Well, the first and most obvious question for Rocket is whether universalism is, in fact, prerequisite to Christian faith?

thank you first for the help in editing to GW.

is universalism a prerequisite to christian faith .? NO . it is a natural extention of faith . Any other form of universalism is unacceptable to the orthodox christian , becuase it is socially engeneered. the tribalist in my view has every reason to resist a sublevel universalism . it is bloodless .

true christianity is opposed to communism for somewhat the same reason . communism is forced social and economic engineering . why ? becuase it sees man as dependent on outer change to produce inner change. Christianity is the opposite. the inner change is first , and then the outer , without any govermental assistance involved.

in this sense European history is closer to Christian universalism . no other region of the world could produce the master work of a Bach or a Dante.

if Christianity has been destroyed as Rusty maintains , then there would not be the residue of its influence on western civilization . This is Peter Hitchens argument to Chris Hitchens . and i think it has substance. we all take for granted certain sociological contructs that Christian culture has given the west . yes , they have not declined.  they are not dead. at least yet , that is .

Speaking strictly from a layman’s perspective: I believe it is undeniable that Christianity is universal in the spiritual realm; Jesus meant for all the tribes of the world to follow his teachings ...  in return, he promised his followers will receive redemption.

rocket, where it written Jesus demanded people must totally give up their ‘tribal’ loyalties? He implores people to put him and his commandments first and foremost; but, IMHO, tribal loyalties need not be abolished, they must be placed secondary in importance, right?

My real fear is: As the White race declines on the planet, so does Traditional Christianity; conversely, just as Traditional Christianity is declining in the Eurosphere, so is the White race ... and along with it, Western civilization.

BTW—As far as speading Christianity and Western values to other races, I’m reminded of a movie I watched years ago. It was called “The Serpent and the Rainbow.” The setting was late 20’th century Haiti. I’ll never forget one line in it. It was: “Haiti is 90% Christian, but 100% Voodoo. That’s something to really think about when Euro Christians decide racial integration and race mixing has a benign effect.

P.S. much appreciation goes to rocket for writing this entry, and thanks to GW for publishing it.

A few objections, gentlemen.

Readers familiar with Russell’s The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity will recognize that Christian universalism rises out of the anxiety, ennui and deracialized environment of the urbanized cosmopolitan Hellenic world. At least in part, Christianity is an attempt to re-establish community after natural community has been destroyed by empire. The otherworldly freedom the Christian posits is a response to actual slavery. It is an invention that appeals to the slave because it promises that the last shall be first, the humbled shall be exalted, etc. Nietzsche points out in the Genealogy of Morals just how much resentment is involved in this move as he quotes Tertullian delighting in the image of his enemies roasting eternally in hellfire.

Holding “to the belief in and acceptance of all ethnic groups as one” is in direct opposition to the apparent facts on the ground, ie the way people actually behave as opposed to the stuff they give lip service to. Community as an ideal in relations with other groups is fine, but does it require us to pretend people groups are the same when they’re not? Do the families at a church really believe that they are all one family? Or do they see themselves as distinct families that are united around shared principles and a shared faith?

Rocket writes, “The universalist Christian sees the tribalist as a man in revolt at the divine itself.” The Germans were not in revolt against the divine, they lived according to it as they understood it. The Germans had a rich spiritual and religious life, just not a true one, according to the Christian. The actions of Christians collectively have been to impose their system on everybody they encounter, often as a condition of temporal survival. Didn’t the Franks pose conversion or death to the Saxons in the 8-9 century? On the other hand, the Germans, even when they had achieved hegemony over Romanized peoples, took for granted that distinct peoples had their own gods, laws and religious systems. They allowed for the subjects to settle their internal issues according to their own customs. They did not impose their religious system on anybody, unlike the Christians who did so, usually under the sword. So who are the real imperialists? My source for this is Political Thought in Medieval Times by John B. Morrall. “Both the Ostrogoths and the early Church bravely resisted being conquered by Caesardom at the cost of their own lives.” Maybe at first and on an individual level. But I think it’s safer to say that later Christians, once their religion became official, inherited the mantle of the caesars. The investiture struggles between pope and king show that the church thought of itself as having a legitimate claim to actual temporal power over the lives of imperial subjects. Seems to me that rather than opposing caesardom, in the end the church took over its functions.  Rather than surrender to the empire, the church became the empire.

While the general point about the Germans resisting Roman imperialism may have some truth to it, some specific cases lead to other conclusions. In the case of Hadrianople, the Goths, under attack from the Huns, were actually trying to gain entrance into the Roman Empire. Their complaint was that they didn’t receive the provisions they’d been promised, and they were resentful at being looked down on by the cosmopolitan Romans. A useful parallel here is all the Mexicans pouring into the United States, and former colonials flooding England. Sure, there was resistance to Roman incursions into Germania and Britain in the first couple centuries AD. But hungry, civilizationally inferior outsiders pushing their way into empires and then being resentful of their second-class status is where things end up. The Germans, like the invaders of Western societies today, actually coveted the riches and power of empire.

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Thought-Medieval-Times-MART/dp/0802064132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204208047&sr=1-1

“Nietzche (sic) believed in the power of the will, and tribal fidelity.”

