|
|
|
Ethnocentrism and Christian universalism: opposites and parallels Over the last few days I have conducted an e-mail exchange with “Rocket”, whom readers will know for his firm universalist Christian stand. Rocket asked to post here on the juxtaposing of ethnocentric and universalist Christian aims and values. What we’ve ended up with is this, which parentage is very much more Rocket’s than mine. So it is his handle which appears beneath the post. In the sociological substratum of ethnocentrism versus authentic Christian universalism there are a number of interesting ways to compare and contrast these two value systems. One significant qualitative difference lies in the dual concepts of honor and shame, which are the tribal equivalents of redemption and retribution in Christianity. Historically, tribes with an iron clad bloodline-identification placed a high premium on honor and shame. Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Germania and its conflict with Pax Romana, and how the German tribes refused to be subdued. Hence they remained free men in the sense of retaining control over their tribe’s fate. Meantime, through the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, the Christian is embraced by divine forgiveness. Hence he lives as a free men, even though his life-circumstances may dictate otherwise. There can be no honor for the followers of Jesus of Nazareth because His followers do not seek honor from men, including each other. They do seek redemption, though, and an act of altruism towards the poor and sick is redeeming. Hard-heartedness or greed, on the other hand, will meet with retribution. The parallel in the old Germanic world was that hard-hearted fighting was in-group altruism, and there was honor if you fought as an Ostrogoth and great shame if you did not. Now, the Church - and certainly the pristine early Church - carried the mindset that in Christ there is no honor, there is no shame. The Christian message in its pure form is not one of Deism, theism, or Spinoza’s monism, but rather one where the GOD of the universe intrudes on His/Her creation by becoming a man and living and dying in it, showing divine immanence and paradoxically divine transcendence at the same time. It is a divine invasion, and the believer will probably conclude that the protective wrath of the tribal man is directed at it. 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 very clearly generates a conflict over the freedom issue. One man finds freedom with fidelity to the hereditary, the other with fidelity to faith. If carried to their natural conclusions, they cannot occupy the same space. The tribalist sees the universalist Christian as estranged from his own nature. 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. The tribalist asks the Christian to give his people life. It does appear to be a pretty final divorce. But even so, it is worth asking whether they have something somewhere in common. Can one use, say, an Hegelian dialectic to come to the absolute idea and bridge the gap between these different goals, different methodologies and different freedoms? Kierkegaard and Nietzche both say no. Both of these rebels of the 19th century were opposed to synthetic thinking. However, their reasons were different. Nietzche believed in the power of the will, and tribal fidelity, and Kierkegaard believed in the surrender of the will to Christ, and no fidelity to church, tribe, or state. But I believe there are a few common factors on which something – perhaps not a full synthesis – can be built. 1. Both the Ostrogoths and the early Church bravely resisted being conquered by Ceaserdom at the cost of their own lives. The warrior and the martyr must each be given their due. Courage is common to both. 2. There was a strong bond of brotherhood in both groups, or why would they not surrender to the Empire like many other groups did? 3. The values (honor and redemption) by which both sustained their pursuit of freedom were equally absolute in their respective domains. Courage, brotherhood and committment are qualities each could have recognised in the other. In our very different age they are qualities more quietly held, but they are present nonetheless. That cannot be said of many in the West. It might form a basis for a useful conversation, at least. So please, converse. Rocket Comments:2
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 03:45 | # The “universalist” word is giving me trouble. As far as I can tell, all religions posit that their way is the One, True (or the Most Absolutely Very Bestest) Way, and are therefore, in this one aspect, universal. If the definition of universalism means all-inclusive, then Christianity does not have to be universalist. A huge chunk, if not most, of Christendom until very recently did not even think that non-Europeans even had a soul, much less a soul capable of being redeemed, not really. Many sects, such as Calvinism and Mormonism, were based on the premise that only a few were selected for Heaven; the rest were doomed to eternal darkness. Today’s Jew-Day-Oh!-Christianity has more in common with communism than with the Christianity of Old Europe and Early America. It seems more likely that the communistic thinking of an incredibly stupid, pampered, and foreign-controlled Western populace has infected and destroyed Christianity, not the other way around. 3
Posted by rocket on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:23 | # 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 . 4
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:00 | # rocket, if something is good for our race we would naturally wish for more of it. WNs who wish for further and stiffer doses of that old Jew fakir, Jesus, may, in time, wish that they had not. 5
Posted by onlooker on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:22 | # 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. 6
Posted by onlooker on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:02 | # “just as Traditional Christianity is declining in the Eurosphere, so is the White race ... and along with it, Western civilization.” 7
Posted by JLH on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:29 | # 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. “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.
“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. 8
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:44 | # Well, the first and most obvious question for Rocket is whether universalism is, in fact, prerequisite to Christian faith? “Universalism” is not ?. It has no fixed definition. Universalist Christians once had no difficulty in owning black slaves or putting Jews into ghettos. Univeralist Christians now have no difficulty in putting blacks before whites or Israel before America. Christianity can embody healthy or unhealthy instincts, but there’s obviously no objective way of determining which is which within Christianity itself. 9
Posted by zusammen on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:39 | #
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. 10
Posted by rocket on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:57 | # wow ! this thread is taking off . cool . and of course that infamous book of Acts. Peter still thought that the message was for jews only until he had his ‘‘Corneliuos moment ‘’ . part of the offence of the gospel is not only givining up ones life , and surrending self autonomy , but also the specifics of that renunciation , which is trading in ones circle of ones tribe for a universalism of the family of man . this is like pulling teeth . if you wonder why the jews are so evil . look no further than this . they had their chance and only a few had the guts to take the plunge and leave their people for Jesus . the jews are THE origional blood line tribalists. JLH—i think we should just flat out say for discussion sake that there are only 2 periods of Church history—pre-constantine and post constantine . and actually , going back to the literal mysteries of the faith is no threat to the white man tendency at all. why ? becuase it stays out of politics. let us look at the Amish as our example for that./ as far as the Germans having a religion . it was a bit animistic . how can that compare to a faith that declares that GOD is LOVE ? that is an epiphenomenon. Nux—slavery and ghettos were not dont by christian universalists but by their counterfeiters. and yes , there is a standard : whatever love requires. 11
Posted by onlooker on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:04 | # “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 12
Posted by rocket on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:15 | # onlooker—, that has been the point of many Christian apologists like Chesterton , Belloc ,Lewis , and the like . when one subtracts the impact of what Christianity has really done from western civ it really shows in the area of ethics , aesthetics , etc. regarding the ethnocentric view , to the credit of many tribes , they had their own very strong ethos . no question about that. but how does that compare and contrast to the Christian universal ? concerning Russel’s book ..its a great read . and a great example of who came out on top . the post Constantinian Church sought to disobey the words of Christ and force its way onto Germany , and got bit back in the butt with them retaining their indentity to the point to where Christianity became disfigured via the Germanization of Christianity itself. And yet ironically a strong residue remains. 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 . 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:44 | # 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. 14
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:59 | # First, there has to be a discussion of Universalism. To say it is only “Christian” is false. Every Asian Monarch from the Pharoahs, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians, Alexander the Great and the Roman Emperors—-ALL SOUGHT to Rule the World. That is a type of Universalism. All sought to rule over others. Sargon the Great, after a victory, exclaimed “I am the Ruler of the whole World”. It was Heraclitus and Isocrates that coined the term “cosmopolitian”, meaning “citizen of the world”. Hellenism of the Ionian kind was Universal—-Not Christian. Christianity ABSORBED Hellenism. Judiasm is a tribal religion, ethnically bound. Yes, the Jews hate Christianity for this very purpose for Christianity is for all, slave and free, female and male, Jew and Greek and Greek and Barbarian. Christianity is UNIVERSAL in its Metaphysical aspect! This is the disctinction. orthodox Catholic Christianity is based ALSO on the Natural Law and the support of the Natural/Temporal Order. Nothing in Christian doctrine destroys, usurps, undermines the Natural Law! Ethnicity/Tribe/Race/Nation are part of the Temporal Order and protected and upheld by the Natural Law. Catholic Christianity, Roman Catholic Western Christianity, uses the Natural Law. There is a distincition, the Natural law works in the Physical sphere, it upholds Nation/Race/Ethnicity/Nation, but in the Metaphysical sphere—-All men are called to salvation in Jesus Christ. 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. O(orthodox) Traditional Catholic Western Christianity defends race and family. That the Church today is suffering from entryism (Look it up at Wikipedia) and is filled with Socialists doesn’t change that. 15
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:02 | # “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? 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? c) REDEMPTION: How can we correct it? What must we do to set it right? 16
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:12 | # Universalism is a “Christian” disease? Really? Then why did God Destroy the Tower of Babel in Genesis? God destroyed “universalism” when he destroyed the God Calls all Men to him, yet distinctions will remain. Gender and Nationality remain in Heaven. When a Christian gets his restored body back, they will have perfected bodies but they will remain what they were on Earth, in their gender and racial categories. Women remain Women, German remains German and each race in Heaven, on the New Heaven and a New Earth will remain in the Tribal groupings. Universalism is a disease of Man from the very beginning—-it is not Christian. Christianity has a “form” of universalism that is applied to only the Spiritual Side of Mankind—-i.e. Salvation, but the rest, Christianity is particularist. Just like the Godhead. God is One yet is Three. God is a Unity but is also particularist!!! This is the paradox. Christianity is a paradox, an enigma to those that are not clued in. Again the problem is that many of today’s clergy of Roman Catholicism are Socialist and Masons. “Christianity is defined by the Truth—-not by the Heretics within her.” 17
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:27 | # 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.” 18
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 03:45 | # When discussing anything, any topic, one first researches the Roots. That was not done in the original post. Research the roots, when did the concepts appear, who said what when, look at history for parallels, examples. The premise of this thread suffers from the lack of Intellectual research and Historical oversight and because of this, all sorts of false conclusions are made. First do research, be widely read. Next, one also has to have a knowledge of Current history. One must understand the subject—-Christianity. What is happening in today’s Church? Does any body know what is going on in Today’s Church? We all know that the Church is very powerful culturally. Don’t you think that people with evil designs——SEEK TO INFILTRATE—-that in order to turn it? Most of the people are blind to the effect of entryism. What did Antonio Gramsci say? What is the “long march thru the institutions” mean? Socialists and Communists have targeted the Church for infiltration. Their members join the seminary, get into positions of power—-and then enforce their ideology and filter out by exclusion traditionalists. Masons, which are all Europeans, have a universalist agenda, and they have infiltrated the Church just like they have infiltrated Universities, Colleges, and Governments. Our whole society has been infiltrated. There are a couple of books that describe this takeover of the Church by Socialists. You can’t blame Christian Truth on what the Heretics are doing now in the name of the Church. Truth is Truth. Truth is not affected by Heretics. Heretics may drown out the Truth and may succeed for a time, but in the end Truth wins out. It takes men to Hold onto Truth. The Catholic documents on Social Justice are all Communist documents. I as a traditionalist Christian am of course dismayed but it doesn’t shake my confidence or loyalty to the Truth. My duty is to Truth, what other men do—-is of their concern, they have to answer for their actions. They will be rewarded or punished in accordance to the TRUTH. “Christianity is defined by the Truth, not by the Heretics within her.” 19
Posted by D.E. Johnson on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:20 | # Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 11:44 PM | #
I do not believe in the faith-gene. It will not save us. 20
Posted by Erich Meinecke on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:20 | # Whenever we have good accounts (mostly) by Christians about their impressions of pagan societies and morals they have to conclude that the pagans live a holy life WITHOUT ever have known Jesus Christ and that Christians do not live a holy life although they know Jesus Christ. In tribal societies as a whole there is much more trust into each other than in christian societies. Distrust is the common feature of a christian society. “Don’t trust your neighbor” is the fundamental principle of Christianity. If it would not be, the ten commandments would not be neccessary as a law (in the mind of people) but they would be self-evident in the heart of people. In Judaism and Christianity clearly god is the “third punisher” in the “third punishment game” of society. He is necessary because distrust is overwhelming in everyday life in complex societies with low genetic relatedness between people. 21
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:21 | # 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 22
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 15:24 | # Let me try that again. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200406/ai_n9456258 23
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:35 | # 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. 24
Posted by Fr. John on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:11 | # “...the GOD of the universe intrudes on His/Her creation by becoming a man and living and dying in it, showing divine immanence and paradoxically divine transcendence at the same time. It is a divine invasion, and the believer will probably conclude that the protective wrath of the tribal man is directed at it. 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.” Right here is the fallacy of the argument. God is not a “Celestial Androgyne.” He is the Patriarch- the Pater - Arche - the “All-Father’ of His OWN children first, and the Creator of all creation second. Moreover, He can be none other than a ‘He.’ His Son, [Jesus the Christ] therefore, as the ‘sent one’ does the ‘will of His Father in heaven’ and is specifically directed to Incarnate Himself with ONE Race, ONE people, ONE Ethnos, for all time, in order to PROCURE THEIR (and ONLY their) salvation. THAT is the Mystery of the Incarnation, and which changed both apostate Judaism and European Man forever. Christ (and therefore God Father) is NOT a ‘universalist savior,’ but a “Kinsman-redeemer,” as the OT tells us (and as Christ corroborated! -Matt. 10:6] who shall ‘save HIS people (not all men indiscriminately!) from THEIR sins.’ [Matt. 1:21] [Thus giving explicit credence to the remark made some years ago by a Protestant minister (who was actually being both historically and biblically consistent) when he said that, “God does not hear the prayers of the jews.”] I have spoken to this in a 13-part series: I don’t mind mixing race realism with religion. After all, the Talmudics have been doing it for centuries, (even in their fallacious attempt at giving themselves the moniker of a ‘chosen people’ contrary to 2000 years of church history) but I do mind HERESY masquerading as fact. It was the filioquist, judaizing error of the Western Churches that led to the adoption of Kabalism in the ‘philosopher’s stone’ arguments of the late middle ages, the rise of the ‘liberte, fraternite, egalite’ paganism of the French Revolution (Nesta Webster’s book on this still is foundational) and the rise of the nihilists such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and the rest. St. Kosmos of Aitola said it well, when he said. “Curse the Pope. He is the source of all errors.” And even the most pagan evolutionary Westerner is burdened with that philosophical flotsam and jetsam, when it comes to ‘discussing religion.’ But Christ had the same problem during his lifetime, with the same ‘in group.’ He noted to the Pharisees over the man born blind: “If you had said you were blind, you should have no sin; but now you say, We see- therefore your sin remains.” John 9:41 25
Posted by josh stein on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:23 | # Religion is a Hoax.
