Questions for Petr and other racialists of faith

[harjit]

What is your conception of the afterlife?

Does race mean anything there? Is it racially segregated / divided? Does a person's soul have race?

How does a veritable race cocktail, such as Tiger Woods, get processed in the context of the eternal?

Honest questions.

[Petr]

I have already had a long discussion on this topic with Sulla - see it beginning here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=59236&postcount=20

I'm not going to bother to write all that stuff again.


Petr

[Frank]

What is your conception of the afterlife?

Pine box, shovel and dirt...

Does race mean anything there? Is it racially segregated / divided? Does a person's soul have race?

You should ask the people at the Chabad Lubavitch that question; their teachings include the belief that Jewish souls stem from holiness while gentile souls derive from three Satanic spheres.

[harjit]

I have already had a long discussion on this topic with Sulla - see it beginning here:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=59236&postcount=20

I'm not going to bother to write all that stuff again.


Petr
Thanks.....

[6(sic)6]

LOL, didn't knew Petr was a racist.

Christ + Racism = wtf

[Warka]

LOL, didn't knew Petr was a racist.

Christ + Racism = wtf

How did you ever miss that? You don't read many of his posts?

[Angler]

I've always felt that Christianity was very much at odds with racism or even with being overly concerned with worldly affairs in general. Jesus exhorted his followers to not even be concerned about getting enough food to eat, let alone worry about matters such as race. And then there's Galatians 3:28-29:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

To any objective reader, this quote implies that the only thing that matters is "belonging to Christ." Race does not matter if one is a Christian.

Because the Bible is so clear on the matter, I doubt there's a single major Christian denomination that doesn't consider racism to be a sin.

Here's one brief Christian commentary pulled at random off the web:

We are all one in Christ. It's in the Bible, Galatians 3:28, TLB. "We are no longer Jews or Greeks or slaves or free men or even merely men or women, but we are all the same—we are Christians; we are one in Christ Jesus."

Racism is a sin. It's in the Bible, James 2:8-9, NIV. "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers."

All men have the same blood. It's in the Bible, Acts 17:26, KJV. "And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

God accepts people from every race, culture and nation. It's in the Bible, Acts 10:34,35, NIV. "Then Peter began to speak: 'I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear Him and do what is right.'"
http://en.bibleinfo.com/topics/topic.html?id=236

Again, the Bible teaches that we should put all of our stock in what supposedly happens to us after death. What happens to us in life is deemed of little importance -- you should even leave your family behind to follow Jesus. (Of course, those who buy into the promise of the afterlife don't get a refund if there is no afterlife.) So it's hard to imagine anyone making a Biblical argument that Jesus wants people to be segregated along racial lines.

[6(sic)6]

How did you ever miss that? You don't read many of his posts?
You have a point there, the posts Ive read are the defending X-tianity types.

But Christ and Racism it can't work unless you twist and turn the bible to benifit your cause but that is called sect/cult ohh well.

[6(sic)6]

I've always felt that Christianity was very much at odds with racism or even with being overly concerned with worldly affairs in general. Jesus exhorted his followers to not even be concerned about getting enough food to eat, let alone worry about matters such as race. And then there's Galatians 3:28-29:



To any objective reader, this quote implies that the only thing that matters is "belonging to Christ." Race does not matter if one is a Christian.

Because the Bible is so clear on the matter, I doubt there's a single major Christian denomination that doesn't consider racism to be a sin.
The normal X-tians I've meet are totally shocked when you speak about KKK some say they (KKK) are false or devil in disguise.
They are not X-tians but more anti-christ.

[Dodge Viper]

Petr is constipated with theology rather than Religion.

Christ + Racism = wtf
Christ was not the wishy-wooey 'lets-spread-the-love' character you've been force fed.

[Angler]

Christ was not the wishy-wooey 'lets-spread-the-love' character you've been force fed.That's true; he sure made a lot of threats of hell, even as he forgave peoples' sins and prevented the stoning of an adulteress. But I'm not aware of anything Christ ever said that came close to racism (with the possible exception of one remark where he seemed to refer to gentiles as "dogs").