Nietzsche believed that the reality principle was the will to power, which he conceived as a force that animates all living things and seeks to increase itself and its efficiency. He did not mean cruelty and brute force, rather the will of a creature to unfold according to its proper purpose. WNs and racialists will be disappointed that nowhere in Nietzsche do we find anything like a belief in tribal fidelity. Rather he believed that the race was advanced when strong individuals were unrestrained in their exploitation of their inferiors (a concept I find a bit troubling BTW). By race he meant humankind. If anybody can dispute that and show that Fritz was a racialist by his own lights, for God’s sake give me the cite.

Rocket’s radical Christian universalism rests on his reading of the Book of Acts, which claims that the apostles performed healing miracles and underwent martyrdom, etc. We are to accept as proof for the truth of their system the strength of their conviction and their willingness to die for their beliefs. Would Christians today accept belief in Islam simply because its followers demonstrate a greater willingness to die for their convictions than most Christians today are for theirs? The trouble comes after supernatural beliefs have been eroded by science and the ethical system of Christianity overcomes its otherworldliness. Its universalism then demands that all societies conform to its notions of justice, which ignore human differences and lead directly to the secularized version we see wreaking so much havoc today. It also becomes open to judaization and other corruptions. Liberal socialists like Hillary and Obama are indistinguishable from the Bushes and Huckabees in their desire to spread freedom, democracy and American-style consumer individualism to a world understood in terms of human sameness originally informed by Christian notions of universalism. Another problem is Rocket’s pacifism, which he holds to because he believes that Christ literally demands it, and nothing less is acceptable. Rocket holds these views over against and despite the objections of less radical Christians, whom he sees as lukewarm.

“The Christian asks the tribalist to die to the world, which includes his ethnic attachments.  The tribalist asks the Christian to give his people life.” Which seems the more reasonable request?

In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that Rocket and I have been friends for 20 years and argue about this stuff all the time. I directed him to Majority Rights in the hopes that you men, being able to make the case for racialism for better than I can, could convince him. <sarcasm> A lot of good that has done! <sarcasm>

Personally, I teeter somewhat uncomfortably between the theists and the materialists on this board. On the one hand, I believe man has an innate spiritual need that can’t be satisfied by materialism and that rational thought is something of an epiphenomenon and can’t encapsulate all of reality. On the other, I think that Christian universalist notions, once the literal mysteries of the religion are no longer tenable, automatically become corrupted into an anti-white tendency.

I agree that courage, brotherhood and commitment can bind us together – especially if we add cooperation.

as Traditional Christianity is declining in the Eurosphere, so GOES the White race ... and along with it, Western civilization

It is just as easy to say that with the coming of Caesar and the Romans exterminating various European tribes during antiquity, the White race was on its way out.

It is also just as easy to say that with Traditional Christianity’s ridiculous excesses including a couple of worthless crusades and EIGHT CENTURIES of internicine bloodshed under its watch and the Black Plague helped along by the early Christian Tradition of not bathing, contrary to heathen custom by the way, the White race was helped much farther on its way out.

Nevertheless, it is useless to shift blame or to conceal fault we don’t care to admit. It is helpful to learn from the past and hopefully move forward a little wiser for our expense.

“It is helpful to learn from the past and hopefully move forward a little wiser for our expense.”

But zusammen, we’re not getting wiser. On the contrary, we are becoming extremely foolish. As much as I get a good laugh from young women walking around in public dressed in only their underwear (see link), it should be a clear warning to us that we in the West are rapidly becoming morally bankrupt. At least Christianity provides a solid moral foundation; it draws a definitive line between right and wrong. That can’t be said for secular liberalism or moral relativism.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=505497&in_page_id=1770

JLH: Christian universalism rises out of the anxiety, ennui and deracialized environment of the urbanized cosmopolitan Hellenic world. At least in part, Christianity is an attempt to re-establish community after natural community has been destroyed by empire.

This I find impressive reasoning and a highly probable interpretation.  It could also explain something about American patriotism that puzzles many old-continent Europeans. 

There’s no nice way to put this, so I will just risk losing all my American friendships.  This side of the pond we are apt to view the patently sincere, very outré American veneration for the flag, and all that daily sing-songing away about the “Land of the Free”, as toe-curlingly embarrassing, and a million miles from our own, somewhat nuanced relationship with the symbols of the state.  How can one people turn into another - behaviourally, at least - just by crossing three thousand miles of water?

The answer, perhaps, is that Homo sapiens is a suggestible being, and those specimens equipped with the faith-gene are the most suggestible of all.  It need not be a religious faith which pins them against the wall.  A political faith like liberalism will do just as well, and so will a faith of civic pride and civic values, like modern American patriotism.  Actually, any figure for unity will suffice, since a sundered personality, a sundered community, a sundered people will always struggle back towards where the centre is thought to be.

“that is the very reason in my post that i went back to the early accounts of the pristine church and Germania as recorded by Tacitus to draw a clear cut juxtaposition before the waters got muddied .”

rocket, excuse me if these questions have already been answered:

1) What church or denomination, or congregation can you point me to that practises pre -Constantine Christianity… or as it is described: the “pristine church?”

2) Are people that practice post-Constantine Christianity practicing a false religion?
Are Roman Catholics considered post-Constantine?

