|
|
|
God and the West? 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,
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.
and,
And what’s worse is that in terms of defending yourself, your family and your community Jesus councils surrender,
and,
and,
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.
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? Comments: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:
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 | #
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?” .
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 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.
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.
Sure.
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.
My “king for a day” comment lamenting the highway system was more about the greater ease with which they allow people to move about.
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,
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. ...
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.
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.
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.
A few days later Monsignor calls the children together to hear their questions:
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. This “Eternity’s” the horse 13
Posted by the Narrator... on Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:02 | #
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. . 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 ? 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. 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.
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. 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. 20
Posted by the Narrator,,, on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:10 | #
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. .
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. .
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.
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!!! .
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.
You still want to claim it?
“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,
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.
According to the most common interpretation, the church is the body of believers. Are you not a believer?
And who says Christianity induces a slave’s mentality.
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.
And where, exactly, have I said or implied that?
21
Posted by Frank on Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:29 | #
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.
We’re to acknowledge original sin is the meaning I suspect.
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 | #
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 | #
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 | #
So the message (in context with the passage) would be, what?
Again, how does that relate to the context of the passage?
How do you get that?
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?
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 | #
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)
... 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 is an Old Testament teaching:
32
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:23 | #
Uhh, no it doesn’t. I posted the entire 14th chapter above. There is no back and forth there.
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)
Once again, Jesus said he came to turn father against son, mother against daughter and so on. His meaning is explicit.
.
That’s not quite the point of that passage.
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.
Here is the passage,
Again Finn, the context is about the insignificance of this life in the promise of rewards in the next one.
That makes no sense Finn.
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.
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.
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.
Me and ... 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. 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 | #
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. .
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?
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:
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:
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 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. 36
Posted by the Narrator... on Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:25 | #
Mighty assertive words coming from the fellow who earlier in this thread said,
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 | #
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:
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 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:
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 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 | #
No one is asking that you give the final word, just your understanding of the subject. That’s how we learn things. 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. 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. .
Is it not possible the strong man is the holy spirit?
I know the day of the Lord is spoken of as a “thief in the night”, but it is intended as a warning.
... 45
Posted by the Narrator... on Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:53 | #
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.
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.
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 | #
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) 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. 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.
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.
The short of it is, the Canticles represents the “falling away.” 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.
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. “ 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,
Then there is her mention of her “mother” and bringing Solomon into her mother’s house,
and
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,
There’s more, but in truth I can’t remember half of it. But the above is generally how it goes. . On top of that, Song of Solomon and Esther are the only books which never reference God (accept supposedly in acrostic in Esther). .
That Jesus isn’t the robber who binds the strong man.
That wouldn’t seem to fit since in the story they attempt to assassinate the King.
So were the other candidates.
Technically untrue. But I’ve never heard of that notion before. Where does it originate?
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.
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. 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 | #
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?
It changes the tone quite a bit.
That’s a denominational take though.
Tents means homes. Property. To dwell in someone elses home is to subjugate yourself to their authority.
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
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? 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! .
Perhaps bind could be seen synonymous with blaspheme or rejection of the Holy Spirit?
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. Obviously, at some point, they were in need. That is the whole point of the book. That’s a denominational take though. 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? 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:
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 | #
So was Hannibal. So was Attila. The point is, the Hebrews were the aggressors. Haman was the good guy trying to protect his people.
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?
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.
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.
Again, that’s a denominational take. Open Theism would be its opposite.
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?
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 | #
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.
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?
It probably belongs in the Apocrypha as it deviates a bit from the rest of the biblical structure in story.
It’s a subject I know well. If you were to narrow it down to one question, Why?....why did God create, you’ll find no answer in the bible. 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? 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.
That’s not necessarily linear processing. Think, Climategate.
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.
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. 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. 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 | #
Exodus frames it that way. Genesis, however, frames it otherwise….quite unabashedly. Joseph was the original Joe Stalin. Genesis ch. 37,
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.
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,
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?
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.
Nice guy.
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.
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.
And as I’ve demonstrated time and again, the Christian worldview precludes any kind of particularism for Gentiles. For race, ethnicity, family etc..
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.
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.
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. 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). .
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. 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. 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 | #
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?
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’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.
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.
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?
Where you begin your case.
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 | #
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”? 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.”
.
Nope. I acknowledge the varying sections.
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 | #
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.
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. .
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. 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 | #
Of course you can. Most life lessons come from a demonstration of logic before the supposing of the logic takes place.
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.
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.
Presuppositionalism is interesting argument. But that’s all it is, an argument. One in a long line of such arguments. . 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 | #
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 | #
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. .
Just following you. I’ve yet to see a retort to the scriptural examination in the article.
The individual soul is a personal attribute. No?
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.
Aptly put. ... 74
Posted by Willy Garrett on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:06 | #
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.
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 | #
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.
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 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. 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.
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.
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 | #
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:
Next entry: Five more years
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
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.