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 26
Posted by captainchaos on Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:44 | # A few questions for Rocket: Do you believe that race is a biological category or a social construct? Assuming you do believe that race is a biological category to you believe that the implications of this extend beyond gross morphology (“race is only skin deep”) to personality traits (e.g., altruism, conscientiousness) and levels of intelligence? Assuming you believe that different races on average have higher and lower levels of altruism, conscientiousness, and intelligence which race do you suppose on average has the optimal combination of these traits that would allow it to above all others propagate the Christians faith, behave according to Christian morality, and act with Christian charity in this world? Assuming you believe there is one such race would not the above mentioned propagation of those things Christian be compromised if this one race were to be genetically compromised, impoverished (less money=less charity), or tyrannized by way of: massive miscegenation, loss of its living space, and being ruled by less altruistic, conscientious, and intelligent races (Zimbabwe and South Africa as possible examples?)? Perhaps racialism actually serves Christian ends assuming that one race is of this beneficent (Christian) mind set, no? 27
Posted by Desmod Jones on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:13 | # 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?
28
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 00:31 | # Let us go back to the Roman Empire that was the birthplace of Christianity. Rome was filled with every sort of religion and mystery religions galore. There were tons of religious practices. The Jews practised an ethnic exclusive religion. Mithras, was only for men in most cases. Other religions, cults forbade slaves. Other cults were for Women only. The mystery religions were closed off to only the initiates. One had to be initiated, invited to join and participate. They were called “mystery religions” because their practices were not open to the public at all. There was no universal religion that one could attend in the Roman Empire. And in a sense none were about the Truth. Only Christianity solved that. Any race could be a Christian. Any gender could be a Christian. Class or status was no barrier to being a Christian. Slave or Free, Male or Female, Greek or Barbarian could be a Christian. Truth by its very nature is Universal. Truth is not the property of this or that gender, class, race. God is the God of all. In that vien then, Christianity can be seen to be coming from that One God of Providence that helped, succored all men, women. It was open to all. Monotheism was moving amongst the Greek and Latin philosophers. Just like the plethora of Christian sects bring religion into disrepute, the plethora of pagan sects also brought the old pagan religions into disrepute. The monotheism and the universal character of Christianity, not to say the least-its message, caught people’s attention and their devotion. Eastern Orthodoxy has kept this alive. There is a Greek Orthodox Church, a Russian Orthodox Church, a Syrian Orthodox Church, an Eithopian Orthodox Church, a Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a Serbian Orthodox Church. The refusal of the Latin Patriarchate to institute national churches is that it carries with it the old Roman Imperial character. I do advocate that Rome needs to adopt the paradigm of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 29
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:21 | # 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. 30
Posted by Fr. John on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:44 | # 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? Mr. Jones, I am no brainiac. What I know I learned from reading other writers. I would suggest you get a copy of Bishop Photios Farrell’s massive tome, “God, History, and Dialectic” (if one can be found) it pretty much sets up the philosophical differences between the two ‘Europes.” 31
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:16 | # 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? 32
Posted by rocket on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:30 | # examples— lindsey—gender and nationality remain in heaven you say . mmmm. Christ said that when we die we will be transformed like the angels . as far as the paradox of divinity—in the ONE and the particular, i am with you on that one —-to me this is best explained by a neo -platonus named Plotinus , in his famous work ‘‘the Enneads’‘. this was christianized by gregory of Nyssia . i believe it can apply to humans as well . lindsey again—i know ancient history . i have been immersed in it for 35 years. my repeonse to you concerning roman universalism is the ‘‘theology of inversion ‘’ . in other words christian universalism inverted everything about the roman empire. the king on the cross , the greatest shall be the servant of all . all roman sexism , racism , agism , etc inverted. blessed are the poor , meek etc. this perfect inversion undermined roman thought and its social substratum . even Gibbon had to conclude his ‘‘Decline and fall’’ to that. Nux—Dawkins theory on ‘‘being brights’’ even Hitchens rejects , and it sounds alot like the pagan intellectual Celsus who was an elitist that Christian intellectual Origen debated . love is vague . true . in greek thought there are 27 different kinds of love boiled down to 4 . in the gospels it is not vague ‘’ love is laying ones life down for a freind ‘’ . that is specific . in fact it is so specific that one can understand why so many did not want to follow Christ. FR john—The vulnerability of GOD in the incarnation is the offence as Kierkegaard points out . is there not something in us that seeks to shrink from embracing such folly ? is it our minds not grasping that God can be all powerful and at the same time choose to lay aside that power ? peter had the revealtion that Christ was all powerful , and then sought to stop him from giving up his life. why was that ? these are deep waters. there is no time in GOD , and Augustine says that ‘‘we are times essence and expression ‘’ ( the hanna arendt diisertation ) , and yet how can the timeless limit the GOD head to time , and yet stay out of time ? process theologians punt the question like they punt questions of theodicy using persian cosmology . yet this paradox remains. 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 . 33
Posted by rocket on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:37 | # 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 ‘’ . 34
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:17 | # Rocket—Dawkins has many failings, but he’s right to say that theology is not an intellectually respectable subject. And please learn to punctuate properly: you do not put a space before punctuation marks. 35
Posted by rocket on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:34 | # 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 ? 36
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:51 | # I’m somewhat surprised that the MR cabal of old Jesus’s votaries omitted to mention the prodigious intellectual bandwidth of one of their most illustrious fellow believers, viz., the Mayor of Detroit, that righteous Nigger Kwame Kilpatrick who believes he is “on assignment from God” and whose administrative school district doubtless mandates that the teaching of physiology includes provision for virgin births. Only a people whose mental processes have been hopelessly rotted by generations of fabulous alien scriptural fiction could take seriously such arrant nonsense. 37
Posted by rocket on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:29 | # 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 ? 38
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:27 | # Rocket—punctuation marks do not have a space before them. Have some consideration for the people who have to read you and help yourself put your arguments across better. They need all the help they can get, after all. 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. And I would love to see them debate each other, because they would not agree on fundamental points or have any way of settling their disagreements but force. And you’ve chosen people from a single religious tradition. That is why theology is not intellectually respectable. Euclid would not have had Gauss burnt at the stake, or vice versa. 39
Posted by rocket on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:29 | # 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 . they were all good pagans. good reductionists . good athiests. 40
Posted by onlooker on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:13 | # ” 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. “ Very true, rocket, but at least they didn’t put a space in between their punctuation marks. YOU ARE SUCH A RUTHLESS HATE MONGER ! Just kidding . LOL . 41
Posted by Nux Gnomica on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:17 | # 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. 42
Posted by onlooker on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:58 | # 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. We should view science vs religion as the secular/sacred divide. The secular side can be verified through the scientific method; the sacred side has to be accepted and understood through faith. Balance between the two is essential for technological progress and the maintenance civil stability in the modern world, yes? 43
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:41 | # 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. 44
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:06 | # Even I would join the gullible and simulate a prayer to the Jews’ imaginary Sky God if I thought it would stop White women being raped and murdered by Third World immigrants: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7279420.stm This one is especially disturbing as the Subcon perps filmed their crime. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article831344.ece 45
Posted by rocket on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:18 | # 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. 46
Posted by rocket on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:37 | # GW—authentic faith in its purist sotierological definition is not a psychological ‘‘projection ‘’ as Furenbach would have us believe , or a form of ‘‘fictional finalism ‘’ , as Adler suggests , but rather something that springs forth form a Christological consciuosness. what you have in variuos faith-groups is a mixed bag of those who have athentic faith and those who concoct it out of their finite skull . verification principles applied to faith end in a dead end. and i wish that Christians would just give up the ship in this area , instead of trying to prove the unprovable . what can be discussed as you said was cause and effect . William james really gets this when he simply says ‘‘does it work ‘’? the cause and effect is where we can meet on its sociological impact and discuss the similaritys and differences with non believers who embrace all differing views. that is what Nostre Atetae in Catholic teaching is all about . 47
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:46 | # 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. 48
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:13 | # Onlooker had some questions for Rocker and I am going to take the time to answer them: (Posted by onlooker on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 02:02 AM) 2) Are people that practice post-Constantine Christianity practicing a false religion? 3) Is it not true all ideologies and philosophies including ATHEISM have to answer to the same fundamental questions? :- Yes, but only Christianity, since it is in one part a REVEALED religion unlike paganism, it does have knowledge of things, humans wouldn’t otherwise have. a) CREATION: How did the universe begin? How did we get here? Only thru Christian Scriptures do we know that God, out of nothing created the Universe. The cosmos shows forth order and that order presupposes reason. Reason exists in something and that reason is Divine. By looking at Nature, we know that there is One God. b) FALL: Why are we in the desperate condition we are in? c) REDEMPTION: How can we correct it? What must we do to set it right? Only Jesus Can. Since Jesus is Divine (and fully Man) could he expiate all the sins of the World. And this is the source of one of the most early Christian prayers, “Lamb of God, who takest away the sins of the world, have mercy on us”. No other god in any time or place has ever sought fit to fix man and man’s dilemma in regards to Justice. Only Jesus solves the problem of Justice for mankind. All the sins of mankind have been laid upon Jesus and expiated. This is why the worship of Jesus Christ. 49