3) Is it not true all ideologies and philosophies including ATHEISM have to answer to the same fundamental questions? :-

a) CREATION: How did the universe begin? How did we get here?

b) FALL: Why are we in the desperate condition we are in? 
What is the source of misery, suffering, and evil?

c) REDEMPTION: How can we correct it? What must we do to set it right?

One must be a Classicist in order to understand European History. You must know the roots. And the Roots of Europe is the Graeco-Roman Heritage. In order to Know and defend Europe, one must Know both Greece and Rome.

As to the History of Universalism, I pointed out the Asian kings. I pointed out Heraclitus and Isocrates but there is another factor of Universalism and that is Ancient Rome herself.

The Early Romans were NOT an organic natural tribe. It was an amalgamation of all sorts of different tribes. The Earliest Romans, like Romulus and Remus, were disgruntled young men who fled from their cities and congregated along the Tiber River. These men were Romans. But along the Seven Hills there were Etruscans which were a NON-European people, the Sabines which were a Doric Greek People and other Latin Tribes.  The Story of the Rape of the Sabine Women points to the condition of the early Romans, that they had No women, but had to steal their women from other Tribes.  Rome was Universalist from its very inception. Rome is a mixture of Latin influence, Etruscan influence, Doric Greek influence. 

Rome was successful because it absorbed manpower from all sorts of different tribes. If Tribes helped Rome, they became “citizenized”.  Throughout the History of Rome, they constantly intermarried with the Sabines. Much like the Borg of Star Trek, they assimilated other Tribes and of course grew in power.

Rome is Universalist. This is Pagan and European from the very start with NO Christianity around!!!! The premise of this thread suffers from narrowminded historical perception that is totally baseless. That Universalism is somehow a “Christain” Disease is absolutely ludicrious if you know Roman History.

Roman Emperors granted Roman Citizenship widely in later days. There was No tribal fidelity in the Roman Empire.  Furthermore, when Rome became a financial and military Powerhouse, it attracted all sorts of Immigration to the Capital, Medes, Greeks, Persians, Africans, Gauls, Teutons, and all sorts of others lived in Rome in one big mongrel mess.

There is YOUR UNIVERSALISM. True the Roman Catholic Church based in Rome furthered this tradition along when the Roman Empire collapsed---it knew no better.

The Standard of Christianity is Truth. “Christianity is defined by the Truth---not by the Heretics within her.”

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM | #
The answer, perhaps, is that Homo sapiens is a suggestible being, and those specimens equipped with the faith-gene are the most suggestible of all.  It need not be a religious faith which pins them against the wall.  A political faith like liberalism will do just as well, and so will a faith of civic pride and civic values, like modern American patriotism.

Modern American patriotism is not the exemplar of suggestibility, as a brief look at European history will suffice to demonstrate.  The faith-gene (if such a thing exists) is apparently everywhere, and is certainly not confined to any single ethnic group. 

I do not believe in the faith-gene.  It will not save us.

Addendum to my post on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 02:02 AM |

I accidentally clicked on the submit button instead of the preview button before I was finished with my post. I wanted to include the following link. It is particularly directed at the dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200406?pnum=4&opg=n9456258

Nux—slavery and ghettos were not dont by christian universalists but by their counterfeiters. and yes , there is a standard : whatever love requires.

One sees what Dawkins means about theology and intellectual respectability. So according to you, when Christianity is strong, it’s counterfeit. “Love” is a very vague term and I don’t trust those who say they are inspired by it. Blair read 1 Corinthians 13 at the Princess of Wales’ funeral, replacing “charity” with “love” for added slimy effect. Of course, Blair’s Christianity must be “counterfeit” too.

Religion is a Hoax.

If Jesus is true.

super-man must be true.

Transformers must be true.

pop-eye must be true.

21st. century now.

flat-world, digital world, free world, real-world.

Religion is a big Hoax

It was the filioquist, judaizing error of the Western Churches that led to the adoption of Kabalism...

Might you, when you have a moment, please expand on the above Fr. John?

It was Pico (Giovanni Pico della Mirandola) who introduced Cabala into the Renaissance synthesis. And, like Ramon Lull, it was as a Christian that Pico valued Cabala. He believed that the Hebrew texts and teachings could enlarge understanding of Christianity through their revelation of a current of Hebrew mysticism of such great antiquity and sanctity. More that, Pico believed that Cabala could confirm the truth of Christianity. In this belief he was followed by the many schools of Christian Cabalists who were to succeed him, who all looked back to Pico della Mirandola as the founder or first great exponent of Christian Cabala”. (The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, Yates, pp. 17-18)

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/cosmic_ants_and_a_few_fragmentary_thoughts_in_answer_to_maguire/#c46007

I want to add to Desmond Jones post.

Even though in the previous post I laud the nationalistic setup of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church is very Hebrewish.

Albert Pike in his “Morals and Dogmas” of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, “There were illustrous Kabalists among the Egyptians and Greeks, whose doctrines the Orthodox Church has accepted, and among the Arabs were many, whose wisdom was not slighted by the Medieval Church.” I don’t know about kabbalistic influences in the Medieval Church but I do know that Giovanni Pico della Mirandola was a kabbalistic reader and that he is the “Father of Humanism”. The Enlightenment and the revolt against the Catholic Church by the Enlightenment figures begins with Pico. The Kabala has influenced many people in the West is no doubt. The Kabala is throughout Masonry. Masonry fomented the French Revolution. The Illuminati made inroads into Continental Masonry---so it is Deist Occult Europeans--rebellious types against Roman Catholicism that are Kabbala influenced.