[6(sic)6]

Petr is constipated with theology rather than Religion.


Christ was not the wishy-wooey 'lets-spread-the-love' character you've been force fed.
Then what is X-tianity about if not spreading love and forgiveness?
Why did Jesus let himself be killed by humans when he could wipe out his "enemies"?

[Boleslaw]

And then there's Galatians 3:28-29

You do know that elsewhere St. Paul boasts of his own ethnic background in Philippians 3:5 and Romans 9:3-5, 11:1 right?


To any objective reader, this quote implies that the only thing that matters is "belonging to Christ."

If you look at that quote alone and not take into account the historical context yes. Religions and cults at this time often restricted their membership to certain groups of people: class, ethnicity-race, even gender in some cases(ie Mithraism). St. Paul is saying that Christianity is not like that, membership is open to all people. That does not mean there's no differences between Christians.

He also states there's neither free nor slave, yet tells slaves to obey their masters. He states there's neither man nor woman, yet talks about the distinct roles husbands and wives play within the family.

As Regino of Prum stated in his Chronicon:

"Just as different peoples(diversae nations populorum) differ between themselves in descent, manners, language and laws(genere, moribus, lingua, legibus) so the holy and universal church throughout the world, although joined in the unity of the faith nevertheless varies its ecclesiastical customs among them."



Because the Bible is so clear on the matter, I doubt there's a single major Christian denomination that doesn't consider racism to be a sin.

If racism is taken as the indiscriminate hatred of others because of their race, yes. Concern for your own kin, no.

Not only that, you should be interested in the recently released study by Denise K. Buell on this issue:


Why This New Race?
Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity

Why This New Race offers a radical new way of thinking about the origins of Christian identity. Conventional histories have understood Christianity as a religion that from its beginnings sought to transcend ethnic and racial distinctions. Denise Kimber Buell challenges this view by revealing the centrality of ethnicity and race in early definitions of Christianity. Buell's readings of various texts consider the use of “ethnic reasoning” to depict Christianness as more than a set of shared religious practices and beliefs. By asking themselves, “Why this new race?” Christians positioned themselves as members of an ethnos or genos distinct from Jews, Romans, and Greeks.

Buell focuses on texts written before Christianity became legal in 313 C.E., including Greek apologetic treatises, martyr narratives, and works by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. Philosophers and theologians used ethnic reasoning to define Christians as a distinct people within classical and ancient Near East society and in intra-Christian debates about what constituted Christianness. Many characterized Christianness as both fixed and fluid-it had a real essence (fixed) but could be acquired through conversion (fluid). Buell demonstrates how this dynamic view of race and ethnicity allowed Christians to establish boundaries around the meaning of Christianness and to develop universalizing claims that all should join the Christian people.

In addressing questions of historiography, Buell analyzes why generations of scholars have refused to acknowledge ethnic reasoning in early Christian discourses. Moreover, Buell's arguments about the importance of ethnicity and religion in early Christianity provide insights into the historical legacy of Christian anti-Semitism as well as contemporary issues of race.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023113/0231133340.HTM


The author makes note that the common perception people hold towards Christianity today(that it's indifferent to ethnicity or race)is very much a product of modern sensitivity to the issue than really having basis in historical inquiry.

[Angler]

You do know that elsewhere St. Paul boasts of his own ethnic background in Philippians 3:5 and Romans 9:3-5, 11:1 right?Well, it's true that the Bible contains elements of Jewish supremacism. It's primarily a Jewish document, after all. But I don't think it supports White Nationalism or similar philosophies of racial discrimination.

If you look at that quote alone and not take into account the historical context yes. Religions and cults at this time often restricted their membership to certain groups of people: class, ethnicity-race, even gender in some cases(ie Mithraism). St. Paul is saying that Christianity is not like that, membership is open to all people. That does not mean there's no differences between Christians.But neither does it mean that Christians are to support racial segregation.

