the latter I dislike intensely.

As to Christianity itself, I used to be a rather liberal and unorthodox Christian, as you can see from earlier writing on the web.

These days, I have moved much closer to a conservative position. That’s a result of extensive research over the last few years.

And personal experience.

I now hold an orthodox faith, but I still differ from orthodox believers in one thing – I do not believe that Christ’s salvation is conferred only on those who profess Christian doctrine. I believe it is conferred on all, regardless of confession. It depends only on what is in the heart.

If a person strives to embody truth and love as Christ practiced it, they are “believers” in the sense Christ meant.

They worship Christ, only without naming him.

There are many practicing “Christians” who are actually idolaters, because their belief is superstitious and a profession of the lips.

There are many practicing “pagans” who are actually Christians, because their belief is in the true god, regardless of what name they’ve chosen to give him.

Christ will draw them to him, one way or other.

This is not an idle conclusion. It’s one I’ve reached after many years of back-and-forth, study, observation, and interaction with people of all faiths.






2 thoughts on “Blogsplaining myself

  1. we are definitely riding bits of the same wave length, I was just wondering about some of the very things you wrote of.

    RE; ‘It depends only on what is in the heart.’

    Is that full immersion, a.k.a. baptized? Or, will a sprinkle do

    …Just thinking out loud.

    • Heart, for me, is not sentimental. I use it to indicate the seat of belief. Belief, not in the intellectual sense. But the underlying motivation for action.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.