God and the West?

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, 01 December 2009 00:28.

by The Narrator

There continues to be debate about the pros and cons of religion, specifically Christianity, around pro-Western and semi pro-Western blogs and sites. Does religion help? Does it hurt? Is it a bulwark against multiculturalism and diversity or is it their foundation? The following will address some of the points which often come up in this ongoing discussion.

A recent article at Takimag.com put forth the (somewhat common) theory that part of The West’s problems in regards to the promotion of multiculturalism and immigration is one of fertility as it relates to theist vs. atheist influence. The theory goes that as Whites drift away from theism (usually specifically Christianity) they cease having children in sufficient numbers.

Now the problem with this theory is obvious. Namely, there are actually very few atheists in the world or the West in particular.  (And for the clarification of the uncertain here, a theist is not a Christian. A theist is someone who believes in a deity or deities or the supernatural in general. In other words Julian the Apostate and Martin Luther were both theists.)

This article at Wikipedia sources a Eurobarometer Poll from four years ago informing us that France has the highest percentage of those who “do not believe there is a spirit, God, nor life force” at 33% (within the European Union 18% fell into this category).  In America the percentage of atheists is even fuzzier with various polls suggesting somewhere around 4% to 9%.  Further problems are created when agnostics are lumped in with atheists.

At any rate, when it comes to numbers, theists seem to hold a firm majority.  So much so that to contrast theist vs. atheist fertility rates may be impossible as the later could easily fall into the ‘margin of error’ on most polls in many Western nations.

The other problem with the argument represented by the Taki article is the confusing of (highly debatable) cause with effect. Are immigrants really being shipped into Western lands due to declining birthrates?  Not likely.  After all, one can’t help but notice that the rate of migration into America, for example, has not lessened even as the official unemployment rate has exceeded 10%.

We see a lot about replacement level birth rates, but those levels are (implied to be) measured against the current population numbers, collectively. And as most reasonable people concur that the world is just a tad bit overpopulated, a reduction in birth rates should be a welcomed change.  Those who would argue about economic sustainability in regards to declining birth rates would have to look past the fact that much of Western economic policy is based on debt.  Beyond that, economies (specifically in regards to quality of life) will adjust to population numbers whether they go up or down.  And though that adjustment period may be rough, it will pass and the adjustment will be made never the less.

The demographic problem of the West is not our numbers, but theirs (non-Whites). The presence of aliens in the West is totally unconnected to decreasing native birth rates, as a great many of those aliens are on welfare and not working anyway. Europe, at over 730 million people, could easily stand to lose a couple hundred million or more.

That seemed to have been happening as a natural inclination/reaction to the growing numbers of people post Industrialization. A phenomenon, not of war or disease but through inherent instinct, in which overpopulation was being corrected with the outcome of an increase in the quality of life, was in full swing. But as usual there are forces at work against that which is natural, especially in regards to Europeans.

As for the specifics of Christian impact on civilization historically, well, the text itself contradicts the claims of believers.  The suggestion that a civilization was once wholly Christian conflicts with Christian scripture which describes true believers as an endlessly persecuted minority, ever at odds with the world, including their own friends and family.

The bad news is that Jesus said Christians would be hated by all nations (Matthew 24:9).

The “good news” is that he commanded his followers to make disciples of all those nations who he said would kill his followers (Mark 16:15).  Makes sense, huh?

Much of Christian political sentiment and social morality is probably native to Roman Empire era Europe.  Which is to say, it reflects the cosmopolitan pragmatism of late Rome’s policy of ‘invading the world and inviting the world.’ However, the core of the hybridized doctrine, as represented in Christian religious text, monotheism (“one race, the human race” – “one god” – “all men” etc.) is distinctly Semitic and alien to Western hearts and minds.  And perhaps there is no better example of Christianity’s core Semitic, and thus alien, character than the New Testament description of believers as “the bride of Christ”. In that, Jesus is essentially portrayed as a galactic sheik and Christians are his cosmic harem.

As to whether or not the average European was devoutly Christian (in the biblical sense) in the Middle Ages is unknowable. They were certainly obliged to pay it lip service but they may have all been fairly agnostic on the specifics of the doctrine in their own hearts. That Christianity was heavily Germanized, and thus panganized anew, during that time seems fairly obvious.  And I would add, contrary to what others have suggested, that Europe hasn’t been Christian for 1,500 years. Christianity didn’t reach all of Europe until around the 14th century.

In regards to the West’s embrace of liberalism/feminism/etc. is concerned it may be telling that modern liberalism didn’t begin to truly take form until around the time of the advent of the printing press, at which point the average European was able (if they were literate) to actually read the bible.

Once literacy rates increased and Western peoples started studying the holy book, an influential number of them began to incrementally appeal to its liberal and thus contradictory and self-destructive nature.

Far from being a builder of the family and, in consequence, community, the teachings of Jesus are rather antagonistic to such notions.  Take for example this exert from Matthew Chapter 10 Wherein Jesus informs his followers,

“Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.”
“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
- Mathew 10: 21-39

The post-Christ world, as described by Christ himself, is one in which the believer lives in endless chaos, paranoia and trauma – at odds with their own people. That is hardly a prescription for an earthly order inducing to a semi-functional nation state or even family/community life.  The Christ dominated society is one in which atomized individuals ally with “spiritual brothers” as they war with their own “earthly” kin.

And that is the crux of the issue and what pro-White Christians have to come to grips with.  The liberalized, pro-diversity and highly individualized West is not less Christian today but more Christian, in terms of philosophical worldviews.  Does that contradict the scripture which describes Christians as a persecuted minority? Sure. But then the bible contradicts itself in fundamental ways quite often.

Moving on.

Of the biological family, Jesus pointedly attacked the idea of being prejudiced in favor of such relatives and instead elevated the “spiritual family” of mankind above flesh and blood.

“For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
-Matthew 12:50

and,

“He said to another man, “Follow me.”
But the man replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”
Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family.”
Jesus replied, “No one who puts his hand to the plough and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”
-Luke 9:59-62

And what’s worse is that in terms of defending yourself, your family and your community Jesus councils surrender,

“Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
-Matthew 5:39

and,

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven ...”
-Matthew 5:11-12

and,

” I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”
-Matthew 5:44

The question will naturally be asked, “How then did The West survive throughout the centuries seemingly being under the influence of Christianity?”

And the answer is, as was alluded to above, it survived by ignoring Jesus and his followers (illiteracy and few bibles helped).  The West remained mostly pagan, with its elite simply adding Christian aesthetics as window dressing.  Otherwise, to follow the teachings of Jesus and his followers literally would have led to the destruction of Europe long ago.  But there has been, I suppose, a wearing down effect.  After centuries of enduring its presence, and with the encouragement of the mighty 2%, Christianity’s “we are the world” philosophy has seeped into far too many areas of Western thought.

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.  For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.  But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?  But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.  To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin,  and no deceit was found in his mouth.” When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”
-1st Peter 2: 18-23

The passage in Peter is truly disturbing.  This claiming of superior morality from a lack of will or skill to take action is just moral relevancy sans the apathy. And it’s a popular recourse in Western Civilization today.  Its adopting the attitude that, “yeah well, in the next life it will all be made right, so don’t just ignore those guys over there burning down your home, take them a cold beer and off to bring them some more gasoline.”  In other words, the Christian core dogma makes courage a vice and cowardice a virtue. It makes heroes out of losers and victimizers out of heroes.  It teaches that the poor, dispossessed, abused, wretched and sickly are in a blessed state of hallelujah, while the hard working, successful, prosperous, brave and triumphant are fiendish devils who, though they will continue to strive and achieve in this life, will be made fools of in the next life, should there be one.

Christianity has built its alters upon the graves of slaves and “martyrs” and made idols out of cowardice and jealousy.  There is something incredibly insidious afoot, when an essentially foreign, hybridized doctrine, thrust upon Western Civilization through Semitic missionaries, encourages and engenders a philosophy of physical and moral impotence within the citizenry of that civilization.

Put it this way, there is nothing a conquering army loves more than an adversary whose moral underpinnings include the philosophy of “Love thy enemy.”

Some will ask, “What if you are wrong and there is a God and heaven and hell?”

Well, what if I’m right and there isn’t?  What if you endure the hardships of this life (poverty, abuse, oppression, etc.) on the promise of rewards in the next life, only to discover (obviously to late) that there is no next life and that all of the things you willingly surrendered in this one were thrown away in vain?  Will you gamble away that which you know you have (and can have) on a philosophy of “wait and see?”  Will you march obligingly to your own crucifixion and the destruction of your family, nation and civilization?

Or will you stand and be accounted in the here and now, claiming what is rightfully yours in the world that you know with certainty, actually exists?

Tags: Christianity



Comments:


1

Posted by danielj on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:09 | #

Or will you stand and be accounted in the here and now, claiming what is rightfully yours in the world that you know with certainty, actually exists?

Is this Pascal’s wager in reverse?

Reconcile all the Scripture you quote with the first commandment with a promise.

Do you literally see “brother standing against brother” as quoted in the Matthew 10 passage? Are you willing to concede that perhaps your hermeneutic is flawed? If you would like to argue based on the utility of the belief system that is fine but we shouldn’t confuse utility with textual criticism and interpretation.

Really, the issue is simply truth.

Is it true?

The issue is not, is it useful. If we were Benthamites then we wouldn’t be White Nationalists since it is a philosophy that is an impediment to material prosperity and progress. It is a backward looking ideology. We believe that he who does not respect his ancestors will not respect his progeny. If we instead accept the tenets and methodology of utilitarianism then we have abandoned truth, beauty and all that is good about European man and have accepted modernism in its most perniciously derancinating and form destroying form.

Obviously, it is a many-headed hydra - modernism - but the heads sit on a body of doctrines that claim that man is perfectible, linear and forward looking. Nationalism is a BACKWARD FACING movement. You, yourself have acknowledged as much with your prescription to destroy Eisenhower’s system of Interstate Highways. Why would you recommend such a thing? Because interstate commerce leads to international commerce which withers the martial spirit and encourages femininity and passivity? Although it does that isn’t the totality. It is because looking backward requires looking inward.

Promethean man makes me sick to my stomach. Promethean man is Jewish fiction.

The Christian metaphysic is what is up for debate.

Van Til’s apologetic and the apologetic of the Scholastics are the issue. Do you find Aquinas’ Five Ways compelling? If not, why not? This metaphysic and its concomitant epistemology is the only issue that we can speak to and about without being endless combative and needlessly divisive.


2

Posted by danielj on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:11 | #

That was my only comment on the issue besides stating that I always enjoy the posts of The Narrator.

Please, sir, open your blog up for comments.


3

Posted by danielj on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 01:25 | #

Since I’m not averse to criticism, here is some particularly trenchant stuff from Ernest Renan in The Religions of Antiquity:

Monotheism has become so fundamental an element in our intellectual condition, that all our efforts to comprehend the polytheism of antiquity must be nearly useless. At a certain stage of its development, the human mind necessarily becomes monotheistic; but this conception of divinity is very far from being equally found by the cradle of all the races. There are monotheistic as there are polytheistic races; and this difference is due to an original diversity in their way of looking on nature. In the Arabian or Semitic conception, nature is not alive. The desert is monotheistic. Sublime in its uniform immensity, it revealed the very first day the idea of the infinite, but not that thought of fruitful activity which a nature incessantly creative has inspired in the Indo-European mind. This is why Arabia has always been the bulwark of monotheism.

Nature plays no part in the Semitic religions; they are all of the head, all metaphysical and psychological. The extreme simplicity of the Semitic mind—without compass, without diversity, without plastic arts, without philosophy, without mythology, without political life, without progress—has no cause but this: in monotheism there is no variety. Exclusively struck by the unity of government which prevails in the world, the Semites have seen in the development of things only the accomplishment of the will of a superior being.


4

Posted by Selous Scouts on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 04:15 | #

You should emigrate.


5

Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:47 | #

I didn’t read your effort in full, so I’ll comment on the first few paragraphs, which I did read.

Believing in “life force”, common among those liberals who are liberal mainly because they’re conformist, and so this applies mainly to highly-educated women (almost a half of them these days, I believe): believing in “life force” has NOTHING to do with believing in God.

The real dichotomy isn’t one between atheists and theists. Sorry, you seem to have written a lengthy piece completely off-topic. The issue is Christianity, with its ethos of fertility, versus everything else that you can think of holding sway over large numbers of white minds in the West, including atheism and hippy rainbow bear lifeforce condom Gaia worship of death.

You should probably also keep in mind the agenda of the culture destroyers: Christianity is their enemy, and so they use their media to try to make it the enemy of as many people as possible, and the best way to do this is to make it seem threatening to “rational” people everywhere (for example, by exaggerating its influence in the political sphere and ascribing to it ills that it has not caused).

Again, I recommend the book by Regine Pernoud as an antidote to media-school brainwashing: read Those Terrible Middle Ages.


6

Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:04 | #

P.S. You need to get out more. You don’t need polls to see that true Christians are virtually the only whites having children these days. The phenomenon is so consistent that I predict its generalizability to be around 99%.


7

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:43 | #

Or will you stand and be accounted in the here and now, claiming what is rightfully yours in the world that you know with certainty, actually exists?

Is this Pascal’s wager in reverse?

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

It’s just a simple point.

If a thief broke into your garage and began to steal your hard earned Chevy Nova, would you heed the voice that whispered in your ear, “Let him have it. Tomorrow morning there will be a brand new Mercedes parked on your front lawn, free of charge?”

.
.
.
.

Reconcile all the Scripture you quote with the first commandment with a promise.

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

I actually did in the original draft I wrote, but decided to cut it out due to length and to keep the context tighter.

Here is what I had written,

The bad news is Jesus said he came to turn father against son and mother against daughter.

The “good news” is that if you honor your parents you’ll live a long life…..even though they’ll be trying to kill you the whole time!

I know, it’s smartalecy, but at least it’s concise.


The problem is that there is a clear contradiction between old and new testaments in this area. In the old testament heaven is for God, the angels and a select few humans. For everyone else, material and earthly pleasures are all that are offered (Job being a good example).

The new testament does a 180 and places all emphasis on the hereafter. That’s why it would no longer make sense to concern yourself with honoring your parents in exchange for a long life. After all, if you truly believed that beyond death there was a dimension awaiting you of unparalleled bliss and happiness the last thing you would want is more time in this life.

Plus you run into the conundrum of all those who die as children, never having the opportunity to honor their parents as a fulfillment of a divine command on the promise of longevity.
.
.
.
.

Do you literally see “brother standing against brother” as quoted in the Matthew 10 passage?

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

The word used is betray not “stand against”. What translation uses that phrasing?

And yes, as it also references father and son and mother and daughter and even in-laws, I see it as being literal.
.
.
.
.

Are you willing to concede that perhaps your hermeneutic is flawed?

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

Sure.
But I wasn’t exactly laying out a unique interpretation there. I merely let the text speak for itself.
.
.
.
.

The issue is not, is it useful. If we were Benthamites then we wouldn’t be White Nationalists since it is a philosophy that is an impediment to material prosperity and progress. It is a backward looking ideology. We believe that he who does not respect his ancestors will not respect his progeny.

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

I don’t necessarily agree with that. White Nationalism (in the American sense) would lead to an exclusively White nation. That in itself would be a harbinger of material prosperity and progress quickly and inevitably to come, compared to the multicultural alternative. The White race is both forward looking and backward looking; fatalistic and optimistic at the same time.
The other races seem to be content in, and live only for, the moment.
.
.
.
.

You, yourself have acknowledged as much with your prescription to destroy Eisenhower’s system of Interstate Highways. Why would you recommend such a thing? Because interstate commerce leads to international commerce which withers the martial spirit and encourages femininity and passivity? Although it does that isn’t the totality. It is because looking backward requires looking inward.