He also states there's neither free nor slave, yet tells slaves to obey their masters. He states there's neither man nor woman, yet talks about the distinct roles husbands and wives play within the family.Well, there is no shortage of contradictions in the Bible. But in this case I think Paul's point is simply that all people (or at least all Christians) are of equal value in God's eyes. If all people are of equal value, then why shouldn't they live together as brothers and sisters? This is how mainstream Christianity sees the issue.

As Regino of Prum stated in his Chronicon:

"Just as different peoples(diversae nations populorum) differ between themselves in descent, manners, language and laws(genere, moribus, lingua, legibus) so the holy and universal church throughout the world, although joined in the unity of the faith nevertheless varies its ecclesiastical customs among them."This seems to be an acknowledgment of a state of affairs rather than advocacy for one.

If racism is taken as the indiscriminate hatred of others because of their race, yes. Concern for your own kin, no.Certainly the Bible forbids hatred of anyone, in spite of what many Christian hypocrites (I'm not saying you're one of them) like to think. The Bible says that anyone who hates his brother (which can be taken to be either a fellow Christian or simply another human being -- of any race) is a murderer and will not enter heaven.

As to concern for one's own kin...well, again, I think Jesus makes it pretty clear that his followers are not to concern themselves very much with earthly matters except to the extent necessary to help others in need. He's quoted as saying not to worry about things like food or clothing. Christians are supposed to remain focused on the reward they'll get after they die. I think that rules out concerning oneself with racial matters, immigration, etc.

Not only that, you should be interested in the recently released study by Denise K. Buell on this issue:

The author makes note that the common perception people hold towards Christianity today(that it's indifferent to ethnicity or race)is very much a product of modern sensitivity to the issue than really having basis in historical inquiry.Regardless of historical views of Christianity, it's a fact known today that Christians do not properly constitute an ethnic group, and certainly not a race. Mainstream Christianity today does, however, strive to be racially all-inclusive.

[littlewhitelies]

Petr is constipated with theology rather than Religion.


Christ was not the wishy-wooey 'lets-spread-the-love' character you've been force fed.

Yeshua ben Yosef was a composite character inspired by popular Solar dieties and demi-gods. Jesus never existed...

[Dr. Gutberlet]

racist xtians will be in for a surprise when they meet their black messiah. What do they expect, following a semitic desert religion?

[littlewhitelies]

racist xtians will be in for a surprise when they meet their black messiah. What do they expect, following a semitic desert religion?

I'm pretty sure that Apollo, Herakles and Mithras were white guys.

[Dodge Viper]

I think 90% of Chistians would abandon their faith if they found out Christ was actually black. Puts this thread into perspective.

[Macrobius]

It helps to remember that Galatians 3:28 (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek) is a *denial* of both Judaism and Paganism. Gentile Christians, even of Greek ethnicity, considered themselves Romans, and regarded Hellene (i.e., Pagan) culture in the same way we regard Beowulf -- part of our heritage, but 'not us' by a long stretch.

Modern ecumenists and theologicans in the liberal (post Schleiermacher) school have made Greek a synonym for gentile, and created the Jew vs. Greek inclusivist meme as a way of undermining the traditional exclusion of both groups. Paul meant, 'Jews and Pagans cannot be Christians'. There is something you have to *lose* to join the Church, the New Israel, if you belong to those groups. Greek and Heretic are more or less synonymous, in the sense, just as Jew and Anti-Christian are more or less synonymous. Both words define ways of not being a Christian.

Yes, this sharpens the question of what role 'ethnic heritage' can possibly play for a Christian. It is not enough to be 'either Jewish heritage or Greek heritage, your pick. All welcome. Christianity is one big multicultural family.' That would reduce Christianity to 'cultural Christianity'. Christian political theory, in the Early Church and right up to ca. 1400, was entirely bound up with the Roman Empire, not Jewishness or Greekness, as these ethnicities are perceived today. So, Traditional* Christian views of race -- genos, family, tribe, gens, clan, and so forth -- can be assimilated to the *Roman* ones, not the *Greek* (Hellene ones). Rome had a complex relationship to Hellenic culture anyway, not to mention Judaism -- 10% of the classical population, which is to say approximately 6 million Jews in the Roman Empire, if current estimates are correct.