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:18 | # (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. 50
Posted by rocket on Thu, 06 Mar 2008 20:57 | # Lindsey—your point by point response to Onlooker i agree with . what i dont agree with is that you are positing that we Catholics think monolithically . a good example of this is natural law. This is pure Aquinas. While Thomism and Neo-Thomism have its merit , it is not 100 per cent canon law. not by a long shot . Another point is is the social order described in the papel encyclicals . they have to do with civilization in general and how Christianity compares and contrasts to it . there is nothing said about race , tribe , etc in these encyclicals . in fact , the word catholic means ‘‘universal ‘’. If you want to understand the tension between the power of nation states and the power of the Papacy , look no further than the black noble movement to the rise of the nation state in Italy under Girabaldi . it was the Black nobles that gave birth to Vatican 1 . yes , between Constantine and Vatican 2 , the Church has been into defending nations . Vatican 2 seeks to get back to the pristine earl;y Church to which this post is about as it is juxtaposed to tribalism in regards to issues of freedom via honor and shame . The encyclicals from Vatican 2 on all stress this theme . 51
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:00 | # 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 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. 52
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:26 | # I want to answer this: Posted by Erich Meinecke on Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 08:20 AM “Punisher” God is a Punisher. Is the beginning in the Garden of Eden, is God a “Punisher”? In the Book of Wisdom, LXX, there are these verses: 1.13 “For God made NOT death neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For God created all things that they might have their BEING”. Isn’t that beautiful. We were nothing—-and God brought us into being. Isn’t that Shakespeare’s saying “To be or not to be, that is the question”? God gave man being. It says God did not make death. God warned man. God told man not to eat of just one tree of the Garden. Man made the mistake. Man committed suicide. God gave man free will. Is this what Mr. Meinecke complains about? Man did it to himself. But look at the graciousness of God, Man commits suicide and God steps in and still saves man by sending his son to get beaten up and killed by man—-and God still saves man. If anybody sees monolithically it is Mr. Meinecke. He is so full of hate, all he sees is ONE portion of the OT and thinks God is like what his preconceptions are. Doesn’t it say that God takes NO pleasure in destruction? It says again: 2.23 “For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity”. Does this sound like evil? Does this make God out to be a “bad guy”? But what is Mr. Meinecke complaining about? Mr. Meinecke is complaining that God punishes sin. Mr. Meinecke can’t fathom this. God is Pure Love. God is pure Intellect. God is Omnipotent, etc, etc. But God is also PURE JUSTICE. What are the dictates of pure Justice Mr. Meinecke? Is there not Justice in the world? Is there not Justice not only between men and men but also between men and God? Yes, the OT concentrates God as the God of Justice, of Punishing evil. But see Christianity is a REVEALED religion. Just like a Rose unveils itself over time, so does God reveal himself SLOWLY over time. And what Mr. Meinecke is complaining about is that God is being revealed and Mr. Meinecke is only concentrating on only ONE Part of the revelation. Is not the God of Janus have TWO FACES, Mr. Meinecke? Was not the Shield of Achilles have two different scenes on it? The OT is one picture of God, and the New Testament is ANOTHER picture of God. Mr. Meinecke, did Jesus come to “punish”? Did Jesus punish anybody? So when you say that Christianity is a “punisher” religion, are you bearing false witness? Are you so full of hate towards God and Christianity that you are blinded to Mercy? The Age of the New Testament is the Age of Mercy. We live now in the Age of Mercy. Us who are Christians will face the God of Mercy, the infildel will face the God of Justice. It all depends on who you want to face. That verse of 2.23 is followed by this verse: 2.24 “Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that are of his side do find it.” Now it is up to you to chose sides. God really does not pass out death—-Evil always commits suicide. They kill themselves. Evil is the the path of death. God is only a punisher if you refuse to acknowledge Him who not only gave you being—-but then died to save you from yourself. God is the Source of Life. Cut yourself off from God, you cut yourself from Life. Mr. Meinecke only concentrates on only certain aspects of the Bible to suit his Atheistic agenda—-and conveniently forgeets or slides past the rest. God is only the Punisher—-if you want Him to be that. 53
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 07:27 | # 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. 54
Posted by onlooker on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:44 | # “The future Head Christer, Hillary Clinton, has informed us that that she also talks to the vast and empty stratosphere.” Al, Hillary is a lying politician. She isn’t held up as a good example of a devout practicing Christian. For example: In order to impress the whacked out feminists, she claims she channels Eleanor Roosevelt and gets advice from her; how Christian is that??? Hillary will say just about anything to get votes. B. Hussein Obama’s deranged Afro-centric preacher heaped praise on the pseudo-Muslim leader, Calypso Louie (Farrakhan). On the other hand, Traditional Christianity (Roman Catholicism) is one of the three pillars Western Culture was built upon. http://kwing.christiansonnet.org/news-reports/society_rep_western-civ.htm#_Toc118388625 Btw—The only thing that’s delusional on this blog is those that believe all life forms mysteriously evolved from unconnected inorganic atoms. Then all of a sudden, for some inexplicable reason, they combined with each other to form replicators ... then through billions of years of natural selection and mutation mankind was eventually formed. HAH! Talk about a giant leap of faith!!!!. Before Atheist-Darwinists’ can even start to credibly argue against “Intelligent Design,” they must answer the fundamental question: Where did matter come from in the first place? 55
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:54 | # Onlooker writes: “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”. 56
Posted by rocket on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:04 | # Al , i think that Mr. Wheeler has some points , and that you are given to some funny hyperbole when you inject Shiraly ( Hilary) into this conversation . but sheesh—you cant be seriuos . we are discussing seriuos Theology here. Lindsey—i agree 100 per cent on your Meinecke denunciation . Being a dispensationalst , i view us in the age of grace , not judgement . where we do differ is in other areas of our catholic faith . Here is a question for you : how do you reconcile the church universal with the majority rights , and ethnocentrism , other than the paradox of similaritys and differences in creation ? one more thing—i miss the latin mass . i think that going back to the vernacular was an aesthetic mistake but not a spritual one . 57
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:33 | # 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. 58
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 21:58 | # 1. ‘’SOLA SCRIPTURA’’ is not jewish . judaism has devolved into constant rabbinic commentarys over the scriptures themselves. i have challenged many jews on the messianic scriptures that point to Jesus in the old testament and they always say ‘’well , this rabbinic commentary says this about this ..... “Sola Scriptura” is definitely Jewish. All they have is Writings—-and that is all they refer to. Jews do NOT refer to the Natural Law. Jews do not refer to Philosophy. Jews do not refer to Common Sense. Protestantism was in some aspects initiated by Jewish rabbis in order to break up Christendom. For Jews, nothing but writings are the sole authority. The Talmud, the Mishna are nothing but commentaries on the Tanack anyway. Just like their god is Monism, their methodology is a monism—-Solely the Written word—-Sola Scriptura. On the other hand, Roman Catholicism is not based on “Sola Scriptura”. Jesus said, a new way, and posted the New Authority upon his religion—-“Spirit and Truth”. That is what guides Roman Catholic Christianity—-i.e. The Bible, Holy Tradition, Philosophy, Natural Law, Common Sense, Sociology, Psychology, etc. Truth is Truth and Roman Catholic Christianity, (despite some Hiccups) authority is Truth and Spirit. 2. The reformation was a failure—the royal reformation that is . the rustic one—quakers , amish , etc ...this was the real thing . about as close to the way the early church lived. The Reformation was good intentions wrapped around bad knowledge of history and of early Christianity. Protestantism is really a Judiazing of Christianity. The RC needed reformation. Yes there is a need to reconstruct Cathedral Christianity but not that way. 3. Vatican 2—is very traditional ...same Ambrosian liturgy , antiphonal -responsorial. read the documents. i am sure you have ...’’ the church is not the kingdom of God BUT AN INTEGRAL PART OF IT ‘’. i am as tradtional as you . rome has spoken . to ignore this calls your tradtion into question does it not ? when the Pope speaks in Ex Cathedra as he did in Vatican 1—that is as traditional as it gets becuase he is echoing ORTHODOXY that is the foundation for orthopraxis . Vatican II is not a Doctrinal council. In Eastern Orthodoxy, no council is accepted until its fruits are proved. The fruits of Vatican II have been disastrous. Vatican II accepted Modernism which was previously condemned by the Pontiffs. The council was hijacked by heretical clerics with an agenda. Here is a question for you : how do you reconcile the church universal with the majority rights , and ethnocentrism , other than the paradox of similaritys and differences in creation ? “When in Rome—-Do as the Romans do”. Most societies are homogenous. Look upon medieval Jerusalem that had a Latin Quarter, a Coptic Quarter, an Armenian Quarter and a Jewish quarter. That is how a multiethnic society is composed—-In Order with Boundaries. In Christendom, the semitic Jews were always constricted to a Jewish quarter and restricted to employment. Certain races are good at certain jobs. Order is the rule of the Day. The Natural Law is that there is always something in Authority and something in Subjection. “Tis meet that Greek rule Barbarian”. The Divine Law does not countermand righteousness but engenders Righteousness: Greek should rule Barbarian (i.e. Civilized rules uncivilized). Noble rules the vulgar. This is the Natural Law. Remember Rocket—-Truth does NOT counterdict Truth. 59
Posted by onlooker on Fri, 07 Mar 2008 23:27 | # Atheists’ belief system can be boiled down to four words: I COME FROM NOWHERE. 60
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:50 | # A commenter signing as “Jute” over at Prozium’s speculates (quotes from his comments are appended below) as to why the Vatican appears to badly want Europe’s Islamization and negrification. It wants them to weaken the racial nationalism it sees as a rival. Jute also mentions speculation from some quarters as to another reason for the Vatican’s seeming support of Europe’s Islamization: it may not be that the Pope and the Vatican badly want it. If asked their candid opinion they might express the contrary preference. But then we’d face the paradox of their “not wanting it” while showing every sign of appearing not only to want it but to want it to go to completion as fast as possible. What may be happening, Jute speculates, is the Vatican at bottom doesn’t want Europe’s total Islamization but considers it inevitable, so it badly wants it to go to completion as quickly as possible in order that, while the transition is speedily progressing, it can concentrate on maneuvering itself into a position of fusion with Islam, sort of the way there’s talk every now and then of a fusion of Rome and Anglicanism or Rome and Orthodoxy — the Vatican is positioning itself for a bid to fuse with Islam so that it won’t be out of the picture altogether after the dust has settled and it has lost thanks to the Jewish disease the U.S. caught in 1945 and the West caught from the U.S.