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

My “king for a day” comment lamenting the highway system was more about the greater ease with which they allow people to move about.
.
.
.
.

Do you find Aquinas’ Five Ways compelling? If not, why not?

Posted by danielj on December 01, 2009, 12:09 AM

I think it seems telling that there appears to be a consistent need for apologists down through the ages who, over and over, -and in long and eloquent texts- purport to explain in rich and complex detail that which they claim to be (supernaturally) self-evident.

An example is what Paul wrote here,

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
-Romans 1:20

If what Paul says in that verse is true, then it makes pretty much everything else he wrote superfluous. No?

As for specifics on Aquinas,

Well, as I think I’ve said here before, nature would seem to testify against the eternal as everything in nature dies.

As for the blog, I basically use it as a quick reference point for when I’m discussing these issues with friends and family.

I honestly wouldn’t have time to reply to comments and/or moderate it. I barely have time to keep it updated now.

Besides, I’m surprised it’s still up. I see Dennis Mangan’s blog has been closed by blogger. And his site is rather middle of the road tame.

And thanks for the comment on my posts here.

...
.
.
.
.

You should probably also keep in mind the agenda of the culture destroyers: Christianity is their enemy, and so they use their media to try to make it the enemy of as many people as possible, and the best way to do this is to make it seem threatening to “rational” people everywhere (for example, by exaggerating its influence in the political sphere and ascribing to it ills that it has not caused).

Posted by h.kalervo on December 01, 2009, 06:47 AM

It’s both their enemy and their friend. And they will both promote it and attack those who embrace it. Just as they attack nationalism for us while setting up a race-based nation for themselves. Or how they deny the existence of the White race while simultaneously blaming us for every evil ever committed.  Or how they grew rich off of the salve trade then turned around and shamed us for participating in it with them.
.
.
.
.

P.S. You need to get out more. You don’t need polls to see that true Christians are virtually the only whites having children these days.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 01, 2009, 06:47 AM

Which are the true Christians?

...


8

Posted by h.kalervo on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03 | #

“[Christianity is] both their enemy and their friend”

Remember to speak those words when your female realizes that she has to think of her career now and that, unlike she thought, “we might have to push that having children business further into the future again (but it doesn’t matter cos there are too many children in the world already anyway, hey maybe we could adopt a hungry African kid or something)”.

Good luck with all that, and be sure to let me know how it all turns out.


9

Posted by PW on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:53 | #

Another great post on the generally insidious influence which the non-European (Jewish/Near Eastern) religion of Judeo-Christianity has had in the White West.  As you say, some parts of Europe weren’t even fully converted to Judeo-Christianity until the 1300s, and pagan rituals lived on for long after that in many parts of Europe.

However, do not forget that (according to the New Testament) Jesus was a fervently anti-Jewish freedom fighter—the NT might all be entirely made up, but even if it was Jesus is still the most famous ‘anti-Semite’ who has ever lived.  His anti-Jewish ideas and actions, minus all of the universalistic rubbish, are to be emulated in seeking to subdue the international Jewish menace.

The demographic problem of the West is not our numbers, but theirs (non-Whites). The presence of aliens in the West is totally unconnected to decreasing native birth rates, as a great many of those aliens are on welfare and not working anyway. Europe, at over 730 million people, could easily stand to lose a couple hundred million or more.

This is a very important point—the declining population levels of White Westerners wouldn’t be a problem as long as we permanently barred non-Whites from settling in our nations.  Our population levels would eventually stabilize at healthy and sustainable numbers which are in better harmony with our environments.  But what is happening now is outright race-replacement by Jews and/or greedy Jewish allies who seek to flood White nations with billions of new non-White consumers just to keep their fake global economy afloat—they don’t care what race the consumers are as long as they keep consuming, though they prefer non-Whites or billions of mongrels to Whites because they more easily submit to Jewish domination and monopolization.  These race-replacers are disgusting traitors, putting fake Jewish ‘money’ which comes from Jew-controlled private printing-presses over the racial/ethnic heritage of their nations.


10

Posted by danielj on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:14 | #

I’m only responding to this one thing because I made an error:

The word used is betray not “stand against”. What translation uses that phrasing?

None. I think I was thinking of a song or something. I use Young’s Literal though generally since he maintains the proper moods and tenses.


11

Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:30 | #

NARRATOR - Oh for heaven’s sake!

Yes, its IS smart Alecism, and it also shows you don’t understand that of which you talk. I mean you haven’t BOTHERED to spend five minutes looking up what was meant here.

Weeks ago someone brought up against me the apparent unconcern of Christ in causing family break-ups, when I said that Christianity was family-centred. I forbore to answer, thinking the objection a bit simple-minded, and hoping it was obvious that a scale of values was clearly implied, and having other fish to fry.

Allow Cecily Hallack to answer. In this minor Catholic novelist wrote a charming and rather humorous story for children, ‘The Adventure of the Amethyst’, which received the Imprimatur in 1937.  With a vividly-realised sense of the English landscape and of the old country house which form its main settings, and with gently but tolerant satirical comment on the protestant ways of the neighbours, it’s about how a scientist and his family are converted to catholicism by the unexpected visit of to them of the scientist’s old friend, now a Monsignor.
He gives the children St. Luke’s Gospel to read, and asks them to come back to him with any difficulties.
Rose, who is fourteen, is perplexed, just like NARRATOR:

And later on it was worse…. “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother and wife and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot beMy disciple.” Why, the only person Rose had ever known who seemed to hate his own life was Great-Uncle Augustus who had gout. Besides, further back, Christ had said you were to love everybody, andhate nobody. It was difficult.

A few days later Monsignor calls the children together to hear their questions:

Then Rose broke in.
“Oh, can I ask my important one: what does it meanabout having to hate everybody and your own life?”
“If you hate suet pudding,” said Monsignor, “you try to just leave it. You don’t have any of it. Well, that is the way you want to translate the word ‘hate’ here. Our Lord didn’t use the English word ‘hate’ here. he used an Aramaic word which hs been translated into Greek, and from Greek into Latin and from Latin into English, which is along way for a word to go without losing a little of its exact value. It means this: that if Christ calls us, we have to be prepared to leave anything and anybody to serve Him. And if the dearest person in the world wants to stop you, once it is quite certain Christ cals you, you must just leave them. And if he sends you into danger of death, you must be prepared just to leave your own life.”

My copy of the book is a 1955 reprint: I was given it as fare suitable to my age when I was seven or eight years of age.


12

Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:43 | #

Oh, and btw, Pascal’s wager is perhaps relevant here.
It was jokingly versified by someone in the 30’s

This “Eternity’s” the horse
I’ll put my shirt on please,
Though some don’t like his wind, of course,
And some don’t like his knees:
And there’s lots to gain,as you’re aware,
if he wins, according to plan:
And there’s nothing to lose, for we shan’t be there,
If he proves an also-ran.


13

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:02 | #

Remember to speak those words when your female realizes that she has to think of her career now and that, unlike she thought, “we might have to push that having children business further into the future again (but it doesn’t matter cos there are too many children in the world already anyway, hey maybe we could adopt a hungry African kid or something)”.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 01, 2009, 05:03 PM |

You completely missed my point. The problem The West has is the presence of non-Whites. How will competing to have more children over the coming decades get rid of the foreigners who already number in the tens of millions? America, right now, is about 48% non-White. That means there are about 160 million non-Whites vs. 174 million Whites.

Would you really consider it as some sort of victory if in 80 years time there were 500 million Whites vs. 400 million non-Whites in America?

Personally, my idea of victory doesn’t look like Brazil.

.
.
.
.
Gorboduc, congratulations. You “zinged” my with an explanation of a passage I didn’t even quote.

Now,

Do you have a comment about the ACTUAL text I quoted above?

And I stress the*YOU* in that. Your opinion. Not one dictated to you from your church or found in your collection of children’s books.

...


14

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:07 | #

Supernatural content especially from the Middle East, is, undeniably fascinating but would it be it possible,GW that the amusing Jew stuff be limited to, say, once a year?

Too many MR intellectuals for this ?
I quite undesrtand.


15

Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:36 | #

“undesrtand” Well, do I have to spell it out, old chap?


16

Posted by h.kalervo on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:28 | #

“The problem The West has is the presence of non-Whites. How will competing to have more children over the coming decades get rid of the foreigners who already number in the tens of millions?”

Sorry, I don’t see life as a problem, I see death as a problem. If your problem is as trivial and crazy as the presence of people who are a bit different from you, then you might, at the very least, look into revising your approach to solving this “problem” you have. The NSDAP didn’t rise to power by trying to appeal to the baby killer within us (most of us don’t have one). Try a different tactic, moron.

P.S. Apparently, there would be no need for immigrants if whites had enough children of their own. (It’s true, our current “civilization” is so deeply mad that it’s difficult to say which effects follow which causes. But the pro-immigration rhetoric would be more difficult to pull off if whites had more children.)

P.P.S. I can’t say I see much evidence of thinking going on in this place. Lots of somewhat competent prose which tends to hide often-heard crap seasoned with errors that give the impression of shit when you look closer.

P.P.P.S. Why anybody would think that what doesn’t work for them in any conceivable reality would therefore work for everyone else is beyond me. I haven’t heard you running among foreigners gunning down women and children, so why do you expect me to do it? Maybe try getting rid of the straitjacket first, before devising plans for getting rid of “150 million”.


17

Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:41 | #

Narrator - OK, so you didn’t quote it? So what? Your intention was quite clear. We’re not debating just the meaning of various passages you select, but the status of the whole Gospel.
As poor old Ezra Pound said when his poor old mind was clarified a bit “It all coheres…” So it is with the Gospels.
And we’re not debating “opinions” here.

You are attacking the Church: the Church, not I, must be allowed to reply.

It is intolerable that the future of Christianity should depend on what a time-starved sinner like myself can find in his budget of “opinion”. My “opinion”, for what it’s worth, is that Cecily Hallack puts it quite neatly, and that depite the amount of epistemology and ontology, a kids’ book can champion the Church’s cause perfectly adequately.


However, what I’m attempting to demonstrate is that these matters - the “hard sayings”  present no difficulties to the instructed mind. The older Catholics had such a commodity from a fairly early age. Unfortunately you don’t have that benefit, either because you were poorly educated at a technical college,  or- much the worse for you-  having had the benefit of a ruly liberal education bestowed on you, you deliberately jettisoned it.

I simply can’t iunderstand the geographical fallacy that you and your colleagues so arrogantly brandish, the mere “opinion”, and it’s a worth no more than that, that anything “Middle Eastern” is worthless.


18

Posted by Gorboduc on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:44 | #

Too many typos in mylast.
The garbled bit should read:

and that despite the amount of epistemology and ontology often on show here. a kids’ ...


19

Posted by Gorboduc on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:11 | #

And another PS, for all those who persist in regarding Nietszche as a daring “philosopher” instead of a highly original (and therefore worthless) moralist, there’s this, an interesting analysis of the thought of Owen Barfield, a philosopher admired by CS Lewis and Tolkien, despite his having come under the influence of Steiner.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4192


20

Posted by the Narrator,,, on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:10 | #

if your problem is as trivial and crazy as the presence of people who are a bit different from you,


Posted by h.kalervo on December 02, 2009, 04:28 PM |

The difference between Whites and non-Whites is observably fundamentally different. Areas dominated by blacks and hispanics are riddles with poverty, crime, disease and corruption. They are hellholes. See Haiti and Mexico for examples.

Their presence automatically (and drastically) lowers the quality of life in any area they move to.

.
.
.
.

The NSDAP didn’t rise to power by trying to appeal to the baby killer within us (most of us don’t have one). Try a different tactic, moron.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 02, 2009, 04:28 PM

That you infer such violence in the article says more about you than me.

As does your name calling, which is generally considered to be a refuge of the weak minded.

.
.
.
.

Apparently, there would be no need for immigrants if whites had enough children of their own.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 02, 2009, 04:28 PM

You seem to have problems comprehending what is written.

Whites are having plenty of children right now. There is no problem there at all.

There is absolutely no need, whatsoever, for immigrants. None!

The West is overpopulated as it is. Beyond that there has never been a justifiable reason to bring non-Whites into The West.
.
.
.
.

I haven’t heard you running among foreigners gunning down women and children, so why do you expect me to do it? Maybe try getting rid of the straitjacket first, before devising plans for getting rid of “150 million”.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 02, 2009, 04:28 PM

h. halervo, don’t attempt to project your own sick thoughts onto what I’ve written.

Again, your seeing grotesque violence everywhere says much about you.

Get help!!!

.
.
.
.

We’re not debating just the meaning of various passages you select, but the status of the whole Gospel.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM

The status of the whole gospel is what the second half of the piece was about. The verses weren’t taken out of context nor their message misrepresented.


Here is your verse, in context,

One Sabbath, when Jesus went to eat in the house of a prominent Pharisee, he was being carefully watched.  There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy.  Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?”  But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away.

  Then he asked them, “If one of you has a son[a] or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”  And they had nothing to say.

When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this man your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all your fellow guests. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”

Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’

“But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’

“Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’

“Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’

“The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’

” ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ “

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

“Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, ‘This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.’

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

“Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.
    “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
-Luke ch. 14

You still want to claim it?


Notice this in the above,
Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”


As I said, the new testament de-emphasizes flesh and blood, drastically.
And add to that the context in which that passage shares room with your verse.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.”

The word hate there means,

(hatred); to detest (espec. to persecute); by extens. to love less: -hate (-ful)
-Strongs Concordance Greek Dictionary of the New Testament re. # 3404

Every time the word hate is used in the new testament, it has the same meaning. So yeah, it can mean(by extension) “love less”. It also simply (and primarily) means, to detest.

Also, the parable about the banquet (in the same passage above) adds to the theme of strangers over family.

The men buying land, starting families and preparing to build a life for themselves are the “bad guys”.  And so it is to strangers that the “master” turns fill his house (and assuage his ego).

I have to admit though, Jesus lost me on the “building the tower” and “king going to war” as analogies to giving up everything you have to follow him. It kinda looks like he winged those on the spur of the moment, as it is a stretch to make them fit with the rest of the context of what he was saying.

Jesus also says in that passage, “And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”

I doubt Jesus said that. It was obviously added later by early Christians as his reference to the cross would not have made sense until AFTER he was killed upon one.
.
.
.
.

You are attacking the Church: the Church, not I, must be allowed to reply.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM |

According to the most common interpretation, the church is the body of believers. Are you not a believer?
.
.
.
.

It is intolerable that the future of Christianity should depend on what a time-starved sinner like myself can find in his budget of “opinion”.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM

And who says Christianity induces a slave’s mentality.
.
.
.
.

Unfortunately you don’t have that benefit, either because you were poorly educated at a technical college, or- much the worse for you- having had the benefit of a ruly liberal education bestowed on you, you deliberately jettisoned it.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM

Yeah Gorboduc, I went to the same kind of radical trade school where Dawkins got his degree in TV repair, Darwin mastered in left wing carpentry and Jefferson acquired his skill as a shoe maker.

And of course those wise old catholics didn’t have a problem with “hard sayings” like, for example, ‘the earth is not the center of the universe’, right?

Wise, wise folks they were.
.
.
.
.

I simply can’t iunderstand the geographical fallacy that you and your colleagues so arrogantly brandish, the mere “opinion”, and it’s a worth no more than that, that anything “Middle Eastern” is worthless.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM

And where, exactly, have I said or implied that?


...


21

Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:29 | #

I have to admit though, Jesus lost me on the “building the tower” and “king going to war” as analogies to giving up everything you have to follow him.

In seeking peace a smaller army is going to be at the complete mercy of the larger one. The tower must refer to those who vainly believe themselves to be greater (represented by wealth in this case) than they truly are.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

We’re to acknowledge original sin is the meaning I suspect.

