Rhetoric as Anti-Logic and Fallen Religion

"I recalled this tradcath who was claiming that joy and love and charity and temperance were not at all valued by pagans."
https://nitter.unixfox.eu/GraniRau/status/1468259451094372355

Turn this around: "Catholicism cannot defend itself unless pagans had no love and joy." I'm not saying this, (I'm totally saying this,) a Catholic is saying this. 

When you have to lie, you bury your own argument. You're saying the truth isn't on your side, and why wouldn't I go ahead and believe you? Catholics, and leftists in general, constantly have to lie in their apologia. They themselves don't have faith in their faith.

I suppose it was inevitable that Communism would become Fascism. Satanic faith is false faith, and thus they have faith in faithlessness. 

If you have a real religion you don't have crises of faith all the time. The prisoner's dilemma is part of logic; it's superdivine law that binds even gods. If your religion is cooperative, you serve it because it serves you. It's very obviously on your side and I find if it stops it's because I did something dumb. It's not some esoteric triple backflip. 

Hey morons, if someone offers no rewards before [eternity], consider they're straightforwardly scamming you. Humans are petty skinflints like that. The heavens are not. It's not some bizarre overreach for finite beings to hold out for finite blessings.

If you have Christianity or Communism, however, loss of faith is a real problem. Hence Fascism: make doubting your own faith part of the catechism. Hypocrisy as moral imperative. A very obvious move, in retrospect. Should have started with that. 

"I'm not going to do anything for you because I love you." Oh is that how love works? I think I need a new word; this one has gunk all over it. At some point it's time to leave the rot for the maggots.

I recently found out Russia's orthodox patriarch is 100% a Satanist. He doesn't believe in the things coming out of his mouth. You know, at some point you have to wonder how Satanists always end up as Church fathers. Sure we expect one or two here and there, but almost every one? Whole dynasties of the fuckers? Maybe adjust your view of the institution until this pattern makes sense prospectively. 

He supports anti-gay preachers, though. I guess that's neat. That horse has already bolted, but, you know, it's the little things.

Ironically, as per Friday's post, indulgences were one of the least corrupt things they did. Instead of offering forgiveness for free like a godless Communist, they decided to get paid instead. Secure. Responsible. Rightist.

Or rather, not ironically at all. This mild step toward piety was of course harshly condemned 360 degrees around. That's Europe for you. "How dare you almost do it correctly!"

Of course a genuinely pious institution isn't interested in selling the ability to sin. Doing so shouldn't even be a realistic risk.