I think “Jute” makes lots of sense. 61
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:32 | # 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. 62
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:14 | # That’s pure lip-service, Onlooker. 1) Excessive incompatible immigration, 2) humane, financially-compensated ... and firmly “encouraged,” shall we say? ... repatriation of racial/ethnocultural incompatibles here in inappropriately large numbers, and 3) peremptory/no-questions-appeals-or-delays-allowed expulsions of racially/ethnoculturally incompatible illegals are where the rubber meets the road on race-and-religion-replacement, and the Vatican knows that because the Vatican isn’t stupid. Light-years from endorsing any of the above, the Vatican favors open-borders immigration of Moslems into Europe: where the rubber meets the road they flunk the test in spades (no pun intended, I’m sure ...). Ask yourself why they flunk. Furthermore, the Pope was slapped down following some initial noises he made in evocation of European Christian self-respect and self-defense vis-à-vis Islam and he’s been behaving like a good little race-replacer ever since — he’s “grown in office” even faster than the “conservative” members of the U.S. Supreme Court always do once they come to Washington and hit the Georgetown Dinner-Party circuit. 63
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:35 | # 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. 64
Posted by GT on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:49 | # I COME FROM NOWHERE. Not knocking you or your beliefs, but be advised: Some atheists don’t buy the “Big Bang” theory. In fact, some might consider it to be a religious idea as valid (or non-valid) as any other. Just thought you should know. 65
Posted by rocket on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:50 | # 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. 66
Posted by rocket on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:53 | # L—you must back up what you are saying with his words. can you do that ? 67
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:24 | # 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.” 68
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:38 | # A good letter up today at Vdare.com written by a Catholic gal in the U.K. apportions blame. Notice, by the way, how that horse’s ass Zmirak was writing six years ago in the piece of his linked just above the letter’s opening: it was writing of his just like that that had me fooled for years about his true colors, colors he showed in all their brilliance when he trashed Brenda Walker, Prof. MacDonald, and Prof. Rushton over at Taki’s recently. The man’s been a race-replacement advocate all along, it turns out, but was skillfully hiding it. 69
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 02:12 | # 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. 70
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:21 | # That Catholic gal said this: What’s important for Catholics like Zmirak and others who read VDARE.COM is this: don’t let the failings of politically motivated individuals separate you from your religion. This is what I have been saying in this thread as well, Fred. We all know the saying “Fight Fire with Fire”. Well, you can’ fight Islam with Secularism and you can’t fight liberalism with Secularism either. Only Faith and God can one fight other faiths (Islam and Liberalism). Fred, you and the Catholic gal are not the only one noticing the betrayal at the top. Malachi Martin, a Jesuit priest, wrote a huge tome on the Catholic Church and Globalization called, Keys of This Blood, Pope John Paul II Versus Russia and The West For Control of the NEW WORLD ORDER. It is all there, the history, the geopolitics and the conclusion is that the Vatican is on in the game. Instead of preaching against it, the Vatican is playing along because it wants to be a “player”. It wants to control and lead. Pope John Paul and his pontificate was about “establishing himself and his Holy See as authentic players in the millenium endgame”. It is all about establishing geopolitical world of the Grand Design all based on America’s Masonic/Enlightenment/Kabbalistic “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. What Pope John Paul did was “give up” in my estimation and acceed to Globalization. The RC Church will not put up a fight. Jesus had his Judas, Fred, and we have our Ten Thousand. These people don’t demonstrate the faith, but there is wickedness in high places. But this is the course of events Fred. Life is War——and we must battle for the Truth. I agree with your sentiments Fred—-the Vatican and the Church hierarchy are our enemy—-but it doesn’t shake my faith on bit. It doesn’t affect Jesus Christ, my salvation, or his mission for mankind. Life is War—-Truth must be fought for. 71
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:51 | # 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—-Why then did Jesus REFUSE to heal the daughter of the Syro-Greek-Phonecian Woman? Because she was NOT of the tribe of Judah. Jesus said, I come for MY OWN First. The woman beat Jesus at a game of wits, humbled herself—-accepted her station—-and ONLY because she beat him did Jesus heal her daughter—-and no one else. Furthermore, Jesus used a racial epithat; He called her a “dog” by intimation. She accepted this slur; did not take offense and used it to her advantage—-thus beating Jesus at a game of wits. Jesus said, “For this saying….” Jesus is NOT re-writing the world then and there. Jesus is placing the ideal, teaching men who God is and who He values. The Gospel is the Capstone—-but NOT the totality. You mistake the Gospel for the totality. You Rocket and the rest of the Liberal clerical hierarchy make it into the sum total to the detriment to all else. You forget a basic lesson of nature Rocket——-‘Nothing too much”. My saying, “Even good, done to the wrong proportion——Does evil”. In your OVERamplyfing of the Gospel passages of Jesus, outside of the proper context and purpose, you are spreading Evil. The Gospel blown out of proportion is destroying Europe, America and Christianity. You fail to understand the Priniciple of the Golden Mean. Jesus Christ is the Golden Mean. Jesus is not the Extreme—-and your Gospel interpretations are Extreme. All Virtue, Rocket, is in the Golden Mean. Jesus is the Golden Mean. The Trinity is the Golden Mean. Apostolos Makrakis teaches that the Trinity is the Golden Mean between the Excess of Monotheism and the Excess of Polytheism. All Good exist in the Golden Mean. And you fail to recognize that. Please check out Cosgrove, Charles H., “Did Paul Value Ethnicity”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 68,2006. The answer is Yes he did. St. Paul did value ethnicity. Rocket, I pointed out to you a philosophical principle—-“Truth does not counterdict Truth”. Yet, Rocket your very post wants to do this very same thing—-You want Jesus to counterdict himself. Instead Rocket, One is to take the Gospel Truth and use it in conjunction with OT Truth, With Pauline Truth, With Natural Law Truth. The Golden Mean. Remember Rocket—-“Nothing too much”. 72
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 07:18 | # Rocket posits this interpretation of the Good Samaritan: “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. I have sat in a Catholic Church, (St. Philip in Battle Creek) and listened to Father Leary give a sermon and use the Good Samaritan parable the same way Rocket uses it! I have also heard Methodist Ministers—and every other Liberal commie whore do the same thing. See, when one has an agenda—-then everything is colored in that agenda. This Parable is then interpreted using Political Correctness Which is Communist thought, to promote Communist thought. What political correctness is doing—-is reading something in there which is NOT there. If you understand the Mosaic Law, Rocket, which you and many other countless clerics don’t do, is that if one touches blood—-they are unclean. In the story the priest and a levite both pass. They can NOT touch blood and the victim was bloody. If they had, under Jewish law, they would have to spend a lot of time becoming ritually clean. They couldn’t enter the Temple Unclean—-so they passed him by. What is Jesus teaching? The purpose of religion is to do good. They saw a man hurt, and failed to do their REAL religious duty by attending to him. It was left to the most despised man, a Samaritan, to do it. The Parable of the Good Samaritan——had nothing to do with race whatsoever. Samaratians were mixed blood Jews anyway. We can not refuse to help someone just because of their race or any other condition such as a slave. If God has the sun shine on both the wicked and the righteous, God shows no partiality. But Communists/liberals/Socialists and all those with the Globalization agenda—-make the Parable into Communist Ideology and they give it a Communist Interpretation. This is what you are doing Rocket. You are a patsy for communist ideology. You are making this parable into something it isn’t. Jesus could have ended that parable with the Priest or the Levite helping the injured man and then praised the Priest or the levite for doing so and pointed to the hardships then that would have been imposed for touching blood. The Error or the Priest and the Levite, both officers of the Temple and its ceremonies, is that they held their ceremonial duties higher than the dictates of the real teaching of religion—that of helping a man in need. But this Priest in Battle Creek, used this Parable to push Political correctness, to attack racialists, to say Immigration is good, To preach race dissolution by saying Race doesn’t matter. This was NOT the purpose of the Parable. Rocket, you are reading Ungodly things into a parable of Jesus that isn’t there. Truth does not counterdict Truth. Keep this principle in mind. You must hold All Truth as a whole. One Truth does not counterdict another Truth. The object of the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that Doing Good is more important than ceremonial duty. To Help other people in need. It DOESN’T mean that we all now miscegnate, allow immigration to displace our tribe, be disloyal to my tribe and its welfare. The Parable of the Good Samaritan does NOT abrogate the Natural Law and the Virtue of Loyalty and Duty to my Tribe, Kith and Kin. 73
Posted by DavidL on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:25 | # GT Eric Thomson in one of his FAEM articles mentions a book 74
Posted by onlooker on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:17 | # “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.”—GT Yes, some good folks believe matter is produced from nothing all the time, via quantum mechanical fluctuations. Even if true, that only begs the question: Where did the laws of physics come from? That crucial question brings us right back to the realization that the universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. Just something to think about. 75
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:54 | # Onlooker, I think science is undermined when social pressure, word play, and “just so” stories are used to mask hubris, logical fallacies, empirical contradictions, and ignorance. The evidence for matter springing from the nothingness of a singularity or the mind of God is as nonexistent as the evidence for equality. No offense intended, but that is something for you to think about. Something else: Honest atheists are ignorant. I strive for honesty. DavidL, I’ll see what I can turn up. 76
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:01 | # I should have added, “and knowledge” to the last sentence in my reply to Onlooker. 77
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:23 | # DavidL, I think what you’re looking for is here: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT - CATHOLIC OR JEWISH? by Barbara Aho 78
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:27 | # Is there sense outside of religion? Is there goodness outside of religion? Is there wisdom, decency, love for nature, for animals, for all of mankind, for doing the right thing, love for order, for nobility of character, for the achievements of mankind, outside of religion? Yes. Is there disgust with and hatred of injustice, of exploitation, of cruelty and wanton violence, of liars and users and those who would destroy goodness that others have worked for centuries to build, outside of religion? Yes. Is there ‘enough’ outside of religion? Enough awareness to see what is going on around us and enough intelligence to realize that we must do something about it or see western civilization perish? Yes. Is religion one of the things that can rouse people emotionally, as can patriotism (which has been pretty well demolished? Yes. Is there time to reestablish religion as a powerful force in the US? No. What is left? Awareness of reality. Gurdjieff said that it is easy to foretell the future, all you have to do is have a thorough knowledge of the past and the present.