The term 'Hellene' in a positive sense was not in use until the 'Greek (i.e., pagan Hellene) Revival' period, which is post Neo-Classical and specific to Anglo-America, later the German universities. It is an artificial, modernist construct and has no bearing on what a 1st century text might have meant.

The question this thread is asking, in part, is what use can modern Christians (i.e., Romans or otherwise), make of the pagan, Hellenic, or Traditional culture that was passed to Rome in the Hellenistic period. The Fathers have addressed this issue -- I'll try to find a link.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Christ was not the wishy-wooey 'lets-spread-the-love' character you've been force fed.

Close enough. He certainly was for the time.

[Felix the Cat]

How did Christians justify the enslavement of Africans in the past?

I get the impression this practice was uncontroversial for centuries, until the 19th century

[Petr]

LOL, didn't knew Petr was a racist.
"Racist" is an artificial, all-encompassing smear word (like "homophobe"), originally invented by anti-racists.


Petr

[Empress Cheesatine]

The Old Testament was definitely racist, and it spoke of the dead going to live with their forefathers.

[Vindex]

Well christ never existed he was copied from Horus and Apollonius. But the new testament is ancient world communism so they share the same attitude the new day secular christians or social marxists do on race.

[Petr]

And then there's Galatians 3:28-29:

To any objective reader, this quote implies that the only thing that matters is "belonging to Christ." Race does not matter if one is a Christian.

Because the Bible is so clear on the matter, I doubt there's a single major Christian denomination that doesn't consider racism to be a sin.
Biblical interpretation for dummies, dear "objective" reader. Why am I not surprised that your exegesis of that verse is so simplistic?

"One of the most raped texts of Scripture in the Bible today"

http://spiritwaterblood.com/index.php/blog/C14/

Here's one brief Christian commentary pulled at random off the web:
Oh my, what a rigorous form of research.


Petr

[Dr. Gutberlet]

The non-canonical books at least depict christ as somewhat cool. Especially the Gospel of St. Thomas. Check it out- jesus doing some killing!

[Ravenheart]

How did Christians justify the enslavement of Africans in the past?

I get the impression this practice was uncontroversial for centuries, until the 19th century

There were theories that Negroids do not have a soul the way Caucasoids do. However, Christians really did not need such a justification; both the Old and the New Testament are rife with examples of slavery.

[ogenoct]

from my essay SOBERLY TALKING ABOUT US:

Racism is an escape from the fear of one's own mortality. As part of a
uniform gene pool, the racist voluntarily becomes part of the masses as
organism. This organism remains even if one's own life ends. The people as a
collective can be understood as a creative factor. Henning Eichberg
described this aptly when he said that not Shakespeare wrote a poem, but
that the poem was an expression of the English people. In the same manner,
it was not Neil Armstrong who landed on the moon but the White race itself.
Racism is also narcism but only in an idealized sense. If I look at a
perfected Aryan body in a sculpture by Arno Breker, I see the ideal
archetype of the White race. Since I am naturally a part of the White race,
this archetype is a bench mark with which I can not only identify but also
which releases me, in a spiritual-emotional sense, from my own and the
imperfection of the White race. This is emancipatory racism.

can see the speck on the planet?
can touch the essence of blood?
can smell the odor of death?
resurrect! resurrect!
there goes the way of death
through old ways of coping

[Starr]

What is your conception of the afterlife?

Does race mean anything there? Is it racially segregated / divided? Does a person's soul have race?

How does a veritable race cocktail, such as Tiger Woods, get processed in the context of the eternal?

Honest questions.


I believe there is most likely something beyond this life or something beyond our current understanding. For one thing I have just heard too many stories, sometimes even from people I personally know and see as credible of what seem to be unexplainable events. I don't really know how or if race plays into anything. I do know that the idea that there is some kind of divine being/beings or force that requires racial harmony seems silly to me and an idea that is more like a product of the times. Even if you look at something like the bible, there is a few quotes people can pull out that people could interpret in that way, but then there are others that seem to be saying something completely different.

[Macrobius]

How did Christians justify the enslavement of Africans in the past?