Then Jesus said to his host, “When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

The point is “and so you will be repaid”: act as one ought to and not as will reap the largest personal reward.

The point isn’t to betray one’s own, unless I’m mistaken…


22

Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:38 | #

Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’

“But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’

“Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’

“Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’

“The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’

“ ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’

“Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ “

The rich are more likely to fall into temptation and reject the invitation.

This passage really has nothing to do with betraying kin…


23

Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:46 | #

When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.”

I’ll agree with CC though that I don’t like how individuals are meant serve in this life so as to be rewarded. Sacrifice out of duty seems higher, more noble.

-

Most here would preach the same principles to citizen of a white state in his service to said state: we’re to care for the weak of our people. We’re to selflessly serve the state, and vanity is a serious threat to the state.

Christianity simply refocuses these same principles on the Divine, rather than the race.

-

In another post I’d wanted to add in: No matter how depraved our people become, we’re to love them. We’re not to grow cynical even if finding oneself the last man still serving his race. It doesn’t apply here, but it should be added somewhere.


24

Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:47 | #

Clarification: when I said “state” in the previous post, I meant a state designed to serve a race, or branch of a race.


25

Posted by danielj on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:54 | #

“Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

The king with ten thousand men is an unsaved person. The king with twenty thousand represents the kingdom of heaven or the Gospel coming at the other king. The number two in Scripture is symbolic of: the law and the prophets/the gospel/the gospel message or messengers. The terms of peace is the terms under which the Gospel is worked out. The terms are, as Jesus says, that we give up everything we have to follow him and act like defeated kings.

Similarly, the banquet is the banquet that God is preparing in heaven for his children. The guests that didn’t come were the Jews. God wants us to invite the spiritually poor and lame to the same banquet. If we invite our spiritual family then what repayment would we receive? Most of the passage is simply a call to spread the Gospel.

And of course those wise old catholics didn’t have a problem with “hard sayings” like, for example, ‘the earth is not the center of the universe’, right?

Wise, wise folks they were.

I’m not sure you really understand the Galileo controversy. This is a very boring accusation. I can refer you to plenty of material or you could do some Googling, but I would suggest you study the issue a little more.


26

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 10:56 | #

In seeking peace a smaller army is going to be at the complete mercy of the larger one.

Posted by Frank on December 03, 2009, 08:29 AM

So the message (in context with the passage) would be, what?
.
.
.

The tower must refer to those who vainly believe themselves to be greater (represented by wealth in this case) than they truly are.

Again, how does that relate to the context of the passage?
.
.
.

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.”

We’re to acknowledge original sin is the meaning I suspect.

Posted by Frank on December 03, 2009, 08:29 AM

How do you get that?
.
.
.
.

The point isn’t to betray one’s own, unless I’m mistaken…

Posted by Frank on December 03, 2009, 08:29 AM

Its point is that you shouldn’t place any greater significance on flesh and blood than on a complete stranger. In fact, you should love the stranger more.

Remember, Jesus is saying that we should love him more than we love our own flesh and blood.

So the question is, who does Jesus say he is?

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

-Matthew 25: 34-43

See my point?

Jesus commands us to love him more than we love our kin.

He then equates himself with the stranger.

Thus he is telling you to love strangers more than your own people.


27

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:08 | #

The king with ten thousand men is an unsaved person. The king with twenty thousand represents the kingdom of heaven or the Gospel coming at the other king. The number two in Scripture is symbolic of: the law and the prophets/the gospel/the gospel message or messengers. The terms of peace is the terms under which the Gospel is worked out. The terms are, as Jesus says, that we give up everything we have to follow him and act like defeated kings.

Posted by danielj on December 03, 2009, 09:54 AM |

Thank you, yes! That is exactly what it is saying. We, the lowly peasants, are a defeated people and should submit. (has a familiar Semitic ring to it doesn’t it)


Now how about that tower?

...


28

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 11:11 | #

Correction, that should read, We, the lowly gentiles, are a defeated people and should submit.

Which fits with your comment on our place at the banquet.

...


29

Posted by a Finn on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:02 | #

Luke 14 describes explicitly a situation where people give excuses/ subterfuges (with these words) not to believe in Jesus; my Bible does not use the word “hate” with relatives but “to give up”. Thus it means to give up the excuses that prevent from believing, whether they come from relatives or oneself. When the excuses/ subterfuges are gone, there is no reason to give up relatives; and this is the aim of Jesus.

E.g. in Mark 10:19 Jesus says that one must respect one’s mother and father; this is far from hating relatives.

Jesus’ words were on earthly life meant to his ethnic group, so turning the other cheek (which refers to challenges to quarrel, not to physical violence) is meant to build (almost heavenly) peace inside his quarrelling ethny. In any case, this intensified peace and care-free life was made possible by the presence of Jesus. Before his death he abolished the intensified striving towards peace and not caring for tomorrow in Luke 22:35-38.

Etc. I believe that Narrator will continue in his purposeful errors.

I have other things to do.


30

Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:26 | #

Thank you, yes! That is exactly what it is saying. We, the lowly peasants, are a defeated people and should submit. (has a familiar Semitic ring to it doesn’t it)

Come on!?

The kingdom of Satan inside you is defeated if you are elect and regenerated, therefore, it becomes a defeated kingdom. It doesn’t have anything to do with nations or genetics. You’re performing eisegesis.


31

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 05:21 | #

”turning the other cheek (which refers to challenges to quarrel, not to physical violence) is meant to build (almost heavenly) peace inside his quarrelling ethny.”  (—A Finn)

Turning the other cheek is an Old Testament teaching:

Isaiah 50

6  I gave my body to smiters, and my cheeks to pullers; I turned not away my face from men blaming and spitting on me.
7  The Lord God is my helper, and therefore I am not shamed; therefore I have set my face as a stone made hard, and I know that I shall not be shamed.
8  He is nigh who justifieth me:  who gainsaith me?  Stand we together.  Who is mine adversary?  Nigh he to me.
9  Lo! the Lord God is my helper:  who therefore is he that condemneth me?  Lo! all shall be defiled as a cloth, and a moth shall eat them.

( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/isa50.htm )

Proverbs 20

22  Say thou not, I shall yield evil for evil; abide thou the Lord, and he shall deliver thee.

( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro20.htm )

Proverbs 24

17  When thine enemy falleth, have thou not joy; and thy heart have not full out joying in his fall;
18  lest peradventure the Lord see, and it displease him, and he take away his ire from him.
19  Strive thou not with the worst men, neither follow thou wicked men.
20  For why evil men have not hope of things to come, and the lantern of wicked men shall be quenched.

( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro24.htm )

Proverbs 25

21  If thine enemy hungereth, feed thou him; if he thirsteth, give thou water to him to drink;
22  for thou shalt gather together coals on his head; and the Lord shall yield to thee.

( http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/pro25.htm )


32

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:23 | #

Luke 14 describes explicitly a situation where people give excuses/ subterfuges (with these words) not to believe in Jesus;

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

Uhh, no it doesn’t. I posted the entire 14th chapter above. There is no back and forth there.
.
.
.
.

my Bible does not use the word “hate” with relatives but “to give up”.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

Irregardless of how your particular version translates it, the word means the following in the original Greek

The word hate there means,

  (hatred); to detest (espec. to persecute); by extens. to love less: -hate (-ful)
  -Strongs Concordance Greek Dictionary of the New Testament re. # 3404


.
.
.
.

Thus it means to give up the excuses that prevent from believing, whether they come from relatives or oneself. When the excuses/ subterfuges are gone, there is no reason to give up relatives; and this is the aim of Jesus.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

Once again, Jesus said he came to turn father against son, mother against daughter and so on. His meaning is explicit.

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn
  ” ‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
  a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
  a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.
-Matthew 10: 34-36

.
.
.
.

E.g. in Mark 10:19 Jesus says that one must respect one’s mother and father; this is far from hating relatives.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM[

That’s not quite the point of that passage.
Here it is,

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.’”

“Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.”

Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

-Mark 10: 17-23

The point Jesus is making, is that following the old covenant commandments (including honoring your father and mother) will not bring you salvation. Laying up treasures on earth (land, a home, a family, a nation, etc) is a sin. Leave your family, sell all of your belongings and become a “citizen of the kingdom” of heaven and you’ll acquire redemption.
Under the New Covenant “spiritual” brothers and sisters are your family. With them you abide. The biological one are now your adversaries.
.
.
.
.

Jesus’ words were on earthly life meant to his ethnic group, so turning the other cheek (which refers to challenges to quarrel, not to physical violence) is meant to build (almost heavenly) peace inside his quarrelling ethny.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

Here is the passage,

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?

-Matthew 5: 38-46

Again Finn, the context is about the insignificance of this life in the promise of rewards in the next one.
Over and over again Jesus de-emphasized the relevance of this earthly life.
.
.
.
.

In any case, this intensified peace and care-free life was made possible by the presence of Jesus. Before his death he abolished the intensified striving towards peace and not caring for tomorrow in Luke 22:35-38.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

That makes no sense Finn. 

all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution
-2 Timothy 3:12

Jesus repeatedly told his followers that they were basically pilgrims in this world. That they would be endlessly hunted, persecuted and even betrayed to death by friends, countryman and even family.
In the end though, everyone must submit as everyone (due to Christ’s setting family at war against one another) is deracinated, finding their home ONLY in the spiritual kingdom of heaven.
.
.
.
.

Etc. I believe that Narrator will continue in his purposeful errors.

I have other things to do.

Posted by a Finn on December 06, 2009, 01:02 AM

Why is it the majority of those claiming to be racially conscience and Christian seem to have an allergic reaction to Christian text?

They have no problem discussing it in the abstract, but the moment the actual words Jesus spoke are presented, they head for the nearest exit.
.
.
.
.

The kingdom of Satan inside you is defeated if you are elect and regenerated, therefore, it becomes a defeated kingdom. It doesn’t have anything to do with nations or genetics. You’re performing eisegesis.

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 01:26 AM

Danielj, you said above, The king with ten thousand men is an unsaved person. The king with twenty thousand represents the kingdom of heaven or the Gospel coming at the other king. The number two in Scripture is symbolic of: the law and the prophets/the gospel/the gospel message or messengers. The terms of peace is the terms under which the Gospel is worked out. The terms are, as Jesus says, that we give up everything we have to follow him and act like defeated kings.”

As you rightly pointed out the first time, it is about individual submission. It’s not about the kingdom of Satan, as Satan is king of that realm.
Jesus identified each individual as a king forced to submit or else.
And as I said, the similarity between that and islam is striking. Though it’s hardly inconsistent. The Old Testament is essentially one long ode to Hebrews enslaving and mass murdering gentiles in fulfillment of their god’s divine appointment as masters of the world.
The stories of Joseph enslaving and ethnically cleansing the Egyptians and Esther doing the same in Persia are themes common to Semitic peoples, be they Moses, Muhammad or Jesus. It’s all the same thing.
.
.
.
.

You’re performing eisegesis.

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 01:26 AM

Me and
the Catholics,
Calvinists,
Baptists,
Orthodox,
Copts,
Methodists,
Reformed,
Catholic Traditionalists,
Charismatics,
Lutherans,
Greek Orthodox,
and
the 40,000 other denominations out there.

...


33

Posted by danielj on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:02 | #

The stories of Joseph enslaving and ethnically cleansing the Egyptians and Esther doing the same in Persia are themes common to Semitic peoples, be they Moses, Muhammad or Jesus. It’s all the same thing.

They’re also spiritual parables! (Especially the Esther story)

As you rightly pointed out the first time, it is about individual submission. It’s not about the kingdom of Satan, as Satan is king of that realm.
Jesus identified each individual as a king forced to submit or else.

Of course it is about individual submission but there are only two kingdoms and while one is unsaved the kingdom of Satan has a stronghold over a person. Hence Jesus’ statement about binding the strongman before plundering his house.

The thrice unclean man that Jesus cast the demon (Legion) out of is the same parable. The man was a picture of us. He was three times unclean, amongst the graves, amongst the pigs and demon possessed. He cut himself with stones (rocks and stones represent the Mosaic Law in Scripture) and wasn’t able to be ruled or chained up and bound.

The point is that Satan rules in an unsaved person until Christ overthrows him and binds him up. Then, after that “regeneration” Christ begins the sanctifying process.

I would encourage you to read that Serj guy from Chronicles on Islam. He is the expert there. I would suggest however, that the differences are vast and many.


34

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 14:55 | #

They’re also spiritual parables! (Especially the Esther story)

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 01:02 PM

So I’ve heard.

What is your understanding of their spiritual parable?

I ask not to be smart but because I know there are various denominational interpretations.

.
.
.
.

Of course it is about individual submission but there are only two kingdoms and while one is unsaved the kingdom of Satan has a stronghold over a person. Hence Jesus’ statement about binding the strongman before plundering his house.

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 01:02 PM

So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”

-Mark 3:23-30

That parable may be more veiled than you give it credit for. After all, did Satan not plunder God’s House when turned a third of his angles against him?
.
.
.
.

The thrice unclean man that Jesus cast the demon (Legion) out of is the same parable.

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 01:02 PM

I was unaware it was a parable.

Are you suggesting predestination there?

...


35

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:16 | #

On 27 Nov. on the “Christianity and accumulation to potency” thread, GW delivered the following edict:

Religious belief is a behaviour.  Many behaviours are gene-expressions.

I think that after that it has to be asked whether any of the hostile comments on religion that come from the Narrator and GW and the rest of them have any real meaning, or even deserve an answer.

Here’s the famous behaviourist, Watson, on his chosen discipline:

Behaviourism holds that the subject matter of human psychology is the behaviour of the human being. Behaviourism holds that consciousness is neither a definite nor a usable concept…The behaviourist makes no mystery of thinking. He holds that thinking is behaviour, is motor organisation, just like tennis playing or golf or any other form of muscular activity. But what kind of muscular activity? The muscular activity that he uses in talking. Thinking is merely talking, but yalking with concealed musculature.

It is interesting that a man who so freely disclosed that no meaning need be attributed to anything he, or anyone else said,  should apparently have been enrolled amomg the tutelary deities of MR.

To round off, here’s Watson again:

The premises of the behaviourist contain no propositions about meaning.

The air resounds with the sound of sawing, the crunch and crash of branches and boughs hitting the ground, and the despairing groans of self-dethroned and bruised “philosophers”.

A Happy Christmas to those men of good will who appear here: and to the others, a Happy Winterval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterval


36

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:25 | #

I think that after that it has to be asked whether any of the hostile comments on religion that come from the Narrator and GW and the rest of them have any real meaning, or even deserve an answer.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 06, 2009, 02:16 PM

Mighty assertive words coming from the fellow who earlier in this thread said,

It is intolerable that the future of Christianity should depend on what a time-starved sinner like myself can find in his budget of “opinion”.

Posted by Gorboduc on December 02, 2009, 04:41 PM


37

Posted by h.kalervo on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:52 | #

Naively ridiculing Christianity (there is no other kind of ridicule of it, except naive) is a characteristic shared by those who have spent their entire life in mothers’ basements or in ivory towers. Neither place provides them with real-world experience of any kind, which might make it possible for them to understand what they’re arguing about. There’s a kind of corollary here that applies, incidentally, to most philosophers: people who have never lived giving advise on how to live.


38

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:29 | #

Naively ridiculing Christianity (there is no other kind of ridicule of it, except naive) is a characteristic shared by those who have spent their entire life in mothers’ basements or in ivory towers. Neither place provides them with real-world experience of any kind, which might make it possible for them to understand what they’re arguing about. There’s a kind of corollary here that applies, incidentally, to most philosophers: people who have never lived giving advise on how to live.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 06, 2009, 03:52 PM

This from the guy who sees grotesque violence everywhere he looks!