But to go back to the Orthodox Church---there are big differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy still has some OT practices and uses a Hebrew influenced theology called Apopthatic theology.

The Catholic Church on the other hand is very much European centered. Much of Christianity is Platonic influenced. Plato’s works formed much of Western thought. The Roman Catholic Church has picked up on the Natural Law heritage of Greece and Rome---The Orthodox Church couldn’t care more about the Natural Law. The Natural Law has NO place in Orthodoxy. They are absolutely clueless.

The Orthodox consider themselves “Eastern” and abhor the practices, style and mentality of the West; even though Greeks and their language is of the West.

Roman Catholic priests all have a two year philosophy degree that centers around Plato and Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Greek Philosophy not only plays a central role in Christendom, in Roman Catholicism, in Western Christianity, but it also has played a big part in Western Culture and Civilization. Western Christianity is a Greek/Indo-European Religion. Much of the doctrines of Christianity such as the immortality of the soul, the duality of Jesus Christ, the beautific vision, and the Trinity are Greek/European.

Philosophy is nowhere in Eastern Orthodoxy. They spurn it. Some here and there have a philosophy degree but generally Orthodoxy shuns Greek philosophy. It is the total opposite in Roman Catholicism. Greek Philosophy is the handmaiden of Roman Christianity and the West.

The Catholic Church has continued the Graeco-Roman heritage into Europe and civilized the European barbarians with it. The Roman Catholic Church has preserved the best of the ancient world and passed it on. Hellenism inculturated Christianity and that Platonic influenced Christianity shaped Europe. Roman Catholicism is an European Religion.

What does the Filoque clause have to do with the Kabbala? What does the filoque clause have to do with “Ethnocentrism and Universalism”? I fail to see how any of your posts are directed to the thread at hand. What is the place of Ethnocentrism in Orthodoxy? What is Universalism? Does the Orthodox Church make a distinction between the two? I mean as an Orthodox Priest, you could answer these questions simply and concisely. Maybe we should stick to something easy without going off into an esoteric strain.

Furthermore, the price to download this book at $85 is a little pretensious and out of my way. $85 for a pdf file?  It is a little disgusting. I can see $85 dollars for a real book but $85 for a pdf file? If you have read it, then quote where it says the filoque comes from the kaballa.

The seat of much of Universalism within European politics though does have a good pedigree and history and documentation from coming from Freemasonry. Freemasonry is centered around the Kabbala. That much is very very very sure. But the Catholic Church “kabbalistic”? Where’s the proof?  Where’s the documentation? Where?

Lindsey , if you have not read Gregory of Nyssia ‘s work on Plotinus from the Didache , check it out . it may help you see at least where i am coming from on the specificity and catholicity of the paradoxical nature of GOD as One and the specific , and how this transcends race , sex , etc.

also , Augustine used Plotinus terminology in ‘’CITY OF GOD ‘’ .

Nux --- i spent my whole life mastering the guitar. that is what i do . sorry for the bad grammer.

theology is not an intellectual respectable subject?????? what ????  i would love to see Dawkins debate Chesterton , Augustine , Tolstoy . Pascal , Kierkegaard , Muggeridge , simone weil , William Blake , etc. he would get creamed.

look , every Atheist worth their salt has to be the loyal opposition . so you have to know what you are opposing , right ?  read robert ingersoll , 19 century athiest . He knew his theology . Neitzche was raised in theology .

Dawkins does not speak for Atheists today , chris hitchens does. Hitchens scope is wider , and he knows his theology of all faiths backwards and forwards. that is why he is so effective in debunking them . H e is the real thing . Have you read his work ?

Al , i agree with you .  i dont think that faith should be taught in the science class in public schools. However , i do think that as great literature it should be taught along side Shakespeare, Dante, Milton , Homer , and many others in literature class. As Shakespeare scholar Harold Bloom points out , the Bible is very important to understand the Theocratic age of literature . So is Hesiod’s Theogony.

Maybe the question is ‘’why is it omited from being taught as literature ?’’ rest assure the multiculturialists do everything they can to try and stop this . is this not part of the dumming down of American education ? if it is , then what you call the mental process rotting is not becuase of the exposure of the Theocratic age of Lit , but the lack thereof . For even the Ethnocentric thinker sees the importance of understanding the Theocratic era since it pre-dates the Aristocratic , Democratic , and Chaotic Epochs .

Which begs the question : is the trajectory of these Epochs show a humanity evolving or devolving ?

Nux , the reason why i have chosen people from a single western tradition is becuase that is the world in which Richard Dawkins grew up .
Euclid would not have people burned at the stake . true . but either would the people’e names i listed . however Robesphere slaughtered half of France , Pol Pot decimated Cambodia , and need i go into the killing feilds of Stalin and Hitler ?

they were all good pagans. good reductionists . good athiests.

Nux , the reason why i have chosen people from a single western tradition is becuase that is the world in which Richard Dawkins grew up .