“The Error or the Priest and the Levite, both officers of the Temple and its ceremonies, is that they held their ceremonial duties higher than the dictates of the real teaching of religion—that of helping a man in need.” I sooo understood this - in grammar school. As years went by I saw this really stupid and unnattractive ‘sin’ so frequently that I rejected Catholicism in my junior year of high school. In my experience there was a pervasive carelessness towards individuals. A person was nothing much compared with the Church and religion, the ‘organization.’ When my daughter went to a Catholic high school, I saw it again. The faculty and administrators (the head was a nun) had their eyes on something ‘higher’ all the time. I think that anything that prevents a clear and respectful view of what is, of reality, of what is in front of one’s eyes, is a debilitating encumbrage. As for ‘I come from nothing,’ SO WHAT? I AM is a friggin miracle! Making up further explanations is a bit like, no, not exactly like, whathisname needing to put his finger in the wounds. It’s not accepting a miracle as a miracle, meaning something we can’t understand. Western civilization is a miracle within a miracle. Hardly anybody is protecting it. Astrid 80
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:29 | # ‘I come from nothing,’ SO WHAT? I AM is a friggin miracle! The attitude represented by this question defeats your essential point about knowledge and reality, and is all the opening a witch doctor would need to exploit you in some other fashion. There is no evidence to support the idea that you come from nothing. There is no evidence that you’re the “miraculous” result of a secular singularity or of a supernatural act. Admitting ignorance of origins is okay. All that is required of you or anybody is to say, “We come from somewhere” and to realize that a story based on a math template is no more rational than a creation story written by an earlier form of witch doctor. 81
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:39 | # GT, “The attitude represented by this question defeats your essential point about knowledge and reality, and is all the opening a witch doctor would need to exploit you in some other fashion.” You’re doing a similar thing to what that homeschooling woman did. Assuming that anyone who isn’t armed with a set of theist doctrines is just floating out somewhere, groundless, empty of sense and values, an easy mark for any kook or wacko theory. No, that’s not the way it is. I am protected from nonsense by my valuing of and respect for reality. I have lived for decades like this, in New York City no less, and have never come anywhere near being exploited philosophically or spiritually. Astrid 82
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:45 | # Astrid, Does the signpost ahead say, “Entering New York City where we have and eat our cake whenever we wanna and you’re a theist—-hole to notice the contradiction”? That’s what it sounds like. The point I’ve made is the attitude reflected in your question “So what?” undermines all objective and subjective knowledge, means, and methods of determining reality. If everybody thought this way there’d be no New York City. 83
Posted by GT on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:56 | # The religiosity of many – certainly not all – secularists is noted by their belief in the existence of singularities that are fundamentally based upon certain conceptual inconsistencies treated as “real objects” in the world of mathematics. To replace the higher-than-man God all one needs to do is ascribe collectively-derived “kumbayah” characteristics to a singularity and give it a new name. There is no such thing as theism, imo. They are all secular explanations for the unknown. Some with better empirical justification but all irrational at some point. My atheism is based upon a disbelief in the existence of “God,” “singularities,” and “equality.” It doesn’t mean I haven’t unfounded beliefs. I probably do, as a matter of fact. 84
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:08 | # The point I’ve made is the attitude reflected in your question “So what?” undermines all objective and subjective knowledge, means, and methods of determining reality. If everybody thought this way there’d be no New York City. GT, I wrote: ‘Making up further explanations is a bit like, no, not exactly like, whathisname needing to put his finger in the wounds. It’s not accepting a miracle as a miracle, meaning something we can’t understand.’ You’re misinterpreting me, and again with the same attitude as that woman. This time it’s that those without theist beliefs are destructive and dangerous. It’s almost scary. It’s important to differentiate between what is knowable and what is not. At this point we cannot know where we ultimately ‘came from’ and it is a waste of time to speculate and make up things. That is what I mean when I ask ‘so what?’ It isn’t some kind of blanket SO WHAT? to everything. Interesting, and yes, scary, that you would think it was. I remember once when I was in the middle of a difficult project and the question suddenly struck me, ‘Why is there anything at all?’ It had me reeling. I later told a friend and he said something like ‘you must have been working really hard.’ I was. I still think of the question occasionally, but now know that I can’t answer it, not by any stretch. No one can. Astrid 85
Posted by Astrid on Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:20 | # High Noon was an interesting morals vs. religion movie. The hero was a man without religion. He had the belief that he had the right and the duty to protect himself and his family. His new wife, Grace, put religion above family and left him, but seeing the light, went back and violated her religious principles to save his life. Being that it was a movie and made in Hollywood, two false notes had to be brought in for propaganda purposes. The blonde Grace had to be set right by a dark foreigner and everyone at the Sunday church services had to be a coward and hypocrite. Other than that it had a sound message. Astrid 86
Posted by onlooker on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:11 | # “... the question suddenly struck me, ‘Why is there anything at all?’ It had me reeling. [ ... ] I still think of the question occasionally, but now know that I can’t answer it, not by any stretch. No one can.” Astrid, I am A ‘theist’ (also an Ayn Rand admirer), but I still find this speech by John Galt [from “Atlas Shrugged”] to be very edifying. I think you will too; it may even answer your question? 87
Posted by GT on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:50 | # Astrid, If your point is arguing over religion is unproductive then I tend to agree with you, but not because “we cannot know” our origins. It isn’t some kind of blanket SO WHAT? to everything. Consistency is important when comparing or contrasting universal belief systems. Interesting, and yes, scary, that you would think it was. I’ve always been an interesting, scary person worthy of study and diagnosis. Just ask any jew or Goy followers of Adorno and Freud! I’m gone from this thread. 89
Posted by GT on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:37 | # S. Igor, How can the only point in existence have position? And how can a point without magnitude exist? Good questions, imo. I thought atheists were active disbelievers, i.e., on footing only slightly better than theists vis-a-vis reason If we’re consistent then the argument reduces to unjustified belief – faith. Not a man alive hasn’t faith in something/s. In that sense, atheists are theists no more or less than Xtians. Faith’s origins are secular – that is, manmade. Since there are no omnipotent, omniscient “ghosts” and faith’s origins are secular, theism is nothing more than non-justified, secular bullshit of a slightly less “advanced” form. As I wrote yesterday: To replace the higher-than-man God all one needs to do is ascribe collectively-derived “kumbayah” characteristics to a singularity and give it a new name. Unlike most “atheists,” I don’t “hate” religionists merely because their belief system is irrational. Atheists are irrational as well. 90
Posted by rocket on Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:13 | # L indsey , Jesus at first refused the woman healing becuase he knew what she would say , and her belief would be a rebuke to the children of Israel for their constant unbelief . this is a pattern thru the whole gospels . it would rebuke , the same rebuke when john the baptist told them that just becuase they were the children of abraham , that means nothing now becuase a new creation of being born of the spirit has come ....’’ GOD could raise up stones .... no need for ad hominum . ad hominum is a good way to avoid the demans put on us by the scriptures. Christ said it . that settles it . when you and i as catholics go to mass or confession were have scriptrual mandates to. these gospels of christ canonized by the Roman Catholic church also have in them—LOVE YOUR ENEMIES , PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DESPITEFULLY USE YOU , HE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE . all of these words are not suggestions but commandments . if we seek to save our own skin we do so at the expence of seriuos disobedence toward GOD . and we will reap what we sow . let us have no illusions about that. you will not be able to shout ‘‘but thats communism or liberalsim on the great judgment day of the Lord. ‘’ becuase its not ! as far as truth and war . yes—we at war . but as Paul says in his epistles canonized by mother Church of Rome ‘’ we do not battle flesh and blood but principalitys and powers in high places ‘’. that is a spiritual warfare. only those without the eternal perspective see it as a carnal , earhtly war. 91
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:15 | # The Theology of Inversion, Rocket, is not Roman Catholic. It is a cute way to describe certain things going on in the Bible but you are too enthralled with it, using the Theology of Inversion as some sort of revolutionary, radical device. I have got to ask you Rocket—-Do you live in the Real World? Rocket posits this: 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 . No he wasn’t. When Jesus said, “who are my mother and brothers and sisters, but those who do the will of God” means that Duty to God comes first. That is all. You are reading Marxist liberation theology into the words of Jesus that isn’t there. According to you Rocket, in the 1000 years of the Byzantine Empire, did they need families to exist? Under Christendom, wasn’t there families and children? Can any man be raised without a family? So if this is true—-Rocket—-are we do away with all families? 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 . Before he used the Samaratan, Rocket, he used a Priest and a Levite, both religious officers. Jesus could have as well used a PLAIN Jew. But you of course don’t recognize this distinction. Why didn’t Jesus JUST say One Jew walking down a road? If this parable is about Race, why the even mention a Priest and a Levite? It has nothing to do with race. 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. Rocket, Jesus Christ DID NOT invert patriarchy. If he did Rocket—-Why then all the Apostles are M-A-L-E. Why is it if the Church is the Body of Christ—-From the very beginning the Clergy is SOLELY Male! Jesus Christ DID NOT invert Patriarchy. If you notice that BOTH geneologies are Males mentioned. Yes, some women are mentioned in the Geneology but He is still descended from King David. He is called a King—which is a Patriarchical Title. A Protestant Preacher wrote a Book entitled Leadership is Male using solely Scripture to prove his point. Now, Rocket, you say Jesus inverted patriarchy—-but Rev. Pawson says “Leadership is Male—-A Clear, Concise Look At What the Bible Teaches”. St. Paul says Women are to wear veils in Church and be Silent. Your “Sola Gospel” exigesis is off on the wrong track. All the Traditional Apostolic Churches, Catholic (up until 1960), the Orthodox Churches, the Eithopian Church have always adherred to this tradition. (Christianity is failing because it is not upholding the traditional teaching, this ortho praxis.) Pawson points out, Rocket, that ONLY men were present at the Ascension. He says further, “there is NO record of any woman preaching or teaching in the Book of Acts.” 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. Rocket, I don’t know how many times I have explained to you that it is the Totality of the Words of Christ and that includes the Old Testament, the Complete New Testament, The Natural Law (For God also spoke Creation into being), Common Sense and all and any other Truth. The Protestant Pawson says explicitly: “the four gospels CANNOT be made either a final or the complete basis for Christian Doctrine.” (pg 44) This is also the teaching of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Your methodology Rocket is not the Traditional, Apostolic, continuous teaching of the Church. You are not with the program. It is exactly your methodology that is in error. 92
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:31 | # ASTRID—‘‘high noon ‘’ is a perfect example of the kirkeggardian example of the 3 spheres of existence theory . these spheres never cross . never. one is finite and the other is infinite. one is an approximate almost based on morals , and the other is a leap of faith placing the individual in absolute relationship with the Absolute. Socrates gave up his life for a universal . Abraham gave up something more important than his life—his son . at least he was willing to ./ and this makes him the knight of infinite resignation . . the twist in the high noon story is when grace falls from grace into morals . but it is still a great movie , no doubt. Lindsey , the gospel is not the capstone but is the totality because it is the Power of GOD unto salvation , to everyone who believes. there is a power differential here that the pagan ideal of the golden mean cannot pull off. and yes i understand revelation from GOD . go to my website and read my testimony and see how 33 years ago the Lord saved me . its Rocketkirchner.com its called ‘‘the Crossing ‘’. you brought up the golden mean . lets look at it . in greek thought the golden mean according to Aristotle’s ‘‘Ethics’’ , it is a place to get to in ones behaviuor for ones well being . as we know , it is the place that exists between vice and defect. this brings virtue . the trouble with virtue is that that is for pagans . the goal is sainthood . St. Augustine says in ‘‘the city of GOD ‘’ that what is best for mans well being is the ‘‘grace of GOD through Jesus Christ’‘. there are no approximations here. this is Absolute . your gospel sounds too much like secular humanism to me . and you call me a liberal commie . i am nothing of the kind , and i deplore it , and secular humanism . 93
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:50 | # Lindsey—ONLY WOMAN WERE PRESENT AT THE RESURECTION ! They were ‘‘sent out ‘‘by Angles from heaven . that makes them Apostles . period . book of Acts—Phillip had 6 daughters who were prophetesses. look it up . The early Jesus movement was radical . ‘‘the axe is laid to the root ‘’ says john the baptist. Liberation theology—what i am talking about has nothing to do with the liberation theology that came out in the book’’ the theology of liberation ‘’ by gustav gutierez in 1974 . there is no marxism in what i am saying . marxism is not radical enough . the gospel of Jesus Christ is the most radical thing to ever come to planet earth and it strips all barriers betwen people down ...IF they are willing to believe. if they dont , they are damned. The blood line stopped at the shedding of the blood of Christ on the cross . most jews dont believe that. that is why they are still looking for a messiah to kick ass . and that is why they are stuck in an ethnocentric mindset. ethnocentrism wont save anyone on judgement day . 94
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:55 | # Lindsey—if you think that ‘‘inversion theology ‘’ is not catholic , then when you go to mass on christmas you miss the point . GOD inverted the nuclear family by putting the baby on top—the christ child whom we worship as divine , the mother second who gave birth to him by’’ logospermotokos ‘’ supernatural impregnation , and the father of the family in 3rd place. as G.K. Chesterton, devout catholic said ‘’ God inverted the family when Christ was born ‘’. 95
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:02 | # For those Atheists out there that think that a belief in God is irrational, Vox Day has come out with a book The Irrational Atheist and points to the irrationality of atheists themselves. The book can be electronically downloaded from his website at the right sidebar below the picture of his book: http://voxday.blogspot.com/ Second, a poster, Mark K., over at Lawerence Auster’s “View from the Right” has posted an interesting take on Atheism. He quotes from St. Paul and St. Paul says that the problem is not logic and rationality but that Atheists are actively suppressing the truth even as they know what it is. They don’t want to agree. Mark K. writes that it is “his instinct to pervert the truth”. It is here at: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010080.html 96
