#Christianity is a lot of absurd things. it makes promises about itself that never worked out in practice.

and one of the *strangest* of those failed promises is the Christian insistence upon the Holy #Trinity, which barely any Christian these days honors in any real way.

(1/x)
the Trinity was such an important issue for early Christian leaders that there were dreary squabbles and doctrinal mudfights and infighting over heresy during the new religion's early centuries, provoking the unfortunate interference of Roman tyrant Constantine the Great.

(2/x)
Constantine wanted to grab onto Christianity as a unifying force for the _imperium_—it was a serious lapse in judgment, for Christianity is an anticohesive spiritual force—and thus he moved to help iron out Christian doctrine into a neat formula. hence, the Nicene Creed.

(3/x)
it was Nicene Christianity, specifically, which the first ever Christofascıst tyrant, Theodosius the Great, *forced* upon the entire Roman _imperium_ as its new official religion, after which followed a wave of destruction and persecution of all competing religions.

(4/x)
Theodosius supplies the closest historical model for the @MattWalshBlog / @DavidAFrench / @shadihamid / @RonDeSantisFL sort of "conservative" leader: he was God and Caesar in one being, the head of a grinding slavedriving bloodstained military dictatorship—but with Jesus.

(5/x)
Theodosius the Great gave us Mussolini and Hitler and Generalissimos Franco and Pinochet, and he gave us @realDonaldTrump and @RonDeSantisFL and @elonmusk. he was the original, the prototypical Christian fascıst—so far anyway, all fascıst governments have been Christian.

(6/x)
anyway, Theodosius forced the Trinity onto his great empire; within decades, it rotted to pieces.

Christianity may not have killed the Roman Empire, quite—there's a case to be made the Empire was bleeding to death from the time of its creation. but Christianity *helped*.

(7/x)
it was like the opportunistic infection that finished off the victim of a different illness. Rome was always corrupt and money-mad and oppressive and hopelessly bureaucratic, and finally Christianity infected that rotten imperial machinery and took it completely to pieces.

(8/x)
because of the #Trinity!

and now hardly any Christian *really* believes in it. they've made the Son subordinate to the Father, and the Holy Spirit has gone winging off to strange corners and bizarre superstitions. maybe @jordanbpeterson thinks he's got the Holy Ghost.

(9/x)
do Christians even really know what they believe in, any more? other than their own greatness?

~Chara of Pnictogen

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kris Dreemurr of the Pnictogen Wing (at Large)

Kris Dreemurr of the Pnictogen Wing (at Large) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KrisAtLarge

Mar 5
argh! I forgot the most important bit! because it's about Baldr and Hoðr and Loki—and a very *particular* version of their story, the one that most people know, which comes from Snorri Sturluson and the "Prose Edda" and which then got picked up by English poets.

(1/x)
#CSLewis cites Matthew Arnold's "Balder Dead", a retelling of the story of Baldr's death from the "Prose Edda", as one of his early influences in his semi-autobiographical work "Surprised by Joy".

now I speculate: Jack Lewis probably had Baldr in mind when he converted.

(2/x)
for it's been *noted* that the narrative about Baldr's death from Sturluson's "Prose Edda" is *almost* like the Christian narrative. Baldr is impossibly beautiful and impossibly pure, with amazing powers, then treachery lays him low—but he'll be coming back after Ragnarok!

(3/x)
Read 14 tweets
Mar 5
we still love @JRRTolkien, which is why we detest Peter Jackson so very much—we think he turned one our favorite childhood works of art into coarse crass (and racist) action trash, and for some reason hardly anyone's noticed. I suppose it's a sign we're in the Bad Place™.

(1/x)
it's one of the ill-kept secrets of the modern-day fascıst movement, by the way, that they *adore* the Peter Jackson #LOTR films—people like @MattWalshBlog and @Timcast and @benshapiro have probably watched those trashy movies a thousand times. they're big hits, after all.

(2/x)
and if someone like @benshapiro adores your movie, then you've done something dreadfully wrong—and I earnestly hope that Peter Jackson's treatment of #Tolkien one day gets a very thorough critical laceration. Jackson's a hacky director, and he made polished hackwork.

(3/x)
Read 14 tweets
Mar 5
it suddenly occurred to me: the amusing realization that the mere existence of *Caligula* confers a teensy bit of credibility to the Christian idea of the Incarnation. it's more credible that a human being might have claimed to have fully divine nature, that is to say.

(1/x)
we can guess that someone *like* Jesus may have existed, because a historical figure with much better attestation—namely Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, also known as "Little Boots" or _Caligula_ because as a child he dressed as a soldier—thought he was a god.

(2/x) John Hurt as the Emperor Ca...
hence *that* much of the Jesus story is plausible anyway: it's plausible to imagine, at least, someone _claiming_ to be the one and only Son of God, authorized to tell us all how wonderful Heaven was and drive out "demons" and all that. questionable activities, perhaps.

(3/x)
Read 19 tweets
Mar 4
I'm going to talk about something very painful now, but it must be discussed. it's a specific antisemitic trope. let these words serve as a content warning for the material I'm about to discuss:

the Jewish Problem™. @mtaibbi and @elonmusk and @joerogan know what I mean.

(1/x)
I won't discuss this painful subject in too much detail—if you want to learn about the origins of the antisemitic trope of the Jewish Problem™ in Western culture, read up on the NSDAP and the Third Reich—but take care that you read *good* books about the Third Reich.

(2/x)
that's the problem, isn't it? people like @NateSilver538 and @mtaibbi don't read the *good* books about the Third Reich, but you can be pretty certain they've read a lot of bad ones. that's especially likely if they're the sort of people who think "history" means battles.

(3/x)
Read 14 tweets
Mar 4
if you're a bigot, you're a loser.

that's not some simple *insult*. it's in the nature of bigotry—it's the universal psychological defence mechanism, the escape-valve from any social awkwardness or personal failure. @charlesmurray is a bigot, and therefore he's a loser.

(1/x)
he's a mediocre, muddled man who feels like he's entitled to a permanent position in American scholarship even though he's muddled and mediocre. @AEI gave @charlesmurray some *illusion* of success but Murray dreamed bigger than an AEI propaganda job—you can bank on that.

(2/x)
a genuine biologist, a man who made fundamental contributions to evolutionary theory—Stephen Jay Gould—took @charlesmurray to pieces, and his response was to swallow his humiliation and double and treble down on bigotry, because that's how bigots deal with being failures.

(3/x)
Read 13 tweets
Mar 4
*bigotry* is a subject that right-wing (and "independent") bigots—@NateSilver538, @DavidAFrench, @DKThomp, whoever, there's so many of these clowns—have attempted to keep as confused as possible. they want to pretend "bigot" is merely a slur, not a meaningful word.

(1/x)
but as I've pointed out before, bigotry is really just overdeveloped snobbery. the snob—the person who has very definite ideas about their personal superiority, and the superiority of their own intellect and tastes and everything else—is already showing "bigoted" behavior.

(2/x)
just as one may exhibit abusive behaviors from time to time without necessarily being "an abuser" (i.e. someone whose whole personality is abusive behavior), a snobbish person may say bigoted things without necessarily being "a bigot", i.e. someone who does nothing else.

(3/x)
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(