It’s a constant stream of non sequiturs. I know why you chose them: my point was that they wouldn’t agree with each other, let alone Dawkins, and would have no way of settling their disagreements except force. That is why theology is not intellectually respectable.

Euclid would not have people burned at the stake . true . but either would the people’e names i listed .

If Blake and some of the others had turned up in Aquinas’ day, they would have been burnt as heretics. In Augustine’s day, they would not have been greeted with open arms either. You don’t even know Christian history.

however Robesphere slaughtered half of France , Pol Pot decimated Cambodia , and need i go into the killing feilds of Stalin and Hitler ?

they were all good pagans. good reductionists . good athiests.

So they were pagans but also atheists. 1) Hitler wasn’t an atheist; 2) Communism and Nazism are religions in all but name; 3) You are still failing to address the question of theology’s intellectual respectability.

No, onlooker.  The articles of faith can be explained as formulations of adaptive life-strategies for the faith-group.  There may be something else - issues of consciousness - but they are not the faith issue.

Faith as a psychological function separate from its noumenal products firmly belongs to science.  It is in the category of evolved functions for which science can hypothesize cause and effect, and then subject those hypotheses to the falsifiability test.

Nux—Isaac Newton wrote more about Jesus Christ then he did about science. fact.  you wont hear about that in any school .

if i was to pick an athiest that could debate an eastern thinker it would be Sam Harris verses hindu intellectual and mystic Yogananda who wrote ‘’biography of a Yogi ‘’. so , i dont limit the positivist verses transcendetalist debate to the west at all .

as far as sequitars—look at Karl jaspers ‘’axial theory perod ‘’ ---the hebrew prophets , the greek philophers , zoroaster , Tao ,, confusious , Buddha , ...all going on globally within a few hundred years of each other at the same time .

science , philosophy , and theology are at the foundation of all western thought . TOGETHER .  some times one is pre-dominanat over the other . but for a scientist to say there is nothing theology can add to the dialogue is like the Church silencing Galileo . its tunnel vision .

and to get to the orional purpose of this post . for someone to say that there can be no dialogue between ethnocentric thinkers and christian universalists is also very limiting . when i tell my christian freinds that i like this website they look at me like ‘’why waste your time ‘’?

my asnwer is ‘’i am not looking for intellegent life on other planets , but intellegent life on our own ‘’.

and as far as me knowing my christian history . i have spent over 3 decades in deep study of it . i know it . and most of it is bad. i just dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Rocket wrote this: The universalist Christian sees the tribalist as a man in revolt at the divine itself.  The Christian asks the tribalist to die to the world, which includes his ethnic attachments.

First off, there is no such thing as a “universalist Christian”. There are only two types of Christians---Traditionalist, orthodox and progressive and heretic. What Rocket seems to be doing is “Balkanizing Christianity”. Christianity is Truth and therefore holds all truths whether they be physical, sociological, philosophical, pscyhological or theological. What Rocket is attempting to do is define one aspect of Christianity, its universal call to salvation---as its only defining factor.

That is not Traditional Christianity. Traditional Christianity says or does anything against the Natural Order or the Social order within the Natural Order. The Natural Law has to be obeyed. Tribes are Tribes, Races are Races. Traditional orthodox Christianity says nothing about them, except they have their laws and they are to be obeyed. No man one becoming a Christian loses his race or should.

So Rocket’s premise is false. Many here of the racially aware and the supposedly “universalist Christian” are just creating another point of contention, another false dichotomy. In the Papal Encyclical against communism says it is the Duty of the Church to defend the Social Order.  Well, tribes/nations/races/ethnicities are all part of the Social Order. The Traditional Church does in any way countermand the Social Order.

The Roman Catholic Church, until recently, has always defended nations and their boundaries and tried to uphold the Social Order.

(I am redoing this post because the first one I didn’t proofread.)

Rocket wrote this: The universalist Christian sees the tribalist as a man in revolt at the divine itself.  The Christian asks the tribalist to die to the world, which includes his ethnic attachments.

First off, there is no such thing as a “universalist Christian”. There are only two types of Christians---Traditionalist, orthodox and progressive, heretic. What Rocket seems to be doing is “Balkanizing Christianity”. Christianity is Truth and therefore holds all truths whether they be physical, sociological, philosophical, psychological or theological. What Rocket is attempting to do is define one aspect of Christianity, its universal call to salvation---as its only defining factor.

That is not Traditional Christianity. Traditional Christianity does NOT says or does anything against the Natural Order or the Social order within the Natural Order. The Natural Law has to be obeyed. Tribes are Tribes, Races are Races. Traditional orthodox Christianity says nothing about them, except they have their laws and the mechanics thereof are not to be disturbed, or maliciously affected. No man on becoming a Christian loses his race or should. Traditional Christianity does not say or do anything against racial cohesiveness or integrity.

So Rocket’s premise is false. Many here of the racially aware and the supposedly “universalist Christian” are just creating another point of contention, another false dichotomy. In the Papal Encyclical against communism, it says it is the Duty of the Church to defend the Social Order.  Well, tribes/nations/races/ethnicities are all part of the Social Order. The Traditional Church does in NO way countermand the Social Order.

The Roman Catholic Church, until recently, has always defended nations and their boundaries and tried to uphold the Social Order.