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 03:33 | # Lindsey—thanks for the tip on that book . on this we agree about athiesm being irrational . the author sounds like he drew from romans ch 1—’‘the truth is self evident within them ‘’. and yet they deny it ...as paul says . here is a question for you—what makes ethnocentrism any different from dan browns davinci code ? that whole book is about a blood line carried on past the time of christ as a form of salvation , instead of the messianic bloodline stopping at the coming of the messiah jesus . ..and his blood sacrifice releasing the power of the spirit of GOD within us . the davinci code blood line story is so exclusive , and the gospel is all inclusive. and all these liberal people i know think it is so cool . go figure. 97
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 04:22 | # I have found Rocket’s problem: ethnocentrism wont save anyone on judgement day. No one has ever said that “Ethnocentrism saves”. Not a single person. Does “Universalism save”, Rocket? Not that either. Ethnocentrism is about surviving in this life, in this time. It has nothing to do with salvation. It has everthing to do with Life on Earth. Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Render unto God what is God. Salvation is linked to the Soul—-Ethnocentrism is linked to the Human being. Christ’s mission is about the Salvation of Souls—-not on how to run a country. For some reason, Rocket, you seem to think that Christ’s gospel has bearing on the world of Caesar—-And it doesn’t. In 7th century, Egypt and the Sinai was filled with monks all following the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There were some 30,000 monks in the Thebaid region of Egypt and another 20,000 monks in the Sinai and some 200 monasteries in and around Jerusalem. Islam came and wiped them all out. Now, Christianity is either extinct or is on the verge of extinction in those places. Only the Monastery of St. Catherines is left of vast Christian population of the Sinai. Here is an example of people who followed the Gospel as you want people to do——AND THEY ALL PERISHED. On the other hand, Charles Martel motivated his countrymen and beat back the Muslim hordes in France and saved the Christian faith in France. Charles Martel lived in the real world and followed the Natural Law. Rocket you are an idealist and seek some sort of Utopia. Utopias don’t work on Planet Earth. What Runs Planet Earth is the Natural Law—-The Caesar of the Material World. Rocket you can’t take the Gospel and make it the foundation of any society. You’ll kill it. Your Gospel is called Liberalism—-and it is killing England, Europe and America. The Gospel is about the Salvation of the Soul, The Natural Law is about the Life of the Human body. Ethnocentrism is part and parcel of the Natural Law. God implanted Belonging and Volkenhass into all people so that Races/Nations are created and maintained. Ethnocentrism is Belonging and Volkenhass combined. It is what preserves nations and races. Race is the Golden Mean. Strict Indidualism is dangerous and One Global body of humans is dangerous. The Mean between Individualism and Globalisation is Race. God intended for Race. Ethnocentrism is necessary for the survival of Race. Have you heard the saying “No man is an Island”? No man can survive by himself. God created Race in order to help the Man live and survive. Without Race, man cannot survive. We are on this Earth and the lesson of this earth is “Life or Death”. Ethnocentrism is important for life on this Earth. If you can’t master this—-you can’t master “Salvation”. There is an interconnectedness between the physical and the metaphysical. The Metaphysical rules the physical but without the physical there is no metaphysical. The Gospel is not the End all, or be all of life. The Gospel is a revelation—a partiality, not the totality. Ethnocentrism is about life on Earth and to be successful at life on this earth. With out being successful on life, there is NO possibility of Church on this earth. 98
Posted by GT on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:30 | # Rocket Scientist, these spheres never cross . never. one is finite and the other is infinite. one is an approximate almost based on morals , and the other is a leap of faith placing the individual in absolute relationship with the Absolute. Socrates gave up his life for a universal . Traditionally, the infinite was considered by mathematicians to be an undefined value. Leaving infinity undefined left God’s nature undefined in relation to Man. That left room for God’s existence and Christians could be entirely rational up to the point where faith in God was necessary to justify Creation. All a Christian needed to say was, “We don’t know enough to define God, much less tell you where to look for Him.” God died the day the infinite was turned into a completely unknowable, mystical, magical value. Although justified in terms of consistency and “science” this was a political maneuver orchestrated by the usual suspects – Einstein and tribe – to promote racial equality (Weze all ekwal in de eyez of da Lawd!) and undermine the hated, traditional Christianity. The consequence of this act – largely unknown by Christians today – was to define God. God defined is dead. Why? He and all Creation are an infinite collection of ghostly points – a hologram, if you will. We’ve been raised to His plane of existence. Or you could say He was lowered to our level. It really makes no difference. Now, as I’ve previously pointed out, all one needs do to replace God is ascribe certain elite or collectively-derived “kumbayah” characteristics to a singularity (or a group of “special” men) and give it (or them) a new name. Universalism killed God. The problem is, you haven’t realized it. The usual suspects are laughing their asses off about it, too! How do I know? I once provided technical support to one of the nation’s leading scientific institutions. 99
Posted by GT on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:34 | # WLindsayWheeler, For those Atheists out there that think that a belief in God is irrational, Vox Day has come out with a book The Irrational Atheist and points to the irrationality of atheists themselves. I’m not “against” you, but please realize that all you’re doing is engaging in apologetics. The Rocket Scientist subscribes to mystical universalism because it is convenient for him to do so. You are not returning him to the Old Time Religion. He was never there in the first place. What he and others like him don’t realize is that the logic of universalism has undermined their very belief system. Today the reality is, why worship God when one can be God? He and “modern” Xtians are sliding down a slippery slope. You can do your thing until you’re blue in the face, but you will not change anything. All you can do is hold onto your position and possibly influence family members. In the faith community, unfortunately, you are completely out-horsepowered. In this age of the Dead God the only aggressive challenge to the universalism of witch doctors of any stripe is atheistic neo-Darwinism and sociobiology. 100
Posted by GT on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:11 | # Note the “Godly” look in the face of a Judeo-Xtian. Note the “Superior” look in the face of a politically judaized atheist (liberal secularist). Same look. What is it called? The Look of Secret Knowledge. How is The Look of Secret Knowledge justified? By the universalism of ghostly, infinite points. How do those looks differ? They don’t. Same crap, different name. Scary, huh? Not at all. 101
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:37 | # Rocket, Let me help you understand something and put things in context. There are two sets of laws in the world, the Res Divina and the Res Publica. Both are needed. The Res Divina, the Divine Law works in CONJUNCTION with the Res publica. The Divine Law does not countermand the Res Publica. They work together. Each has its own sphere, its own object. The Gospel belongs to the Res Divina and Ethnocentrism belongs to the Res Publica. They have different objects, goals but work together for the good of the whole. Rocket, let me put Ethnocentrism in context. The Struggle and campaign now for Ethnocentrism by this site and other people is because of Jewish Masonic Bolshevism. Jewish Masonic Bolshevism is known by another name—-That of Communism. Nations and races have existed since before the Tower of Babel. Karl Marx, a Christianized Jew, wrote The Communist Manifesto. He ended it by saying, “All the workers of the world unite”. One of the platforms of Jewish Masonic Bolshevism is the destruction of race and nation and bring about a One World Government. This is the Jewish plan. This plan has also been adopted by liberal Euros as well. This is called Globalization. It is about Deconstructing the Natural Order and once the Old Order is decontructed, building in its place the New World Order. The New World Order is about reconstructing the Tower of Babel. This is Evil. Your “Christian Universalism” is feeding this agenda. The Gospel and Christianity in NO way deconstructs the Natural Order. This is not what Righteousness is. The people of this website and others like it are all about fighting this Jewish Masonic Bolshevist plan of DE-Racination. We are only upholding the Natural Order and the place of ethnocentrism in it. God is the God of Righteousness, isn’t he Rocket? Do you even know what Righteousness means? Righteousness means “...to PRESERVE ancestral customs and institutions and the established laws…duties to the gods, ...then those to country and parents then those to the departed.” (Aristotle, Virtues and Vices, v 2.) What is one of the very first commands God gave to Adam? He said, “To Cultivate and to KEEP”. Keep means to preserve! This ethnocentrism that we are talking about is about PRESERVING, KEEPING race and nation. That is what it means to be ethnocentric. It is about combatting Jewish Masonic Bolshevism in their destruction of race and nation. The Jews want to destroy Christianity and to do that—-they must destroy Europe. Our Duty is to PRESERVE our Country. Our loyalty is to Europe and its people. Your Universalism is nothing but Jewish Masonic Bolshevism. For more of an understanding please see this Haloscan thread. It is the comment section of Vox Day’s post on the outing of Dumbledore as gay. The author of the Harry Potter series, JK Rowling is a fellow traveller in Communism. To understand what we are facing and what communism is, you, Rocket, need to read this thread. It starts out by discussing Rowling—it is then expanded to what is communism. When you go to this thread, Press Ctrl+F, type in ‘wheeler’ and find all my posts: We wouldn’t be talking about Ethnocentrism Rocket, if it wasn’t for the Jews and their Commie Euro pals that want to destroy it. 102
Posted by onlooker on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:41 | # “The Jews want to destroy Christianity and to do that—-they must destroy Europe. Our Duty is to PRESERVE our Country. Our loyalty is to Europe and its people.” WLindsayWheeler, I’ve felt that way since I came to realize Christianity was the only true Religion (or worldview) for the ‘second’ time in my life. The first time was when I was a young child. But when I hit my teen years, my beliefs became that of an atheist. I dismissed the Holy Bible as a bunch of fairy tales made up by really smart people for the purposes of controlling the masses. I bought into the notion “God was dead,” or God never really existed in the first place. I began to believe that Darwin’s theory of evolution rang supreme. At around the age of 19, I started to question validity of macro-evolution and the “Big Bang” theory. After mulling it over, I had to conclude that an Intelligent Designer had to have been, and is, orchestrating the creation of all things seen and unseen. Furthermore, the Christian Bible provides the best explanation, by far, of how we got here, why we are here, and where we are going. That said, I could not AGREE with you more, WLindsayWheeler. In order to destroy Christianity, the followers of Satan must destroy Europe. And make no mistake about it, rocket, without the European tribes promoting and defending Christianity, the other tribes of the world would not have been exposed to the true Gospel of Jesus the Christ. Universalism? All Christians are one in the same in the spiritual sense. I refuse to believe we are required to participate—or passively go along with—the destruction of our own genotype. God does not require that; in fact, He requires the opposite. The Fifth Commandment is my guide: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm Bottom line: If the White-race is genocided from the earth, so goes Christianity—and vice-versa. Right now, in the Eurosphere, Traditional Christianity is being replaced by secular humanism, Islam and pseudo-Christianity; Euros are not having enough kids to maintain their populations and are being replaced by non-Euros. Unintended consequences abound! As a result, Hell is about to break loose all over the planet. The end of the age is near. The “Battle of Armageddon” is knocking at the door. Have a nice day. 103
Posted by Rusty Mason on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:29 | # Mr. Wheeler, I like your explanations very much. What is your view of paganism as expressed by the Nordic religion reconstructionists? 104
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:08 | # Lindsey—for the 10th time i am not a social engineer , or a liberal . and may i add that i am not preaching universalism . i am preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. the secular universalists have tried to imitate it by their own flesh . not good . but the truth stands , and survival is not an option . pick up your cross and follow me means death ! ‘‘the Church was built on the foundation of the blood of the martyrs’’ Tertullian said . it was not built on saving thier butts by huddling in little tribal groups to protect each other. THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS ! ‘’‘he who seeks to save his life will lose it . but he who gives up his life for my sake will save it ‘’. Jesus said . COUNT THE COST MY FREIND . only the true ressurection life can come out of dying with Christ , and that is more than just death itself .... it is dying daily to the flesh , the world , the tribe , the nation , the status , the honor . 105
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:10 | # ‘‘The Church is built on the foundation of the blood of the martyrs ‘‘Tertullian 106
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:21 | # Lindsey—true rightiuosness does not come by way of ethnic centrism . it comes by the blood of Christ. if you seek to stand in GODS prescence by any other means , you will be like the man at the wedding feast in matt 22 that came to the wedding without the proper garments. the proper garmants are the blood of christ. you cant have it both ways pal . GT—the abstractification of GOD comes from secular universalism . christian universalim as taught by Bonhoffer and kierkegaard shatters the abstract GOD is dead , or is some new age ghost , by the scandel of the specificity of the message of the cross of Christ. that specificity is what i embrace. that specificity is THE OFFENCE. it confronts the existent individual to repent . 107
Posted by rocket on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:25 | # GT—i agree with you about the euroman caving in to liberal abstract doctrines of GOD . i have been fighting that for years. the way to fight it is by the proclamation of the true gospel , not by race qoutas , or genetic prattle ./ 108
Posted by GT on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:46 | # Rocket Science, Philosophizing is incidental to my primary task, which is to address the practical matters concerning the preservation of my people. Conflict and reason led me to these positions. I am not “trained” in philosophy and am long past accepting the authority of witch doctors. I haven’t read Bonhoffer or Kierkgaard, although I am vaguely familiar with the latter’s name. I am a realist (small r) with an experimental bent. Secular witch doctors - jews and sycophants - hate, mock, censor, and criminalize realists more than they do Xtian witch doctors, for not only have we greater potential to undermine secularism’s gentile base, but also pose a greater threat to their physical existence. This is your topic, so I am through unless I become aware of a secular witch doctor. I tend to let Xtian religionists fight it out among themselves. 109
Posted by onlooker on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:32 | # “I am a realist (small r) with an experimental bent. Secular witch doctors - jews and sycophants - hate, mock, censor, and criminalize realists more than they do Xtian witch doctors, for not only have we greater potential to undermine secularism’s gentile base, but also pose a greater threat to their physical existence.” GT, how ironic! You sound like you’ve been influenced by Ayn Rand? Have you read (or listened) to the John Galt speech I linked to? It’s well worth taking the time to read, and or listen to! C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Owner\My Documents\John Galt Speech.htm Here’s another classic speech propounding the philosophy of objectivism. This one isn’t as long as John Galt’s. C:\Documents and Settings\HP_Owner\My Documents\American Rhetoric Movie Speech from The Fountain Head - Howard Roark Addresses His Jury.htm 110
Posted by onlooker on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:42 | # oops! Let’s try that again.