...


39

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:08 | #

Narrator: yes, indeed!

But why should I come forward and allow my “opinion” - which is all you asked for - to be taken as the final word that Christianity could say for itself?

But if GW is wiling to let his entirely unsupported opinion/statement:

Religious belief is a behaviour.  Many behaviours are gene-expressions.

stand as MR’s official policy on the matter, there really doesn’t seem to be anything profitable for anyone to add here on this topic, or on any other.


40

Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:12 | #

So I’ve heard. What is your understanding of their spiritual parable? I ask not to be smart but because I know there are various denominational interpretations.

I don’t ever really pick up snark from coming from you to me and even if I did I would let it slide smile

That aside, I tend to agree with what I believe to be the historically Reformed interpretation of the story of Esther. Here is the general “thrust” of it:

When we examine the events recorded in the Book of Esther, we can see how they clearly identify with the events that occur at the time the world comes to an end. The Book of Esther, like the Book of Jonah, is a historical parable. That is, it is a true historical narrative placed in the Bible to illustrate spiritual truth. The chief characters and what they spiritually represent are as follows:

    Chief Character and its Spiritual Representation

    King Ahasuerus = Almighty God

    Provinces ruled over by King Ahasuerus = All the kingdoms of the world

    Queen Vashti = Nation of Israel

    Queen Esther = All true believers headed up by Christ

    Mordecai = The Holy Spirit

    Haman = Satan

    Haman’s ten sons = Satan represented by the ten horns of Revelation 12:3, 13:1, etc.

    Media-Persian Empire = The whole world

Simply outlined, the narrative begins with Queen Vashti disobeying the king (Esther Chapter 1) and, therefore, being replaced by Queen Esther (Esther 2:1-17). This points to the nation of Israel, who, in the Old Testament, was spiritually married to God (Jeremiah 3:14), but who was replaced by the New Testament true believers who become the bride of Christ (Isaiah 54:1-3; Ephesians 5:25-27; Revelation 19:7-8). In this historical parable, Esther therefore represents:

  1. The New Testament true believers who are married to Christ.
  2. Christ Himself as the head of the true believers.

Included in the Media-Persian kingdom of King Ahasuerus were the Jews who lived in the capital city, Shushan, which was located east of Babylon, as well as in many of the other 127 provinces (Esther 1:1-2). These Jews represent all genuine believers who are scattered all through the world.

The wicked Haman, who was very highly placed in the kingdom, managed to get permission to kill all the Jews. Unbeknownst to the king, this extermination was to include Queen Esther (Esther Chapter 3). Haman cast the lot (like throwing dice) to determine which day the annihilation of the Jews would take place. The answer was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month of the twelfth year (Esther 3:7; 9:1) of the reign of King Ahasuerus.

Queen Esther, at the risk of her own life, pleaded for the Jews and received permission from the king that allowed the Jews to fight against Haman’s ten sons and all the enemies of the Jews (Esther Chapters 4-8). The king also had Haman executed because he had plotted to have Esther killed (Esther 7:7- 10). Therefore, on the appointed day, the Jews were completely victorious over their enemies, and the ten sons of Haman were hanged (Esther 9:1-25). This historical victory by the king’s command was, thereafter, annually celebrated by the Jewish nation as the feast of Purim, a word signifying the casting of the lot (Hebrew “pur”) (Esther 9:17-32).

This historical parable is definitely pointing to the end of the world when Satan and all the unsaved will be cast into the Second Death, eternal damnation.

Not that I would agree with each little detail, but this guy has most of it right. One could spend much more time fleshing it out.


41

Posted by danielj on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:23 | #

That parable may be more veiled than you give it credit for. After all, did Satan not plunder God’s House when turned a third of his angles against him?

Maybe we could suggest that but I try to let the Bible be its own dictionary. So in the case of that particular phrase, bind the strong man, we know that Christ is talking about binding Satan which occurred at the cross. He then plundered Satan’s “house” and redeemed his elect in actual time.

The 1/3 and 2/3 are very significant in Scripture. I’m not prepared to definitely state what each use of it means in each specific instance, but very generally, the 2/3 (also, 666 which is really another way of writing 2/3) is a “figurative” number representing all the unsaved throughout time and the number of the beast which is, as the book of Revelation says, the number of man. The Greek there for ‘man’ is ‘anthropos’ which is ‘mankind’ and not ‘a’ man since there is no indefinite article. The 1/3 generally represents those that God tries by fire and purifies and redeems. There is too much Scripture with too much attached significance to go other each individual example.

But, as you rightly state, there is a lot there which is why I love exegesis so much. The Bible is the reflection of an infinite mind and therefore filled with parables and metaphors and riddles and puzzles. In fact, the Bible attests to this very fact when Jesus says to his disiples “And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.</i> God literally condemns those outside His kingdom to hear his words but not understand. The truth is hidden from the lost!

I was unaware it was a parable. Are you suggesting predestination there?

I think the entire Bible suggests predestination since I’m a Calvinist smile Anyway, it is a picture of any of us that are elect. We are in bondage and under the curse of the law (hence the man cutting himself with stones) and possessed by Satan to a certain extent until Christ drives out the strong man from within us.


42

Posted by h.kalervo on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:13 | #

Simply coming here to post is below my dignity as someone capable of actual thinking. I hope no one will feel betrayed if I continue to ignore this dumbass “Narrator”.


43

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:43 | #

But why should I come forward and allow my “opinion” - which is all you asked for - to be taken as the final word that Christianity could say for itself?

Posted by Gorboduc on December 06, 2009, 07:08 PM

No one is asking that you give the final word, just your understanding of the subject. That’s how we learn things.
I may be wrong on some of these things and I’m willing to put that out there by writing it up in an argument. Off the top of my head I can think of a few passages that could be legitimately offered up as contrary evidence to what I’ve posted. Instead all I see in response is that “you just don’t understand the passage”.

I don’t know a whole lot about Catholicism from personal experience (only what I’ve read and seen on TV).

Being raised a Protestant, the way to debate contentious theological subjects is to get out your bibles. Making a general argument (even if it is a passionate one) will fall on deaf ears without biblical text to back it up. 
I attended Church, Sunday School, bible classes and so on and it always came down to what the bible said. People like Thomas Aquinas or Martin Luther held no weight what-so-ever. In fact they weren’t even referred to at all, accept Luther, who was mentioned as a historical figure and whose connection to Protestantism was never really expounded upon.

Deferring to the opinions of others, even if they were Christian scholars or apologists, was generally seen as a concession.

In that sense, I’m still of old fashioned American -hard headed, English/Scoth-Irish- Protestant extract. It’s in the blood. We’re Protestant in religion, Protestant in art, Protestant in work ethic, Protestant in philosophy and Protestant in debate, whether it’s about the bible or the weather. Hell, we’re even Protestant in atheism.

But in that, I’m playing on your court and by your rules in that I’m appealing to the bible’s God as the single authority in context of the textual criticism. I’ve not once appealed to some religious critic.

...


44

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:44 | #

Danielj, thanks for the response.

That interpretation of Esther is the one I’ve always heard as well. It’s most likely a recent interpretation though, that came about with Dispensationalism in the 19th century.

There are a multitude of problems with that interpretation, not the least of which is that the King is generally portrayed as a doddering old man led about by which ever breeze is currently blowing.

When Vashti refuses the King’s command it is the wise men and princes who persuade him to (for lack of a better expression) “fire” Vashti as queen and hire someone else.

Then Haman convinces the King to go after the jews.

Then Mordecai (via Esther) convinces the King to go after the Persians.

The entire story, with a rather blunt wink and a nod, implies that the old King is essentially deposed by Esther and Mordecai.

So if the story is a parable then the following must be answered,

Who do the Princes of the districts represent? (angles won’t work as the princes are worried that their own wives will go Women’s Lib like Vashti).

Who do the King’s harem represent?

Who do the other tryouts represent?

How can Esther represent Christians when she explicitly represents jews in the story?

If Mordecai is the Holy Spirit and Esther Christians, why does Mordecai instruct Esther to hide her true identity from the King?

Who do Bigthan and Teresh represent?

If true believers are those who truly love God in their hearts, again how does Esther represent that, as it is implied and highly obvious that it isn’t her heart that wins over the King. Put bluntly, she wins him over with her skills in bed.

And I’m sorry, but the day a jewess is the most attractive woman in the known world is the day an all Eskimo team wins the NBA Championship.

Seriously, there are a multitude of problems with seeing Esther as true believers or the old king as God.

I bet I could make a more convincing case that the Song of Solomon is a parable of the end times.

.
.
.
.

So in the case of that particular phrase, bind the strong man, we know that Christ is talking about binding Satan which occurred at the cross. He then plundered Satan’s “house” and redeemed his elect in actual time.

Posted by danielj on December 06, 2009, 11:23 PM

Is it not possible the strong man is the holy spirit?

So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

 

  -Mark 3:23-30

I know the day of the Lord is spoken of as a “thief in the night”, but it is intended as a warning.

 

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.

To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

-John 10:1-10

...


45

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:53 | #

Simply coming here to post is below my dignity as someone capable of actual thinking.

Posted by h.kalervo on December 07, 2009, 10:13 AM

Then you just debased your own dignity yourself by posting that comment here.

Really, if you are still suffering violent images and thoughts or fears of betrayal then consult a local health official. You can find them in a phone book or through google or simply by consulting with your physician.

There is not shame in seeking out help!

...


46

Posted by danielj on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:30 | #

How can Esther represent Christians when she explicitly represents jews in the story?

The New Testament refers constantly to Gentile believers as Jews, sometimes with the qualification of “spiritual” but sometimes only implied. We are God’s true Jews to some extent. After all, Christ says He could raise up children of Abraham from stones and he does in fact since although we aren’t genetic descendants of Abraham, we are his children. In this sense, the children of Japeth dwell in the tents of Shem.

So, Esther can “represent” Christians because it is a representation.

That interpretation of Esther is the one I’ve always heard as well. It’s most likely a recent interpretation though, that came about with Dispensationalism in the 19th century.

It certainly wasn’t Calvin’s idea, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t proper. For instance, the Book of Revelation seems to become clearer and clearer despite remaining mysteries, but this is in line with a doctrine of “progressive revelation.” The Dispensationalists are wrong about almost anything so I’d be surprised if it was their idea.

If true believers are those who truly love God in their hearts, again how does Esther represent that, as it is implied and highly obvious that it isn’t her heart that wins over the King. Put bluntly, she wins him over with her skills in bed.

It is a parable bro. Just like the Song of Solomon is. I think you could figure out the answers to all your questions (or most) if you tried. You are smart enough. Pray for wisdom and it’ll come. I’ve already told you what some things represent in Scripture. Often times wine represents salvation and often times it represents false doctrine, exegesis requires figuring out which it represents in a certain context.

Seriously, there are a multitude of problems with seeing Esther as true believers or the old king as God. I bet I could make a more convincing case that the Song of Solomon is a parable of the end times.

They are both stories that are in there for a reason. The Song of Solomon isn’t just a hot and heavy romance story. God intends to tell us something valuable or he doesn’t speak. That is my theory. Make your case. I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

Is it not possible the strong man is the holy spirit?

I really doubt it. I’m always open to reconsider in light of Scripture though.

I know the day of the Lord is spoken of as a “thief in the night”, but it is intended as a warning.

It is only as a thief in the night for those that are unprepared. Those of us that are wise have oil for our lamps and are watching.


47

Posted by danielj on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:37 | #

I’m not sure what you are getting at with the John 10 quote.

To me, it seems like a quick reading could imply that Christ was Satan since the thief only comes to kill and destroy and yet Christ will come as a “thief in the night” to many. That is why I take the view that Christ only comes as a thief to those that are unsaved at the day of judgment.

Bigthan and Teresh could represent the Law and the Prophets accusing Christians. Of course God removes the curse of the Law through Christ.

How can Esther represent Christians when she explicitly represents jews in the story?

If, we are really going to get into it, I would argue she represents the mother of all the faithful to some extent but mostly Christians. The mother of all the children of Abraham if you will. I would argue this for various reasons but I’m only gonna give one.

Est 2:12 And when the turn of each young woman had come to go in to King Ahasuerus, at the end of her being purified twelve months according to the law of the women, for so were fulfilled the days of their cleansings; six months with oil of myrrh, and six months with fragrances and with perfumes of the women.

Esther is purified 12 months. 12 disciples, the 144,000 or Revelation, the 12 tribes. 12 refers to the people of God usually.

And I’m sorry, but the day a jewess is the most attractive woman in the known world is the day an all Eskimo team wins the NBA Championship.

Modern Jews and ancient Jews aren’t the same. The Bible says King David (Esau as well) was ruddy. They were obviously white folk so maybe Esther was beautiful.

There are a multitude of problems with that interpretation, not the least of which is that the King is generally portrayed as a doddering old man led about by which ever breeze is currently blowing.

He also reigns over 127 provinces. That was the number of years that Abraham’s wife Sarah lived and she is the mother of all the children of Abraham which is a picture of the invisible church.

For it has been written, Abraham had two sons, one out of the slave woman and one out of the free woman. But, indeed, he of the slave woman has been born according to flesh, and he out of the free woman through the promise, which things are being allegorized, for these are two covenants, one, indeed, from Mount Sinai bringing forth to slavery (which is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, and she slaves with her children), but the Jerusalem from above is free, who is the mother of us all; for it has been written, “Be glad, barren one not bearing; break forth and shout, the one not travailing; for more are the children of the desolate rather than she having the husband.” Isa. 54:1 But, brothers, we are children of promise according to Isaac. But then, even as he born according to flesh persecuted the one according to Spirit, so it is also now. But what says the Scripture? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for in no way shall the son of the slave woman inherit with the son of the free woman.” Gen. 21:10 Then, brothers, we are not children of a slave woman but of the free woman.
(Gal 4:22-31)

His law does not pass away ” If it please the king, let there be a royal decree from him, and let it be written among the laws of Persia and Media so that it shall not pass away.”

Then Haman convinces the King to go after the jews.

Because Satan is the accuser. God even allowed Satan into Heaven until the cross. (That is how he prodded God to let him trouble Job) Satan was constantly taunting God with His law demanding that we all be thrown into Hell.

So if the story is a parable then the following must be answered,

Yes they must. I think if most of the narrative works, we should try to answer all the questions though, rather than abandon the parable entirely. I don’t have time to do this tonight and the one study I know that did a good job of it has for some reason been pulled off the internet. We can work it out this weekend if you’d like.

Despite all of this, parables are still analogies and the don’t equivocate despite not being univocal. God, in fact, doesn’t even have emotions proper, so anytime we have a parable that implies so, it is an analogy of sorts so in one sense parables are not exact. Precise, but not exact.

Sorry this is jumbled, I’m eating dinner and rocking the baby.


48

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:44 | #

How can Esther represent Christians when she explicitly represents jews in the story?

The New Testament refers constantly to Gentile believers as Jews, sometimes with the qualification of “spiritual” but sometimes only implied. We are God’s true Jews to some extent. After all, Christ says He could raise up children of Abraham from stones and he does in fact since although we aren’t genetic descendants of Abraham, we are his children. In this sense, the children of Japeth dwell in the tents of Shem.

So, Esther can “represent” Christians because it is a representation.

Posted by danielj on December 07, 2009, 11:30 PM

That still seem like a mighty big stretch. For one thing, Where is Christ in all that? Who represents him?

If Esther is Christians, who are here people? Wouldn’t Esther more likely represent Christ since she the intercessor/advocate for her people’s salvation?

But here’s the problem. You say Satan was allowed in heaven until the cross, yet Haman doesn’t ascend to power (in the King’s presence/heaven) until after Esther is hired as queen.