I get the impression this practice was uncontroversial for centuries, until the 19th century

Answer is implicit in the passage quoted above. Jew/Greek (parent-child genetic or ethnic basis of race), husband/wife (basis of the family unit), master/slave (caste). These three are the social relationships -- enumerated in both Roman Civil Law and Christian scripture (see Ephesians, ch. 4-6), usually in that order, because in human affairs generation is primary. Parent/child is the essential one, since post-Adam and Eve no one exists who does not have a parent. Second comes husband/wife, as being essential for creating and conserving the life of the child. Finally, outward-looking dependency relations, which occur in all societies.

What may not be obvious is the Roman (and Mediterranean) conception of a household, as a miniture society with all three social relations inside. Necessarily, the household would be Jew or Greek Pagan (or, later, Roman Christian). There would be at least one husband/wife pairs -- possibly more if children were married, or domestic slaves were. These pairs could, of course, all have parent/child relationships of there own. Finally, there was an internal caste organisation, which could possibly be multi-racial as well.

This form of human organisation was not condemned, but on the contrary supported by the Church and Christianity, until the 19th century. It was extirpated in America only in 1865, when it modulated to single-race households, according to the Northern ideal of racial separation (and theoretical social as well as legal notions of equality). The dependency relation continued to exist, only as the patron-client [household aggregate] caste relation, in the sharecropper system. In many respects, it continues to exist as the welfare system, since it is impossible to entirely eliminate caste even in modern, individualistic society.

Racial segregation, as an underpinning of the caste system, is inevitable and stable. It was accomplished in Roman and early Modern times by a combination of patriarchy and by having the free/slave status of the child follow the mother. Assuming the lower caste/race was the slave, the union of a male master and female slave led to a drop in social status for the child, and incapacity to inherit. Issue of a women with a male slave would in theory be free but would not acquire high social status since there would be no property (and heiresses were sought after -- though as Galton shows, a family having an heiress at all is a high predictor of infertility, and so of the immanent extinction of the successful suitor's own family. Heiresses thus served as something of a brake on aristocratic land and property acquisition.)

The dominant theme in modern society is to replace the classical social relations of the household with paid, segregated ones. This has progressed from the interracial but integrated households of the past, towards homogenised but segregated ones, in which master/slave and parent/child relations are externalised, through welfare, daycare, and school. Not to mention that 'work' is no longer a household function, but 'pay for hire' one.

Today's racialists, fixating on this theme of segregation and separation, seem just as intent on eliminating caste and purifying society of differences, in the name of equality ('superior and purified, hence equal'), as early socialist utopians. In the end, the stable social form is a racially mixed household [that is, fibred by inevitable caste -- based on intelligence if nothing else], but with caste/race boundaries rigidly enforced by marriage, child-rearing, etc. customs and law. The ideal, found even among Conservative Christians, of segregated and racially homogeneous nuclear families, all of one, high caste, is only attainable for relatively brief periods -- probably sub-century. In the long run, dysgenic dispersion will replicate the dependency caste/race structure, as is already happening with 'non-viable White children not leaving home'.

The South may not rise again, but something very much like it will, eventually. However, in the mean time we can all play pretend and be good Victorian Christians, of either the Abolitionist or Segregationist bent -- it matters not a whit because both are quite silly.

[Mackie]

Petr is a good man, do not sully his good name. I bet he knows his bible better than the most of you.

[Ratatoskur]

Petr is a good man, do not sully his good name. I bet he knows his bible better than the most of you.

My bible is bigger than your bible.

[Keystone]

Christianity isn't compatible with racism, which has always put me in a sticky place.

You can't rightly wish for separation when you're commanded to love your neighbor as yourself (not in the OT Jew sense.) The Gospels don't make an argument for racial separation, instead you have the Great Commission---and that doesn't mean preach the Gospel to Niggers, Chinks and Injuns but keep your White Asses separate.

It's a problem.

[Macrobius]

Christianity isn't compatible with racism, which has always put me in a sticky place.