and, http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthefountainhead.html 111
Posted by rocket on Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:50 | # GT , there is no need to bow out now . Ayn Rand as onlooker suggests ? we Christians are always battling it out , but it is good to get the scientific view . you say that jews and witch doctors have undermined the the secular gentile base. alot of truth to that. but maybe it is secularism in general that has undermined the secular base . the ism is what i am refering to . for the titans did not ruin heaven but laid waste the world . maybe that is what seculari’‘ism’’ did to a healthy secularity . which all begs the question : what is at the root of the decline of western civilization ? despite Gibbon , Spengler , and even Buchanan;s reasons why , we must plumb deeper. why is it falling apart? what is really undermining it ? does man alone have the power to save it ? if so ,then how ? 112
Posted by onlooker on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:16 | # “we Christians are always battling it out , but it is good to get the scientific view .” And wouldn’t life be a real drag if we were all the same? “what is at the root of the decline of western civilization ? despite Gibbon , Spengler , and even Buchanan;s reasons why , we must plumb deeper. why is it falling apart? what is really undermining it ? does man alone have the power to save it ? if so ,then how ?” It’s all academic now, rocket. The inertia of the anti-Christ movement has grown so strong that it’s literally unstoppable. Only Christ’s return can stop it. Anybody who is familiar with the “Book of Revelations” and pays attention to what’s going on in the world can understand current events are shaping up for the Great Tribulation. IMHO, fighting over control of the oil fields in the Middle-east will be the catalyst that will set off worldwide conflagration. 113
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:24 | # Jesus said, “the one who is my brother, sister and mother, are those that do the Will of God”. Now, Rocket reads in this the Inversion theology, that Christ here is doing away with the family. Not True. Jesus is making an allegorical statement. How an allegorical statement becomes the basis of a materialist approach to eliminate the family is beyond me. What Rocket seems to be doing is putting the cart before the horse. Brother, sister, mother come before the phrase “Will of God”. The Will of God can not possibly be the elimination of the family if they are mentioned before hand. What makes one a brother of Jesus Christ is not a blood relationship but doing the Will of the Father. In no way does God do away with the family. None of the Ten Commandments are done away with. “Honor thy Father and they Mother”. We are told to honor our parents—-That is the Will of God. The Ten Commandments are an expression of the Will of God. When one honors his mother and father—-Then, he becomes a brother, sister, mother to Jesus Christ. If you notice throughout the life of Jesus Christ—-he is always careful to obey the Scriptures in fulfilling them. Jesus Christ is constantly saying, “It is written”. The Old Testament is the Will of the Father.—-Jesus is constantly obeying them. One of Jesus Christ’s last words is “Not my will, but your (Father’s) Will be done”. Jesus was very careful himself in obeying the Will of his Father. The Tower of Babel is one of the few instances where God is very very Direct. Races and Nations existed in Genesis chapter 10. The Tower of Babel is in Chapter 11. Races existed before the Tower of Babel. This story teaches the Will of God. God came down destroyed the Tower of Babel, God CHANGED the language of man and diversified it thus strengthening race and added belonging and Volkenhass to keep them seperated. God Divided Man into races. This is said 3 times in the Old Testament and St. Paul says this again in his speech in Athens. God Divided the Nations. When the Bible repeats itself—-The Bible is making an emphasis. God Divided the Nations, that is emphasized over and over again. God Created Nations/Races/Tribes/Ethnicities. He wants Mankind that way. This is the Will of God. Those who uphold this Will of God, Those who defend Race and tribe from extinction, those who uphold the sanctity of Race are the brothers, sisters, and mothers of Jesus Christ—-for they are upholding the Will of God. The Natural Order Rocket IS the Will of God for the Natural Order was Created by God. It is the Ungodly that want to unmake the Natural Order. You have it backwards. 114
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:33 | # WLW: Jesus said, “the one who is my brother, sister and mother, are those that do the Will of God” I read that as a piece of Jewish self-reference. Only a non-Jew would read another meaning into it, allegorical or otherwise. 115
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:54 | # Brother Wheeler said, “God Divided Man into races. This is said 3 times in the Old Testament and St. Paul says this again in his speech in Athens.” Can you point me to these verses, please? 116
Posted by Rusty Mason on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:12 | # “WLW: Jesus said, “the one who is my brother, sister and mother, are those that do the Will of God” Interesting. I wonder how it reads in Greek. Perhaps the Koine can tell us what the real interpretation should be. Chapter and verse? 117
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:07 | # Hi Rusty. To your previous question: “What is your view of paganism as expressed by the Nordic religion reconstructionists? “ There are Greeks as well trying to reconstruct Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite and all the old Greek pagan gods. I find it funny that when they interact with Christians they throw atheist arguments at Christians—-then turn around and construct and say they “believe” in Zeus. One guy on a Cretan forum is Ordaining priests for this and passing out certificates. While were at it let’s resurrect the Crocidile God and Ganesh as well—-oops—Ganesh is still around. Once a pagan god has died, how does one resurrect it? It is not like the Teutons, the Vikings had a great historical reservoir from which to draw from such as the Greeks. It is kind of non-sensical. Talk about “Christians are irrational”, this smacks of even more irrationality because it is all 90% guess work on reconstructing pagan gods and their rituals. It is better that they go to India and bring back the Hindoo gods—at least it is still a lived tradition in India—-But this whole thing is born out of Hatred. It is Hate that drives this. It is all very Irrational. Moreover, none of their religions from Greek reconstituted diety to the Nordic reconstituted diety are going to be Universal. Are the Greeks pagans going to accept Ganesh and are the Nordic people going to accept the Crocidile god of the Egyptians? I mean this is all getting supersilly. Wouldn’t a pagan have to accept all the other pagan dieties as well? But doesn’t Homer say, “Rule of One is Best”? How can there be a multiplicity amongst the pagans? Does not Vishnu or Krishna rule? How about Isis? Or Typhun? Furthermore, much of the pagan gods—-where born. But if God is Perfect—-he would be Eternal and no pagan god is eternal. Even the pagans themselves began to question their own religions. Socrates attacks them wholesale—-for what philosophy teahes—-no pagan god could measure up. Only the God from the Hebrews matched what Greek philosophy was saying. God is Eternal. God is Moral. God is the perfection of all concepts. There is No evil in God. All the pagan gods did immoral things—-not the God of Abraham. So in this regard, Christianity is formed by the fuller message of Jesus Christ and by Greek Philosophy. Greek philosopy formed Christianity. Greek Philosophy couldn’t form to their own religion. This is why many Greek philosophers, like St. Justin the Martyr and St. Augustine, became Christians. Christianity and Philosophy go together. Only the God that spoke thru the Hebrews is the one true god. 118
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:36 | # The Three Old Testament references. First, LXX, Genesis, chapter 11, ”(6) And the Lord said, Behold there is one race, and one lip of all, and they have begun to do this, and now nothing shall fail from them of all that they may have undertaken to do. (7) Come and having gone down let us there confound their tongue, that they may not understand each the voice of his neighbor.” (8) And the Lord SCATTERED them thence over the face of the earth…” When God changed the language—-he changed the souls. Each race has a peculiar soul. At this time, it is my opinion that God implanted into man Belonging and Volkenhass to keep them seperate. The Differences of Man are solely genetic—-but reside in the Soul. The Soul carries the spirit of the Patriarch of that people. That is why a Race has a peculiar culture all to itself. French Culture is different from German Culture which is different from English culture. The difference is the Soul. Second reference. LXX, Deuteronomy 32.8 “When the Most High divided the nations, when he SEPERATED the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God”. God Seperated. Third reference. LXX, Book of Sirach, (Ecclesiasticus, NOT Ecclesiastes), 36.10. “And all men are from the ground, and Adam was creatd of earth. In much knowledge HATH DIVIDED them, and made their ways diverse. God divided and he made Racial differences. Fourth reference. New Testament, Acts 17.26. St. Paul speaking. </i>“And he made from one Every nation of mn to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,...</i> God made all the nations of the world. The Greek is “enos pan ethnos”. The word “ethnos” is ethnicity or race or nation. God divided, God seperated, God made races/nations/tribes/ethnicities. This is said FOUR times. When something is repeated over and over again, it is to emphasize the importance. This is not some obscure teaching said once. This is said Four times. The Will of God is shown and taught. God made Races—-the Will of God is that they are Maintained and preserved. This is the Will of God. All those that uphold that are the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus Christ because these people have a respect to what God has done. It is the ungodly, the communist and the Jew that seeks to undermine what God has wrought. It is Nihilism to attack and undermine the Natural Order. It is nihilist to say that there is no such thing as racial differences. All things have meaning. And every race has meaning, significance and consequences. That is reality. To deny reality is Nihilist. 119
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:50 | # Rocket, the Roman Catholic way of reading scripture has four meanings, the literal, the allegorical, the anagogical, and the tropological senses. It is called the Neo-Patristic Approach to Scripture. I refer you to this link: http://www.rtforum.org/study/index.html 120
Posted by onlooker on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:13 | # “Rocket, the Roman Catholic way of reading scripture has four meanings” No, it only has one meaning… you are either going to heaven or hell. No nuance is involved. 121
Posted by torgrim on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:42 | # WLindsayWheeler, said; “God made races—-the Will of God is that they are maintained and preserved>” First, if Christianity was practiced as you have stated and protected the diversity of people, then there would be less emnity toward Christianity. Secondly, this is not about hatred. This is basically a desire, to return to what was removed through coersion and violence. Thirdly, contrary to the constant “drum beat” of political correctness, much has been preserved of Nordic pre-Christian cosmology. Anglo Saxon Common Law, is just one example. Personally, I admire the Greek Orthodox Church, in that it has been a protector of the Greek people. It may be that being as the Greeks were the first to experience Christianity in it’s purest form, their experience was much different from,say the Saxons or Scandinavian. My point is, be it Heathen or Christian, if neither help to preserve European Man then both worldviews will be for nothing. 122
Posted by rocket on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 22:43 | # Lindsay—i did not say GOD was out to destroy the family by using that verse , but rather extending the family . this extention goes beyond blood ties encompassing those who do the will of GOD . i do agree with you about greek philosophy and christianity ./ the early church fathers had to have a philsophical language to explain the coming and nature of the messiah . this is messiainc hellenized judaism . complex indeed as the councils have shown in their Christological proouncements. Rusty—Acts 17—Paul confronts the stoic and epicurian philsophers at mars hill in Athens . he begins with an insult calling them religiuos in ALL things…having seen the idol all around him . then he gets into his message. it is about nations and their boundaries—NOT RACE ! it is about nations seeking GOD . at that time it would have been the Polis—( greek city state concept as laid out by Aristotle ) . 123