Here’s another thing, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra take place at about the same time. By all indications the jews were not in bondage in Persia at that time. Esther, Mordecai and the rest are those jews who chose to stay there instead of returning to the place God assigned to them. They chose civilization (the world) over the hardships of rebuilding their assigned kingdom.

And I still argue that the King is passive in the story. If he represents anything it is blind power which can be manipulated by the cleverest, most opportunistic, person. First the wise men and princes, then Haman, then Mordecai (through Esther).

Also I don’t see how Haman’s sons can represent the ten horns since they represent Kings. (see Daniel 7:24-25)
Besides, some of those sons were most likely children.

And I’m still not sure why, if Mordecai is the holy spirit and Esther the faithful, Mordecai instructed her to hide her true identity from the King?!?

If you remove the tint of theological interpolation then Haman is quite clearly the good guy there. He recognizes a foreign -hostile- people are about to ascend to power with an addled old King as their puppet.
Mordecai is the antagonist, Esther is the bait/tool. In the end Haman is no match for Esther’s vamp persona and looses his life, children, people and nation.

Basically the picture the text paints is that Mordecai is a sleazy jewish lawyer, Esther is Anna Nicole Smith and the King is a 90 year old Texas billionaire.
.
.
.
.

The New Testament refers constantly to Gentile believers as Jews, sometimes with the qualification of “spiritual” but sometimes only implied. We are God’s true Jews to some extent. After all, Christ says He could raise up children of Abraham from stones and he does in fact since although we aren’t genetic descendants of Abraham, we are his children. In this sense, the children of Japeth dwell in the tents of Shem.

Posted by danielj on December 07, 2009, 11:30 PM

Where in the world do you see Gentiles referred to as jews? Paul makes a case that believers are heirs to the promise, but his case is highly arguable and its meaning a bit dubious.

As for the Ham, Japeth and Shem thing, I’ve always wondered, where did the Asians come from?

And Japeth dwelling in the tents of Shem…..isn’t that a picture of servitude? If someone dwells in YOUR tents aren’t they YOUR servants?

Yeah, I know, I’m rambling.
.
.
.
.

They are both stories that are in there for a reason. The Song of Solomon isn’t just a hot and heavy romance story. God intends to tell us something valuable or he doesn’t speak. That is my theory. Make your case. I’d be happy to discuss it with you.

Posted by danielj on December 07, 2009, 11:30 PM |

The short of it is, the Canticles represents the “falling away.”
Solomon is the apostate church and the Shulamite is the whore of Babylon.

At the very least it describes Solomon’s fall into idolatry.

It’s been a good while since I was into that study, but it goes somthing like this.

1But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

2Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.

5For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites.
-1st Kings 11

The Shulamite is his bride to be. A wife. In SOS 2, vs.  5 she asked, “Stay me with flagons, comfort me with apples: for I am sick of love. “
A flagon is a raisin cake. Raisin cakes were associated with the worship of Ashtorethth the mother goddess.

In SOS ch. 4 vs. 11, Solomon say of her,Thy lips, O my spouse, drop as the honeycomb: honey and milk are under thy tongue.”

In proverbs 5:3-5 he warned his son,

3For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil:

4But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.

5Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell.

Then there is her mention of her “mother” and bringing Solomon into her mother’s house,

It was but a little that I passed from them, but I found him whom my soul loveth: I held him, and would not let him go, until I had brought him into my mother’s house, and into the chamber of her that conceived me.
-SOS 3:4

and

I would lead thee, and bring thee into my mother’s house, who would instruct me: I would cause thee to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate.
-SOS 8:2


Obviously in those days the bride goes to the groom’s Father’s house, not his bride’s mothers’.

The “chamber” inside the “house” of her mother is most likely the inter-sanctum within the temple of the goddess Ashtoreth.

As for the Revelation connection, well, the Shulamite is the bride who leads the King into idolatry. She desires to cause him to “drink of the spiced wine of the juice of her pomegranate”. That plus the colorful and symbolic descriptions of her (both of herself and Solomon’s describing her qualities) in SOS bear somewhat of a resemblance to Rev. 18,

1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

12 The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14 And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15 The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16 And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

There’s more, but in truth I can’t remember half of it. But the above is generally how it goes.

.
.
.
As an addendum to that, it is interesting that Ashtoreth is similar to the Babylonian goddess Ishtar. And that the name Esther is possibly derived from Ishtar.

On top of that, Song of Solomon and Esther are the only books which never reference God (accept supposedly in acrostic in Esther).

.
.
.
.

I’m not sure what you are getting at with the John 10 quote.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 12:37 AM

That Jesus isn’t the robber who binds the strong man.
The Individual who rejects Christ binds the strong man (the holy spirit) by denying him, plundering/destroying the gift of salvation. Or rather, he attempts to “climb up some other way” (than through the Holy Spirit guiding him to Christ) thus blaspheming the holy spirit.
.
.
.
.

Bigthan and Teresh could represent the Law and the Prophets accusing Christians.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 12:37 AM

That wouldn’t seem to fit since in the story they attempt to assassinate the King.
.
.
.
.

Esther is purified 12 months.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 12:37 AM

So were the other candidates.
.
.
.
.

He also reigns over 127 provinces. That was the number of years that Abraham’s wife Sarah lived and she is the mother of all the children of Abraham which is a picture of the invisible church.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 12:37 AM

Technically untrue. But I’ve never heard of that notion before. Where does it originate?
.
.
.
.

Then Haman convinces the King to go after the jews.

Because Satan is the accuser.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 12:37 AM

Satan is a false accuser. Haman’s accusations were true.

...


49

Posted by the Narrator... on Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:47 | #

Sorry for the spelling errors and such in the above.

It’s early!

...


50

Posted by danielj on Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:57 | #

If Esther is Christians, who are here people? Wouldn’t Esther more likely represent Christ since she the intercessor/advocate for her people’s salvation?

But here’s the problem. You say Satan was allowed in heaven until the cross, yet Haman doesn’t ascend to power (in the King’s presence/heaven) until after Esther is hired as queen.

Esther could be a type of Christ and thus symbolic of Christians as well. She could just be a type of Christ though.

Satan still roams about the Earth like a mighty lion and an adversary even post-cross, accusing the saints.

Here’s another thing, Esther, Nehemiah and Ezra take place at about the same time. By all indications the jews were not in bondage in Persia at that time. Esther, Mordecai and the rest are those jews who chose to stay there instead of returning to the place God assigned to them. They chose civilization (the world) over the hardships of rebuilding their assigned kingdom.

Very few Jews returned. It wouldn’t negate the value of the story as a parable. God doesn’t give two shits about Jewish history. It was recorded for the edification of the saints. 1 Corinthians 10 (especially verse 11)

And I’m still not sure why, if Mordecai is the holy spirit and Esther the faithful, Mordecai instructed her to hide her true identity from the King?!?

I don’t know either. I wish I could find that study. It was excellent and put all the pieces together nicely. Maybe I’ll just have to do it myself.

If you remove the tint of theological interpolation then Haman is quite clearly the good guy there. He recognizes a foreign -hostile- people are about to ascend to power with an addled old King as their puppet.

Technically that is how it is. God sort a winks at our sin, at the very least, temporally. Really, justice would be dispensed immediately in my opinion, so toward the elect, he is sort of a unsuspecting old man. (Don’t tell ‘em I said that)

Where in the world do you see Gentiles referred to as jews? Paul makes a case that believers are heirs to the promise, but his case is highly arguable and its meaning a bit dubious.

It is all throughout the New Testament and the whole Bible. In addition, “replacement theology” is the historic position of the Reformed tradition on the subject.

You who boast in Law, do you dishonor God through transgression of the Law? For the name of God is blasphemed among the nations through you, even as it has been written: Isa. 52:5 For indeed circumcision profits if you practice the Law, but if you are a transgressor of Law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. If, then, the uncircumcision keeps the ordinances of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And will not the uncircumcision by nature by completing the Law judge you, the one who through letter and circumcision becomes transgressor of Law? For he is not a Jew that is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that outwardly in flesh; but he is a Jew that is one inwardly, and circumcision is of heart, in spirit, not in letter; of whom the praise is not from men, but from God.
(Rom 2:23-29)

And Japeth dwelling in the tents of Shem…..isn’t that a picture of servitude? If someone dwells in YOUR tents aren’t they YOUR servants?

Yeah, I know, I’m rambling.

Let the Bible define it. That is the main thrust of my (very proper) hermeneutic; the Bible is its own dictionary. Do you think it implies servitude? What do tents symbolize? You’re not rambling, you’re doing exegesis properly. Although, if you were half as critical of some other positions you take you’d think your way right to nihilism.

At the very least it describes Solomon’s fall into idolatry.

Indeed, Solomon’s fall itself might be a picture of the end times church’s fall into idolatry and the reign of Satan in the corporate church. Solomon’s many wives turned his heart from the Lord.

There’s more, but in truth I can’t remember half of it. But the above is generally how it goes.

I think you’re probably right in your inclination with SOS. I think much the same can be said of much of the Old Testament though. Especially, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Isiah. It is almost all about the great falling away and apostasy that occurs after God has saved the last elect individual in time.

That wouldn’t seem to fit since in the story they attempt to assassinate the King.

Maybe we are looking at it wrong then. Maybe not. I’m not sure. It isn’t a history lesson though.

That Jesus isn’t the robber who binds the strong man.
The Individual who rejects Christ binds the strong man (the holy spirit) by denying him, plundering/destroying the gift of salvation. Or rather, he attempts to “climb up some other way” (than through the Holy Spirit guiding him to Christ) thus blaspheming the holy spirit.

I’m fairly certain you are wrong on this one.

Technically untrue. But I’ve never heard of that notion before. Where does it originate?

What is untrue? Sarai was originally destined to reach the age of 175 years, but forty-eight years of this span of life were taken away from her because she complained of Abraham, blaming him as though the cause that Hagar no longer respected her.

Satan is a false accuser. Haman’s accusations were true.

The point is that he was accusing. I’m willing to consider other interpretations. They must simply conform to a proper hermeneutic is all and be able to account for all the events and characters. God will not fail in making every jot and tittle important in my opinion.

The Individual who rejects Christ binds the strong man (the holy spirit) by denying him, plundering/destroying the gift of salvation

It doesn’t work that way. Salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves. The grace is irresistible. No man could “bind” the Holy Spirit.


51

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:50 | #

Esther could be a type of Christ and thus symbolic of Christians as well. She could just be a type of Christ though.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

The old testament focuses on “salvation” of the collective rather than the individual. In fact collectivism runs throughout the whole thing. Adam falls for all mankind, Jesus dies for all mankind, etc…Yet the doctrine of the New Testament writers places the focus on individual choice. So in that, Esther wouldn’t seem to fit in anywhere, except to be seen as a “ra-ra” cheer for Hebrew nationalism and anti-Gentileism. As I’m sure you know, Esther has always been looked upon with suspicion. It’s the only book not represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls and many religious scholars have seen it as Apocryphal or even sub-Apocryphal.

Remember too, that the jews are not the King’s people. At no point does he acknowledge them as his people. He is passive in their fate. He could care less whether they live or die. He only accedes to one or the other under the influence of others.  Is that reflective of the role of God in the New Testament?
.
.
.
.

Very few Jews returned. It wouldn’t negate the value of the story as a parable. God doesn’t give two shits about Jewish history. It was recorded for the edification of the saints. 1 Corinthians 10 (especially verse 11)

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

It changes the tone quite a bit.
They were a foreign people living by CHOICE in a land not their own. There, they were fat, happy and growing in power.
They were definitely not an oppressed people in bondage in need of a savior.
.
.
.
.

It is all throughout the New Testament and the whole Bible. In addition, “replacement theology” is the historic position of the Reformed tradition on the subject.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

That’s a denominational take though.
Jesus was sent to the jews. “Salvation is of the jews”. The gospel was sent to “the jew first and the Gentile second” and so on.
Paul described himself as a biological jew. James is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. And the “strangers” Peter addresses are most likely the “scattered” jews as well.
.
.
.
.

Let the Bible define it. That is the main thrust of my (very proper) hermeneutic; the Bible is its own dictionary. Do you think it implies servitude? What do tents symbolize?

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

Tents means homes. Property. To dwell in someone elses home is to subjugate yourself to their authority.
.
.
.
.

I think you’re probably right in your inclination with SOS. I think much the same can be said of much of the Old Testament though. Especially, Jeremiah, Lamentations and Isiah. It is almost all about the great falling away and apostasy that occurs after God has saved the last elect individual in time.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

The problem I see with Biblical exegesis is that it functions much like a conspiracy theory in that it implies a puzzle, implies the dots, then connects them.

If you apply exegesis to the Beatles discography you could conclude that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced by a look-alike. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead
.
.
.
.

Technically untrue. But I’ve never heard of that notion before. Where does it originate?

What is untrue?

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM


That Sarah was the mother of all of Abraham’s children.
.
.
.
.

The point is that he was accusing. I’m willing to consider other interpretations. They must simply conform to a proper hermeneutic is all and be able to account for all the events and characters. God will not fail in making every jot and tittle important in my opinion.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

Is it not telling that the book and its events are never referenced in the Bible? Not by the later prophets, Jesus, the apostles or Paul?
Is it not suspicious that the book is the foundation for modern jews highest festival, Purim? (a celebration that was not ordained by God but created by the Hebrews themselves?

Could it not be that Esther represents the anti-Christ and Mordecai the false prophet? And could not the King represent the world government of the end times?

Could Bigthan and Teresh represent the two witnesses?

And isn’t it interesting (symbolism wise) that of the twelve apostles (tradition holds) that only John died naturally. And as Judas betrayed Christ (presumably) forfeiting his standing as an apostle, that leave TEN of the original apostles that were put to death through martyrdom.

Maybe Haman is the Church!

.
.
.
.

It doesn’t work that way. Salvation is by grace through faith and not of ourselves. The grace is irresistible. No man could “bind” the Holy Spirit.
Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

-Mark 3:23-30

Perhaps bind could be seen synonymous with blaspheme or rejection of the Holy Spirit?
.
.
.
.

Although, if you were half as critical of some other positions you take you’d think your way right to nihilism.

Posted by danielj on December 08, 2009, 11:57 PM

huh?

...


52

Posted by danielj on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:34 | #

The old testament focuses on “salvation” of the collective rather than the individual.

The collective salvation of “true Israel” which is not national Israel and it still focuses on faithful individuals in mostly faithless national Israel to do so.

As I’m sure you know, Esther has always been looked upon with suspicion. It’s the only book not represented in the Dead Sea Scrolls and many religious scholars have seen it as Apocryphal or even sub-Apocryphal.

Luther looked upon James as suspect but I however, accept the 66 books 40 authors canon of the Protestant church.

There, they were fat, happy and growing in power.
They were definitely not an oppressed people in bondage in need of a savior.

Obviously, at some point, they were in need. That is the whole point of the book.

That’s a denominational take though.
Jesus was sent to the jews. “Salvation is of the jews”. The gospel was sent to “the jew first and the Gentile second” and so on.
Paul described himself as a biological jew. James is addressed to the twelve tribes scattered abroad. And the “strangers” Peter addresses are most likely the “scattered” jews as well.

Indeed. Although, I take the 12 tribes of James to be a metaphor for the church, as well as the address to the Hebrews. You might be right about Peter but that doesn’t mean the letters don’t apply to us. I already quoted the Scripture on who the record of the Old Testament was kept for and it is the saints! Paul certainly addressed the Gentiles. In fact, it was his special mission. One reason the entire testament is for us Gents regardless of what a particular books subject matter or address is is that that God doesn’t consider a Jew of the flesh a Jew in any meaningful spiritual sense and He never has. Abraham was saved the same way we are today whether Jew or Gentile - by faith.

That Sarah was the mother of all of Abraham’s children.

