Do the friends of God not quickly recognize one another, even in cyberspace?
Do the acquaintances of Toots Mondello not exchange furtive glances in the transdimensional tavern, AKA the Tippling Point?
If, on the vertical path, we are not attracted up and in, are we not drifting down and out?
And do things not accelerate as they draw near to their end, hence the increasingly florid weirdness of the left?
Is God another name for the principle of non-contradiction?
Are liberal soy boys and beta males not eunuchs for the Kingdom of Hell?
Is intersectionality the most comprehensive framework for illuminating the mutual influence of intellectual depravity and moral retardation?
Is leftism a pincer movement between ignorance and mental illness?
Is the hostility of the progressive mind to biological reality not proof that a vacuum abhors nature?
Is the notion of patriarchy a question of daddy issues on a world-historical scale? Or just another name for parricide?
Where in the Constitution does it say that people who didn't attend college shouldn't pay for the bad decisions of those who did?
Does the evolution from Obama to Biden not prove that for the left, a stupid president is good but a demented one better?
These and other questions probably won't be answered as we attempt to build this morning's post.
Moving on now to God, His Existence and His Nature, Fr. Reginald agrees with the Raccoon that, when it comes right down to it, it's not much of a choice between true God and radical absurdity, for the true man of the left will always choose the latter.
Why radical absurdity? What's the catch?
We'll get to that as we proceed. We have two volumes and 1,000 pages to blow through, so there will be plenty of time for higher insultainment and principled abuse.
Now, one can be excused for having wrong ideas about God, but to overlook him completely is just plain careless. In atheism, philosloppiness and confidence are directly related:
This means that speculative atheism is an impossibility for any man who has the use of reason and is in good faith.
That's "faith" in the colloquial sense of a "sincerity which is contrary to deceit," AKA rudimentary intellectual honesty. It also presupposes "use of all the means at [one's] disposal in order to arrive at the truth."
ALL of 'em, which includes vertical, horizontal, subjective (interior), objective (exterior), infrapersonal, personal, interpersonal, transpersonal, artistic, moral, and other means to the End we seek (and which seeks, i.e., attracts, us).
Now, this is interesting, and not just because I'd been thinking about it before reading the following passage, but is there such a thing as "intellectual" or "philosophical" sin?
If so, it can't be the same as an honest mistake. Rather, it's a dishonest mistake, therefore not really a mistake at all but a plan. And a devious one at that.
A sin against right reason is necessarily an offense against the source of reason; to put it another way, as the Prime Directive on the plane of action is to do good and avoid evil, the P.D. of the intellect is to know truth and avoid error. Now go away and be stupid no more!
Having said that, just as not all people are fit for self-government -- see, for example, California -- so too are most people not fit for intellection -- see, for example, California. Does this mean such people are out of luck, or must move to Texas? Not at all. Montana is also nice, and not as cold.
The bottom line for today is that "The agnostic denial of the possibility of demonstrating the existence of God is, therefore, a heresy."
Not an extrinsic heresy within the bounds of this or that worldview, but an intrinsic heresy for man qua man. It's universal. No exceptions. Well, except maybe for certain forms of mental illness, organic brain damage, or demon possession.