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:16 | # rocket, “Extending the family” is destroying the family. By destroying distance, you destroy what is close. By extending love to all, you destroy natural love. Universalism is always destructive of connectivity, and without connectivity love is a lie ... not especially because Man is imperfect but because Nature is the only way it can be. The Christian who strives to love as “Jesus loves” is as ignorant of love’s binding, which is its natural purpose, as any liberal lunatic who thinks anti-racism will free the white man from his morally stained self. Universalism is an error. Now I will go further. Spiritual striving has nothing to do with faith practises, and little to do with sacred books. The living testament of the presence of Man is not to be found in either, and those that practise faith by the book are blind to it anyway. I am is far away from the rigour of the cold pew and the hearty brotherhood of believers. A man like you, who I take to be a seeker after beauty, shall find only beauty. But that is insufficient solace for a life sentence of absence. All this means that, the narrative itself aside, Christianity is a depleted testament confabulated from a few sacred fragments. It has no living core ... no Sufism to Islam, for example. Its Paulian journey to the Universal Goy was conducted without such a core. Such is the suggestibility and materialism of our forefathers’ minds, they did not notice. And their sons still do not notice. 125
Posted by onlooker on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:12 | # Professor wins prize for maths link to God “Science is but a collective effort of the human mind to read the mind of God from question marks out of which we and the world around us seem to be made.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3540989.ece 126
Posted by rocket on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:36 | # Lindsey—rejecting Apostolic foundations is a dangeriuos game . Paul was the Apostle to the gentiles. extending the family does not destroy it but save it via godly community living . notice i said ‘‘godly ‘’...not secular. you seem to treat the gospel as if it is a disembodied thing like the gnostics—saying that it is about the soul , and other things like race and family etc are about being human . yet , nothing could be further from the truth . the paradox of the GOD-MAN lives in the Church , for as Polycarp said ‘‘we are the continued incarnation of the Son of Man ‘’. it took GOD to be human to define what it means to be human . when you read the new testament , and church fathers in that light it gives us the big picture . one that is not fragmented . 127
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:36 | # extending the family does not destroy it but save it via godly community living The family is “saved” by simple social conservatism, which is nothing more than the public recognition of evolutionarily adaptive behaviour. Universalism is maladaptive because it does not preference genetic interests. A universalist community seems to be a contradiction in terms to me. But assuming that it means some sort of Christian panmixia it would be contrary to kinship and, therefore, maladaptive, and must send the family straight down the S-bend. “You seem to treat the gospel as if it is a disembodied thing ...” The synoptics and John are only good for faith noises. The internal meaning is disassociated and discontinuous, though in the original Greek that may be marginally less so. Faith, I’m afraid, belongs to the earth and to evolution, though it certainly presumes of itself a genesis among the host. Faith exists because it offers fitness gains. But ... what man is, and what he might be, are two different things. As he is, he talks too much, and everything is false. What he might be is a sometimes present and maturing being with a vocabulary of two words and three letters. I don’t have an answer to the greatest question. I do, though, know that faith is not it. 128
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:32 | # You know Rocket, I speak in plain English, yet you put words in my mouth that that I didn’t say. You wrote that I said this: rejecting Apostolic foundations is a dangeriuos game . NOwhere did I say that. You seem to be having trouble understanding English, common terms of Christendom, you don’t understand the Natural Law or its place in Christian Thought. Nowhere do I recommend, advocate rejecting the Apostolic foundations. Did the Apostles, Rocket, have to deal with the de-racination agenda of Communists? What does the Gospel have to do with the Communist agenda we are fighting here? What does your Gospel have anything to say about the de-racination agenda of the Jewish Bolshevists? Anything Rocket? You still fail to get the point. How old are you Rocket? Do you know anything of history? Do you know what is going on TODAY? 129
Posted by rocket on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 21:59 | # Lindsey—i am 53. and yes i willl match my knowledge of history with yours any day . count on it . the same jewish resistence the Apostels fought is the same today . only the ideologys change. be not decieved by the so called changing times. its the same unbelief. ‘‘they are the enemies of the gospel ‘’. thats an Apostle speaking and they dont mince words. they are not nuetral . in my 3 decades of preaching Christ to jews i know first hand . it matters not weather they are capitalists, communists, or whatever. until they repent , they will never be saved. lets get to the root of the problem here—nothing has changed in 2000 years as far as unbelif from the jew. the only thing that has changed is ‘‘where are the Pauls of our generation , that can confront them in an oracular way in the full power of GOD ?” you cant reason with them . it must be power. until they are converted ...they remain the force that undermines a society that attempts to be christian . do you agree with that ? the family saved by social conservativism . ... you say . more social engineering . there is not enough power. and even if you did , would it give glory to GOD or self ? once again this trying to save by any other means than the gospel is idolatry . it is man made efforts like the multiculterists. now , this was looked over by GOD in times of past , but the time has come for all men to repent . correct if i am wrong—i dont want to put words in your mouth , but in the context of this thread—are seeking to merge Aquinas Natural Law with Darwins Natural selection ? and if so ...how ? 130
Posted by onlooker on Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:09 | # Rocket, I read your testimonial. Did your conversion to Christianity have something to do with a drug problem? Isn’t it true you were searching for an escape from reality that didn’t involve chemicals? Many drug abusers of your time gravitated to Jesus in order to get off drugs, yet at the same time, they effectively insulated themselves from the unpleasantness of the real world. Is that applicable to you? 131
Posted by rocket on Mon, 17 Mar 2008 03:13 | # onlooker . no , i never had a drug problem . in fact thru the 60’s i was the lone anti -drug person . for a rock n roller that was rare. i really hated Christ before that and went out of my way to atttempt to destroy christians faith . so , i really know what it is like to be on boths sides of the faith . this is why i am such a fanatic . the power of GOD saved me . and i will never be silent about it , nor ashamed of it . 132
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:12 | # i dont want to put words in your mouth , but in the context of this thread—are seeking to merge Aquinas Natural Law with Darwins Natural selection ? and if so ...how ? My answers in this thread were never about merging the Natural Law with Darwin’s natural selection. My use of the Natural Law in this thread has always been the classical use and meaning of the term. The Natural Law is in Classical Greek and Roman writings and then used by the Catholic Church. This is the sense I used it. You bring up a good point though. I never considered Darwin’s Natural selection. The science of breeding of domestic animals such as sheep, cows and horses and the benefits of breeding was well known to all the ancients and was taken into consideration such as the Spartan laws on eugenics. I don’t believe in evolution. Philosophy disproves evolution and proves creationism. I believe that God created the forms and that natural selection differentiated the forms into species. 133
Posted by rocket on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:26 | # i have always seen it that way too . Natural Law in the shcolastic definition has a certain affinity to natural selection . if anything , natural selection in its specificity can give credence to Natural Law as laid out in the Summa . 134
Posted by Rusty Mason on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 02:19 | # Doric Philosopher, your MSN email does not work. 135
Posted by WLindsayWheeler on Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:56 | # You can email me thru Wikinfo which on the left side bar says “Email this user” or on the front page of my website, I posted my email address. 136
Posted by onlooker on Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:50 | # “onlooker . no , i never had a drug problem . in fact thru the 60’s i was the lone anti -drug person . for a rock n roller that was rare.” That was rare, indeed. Happy Easter to you, rocket, and to all. 137
Posted by anonymous on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:39 | # Posted by rocket on March 12, 2008, 08:50 PM | # The answer is in the question, the ‘root’. The ‘roots’ of Western Civilization go back to the Middle east. To loose sight of ones ‘roots’ that which gave birth/created is to invite destruction. 138
Posted by jonathan on Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:16 | # anonymous, “A man goes to the famous Lucas Carton restaurant in Paris with his girlfriend and orders the 1928 Mouton. 139
Posted by Zangoma on Sat, 19 Feb 2011 06:21 | # Religion is the reflection of God through a cultural lens. Human culture requires formation and diversity, so semi-permeable cultural factions are essential in maintaining equilibrium. Let humanity monopanthesise you Eurofantic tool rashes! As far as I can remember ‘The Rainbow and the Serpent’ was about a western corporation stealing traditional medicine and selling it globally. There are no white, black, yellow or red people, each one of us is a unique shade of the rainbow. I think the danger lies not so much in westerners becoming enculturated but more from the cultural conflict that corporatism creates to manipulate the global community as a whole…... God-bless Goodnight Goodbye! Post a comment:
Next entry: Alisdair Clarke
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsAl Ross commented in entry 'On Spengler and the inevitable' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:23. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:55. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:26. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 22:58. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 20:49. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:00. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 18 Apr 2024 16:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:35. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:33. (View) shoney commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:14. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:22. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 15:33. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 07:06. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:28. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:12. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 13 Apr 2024 05:09. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Fri, 12 Apr 2024 13:15. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:13. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:05. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:28. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:48. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 10:46. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 09 Apr 2024 09:27. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:48. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 05:01. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 08 Apr 2024 04:50. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 07 Apr 2024 17:49. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 01:55 | #
Well, the first and most obvious question for Rocket is whether universalism is, in fact, prerequisite to Christian faith?