She is representative of all true children of Abraham. Ishamel is also a meaningful spiritual picture and the two are contrasted. Sarah is the mother of all free sons.

Is it not telling that the book and its events are never referenced in the Bible? Not by the later prophets, Jesus, the apostles or Paul?
Is it not suspicious that the book is the foundation for modern jews highest festival, Purim? (a celebration that was not ordained by God but created by the Hebrews themselves?

Could it not be that Esther represents the anti-Christ and Mordecai the false prophet? And could not the King represent the world government of the end times?

The above two paragraphs are implying different things. In the first you seem to be implying that the book isn’t canonical and in the second that the book is primarily eschatological in focus. I’m willing to entertain the second idea although I my inclination is you are incorrect about it.

And as Judas betrayed Christ (presumably) forfeiting his standing as an apostle

He was immediately replaced and Paul was added bringing the number to 13 which, coincidentally, is the actual number of tribes since Joseph had a double portion. Although, I really don’t feel like getting that technical with the 12/13 distinction in Scripture since I’m not the most knowledgeable ‘numbers’ guy.

Maybe Haman is the Church!

If you are trying to get at the “end of the Church Age” doctrine I already fully believe in that. I believe at some point God will officially and entirely destroy His corporate church on Earth and all true believers will be silenced/driven out and Satan will rule in the church. The Bible definitely says this in a veiled fashion throughout the Old and New Testaments (especially in Lamentations and Revelation) and explicitly in 2 Thes. 2:

And, brothers, we entreat you, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together to Him, for you not to be quickly shaken in the mind, nor to be disturbed, neither through a spirit, nor through speech, nor through letter, as through us, as if the Day of Christ has come. Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because that Day will not come unless first comes the falling away, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, the one opposing and exalting himself over everything being called God, or object of worship, so as for him “to sit in the temple of God” as God, setting forth himself, that he is God. Do you not remember that I told you these things, I yet being with you? And now you know the thing holding back, for him to be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst. And then “the Lawless One” will be revealed, “whom” “the Lord” “will consume” “by the spirit of His mouth,” and will bring to nought by the brightness of His presence. His coming is according to the working of Satan in all power and miraculous signs and lying wonders, and in all deceit of unrighteousness in those being lost, because they did not receive the love of the truth in order for them to be saved. And because of this, God will send to them a working of error, for them to believe the lie, that all may be judged, those not believing the truth, but who have delighted in unrighteousness.
(2Th 2:1-12)

Perhaps bind could be seen synonymous with blaspheme or rejection of the Holy Spirit?

The entire idea is a contradiction to God’s omnipotence which is a clearly defined doctrine. It doesn’t “comport” with the rest of Scripture and has to be rejected as a consequence. Scripture is an organic whole and I don’t believe you can make contradictions. If it appears a particular interpretation is leading to a contradiction than it is wrong in some way.

huh?

If you were as critical of the beliefs you’ve replaced your theology with you’d have nothing left. I think you are far more of a critical thinker when it comes to what you used to believe and you let the far more blatant contradictions of the atheism you’ve adopted stand unquestioned and unchallenged.


53

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:49 | #

Obviously, at some point, they were in need.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009, 11:34 PM

So was Hannibal. So was Attila.

The point is, the Hebrews were the aggressors. Haman was the good guy trying to protect his people.
.
.
.
.

that God doesn’t consider a Jew of the flesh a Jew in any meaningful spiritual sense and He never has. Abraham was saved the same way we are today whether Jew or Gentile - by faith.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009

So in other words the entire narrative of the bible places all emphasis on “spiritual identity” rather than biological identity?

And the story of Esther?
.
.
.
.

She is representative of all true children of Abraham. Ishamel is also a meaningful spiritual picture and the two are contrasted. Sarah is the mother of all free sons.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009

Okay. But as I said, technically she was not the mother of all of Abraham’s children. Abe even married again after she died and fathered other children.
.
.
.
.

The above two paragraphs are implying different things. In the first you seem to be implying that the book isn’t canonical and in the second that the book is primarily eschatological in focus. I’m willing to entertain the second idea although I my inclination is you are incorrect about it.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009

It can’t be both?

But my overall point is that anyone can project whatever message they want to onto biblical text.

As I’m sure you know, there is a school of thought out there which posits that Paul was a false prophet and the that the scripture backs that up. And indeed it does….if you look at it a certain way.
.
.
.
.

The entire idea is a contradiction to God’s omnipotence which is a clearly defined doctrine.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009[

Again, that’s a denominational take. Open Theism would be its opposite.
.
.
.
.

If you were as critical of the beliefs you’ve replaced your theology with you’d have nothing left. I think you are far more of a critical thinker when it comes to what you used to believe and you let the far more blatant contradictions of the atheism you’ve adopted stand unquestioned and unchallenged.

Posted by danielj on December 10, 2009

The basis for Christian faith is the bible, where else would I turn a critical eye? And remember, the context here is whether or not it is helpful or hurtful to Western Civilization. I made a case that it is hurtful. I’ve yet to see a refutation.

As an example to that case I’ll re-post what I wrote above in comment.

Remember, Jesus is saying that we should love him more than we love our own flesh and blood.

So the question is, who does Jesus say he is?

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

  “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

  “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

  -Matthew 25: 34-43

See my point?

Jesus commands us to love him more than we love our kin.

He then equates himself with the stranger.

Thus he is telling you to love strangers more than your own people.


...


54

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:53 | #

The point is, the Hebrews were the aggressors. Haman was the good guy trying to protect his people.

The story isn’t framed that way whether or not you could make a case that it is historically true. The Bible interprets and defines itself.

So in other words the entire narrative of the bible places all emphasis on “spiritual identity” rather than biological identity?

In one way yes. The text has layers of meaning. The most important meaning is the spiritual one. All spiritual meanings eventually have implications for our behavior on Earth and that is where interpretation gets tricky.

It can’t be both?

If it isn’t canonical it isn’t meaningful for me as Holy Writ. So, it could be both but it would make it worthless to debate since it would be uninspired writing.

But my overall point is that anyone can project whatever message they want to onto biblical text.

The can apply certain hermeneutics and we can debate the logic of them and whether they are Scripturally based or not. Obviously, sola scriptura is itself brought into question when considering the Orthodox and the Catholics. I’m sure we are both more than capable of thinking through those issues on our own.

Again, that’s a denominational take. Open Theism would be its opposite.

I’m not aware of any denomination that endorses open theism directly. Regardless, it is philosophically indefensible even if we don’t accept the Calvinistic interpretation of the Scripture.

The basis for Christian faith is the bible, where else would I turn a critical eye? And remember, the context here is whether or not it is helpful or hurtful to Western Civilization. I made a case that it is hurtful. I’ve yet to see a refutation.

I just meant that if you were as critical of the other systems of thought you’ve endorsed or taken up you’d be left with nothing to believe in. I think you are more rigorous in your criticism of Christianity than anything else. It wasn’t specifically addressing the issue but your writing style/personality.

Addressing whether or not it is helpful, I’ve already stated multiple times that it doesn’t matter to me. What matters is whether or not it is true. We can work on making it beneficial after we determine its truth or falsity. I’m not a utilitarian.

Jesus commands us to love him more than we love our kin.

So? I’ll re-post what you wrote in an above comment in slightly modified form. Can’t we love both?

Thus he is telling you to love strangers more than your own people.

He is telling (commanding) you to bow down in worship of the God of the universe. You owe it to Him. Repent and be saved.


55

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:26 | #

The story isn’t framed that way whether or not you could make a case that it is historically true. The Bible interprets and defines itself.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

It’ debatable as to how the story frames itself. Much like the story of Joseph in Egypt the basic plot is about how Hebrews subvert, plunder and enslave nations. Naturally Hebrews choose to see Joseph and Esther (as well as Abraham and others) as “good guys”.

It’s no different than the Holocaust story or, in modern times, our “liberation” of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the jews presence in Persia is not that different from the jews presence in America. And they are doing to us what they did to the Persians.
Do you really want to see them as the “heroes”?
.
.
.
.

In one way yes. The text has layers of meaning. The most important meaning is the spiritual one. All spiritual meanings eventually have implications for our behavior on Earth and that is where interpretation gets tricky.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

Then what is your justification for the preservation of the White race? As you know, I’ve argued that a Christian worldview precludes particularism. Are you now agreeing with me?
.
.
.
.

If it isn’t canonical it isn’t meaningful for me as Holy Writ. So, it could be both but it would make it worthless to debate since it would be uninspired writing.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

It probably belongs in the Apocrypha as it deviates a bit from the rest of the biblical structure in story.
.
.
.
.

I just meant that if you were as critical of the other systems of thought you’ve endorsed or taken up you’d be left with nothing to believe in. I think you are more rigorous in your criticism of Christianity than anything else. It wasn’t specifically addressing the issue but your writing style/personality.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

It’s a subject I know well.
I was once like you. Confident in my faith. Assured of the truth of the bible. But over time you begin to think more critically and ask questions on your own. You begin to see fundamental flaws and contradictions in the stories and you either relegate the book to being an ethnographic history/myth of a particular people or you compartmentalize your questions and doubts and blame it on “sin” or the Devil or improper hermeneutics and so on.

If you were to narrow it down to one question, Why?....why did God create, you’ll find no answer in the bible.
Others follow,

How can a perfect God incapable of sin create, IN HIS IMAGE, that which is not perfect and capable of sin?

Who created water?

Why create Eve? Adam alone would most likely never have partaken of the fruit and even if he had his sin would have died with him having no long term consequence.

How exactly did “sin” transfer from Adam to his sons? That’s not exactly an action of the will or choice.

How can you “sin” BEFORE you have knowledge of good and evil?

Why didn’t Satan approach Adam directly? Adam was alone in the garden for what? days, months, decades, centuries?
How did Satan know to wait for the creation of the woman?

If God created the world perfect, isn’t the Garden of Eden redundant?

If sin is something man chooses as a free agent, isn’t Satan redundant?

Doesn’t the idea of Satan rebelling and leading a third of the angels (perhaps tens or hundreds of millions) in an attempt to overthrow God contradict with the image of the Most High, whose glory, might and majesty will cause every creature to take a knee before?

What does it say about God personally when, according to scripture, the overwhelming majority of his creations reject and curse him?

How is Jesus’s crucifixion a substitute for our sins when the punishment for our sins is eternity burning in Hell? I mean, getting kicked around for a couple of days before being put to death on a cross only to rise again as king of the universe isn’t exactly on par with eon after eon of unending torment in fiery bellows of Hades.

Why didn’t God yell, “DUCK!!!!!” to Abel?

etc..

My atheism is not based on complex systems or arguments from atheistic materials. It’s based on the fact that I once asked myself if I really believed that I had a soul that would go on existing after I physically died. And upon a deep reflection of that question I concluded that I just can’t believe that. I suspect that, deep down, nobody believes that.
There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that there is such a thing as an eternal soul. None. Zip. Zero.
From there up atheism develops and becomes a fuller understanding of reality.
.
.
.
.

Addressing whether or not it is helpful, I’ve already stated multiple times that it doesn’t matter to me. What matters is whether or not it is true. We can work on making it beneficial after we determine its truth or falsity.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

That’s not necessarily linear processing. Think, Climategate.
.
.
.
.

So? I’ll re-post what you wrote in an above comment in slightly modified form. Can’t we love both?

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

Come on now, you’re swinging it about out of context.

Jesus commanded us to love him (which is to say, Strangers) more than our own flesh and blood.
.
.
.
.

He is telling (commanding) you to bow down in worship of the God of the universe. You owe it to Him. Repent and be saved.

Posted by danielj on December 11, 2009, 11:53 PM

How do I owe it to him?

Like you, I just opened my eyes and found myself here in this “fallen” world with the rest of the wretched.
Had I stubbornly chose to be born into this world against God’s council and then needed his help to escape damnation as a result of being born here, I’d owe him.

You seem to be suggesting that simply being born is the equivalent to a Faustian deal with the Devil.

...


56

Posted by danielj on Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:51 | #

It’ debatable as to how the story frames itself. Much like the story of Joseph in Egypt the basic plot is about how Hebrews subvert, plunder and enslave nations. Naturally Hebrews choose to see Joseph and Esther (as well as Abraham and others) as “good guys”.

The Bible frames it pretty clearly, with no doubt, that they were enslaved in horrible fashion in Egypt.

Then what is your justification for the preservation of the White race? As you know, I’ve argued that a Christian worldview precludes particularism. Are you now agreeing with me?

If racial preservation is acceptable for all races then it isn’t particularism.

It probably belongs in the Apocrypha as it deviates a bit from the rest of the biblical structure in story.

66 books, 40 authors. End of story.

I was once like you. Confident in my faith. Assured of the truth of the bible. But over time you begin to think more critically and ask questions on your own.

You could multiply the questions till your blue in the face. I am critical enough. Anyway, that whole paragraph is condescending in what I’m sure is an unintentional fashion.

My atheism is not based on complex systems or arguments from atheistic materials. It’s based on the fact that I once asked myself if I really believed that I had a soul that would go on existing after I physically died. And upon a deep reflection of that question I concluded that I just can’t believe that. I suspect that, deep down, nobody believes that.
There is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that there is such a thing as an eternal soul. None. Zip. Zero.
From there up atheism develops and becomes a fuller understanding of reality.

No reason? The entire history of Western philosophy is filled with reasons. You might not find them sufficient but I do. My anti-atheism is based on simple philosophical arguments. I think that Plato and Aristotle nailed it in their time, the Scholastics nailed it in theirs, the Reformers and Puritans in theirs and I think the Presuppostionalists have an airtight argument and have nailed it in our own day. If you feel like you could refute the arguments of John Frame et al, I’d love to see you take them on in debate.

Your atheistic worldview is fundamentally flawed and deeply irrational. Maybe you unjustifiably believed the Bible in the past, but I’ve provided you sufficiently rational reasons to believe it now.


57

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 12:35 | #

The Bible frames it pretty clearly, with no doubt, that they were enslaved in horrible fashion in Egypt.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM |

Exodus frames it that way. Genesis, however, frames it otherwise….quite unabashedly.

Joseph was the original Joe Stalin.

Genesis ch. 37,

48 And he gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities: the food of the field, which was round about every city, laid he up in the same.

The use of force is implied here, though not openly stated. I’m sure some farmers were hesitant to hand over the grain they had worked so hard for to a foreign potentate.

56 And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
  57 And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

 

He sells them back the grain he took from them by force. And to add insult to injury, he sells it to foreigners as well, diminishing the supply.
.
.

Genesis ch. 47,

1 Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.
  5 And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:
  6 The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

This is just really nice huh. Of course, where in the world will Joseph find “the best of the land” for his fellow Hebrews to dwell?

12 And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to their families.
  13 And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.
  14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.

 

So while Joseph’s family is getting fat on the bread that the Egyptians worked so hard for, Joseph continues to sell the Egyptians a portion of their own grain for a profit.
But it’s more than that. What verse 14 tells us is that Joseph took the money out of circulation. And without it the Egyptians had nothing with which to buy the next portion of their own grain….or did they?

15 And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.
  16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
  17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

 

Nice guy.

  19 Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.
  20 And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s.


So. Good old Joseph now has their money, their grain, their livestock, their homes, their lands and even they themselves. He has reduced the entire population of Egypt to slavery. Surly he will stop at that…

21 And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.


translation: Joseph sent out the Pharaoh’s army to round up the helpless and impoverished (because of Joseph) Egyptians and herd them into pre-planned ghettos.

23 Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh

 

What an asshole!

And what of the Hebrews? Remember that Joseph (by way of Pharaoh) promised them the best of the land to dwell in. Well, now you know how they got it.


27 And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.


No wonder!

Then by the first chapter of Exodus the Chosenites are, naturally, wailing “oiy, da persecution.”