Rocket---WTF. You must be the master of the double mind. Never did I say that Catholics think “monolithically"--Nowhere.  Monomanicalism in thought is Semitic not European, not True European. So if Catholicism is an Greek/Indo-European Religion---why would it think Monomanically?  This is what I did say on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 01:59 AM

“...orthodox Catholic Christianity is based ALSO on the Natural Law and the support of the Natural/Temporal Order. “ Then I continued with “Christian thought is simple yet complex. Most people can’t handle Christian thought and Rocket makes many errors. Yes Christianity is Universal but on the other hand Christianity is Particularist at the Same time.

How do you get that I meant anything by monolithically in this thread or that Catholicism is “monolithic”? When I used the word “ALSO”, that means something else is used. I said, Christian thought is simple yet complex.  How can that be “monolithic”? To have the natural Law is not to be monolithic. The natural Law only plays ONE part in Catholic Thought. An example of Monolithically is the Protestant principle of “Sola Scriptura"---that is monomanicalism. “Sola Scriptura” is Jewish thought---not Christian. The Natural Law is NOT an example of monomaniacalism or monolithicity in the Roman Catholic Church because it is used in conjunction with something else.

Roman Catholic Thought is quite difficult for one has to have a knowledge of Scripture, the Church Fathers, Philosophy and the Natural Law in order to arrive at Truth. There are TWO pillars of Truth---Revealed Religion and the Natural Order. From these two things---BOTH created by God, must one come to the knowledge of Truth.  Who created the Scriptures and Nature?  St. John the Apostle said, that Jesus is the Logos (a solely GREEK term and concept----NON-semitic). St. John continues that ALL things were created thru Jesus Christ---so Scripture and Nature were created thru Jesus Christ. As Jesus is of TWO natures (fully God and Fully Man and hence a Duad), so is Truth of Two Natures. One can’t arrive at Truth from just one side---one must have BOTH sources in order to arrive at Truth--And this is what is the Traditional orthodox approach of Roman Catholic Christianity.

The Basis of all reality is Theology. Wrong theology---wrong perception of reality. In order to correctly apprehend reality---one must have a clear understanding of true and right Theology. It is Theology that is the basis of Reality for God created Reality. If you don’t know God---you can’t know reality.

And why Rocket if you are a Roman Catholic did you post on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 11:30 PM that the “the Amish , the quakers , the peitists” were the examples of the “primitive church”?  They are NOT. What has happened in the Church is that the Monastic side of the Church has overwhelmed and superceded the Cathedral side of Christianity. (Again the Duad) Christianity is supposed to have a Monastic side and a Cathedral side. In Protestantizing the Church---they have gone overboard.

I am not a Second Vatican II Christian. I don’t even accept Vatican I. I am a traditionalist Catholic. Vatican II has got to be the most heretical council that there ever was. It destroyed Tradition. The priest never faced the people. This is just one of the many errors.

Heaven help us, how much more of the addled-pated Wheeler’s delusional and demented ramblings must this blog endure? Anyway he is in powerful Judaised American company.  The future Head Christer, Hillary Clinton, has informed us that that she also talks to the vast and empty stratosphere. Instead of praying to a figment of weak minds where the answered prayers rate is doubtless nugatory, Mrs Clinton might consider praying to, say, Russell Crowe, a fine actor and the sort of guy who might get things done. I bet her answered prayers rate records a modest upswing.

Onlooker writes:
Moral issues aside; from the perspective of a secular scientist (which I am not), Nux is correct when he said: “theology is not intellectually respectable.” Religious beliefs cannot be proven by experiment; ie, scientists cannot resort to testing religious faith through the process of verification and falsification in order to draw a conclusion.

“Religious beliefs cannot be proven by experiment”. This is partly True but this underscores another major fallacy of people, especially Atheists, that think Science is based on solely “Experimentation”.

I ask---What is Common Sense? Can anyone experiment on “Common Sense”?  Is it quantifiable?  Replicated in the Laboratory?  The Existence, methodology and the necessity of Common sense---Undercuts and demolishes this “scientific experimentation” standard that the Atheist imposes on everything!

Q.V. Jacques Maritain’s Introduction to Philosophy has a chapter on “Common Sense”. Common Sense is a necessary fact of Life. It is a INTUITION!  Common sense is exaclty----UNscientific Knowledge of everday life!!! (pg 84) If Atheists go around and attack Religion because it is not scientific, Then Atheists must also attack and refuse to use Common Sense!!!!! I find this absolutely ludicrious that the Atheists use one set of arguments that totally nullify Common Sense---Yet Common Sense is real and is needed.

The Existence of Common Sense that is “unscientific Knowledge” undermines the Atheist argument against religion and God.

Common Sense is “primary data apprehended by observation and first principles by the intellect” (pg 85) Common Sense can NOT be tested---It is UNScientific--yet needful knowledge for allllllllll men. Man can not survive without common sense.

So the question is “Can an Atheist exist without common sense”? If Common Sense is UN Scientific, and the Atheist attacks everything that is NOT scientific---Well--an Atheist has no business using common sense. Atheists are deviod of common sense.

And this argument is true for “Love”, “Justice”, in general ALL Metaphysics. Can Justice be measured and weighed?  Is it discovered by a “Scientist”.