It’s the same old, same old time and time again.

The bible is not a holy book Danielj, it’s the Protocols version 1 with a generous helping of Hollywood style story telling.
.
.
.
.

If racial preservation is acceptable for all races then it isn’t particularism.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM

And as I’ve demonstrated time and again, the Christian worldview precludes any kind of particularism for Gentiles. For race, ethnicity, family etc..
.
.
.
.

66 books, 40 authors. End of story.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM

Don’t get mad, but I prophecy you’ll change your mind on that as you get older. Time and experience has a way of tearing down dogma.
.
.
.
.

You could multiply the questions till your blue in the face. I am critical enough. Anyway, that whole paragraph is condescending in what I’m sure is an unintentional fashion.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM

Not condescending. A bit tongue-in-cheek. But that’s only because it would take a long, long time to lay out the objections in a proper manner. They’re legitimate never-the-less.
.
.
.
.

No reason? The entire history of Western philosophy is filled with reasons. You might not find them sufficient but I do. My anti-atheism is based on simple philosophical arguments. I think that Plato and Aristotle nailed it in their time, the Scholastics nailed it in theirs, the Reformers and Puritans in theirs and I think the Presuppostionalists have an airtight argument and have nailed it in our own day. If you feel like you could refute the arguments of John Frame et al, I’d love to see you take them on in debate.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM

Well, you know how I feel about philosophers. It’s a bum’s profession.

Aside from that, it’s likely that, even though Aristotle and Plato probably influenced the likes of Christ, Paul and the other authors of Christianity, they’d most likely disagree with much of it as it came to be.
For one thing it would probably be too universal and equalitarian for Aristotle. But that’s another discussion.

If I were to debate Frame my first question would be, “do you believe in the Holocaust.” If he answered in the affirmative it would be downhill form there.

And no Danielj, the presuppositionalists have not made an airtight case. Nor the Puritans or the reformers or anyone else. That’s why we’re still debating it today and why we’ll be debating it a hundred years from now (presuming the White race still exists then. If not, humans will be living in mud huts and philosophical debates will involve little brown skinned people slinging feces at one another).

.
.
.
.

Your atheistic worldview is fundamentally flawed and deeply irrational. Maybe you unjustifiably believed the Bible in the past, but I’ve provided you sufficiently rational reasons to believe it now.

Posted by danielj on December 12, 2009, 10:51 PM

My atheistic worldview acknowledges that there is no soul. No evidence of a soul. No potential evidence of a soul. It’s physically unobservable, historically absent of evidence, it cannot be seen, touched, measured, observed, heard, evaluated or photographed.
It is , in its theoretical form (its only form), the quintessential, total, absence of empirical reality.

To get from point A to point S(oul) you must presuppose the irrational first and then work backwards.

Aristotle and Plato make entertaining reads, but in truth there is no rational argument for the existence of soul.

Death is much like the time before which we existed; before birth. And as we experience nothing then, so shall we experience nothing again. We are physical and nothing more. All evidence supports this. No evidence contradicts it.

 

..


58

Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 13:19 | #

Joseph was the original Joe Stalin.

Yerp.

So what? That was their initial status in Egypt but obviously they ended up on bottom after a hundred or a couple hundred years.

Then by the first chapter of Exodus the Chosenites are, naturally, wailing “oiy, da persecution.”

From the little I’ve read about it, I believe the Jews of the OT and modern Jewry to be genetically distinct. The moderns have certainly appropriated the ‘persecution’ refrain from their holy book.

And as I’ve demonstrated time and again, the Christian worldview precludes any kind of particularism for Gentiles. For race, ethnicity, family etc..

Except that I don’t think you’ve sufficiently demonstrated that.

Don’t get mad, but I prophecy you’ll change your mind on that as you get older. Time and experience has a way of tearing down dogma.

I’m not mad. I’m just sayin the creeds are clear on what constitutes Scripture and I can’t disagree. I won’t deny the principle that we tend to change our minds about things as we age, but others still, cling more tenaciously to their beliefs. I’d like to think of myself as committed to the Christian philosophy but open to argument.

Not condescending. A bit tongue-in-cheek. But that’s only because it would take a long, long time to lay out the objections in a proper manner. They’re legitimate never-the-less.

This was the condescending part: I was once like you. Confident in my faith. Assured of the truth of the bible. But over time you begin to think more critically and ask questions on your own. Your objections are fine. They are of a lower order then what I would consider necessary. I think the truth or falsity of the system should be addressed by our philosophy and then we can work our way down to textual criticism. I feel that way about any system of thought.

Aside from that, it’s likely that, even though Aristotle and Plato probably influenced the likes of Christ, Paul and the other authors of Christianity, they’d most likely disagree with much of it as it came to be.
For one thing it would probably be too universal and equalitarian for Aristotle. But that’s another discussion.

Almost all of the ‘bums’ were elitist, not just Aristotle. I think you could derive a “principle of human station” from the Bible if you were inclined to let it speak for itself. I’m not a bum though. I’ve got a job.

If I were to debate Frame my first question would be, “do you believe in the Holocaust.” If he answered in the affirmative it would be downhill form there.

I’ll try to ask him although I think it would be more fair to ask “if he believes that there were homicidal gas chambers employed by the Germans as part of a deliberate extermination program as opposed to a resettlement program” or something like that. I don’t see how it is relevant though.

It’s physically unobservable, historically absent of evidence, it cannot be seen, touched, measured, observed, heard, evaluated or photographed.

So are the laws of logic. So are mathematics. So are propositions. I don’t think you’ve familiarized yourself enough with the presuppositionalists yet. I think your aversion is hampering your mental evolution. In fact, even claiming “empiricism” as a starting point requires a (unacknowledged in your case) metaphysical and an epistemological foundation. Empiricism is self defeating and its foundations are sand.

To get from point A to point S(oul) you must presuppose the irrational first and then work backwards.

What is point A?

Aristotle and Plato make entertaining reads, but in truth there is no rational argument for the existence of soul.

We either disagree about the nature of rationality or you haven’t read the arguments properly.

We are physical and nothing more. All evidence supports this. No evidence contradicts it.

Evidence that contradicts: Language, Intentionality, Mathematics, Logic, Propositions, Change, the Act/Potency distinction, Geometry


59

Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:32 | #

So what? That was their initial status in Egypt but obviously they ended up on bottom after a hundred or a couple hundred years.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM | #

No matter how you slice it they came in as aggressors and plundered when they left. Do you really beleive that in between those they were an unjustly oppressed people?
.
.
.
.

I’m not mad. I’m just sayin the creeds are clear on what constitutes Scripture and I can’t disagree.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

What I mean is that your view of the Apocrypha may be more generous in time to come. I’m not that much older than you. But I’ve still changed my views a bit in the past six or seven years. I believe the word is cynical, in a way. It’s sort of like saying Aha! only to discover others have said it many times before.
.
.
.
.

They are of a lower order then what I would consider necessary. I think the truth or falsity of the system should be addressed by our philosophy and then we can work our way down to textual criticism. I feel that way about any system of thought.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

It’s not easy to bring any depth to conversations like this. I’m sure you, like me, have to contend with different things as you type. It’s a wonder I don’t occasionally include a “close the damn door!” into these posts.
.
.
.
.

I’ll try to ask him although I think it would be more fair to ask “if he believes that there were homicidal gas chambers employed by the Germans as part of a deliberate extermination program as opposed to a resettlement program” or something like that. I don’t see how it is relevant though.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

Has something to do with evidence. Themes. Narratives. HOW you construct to justify a belief in the one would reflect on how you construct to justify a belief in the other.
.
.
.
.

So are the laws of logic. So are mathematics. So are propositions.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

That’s not quite the same thing. A soul and the ability to add are not exactly parallel.

But even at that, logic, mathematics and such do have historical and observable qualities. You can demonstrate 2+2. Can you demonstrate soul?
.
.
.
.

To get from point A to point S(oul) you must presuppose the irrational first and then work backwards.

What is point A?

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

Where you begin your case.
.
.
.
.

We are physical and nothing more. All evidence supports this. No evidence contradicts it.

Evidence that contradicts: Language, Intentionality, Mathematics, Logic, Propositions, Change, the Act/Potency distinction, Geometry

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 12:19 PM

Where in those things do you find evidence for your soul?


...


60

Posted by danielj on Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:22 | #

No matter how you slice it they came in as aggressors and plundered when they left. Do you really beleive that in between those they were an unjustly oppressed people?

Yes. The Bible says they were slaves.

What I mean is that your view of the Apocrypha may be more generous in time to come. I’m not that much older than you. But I’ve still changed my views a bit in the past six or seven years. I believe the word is cynical, in a way. It’s sort of like saying Aha! only to discover others have said it many times before.

It is all Apocrypha for you.

It’s not easy to bring any depth to conversations like this. I’m sure you, like me, have to contend with different things as you type. It’s a wonder I don’t occasionally include a “close the damn door!” into these posts.

I know. I have two free hours a night after I’ve made it back from work and before I go to bed. That is Monday through Saturday. I think we are generous in our latitude of mutual understanding.

You can demonstrate 2+2.

Not using your epistemological starting point of empiricism. 

Can you demonstrate soul?

Obviously, I believe I can. Although, the varied concepts of soul that have been demonstrated should all be taken into account. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the formal cause of man. For Plato, it was an extant thing in the heavenly realm. For me it is something else.

Where in those things do you find evidence for your soul?

How bout I just mail you the books I have on the subject? If not, we can start with the basics here although it’ll take me all of the next week to work through it.


61

Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:32 | #

Yes. The Bible says they were slaves.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 05:22 PM

It says the Egyptians were slaves as well. Who was doing the oppressing?

But again, the hebrews plundered and enslaved Egypt when they arrived and plundered it when they left. Yet in between they were “oppressed”?
They chose to come.
They chose to steal Egyptian property.
They chose to stay.
They chose to leave and steal Egyptian property on their way out.

Where in that would “oppression” realistically fit in?

It’s no different that 300lb. coloreds with gold teeth and $175 sneakers insisting they’re “oppressed.”

 

.
.
.
.

It is all Apocrypha for you.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 05:22 PM

Nope. I acknowledge the varying sections.
.
.
.
.

Obviously, I believe I can. Although, the varied concepts of soul that have been demonstrated should all be taken into account. For Aristotle, the soul was simply the formal cause of man. For Plato, it was an extant thing in the heavenly realm. For me it is something else.


How bout I just mail you the books I have on the subject? If not, we can start with the basics here although it’ll take me all of the next week to work through it.

Posted by danielj on December 13, 2009, 05:22 PM[

Wouldn’t those be apocryphal in the context of this discussion?

At any rate (and not be condescending -but as a time savor-) do you have a volume of books on the existence of the big toe?

You know?

The soul is not obvious or observable.

In other words you can present me with arguments for the existence of soul, but you can offer no evidence for the existence of soul.

No one can, so don’t take it personally.

Put another way, if there is such thing as a soul then nothing about life makes sense. Extending that, if the bible is true then life doesn’t make sense. Its very perpetuation would be illogical and contradictory.

No, evolution does not present an air-tight case either. But its basic theme is more logical.


...


62

Posted by danielj on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:30 | #

The soul is not obvious or observable.

In other words you can present me with arguments for the existence of soul, but you can offer no evidence for the existence of soul

The laws of logic are not observable and neither are the principles of mathematics. I don’t think you understand how devastating this is.

Empiricism is not observable. Their is no “evidence” that we should accept your methodology. Your attempt to avoid metaphysics is wrongheaded. I could send you a very good book by an atheist professor who lays out arguments in easily digestible form that at least attempts to deal with the problems from a rational starting point.

You are, presently, incapable of defending your belief system in rational fashion.


63

Posted by danielj on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:32 | #

Fred,

most evolutionists are violently anti-racist. Most antis believe in evolution and do not believe in God. Therefore, atheism and evolution are just as harmful to White Nationalism as Christianity.


64

Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:43 | #

The laws of logic are not observable and neither are the principles of mathematics. I don’t think you understand how devastating this is.

Posted by danielj on December 14, 2009, 11:30 PM |

You’re using the presuppositional argument in a way it isn’t designed to be used Danielj.

Mathematics and logic are not the same thing as the soul. I think you know that, you just don’t know where or how to take your talking points forward.

Put simply, you can demonstrate logic, you can demonstrate mathematics but you cannot demonstrate soul.
.
.
.
.

You are, presently, incapable of defending your belief system in rational fashion.

Posted by danielj on December 14, 2009, 11:30 PM

Thus far I haven’t had to defend it since there has been no rebuttal.

I’ve followed the flow of this conversation in this thread with you and others as it veered from one topic to another all the while avoiding the presentation of scripture I laid out in the above article.

.
.
.
.
.

most evolutionists are violently anti-racist. Most antis believe in evolution and do not believe in God. Therefore, atheism and evolution are just as harmful to White Nationalism as Christianity.

Posted by danielj on December 14, 2009, 11:30 PM

Precisely. So the question then becomes, from which worldview can we build the necessary wall of defense upon.

Atheism is neutral on morality and thus allows us to build one that is helpful to us.

Christianity is explicitly anti-racial, anti-family and anti-nation.


...


65

Posted by danielj on Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:47 | #

Put simply, you can demonstrate logic, you can demonstrate mathematics but you cannot demonstrate soul.

You cannot demonstrate the laws of logic without presupposing them.

I’m not talking about the soul. I’m saying the laws of logic themselves and mathematics are a rebuttal of thoroughgoing materialism.


66

Posted by danielj on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:30 | #

Thanks D! I have read the Wiki but I’d like to find a good book on the subject.


67

Posted by danielj on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 01:18 | #

Thanks again.


68

Posted by Willy Garrett on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:02 | #

Narrator,

I think you have hit the nail pretty square.

I tried my darndest to be a Christian from 1993 to about 2005 in part of my search for a worldview/lifestyle that was sane amongst the liberal madness.  I went to worship service and Bible study at least once a week.  Over time I just could not make it work anymore.  Largely this occurred when my racial awakening could not be reconciled to the modern, mainstream interpretations of Christianity.  Looking to the Bible as a support for ethno-centrism is dubious.  Just following DanielJ’s responses to you proves the point.  Not that he isn’t doing a good job of trying.  For it to support our cause all the straightforward things you quoted Jesus saying have to be explained as very elaborate metaphors which one must have the magic decoder ring to understand.  Yes, the New Testament is full of parables but these usually stand out clearly (like the Prodigal Son or the vineyard workers).  Going so far as saying the Esther story is a parable is a long stretch.  There may be one church in a thousand that would agree with DanielJ’s spin on that.  Same thing for supporting racialism.  At best it can be said the Bible is neutral on race.  Modern Judeo-Christianity (which is the vast majority of Christianity today) is clearly anti-racist (i.e. anti-White).

Last year I read Which Way Western Man by William Galey Simpson.  It is a long book and somewhat tedious but very Aryan in approach.  The beginning of the book focuses on Simpson’s spiritual journey which was dominated by a devout desire to apply Christianity to life.  Simpson concluded that insofar as the accounts of Jesus are trustworthy - more so with the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) since they are largely corroborating and narrative than with the interpretative, less corroborated work of John - Jesus is not speaking to the masses of men but to the disciples he is trying to recruit.  So all the sayings about hating one’s family and not burying the dead, etc., are literal in that Jesus only wanted a dedicated/fanatical cadre.  He was only trying to reach “those with eyes to see and ears to hear”, not mass-man, who was and still is blind and deaf spiritually.  Simpson saw clearly that the words of Jesus were not foundations upon which a long-lasting civilization could be built.  Jesus was only concerned with the next life not this one.