What you all forget is the Philosophy is a Science and its tools are reason and Logic. Logic is not a physical science so how can any scientist “experiment” on “logic”?  Reason is Science--albiet not physical Science. Science comes two ways---thru Philosophy which is Metaphysics and Physical Sciences such as biology, Chemistry, Physics, astronomy, Mathematics, Geometry. To know God is of Metaphysics, the job of philosophers---not the purview of “scientists”. Atheists are materialists essentially devoid of the “mind’s eye”.

cap—to be honest with you , i really dont what race is . i am not qualified to even take a guess at it . i dont think that racialism should serve a christian purpose by christians unless GOD up and chooses it to for the sake of a ....please be more specific. i dont want to run into Ayn Rand ‘s self preservation at all costs here .

Posted by rocket on Sunday, March 2, 2008 at 11:30 PM

I believe that Rocker left out the word “know” in this sentence: “i really dont what race is” which should read “i really don’t ((know)) what race is”.

This is typical of much of Roman Catholics and many other Christians. This total ignorance of Reality. How can one teach on a subject, much less write on a subject, and don’t even know what a significant word of the project means?  Even the Roman Catholic Clergy in all their degrees are ignoramuses on this subject yet seek to teach on this very same subject.

What is Race?

A family. 

Is not Family central to Roman Catholic Thought? Is not the Trinity a Type of Family?---Something that is of “composite nature of analogous parts”? If the Heavens are in a tripartite familial form with a God the Father and God the Son, and in the personal realm there is a tripartite form of Father, Mother, Children---Wouldn’t you think that in the sociological realm----there is family also?

If the Christian wants to do away with Race---Why doesn’t the Christian do away with the Family? See, this is the Hypocrisy inherent in all these Vatican II Socialist Utopian Primitive Christians---they do not observe reality. The principle is macrocosm/microcosm. Family is everything. Man is a Social animal just like God is a Social Spiritual being. Between Family and God is Race. Race is Family. Why would the Catholic Church since it is the grand protector of Family---be attacking Race for? The Church is in heresy.

Rockett----Race is Family. That is why it is headed by a King and has Aristocracy. Christendom was built on Families, Each nation, except for the few republics, had Kings, Aristocracy and Commons---Each Race was a Family. 

Rockett writes: “He will certainly hold to the belief in and acceptance of all ethnic groups as one.  Community, not segregation, is therefore the guiding principle for his relations with humanity at large.”

This is the error of The RC Clerics and the universalist Christians, They don’t understand the importance of the GODHEAD, of the Trinity. Did I not point out that all of Reality is Theological?  God is not a Monism. Christians really don’t practice true Monotheism. This is the error of Judiasm, for Moses saw only the Backside of God and therefore this central teaching that God is a Monism, “Hear O Israel, your Lord your God is ONE”. 

The Christian God is One IN Three Persons. God is One yet differentiated.  Man is One -------YET is differentiated just like the Godhead. As God has particularism---Mankind also has particularism. As God goes, so does Man. Man is split into three different family groups The Japthites, the Semites and the Hamaties and within these three major groupings are more divisions. There are some 180 different tribes/Nations of Men.  It is unbelieveable the nonsense and ignorance going on inside Christianity. This all points out to is a glaring Materialism and the total ignorance of Metaphysics in Christianity and in theology. God is differentiated into Three---Mankind is Differentiated into Races/tribes/nations/ethnicities.  This is called the Social Order. The Order of Being.

This is what I mean that Christian thought is “simple yet complex”. Mankind is Simple, Universal but Mankind is also complex in that it is differentiated into major groups and then into tribes and nations.

This is the Plan of God and it is the duty of Every Christian to uphold the Social Order. A Christian must obey the Natural Law as well as the Divine Law.

Atheists’ belief system can be boiled down to four words:

I COME FROM NOWHERE.

Certainly the Pope and many bishops are against the Islamification of Europe. The secular leaders and bureaucrats in the EU are evidently in favor of it.

“In a widely cited interview in Le Figaro last year, then Cardinal Ratzinger made clear his view on the hotly contested political debate “over allowing Turkey into the European Union,” reports IslamOnline. He was opposed to Ankara joining the EU “on the grounds that it is a Muslim nation.”

The cardinal publicly cautioned Europe against admitting Islamic Turkey and wrote to bishops the reason for his stand:

The roots that have formed Europe, that have permitted the formation of this continent, are those of Christianity. Turkey has always represented another continent, in permanent contrast with Europe. There were the [old Ottoman Empire] wars against the Byzantine Empire, the fall of Constantinople, the Balkan wars, and the threat against Vienna and Austria. It would be an error to equate the two continents...Turkey is founded upon Islam...Thus the entry of Turkey into the EU would be anti-historical.
Robert Spencer characterizes the pope’s position on Turkish admission to the EU much more bluntly in a commentary in Front Page Magazine.
‘Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,’ historian Bernard Lewis predicted not long ago; however, judging from the writings of the new Pope, he is not likely to be sanguine about this transition. For one thing, the new Pope seems to be aware of the grave danger Europeans face: he has called upon Europe to recover its Christian roots ‘if it truly wants to survive.’
The new Pope has criticized Europe’s reluctance to acknowledge its Christian roots for fear of offending Islam’s rapidly growing and increasingly influential presence in European countries - a presence which, as historian Bat Ye’or demonstrates in her book Eurabia, has been actively encouraged and facilitated by European leaders for over three decades.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/dailyUpdate.html