Simpson considered him a great mystic along with (surprisingly) Nietzsche but thought Christianity wholly unfit for ordering a society.  It must also be noted that Christianity is much more a construction of Paul and the early church fathers who agreed to its cannon than to Jesus.  Western Man progressed through the mid-1900s in spite of not because of Christianity.

There are many words of Jesus that we should heed and two come to mind at present paraphrasing:

-If a tree does not produce good fruit cut it down and cast it into the fire, and

-Man was not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for Man

Especially the latter statement.  We - Euroman - need a faith/religion/mythology that serves us not vice versa.  This does not necessarily have to be a new philosophy (as Scrooby and others rail against); it could simply be the rediscovery of our roots and pulling them back together.  Christianity as currently constructed/interpreted demands our supplication to it even as we are being consumed if not by it, by things that use it.  A healthy faith must lead to progress for our people or be cast aside.

With all this said I wish DanielJ and other pro-White Christians the best in their efforts to uncouple their faith from the array of forces working for our destruction.


69

Posted by the Narrator... on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:54 | #

You cannot demonstrate the laws of logic without presupposing them.

Posted by danielj on December 16, 2009, 09:47 AM |

Of course you can.

Most life lessons come from a demonstration of logic before the supposing of the logic takes place.
Fire = hot is not necessarily a logical conclusion one draws from presupposing it.


The same is true of mathematics. We don’t pre-suppose 2+2 = 4. We learn it.

But at that it is a cultural thing. We could just as easily say 2+2 = 93, if we assigned that value to its equation.

Even many things which we pre-suppose are first culturally defined then taught, then recognized.

Elampxe, wrdos sepleled wonrg can slitl be raed bcusaee we are tghuat to rgnzioece ctulrlulay dfineed pttearns.
.
.
.
.

I’m not talking about the soul.

Posted by danielj on December 16, 2009, 09:47 AM

Yeah, but, we were talking about the soul.

And that’s important because it’s a different discussion from the laws of logic and the evidence for their existence.

The Soul. The Laws of Logic….....Apples and horseshoes.
.
.
.
.

I’m saying the laws of logic themselves and mathematics are a rebuttal of thoroughgoing materialism.

Posted by danielj on December 16, 2009, 09:47 AM

Presuppositionalism is interesting argument. But that’s all it is, an argument. One in a long line of such arguments.

.
.
.
.
Willy Garrett,

That’s an interesting post.

I’m not sure we need a replacement religion though. I’d prefer the retirement of supernatural belief systems myself.

Can Western man move beyond religion?

I don’t know.

But I hope so.

...


70

Posted by Willy Garrett on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:57 | #

I’m not sure we need a replacement religion though. I’d prefer the retirement of supernatural belief systems myself.

Narrator,

The assumption that the foundational narrative of a people has to be supernatural or be taken literally is where the devout Christians and Atheists both seem to miss the point.  What it needs to be is positive and true to our spirits.  It needs to be something that speaks to our souls as Aryan and integrate the past, present, and future for us.  Others have posted about this before at MR but the true western cannon would include writings by Shakespeare and Goethe, Homer and Tolkien, etc.  Nothing better in toto can be created than what we already have as long as the right works are mined and used.  These were written by us for us.  There is nothing really new in this.  What needs to be new next time (when we retake control of our societies) is that we are much more careful and firm in the protection of our cannon and thus ourselves.

Christianity has some valuable elements but its foundation - the Scriptures - are both foreign and were in no way intended to order a society - especially an Aryan one - around.  Jesus was one of countless “messiahs” who came to the Jewish people in those days but his salvation message was so unorthodox they gave him the boot.  It is a bit telling that the original intended audience of Jesus’ message were the ancient Hebrews and they rejected it (smartly?)  The denizens of the gutters of dotard Rome drank it up like spring water, due in lare part to its levelling of humanity and de-emphasis on earthly success.


71

Posted by Willy Garrett on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:00 | #

Oops, cannon should read canon.  No guns just words.


72

Posted by danielj on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:55 | #

But at that it is a cultural thing. We could just as easily say 2+2 = 93, if we assigned that value to its equation.

No. No we couldn’t.

You are making an argument for conceptualism of some variety now. You are all over the map.

Yeah, but, we were talking about the soul.

I know. In that particular piece I wasn’t referring specifically to the soul.

The Soul. The Laws of Logic….....Apples and horseshoes.

Not exactly. They are tied together just like metaphysics is tied to ontology is tied to epistemology.

Presuppositionalism is interesting argument. But that’s all it is, an argument. One in a long line of such arguments.

It is a lot more than that.


73

Posted by the Narrator... on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:01 | #

No. No we couldn’t.

Posted by danielj on December 18, 2009, 03:55 AM

Yes. Yes we could. In fact a great many human beings do just that in a variety of ways everyday. Value is not always inherent. Often it is assigned.

The value of, say, gold, silver, diamonds ect.. is assigned by man. The value of beauty, truth, justice and logic are all inherent as well as assessed and assigned by degrees and extenuating factors.

Existence itself defies the laws of logic. As does various narratives throughout the bible.

.
.
.
.

You are all over the map.

Posted by danielj on December 18, 2009, 03:55 AM

Just following you. I’ve yet to see a retort to the scriptural examination in the article.
.
.
.
.

They are tied together just like metaphysics is tied to ontology is tied to epistemology.

Posted by danielj on December 18, 2009, 03:55 AM

The individual soul is a personal attribute. No?
.
.
.
.

What it needs to be is positive and true to our spirits.  It needs to be something that speaks to our souls as Aryan and integrate the past, present, and future for us.  Others have posted about this before at MR but the true western cannon would include writings by Shakespeare and Goethe, Homer and Tolkien, etc.  Nothing better in toto can be created than what we already have as long as the right works are mined and used.  These were written by us for us.  There is nothing really new in this.  What needs to be new next time (when we retake control of our societies) is that we are much more careful and firm in the protection of our cannon and thus ourselves.

Posted by Willy Garrett on December 17, 2009, 04:57 PM

Okay, I see where you’re coming from. I agree.

I don’t know though that we need to worry about that just yet. I’m of the opinion that we have a long dark road ahead of us and that it will most likely be a couple of centuries before we find our footing again.

In that I mean we aren’t in a position of trying to leave a sinking raft to climb onto a floating one. We are, currently, already underwater. The case I am making is that Christianity is a millstone around our neck, dragging us down.
Our immediate endeavor should be to cut ourselves free. Once that’s done and we’ve made our way back to the surface we can then start fitting out a knew raft.
.
.
.
.

Christianity has some valuable elements but its foundation - the Scriptures - are both foreign and were in no way intended to order a society - especially an Aryan one - around.  Jesus was one of countless “messiahs” who came to the Jewish people in those days but his salvation message was so unorthodox they gave him the boot.  It is a bit telling that the original intended audience of Jesus’ message were the ancient Hebrews and they rejected it (smartly?) The denizens of the gutters of dotard Rome drank it up like spring water, due in lare part to its levelling of humanity and de-emphasis on earthly success.

Posted by Willy Garrett on December 17, 2009, 04:57 PM

Aptly put.

...


74

Posted by Willy Garrett on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:06 | #

I don’t know though that we need to worry about that just yet. I’m of the opinion that we have a long dark road ahead of us and that it will most likely be a couple of centuries before we find our footing again.

Sadly, I agree with the very long road view.  At least until we are over the hump.  For now we cannot even slow much less reverse the collapse.  I believe you are a kwan like me so it is hard to see anything developing soon.  In parts of Europe things should change much more quickly for better or worse and once one nation has the manhood and spirit to throw off the oppressor it might precipitate a landslide in the whole Aryan world.  Still the solution here will be a tough one.

In that I mean we aren’t in a position of trying to leave a sinking raft to climb onto a floating one. We are, currently, already underwater. The case I am making is that Christianity is a millstone around our neck, dragging us down.
Our immediate endeavor should be to cut ourselves free. Once that’s done and we’ve made our way back to the surface we can then start fitting out a knew raft.

Yes, taken as a whole and applied as truly to its writing as Aryan Man is wont to do it is a detriment to us.  But for the longest time we interpreted it in our interests and it was not a millstone (but more like the burden of John Bunyan’s pilgrim).  This is what DanielJ and the kinists are trying to recover.  The problem I have with this is that the neo-liberal, judaized Christianity is - again on the whole - truer to its essence than the view Western Man had of it for the ~1500 years it was our identifying faith.  Simply compare George Lincoln Rockwell’s view on the story of Joseph or Esther (from White Power) with that of a racialist Christian.  99 out of 100 Aryans would have to agree with Rockwell if they are being honest.  Yes that story is in the OT but I am pretty sure most racialist Christians believe the OT as canonical.  The NT has even more problems notably the words of Jesus as you point out though I would add many of his hard sayings were NOT for the masses but for potential disciples only.  With all that said I think it is foolish for us to attack and belittle racialist Christians as do Alex Linder and our esteemed Al Ross.

I believe even Friedrich Braun - who now wants to curry favor with the very people who instigated the destruction of his nation - has given racialist Christians much grief.  We would be wise to quit consuming ourselves in regards to some of these faith views as long as we are “underwater”.  I don’t recall your tone ever being anything other than constructive in this area but people’s views on the afterlife, once they get them fixed in their heads are almost impossible to change.

Looking a long time forward, after the hard work is done, yes, our peoples will need to sort out these things.  Hopefully peacefully.  If you ever read Harold Covington’s Northwest Homeland novels (there are now 4 of them) he provides a very good treatment of dealing with religious differences within our cause.


75

Posted by danielj on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:54 | #

Yes. Yes we could. In fact a great many human beings do just that in a variety of ways everyday. Value is not always inherent. Often it is assigned.

Then it isn’t a rigid designator. You haven’t changed the “value” by changing the designator.

Just following you. I’ve yet to see a retort to the scriptural examination in the article.

We disagree. You can say I don’t have an alternative but I do and you know it; you just disagree. Your article was about utility though and I think that is where the dispute lies for me. It is true. Utility is relativity and I’m concerned with objectivity.


76

Posted by danielj on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:09 | #

I don’t know why I’ve not seen the posts of Willy Garrett before but I consider them gentlemanly, well written and a welcome addition to the discussion. He is in the same good company as the Narrator.


77

Posted by Willy Garrett on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:30 | #

Thanks DJ.  I’ve posted here in the past - though it’s been a while - under the label ‘wjg’.  I’ve decided to use a name though it’s still a pseudonym.


78

Posted by danielj on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:35 | #

I meant of course, that you are the same good company as the Narrator. I didn’t mean to imply that I, or MR, was the good company.

Extremely pleasant to engage somebody mature and respectful. GW tries his best to set that tone but the hoi polloi are restless generally.


79

Posted by the Narrator... on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:12 | #

Sadly, I agree with the very long road view.  At least until we are over the hump.  For now we cannot even slow much less reverse the collapse.  I believe you are a kwan like me so it is hard to see anything developing soon.  In parts of Europe things should change much more quickly for better or worse and once one nation has the manhood and spirit to throw off the oppressor it might precipitate a landslide in the whole Aryan world.  Still the solution here will be a tough one.

Posted by Willy Garrett on December 18, 2009, 06:06 PM

I’m pessimistic in the short term but optimistic in the long run. I’d very much like to see things reversed and reclaimed in my lifetime, but I’m skeptical that that will happen.

One thing about it though, we don’t always recognize pivotal moments when they happen. Sometimes decades or centuries may go past before we look back and recognize an event or certain date as when the paradigm began to shift in more favorable directions leading to our victory.

2010 may be such a year. Not that I’m looking for a “second coming” type of moment, but the census will start to unveil information on the potentially shocking demographic transformation of the country over the past ten years (assuming they don’t try to soft-sell it). And that as the nation deals with the continuing economic problems and the increasing crime that accompanies it. Then sprinkle in crippling “climate change” regulations, an oppressive nationalized health care and the threat of amnesty and, well, somethings gotta give.

With the assent of the first president of the banana republic of North America the Left has decided it has the final winning hand and is laying its cards on the table.

That’s a helluva gamble!

Empires are often born on such gambles, but just as often they fall.

We may look back one day at 2008 as the year the tide began to turn and the entire leftist regime set itself up for a fall. Who knows.
.
.
.
.

But for the longest time we interpreted it in our interests and it was not a millstone (but more like the burden of John Bunyan’s pilgrim).

Posted by Willy Garrett on December 18, 2009, 06:06 PM

That’s something that needs to be investigated. Did we interpret it in our favor, or were we more or less “cultural Christians” with only vague notions of biblical doctrine?
I don’t know.
.
.
.
.

With all that said I think it is foolish for us to attack and belittle racialist Christians as do Alex Linder and our esteemed Al Ross.

Posted by Willy Garrett on December 18, 2009, 06:06 PM

I bite my tongue quite a bit and edit my posts. As Danielj stated, this is a nice and hopefully constructive conversation. If they all went like this we could have these conversations on a variety of subjects. We need to have them, in fact.
This discussion is not just to examine the religion but ourselves as well. Does Christianity sway our social and political sentiments? Does it inform the worldview of those who don’t really consider themselves religious?
In other words, do White liberals base their ideology on a fundamental worldview shaped by Christianity?

I’ve made an argument in one direction and would like to see the argument in the other. Danielj is trying, but we’re talking past each other, I think. Or rather, we’re starting out at too wide a point to converge.
From my point of view Christianity can’t be neutral on the issue of race. It must be either for or against. (“let your yes be yes and your non be no”).
So for me the starting point is that.
.
.
.
.

Then it isn’t a rigid designator. You haven’t changed the “value” by changing the designator.
Posted by danielj on December 18, 2009, 09:54 PM

That’s not what I was aiming at. Designation can equal value. Whether that value is true or not is equally debatable. You can find examples of that in evolution, global warming, religion, history, race and various other contentious subjects.
.
.
.
.

We disagree. You can say I don’t have an alternative but I do and you know it; you just disagree.

Posted by danielj on December 18, 2009, 09:54 PM


I was referring specifically to the passages in the piece.

And I agree, having a nice respectful discourse is entertaining, educational and constructive.

...


80

Posted by Bill on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:08 | #

Just doodling on the keyboard.

The whole of this shooting match has been earmarked by incrementalism.

I’ve oft liken it to the family who are on holiday enjoying themselves on the beach.  The tide is out and is no threat, a spot is chosen, the kids are building sandcastles, Dad’s off with dog and Mum’s taking advantage of being task free and reclining in the sun.  This is what life’s about - all is well.

Time slips by unnoticed, Dad’s back with the dog, there are more people around close in, the sun is high in the sky, wavelets rhythmically lulling - did someone say the tide had turned?

Screams of alarm as the kids rouse their parents, people come running grabbing up belongings scattered by the swirling tide.

Luckily there’s not too much damage, most is saved from a soaking - it was a close run thing.

Events will waken us up.  From within and without.


81

Posted by Schnacht on Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:20 | #

God and the West?

by The Narrator

 

Yes - God and the West - And the MAJOR problem now in the West is the spiritual vacuum - This vacuum is the product of centuries on end - In short, for many a reason, the West did not get to keep its ancestral tradition, nor did it get the right side of Christianity figured out -

Thank you, Narrator, and fellow posters - Nice *train of thoughts* -



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Five more years
Previous entry: House Rule no 2764

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement 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

Comments

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Thu, 28 Mar 2024 05:37. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 11:00. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:02. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:39. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:51. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:46. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:41. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 12:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sun, 24 Mar 2024 00:42. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 22:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 21:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:51. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 20:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:26. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 15:56. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:55. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:07. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:12. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Moscow's Bataclan' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:01. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:13. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:51. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:14. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Thu, 21 Mar 2024 05:14. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:42. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 11:01. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:41. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 10:21. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:13. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Out of foundation and into the mind-body problem, part four' on Tue, 19 Mar 2024 06:09. (View)

affection-tone