The wrong way to look at this is always to suppose the people in charge don’t see what we see and we have to try to get them to see it.  They see it.  They’re plenty smart, way smarter than we are.  They see it perfectly and love what they see.  Unlike us, they see that which looms ahead not as an unprecedented, almost unimaginable world-historical civilizational disaster but as the thing they want most in this life, the thing that promises to bring them greatest imaginable joy, a veritable heaven on earth for them.  Obviously they’re going to fight tooth-and-nail as the Jews do to make sure it comes about.  The Vatican is no different.  They see what forced, imposed-from-the-top race-replacement immigration portends; they’re not stupid.  It portends forced, imposed-from-the-top race-replacement.  Precisely.  In regard to a matter so fraught with unparalleled, almost inexpressible, unutterable significance as this, if the Vatican doesn’t explicitly protest against it or at the very least explain to Catholics that Catholicism does not oblige them to slurp it up and pretend they like it, but leaves them free to accept or reject it as they choose, and still be perfectly good Catholics either way — if the Vatican doesn’t do that, they’re in favor of it.  Foursquare in favor.

Lindsey , you compare the order of race with the order of family in regards to God’s order of society in general . Jesus Christ is the SON OF GOD . he and he alone speaks for GOD . the Church is built on the foundation of the prophets and the apostles with Christ as the chief cornerstone .

in regards to family—he said ‘’who are my mother and brothers and sisters , but those who do the will of GOD ‘’. he told people to leave land , children ,.everything for his sake , and they will recieve 100 times more in this life and inhereit the kingdom of GOD . he was moving clearly from the provincial into the universal . but not a secular universal , but the CHRISTIAN UNIVERSAL .

race-- his story of the good samaratan . the jews hated the samaratans . the jews were good racists. Christ saw right thru them into their loveless hearts . that is why he used a samaritan . there are so many examples of these examples . he was a light to the gentiles . the jews hated that.

sex-- the coming of Christ inverted the patriarchy. look at the geneology of Christ birth—the woman in line , ruth ( a convert ) rahab ( a whore ) mary ( a pregnant virgin ). this was a scandel . who were the first Apostels ? woman . why ? the word Apostle means ‘’sent one ‘’ . they were the first ones at the grave and commanded to tell his brethern that he has risen . they were sent first.

until you come to understand the the theology of inversion and really start taking the new testament seriuosly , you have embraced a christendom without the historical Christ. he and he alone is reality . when you use the word reality , it goes beyond the 5 senses , or mere ethnocentric ideaology . it is Christ and his words.

Fred, we shouldn’t have to rely on the Vatican to advocate for the preservation of the white-race. The masses of white men and women need to decide for themselves whether or not our own race is worth preserving. The first thing we have to do is start fighting like hawks instead of doves. That’s the only way we can defeat the PC multiculturalists that are knowingly, and systematically killing us off.

GT, I wasn’t referring to the big bang theory. I was referring to the question: Where did matter come from in the first place? Atheists are at a loss as to how to answer that question; therefore, Atheists’ belief system can be reduced to four words: “I COME FROM NOWHERE.”

Onlooker,

Matter doesn’t spring from nothingness, obviously.

I COME FROM NOWHERE

The popular, secular version of the idea that matter comes from nowhere originates in theoretical physics where mathematical concepts and templates are commonly confused with reality.  Big Bangers say all matter in the universe originated from something the “size of a point.” The problem is, points have position but are without magnitude.

Size of a point?  That’s dissonance, imo.

I don’t believe in secular or Holy ghosts.

Where to begin with you Rocket. You are full of so many errors.

First off, I spent two or more posts on what is Roman Catholic Thought and the methodology of it, which you take no heed to and then end up MONOMANIACALLY asserting the Gospel ONLY doctrine. What Jesus said is all important and “"""nothing else matters”.

You fail to understand even the basics of “revelation”. What is revelation “rocket”?  Your thesis posits that you have NO understanding of what “revelation” is.

Revelation is like the unfolding of the rose and her petals---one layer at a time. The saying is “One swallow makes not a summer” yet the Gospel of Jesus which is just a revelation--- is the sum total of all revelation. The Gospel is the Capstone---not the Pyramid. For you Rocket, to all the Methodist preachers out there, to all the Universalists, to all the Quakers, to all liberal commie Roman Catholic weenie priests/bishops, is that the only thing is “""The Gospel"""" and nothing else. The Gospel can not be drunk straight---it must be imbibed, mixed.

Jesus said, “Man does NOT live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”. But Rocket by your very mouth---by monomanically basing everything on the Gospel and nullifying all else----you have condemned Jesus as a Hypocrite and a Liar.

Jesus said---EVERY WORD---and that means the words of St. Paul, that means the writer of Genesis who records the Destruction of the Tower of Babel---The Destruction of Material Universalism! Every word must be held together. See Christian thought is NOT for the simpleton. And yet, you want to place all things thru the Gospel and that is not the Intention of Jesus.

If Jesus was a Universalist---