You can't rightly wish for separation when you're commanded to love your neighbor as yourself (not in the OT Jew sense.) The Gospels don't make an argument for racial separation, instead you have the Great Commission---and that doesn't mean preach the Gospel to Niggers, Chinks and Injuns but keep your White Asses separate.

It's a problem.

Christian patterns of segregation are difficult to understand without taking into account the difference between 'life apart from the world' (monastery) and 'life in the world' (family/communal, hence parish-based).

Life in the world retains the normal dominance patterns, ethnic and class separations, and normal household relations -- at least, I know of no race-mixing or anti-slave Christian society prior to the early 19th century.

In monasteries, there is rigid segregation by sex, and not by race (at least, I know of no racially segregated monasteries, though surely there was some ethnic homogeneity just by chance and location). The 'evangelical lifestyle' is more purely represented in this case. Master-slave relations are somewhat inverted (but also accentuated) in this case as well, compared to the 'ultra-normality' of them in the worldly case.

Finally, segregation of parents and children is rare, except as oblates to monasteries, or of course in monastic profession itself, which again is evangelical in its admonition to leave one's family.

So Christians practice racial, sexual, and age articulation of society, which is a kind of segregational ordering, but not the bizarre one posited most often by 'racists' -- rather, a natural, dispensational one, according to the Gospel life.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

What is your conception of the afterlife?

Does race mean anything there? Is it racially segregated / divided? Does a person's soul have race?

How does a veritable race cocktail, such as Tiger Woods, get processed in the context of the eternal?

Honest questions.
You should learn about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

[Keystone]

Christian patterns of segregation are difficult to understand without taking into account the difference between 'life apart from the world' (monastery) and 'life in the world' (family/communal, hence parish-based).

Life in the world retains the normal dominance patterns, ethnic and class separations, and normal household relations -- at least, I know of no race-mixing or anti-slave Christian society prior to the early 19th century.
I wasn't speaking about monasteries.

Lay Christians practiced slavery and segregation for centuries, certainly, but the weight of years and custom doesn't make those institutions compatible with Christianity as written or in spirit. Humans regularly twisted the Scripture to their own ends. It goes on still.

[Kodos]

Life in the world retains the normal dominance patterns, ethnic and class separations, and normal household relations -- at least, I know of no race-mixing or anti-slave Christian society prior to the early 19th century.

The christian justification for slavery was twofold

1) Its permitted explicitly in the old testament, and while not approved of in the New Testament is not condemned either.

2) Slaves were generally taken from non christians (or occasionally pows from other christian denominations) and were forcibly baptized in the new faith, and it was justified that saving their souls outweighed the evil of imposing slavery upon them.

That being said there were always some people against slavery. Augustus outlawed mass manumissions because a lot of aliens were being transported to Rome and becoming free citizens via it as later in the Roman Republic many senators and knights were (guilty conscience) freeing their slaves en masse in their wills.

[Keystone]

The christian justification for slavery was twofold

1) Its permitted explicitly in the old testament, and while not approved of in the New Testament is not condemned either.

2) Slaves were generally taken from non christians (or occasionally pows from other christian denominations) and were forcibly baptized in the new faith, and it was justified that saving their souls outweighed the evil of imposing slavery upon them.
This doesn't justify a Christian like myself in AD 2007 being a racist.
That's the question here.

The Christian gospel, from the lips of God Incarnate, doesn't tell me to trouble anyone about race. It tells me to spread the Gospel to all nations and follow the commandments.

[Keystone]

You should learn about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity
You're late to the party.

We've been through the CI craziness before. I wish Marty Lindstedt would've had a chance to talk to you...:rofl:

[Julian Curtis Lee]

What is your conception of the afterlife?
Identity and consciousness survive death.
Does race mean anything there?
Inasmuch as it meant something to a jiva (individual identity) here, it will still mean something there. It is an issue of samskaras (impressions); conditioning.
Is it racially segregated / divided?
If you manifest the idea of "types," or "different creation" or diversity here, you will also tend to project/manifest it there. Just as in your dream life at night you manifest/project different types, and diversity. Everybody, including God, is "bored" without types, diversity, an interesting movie full of different characters.
Does a person's soul have race?
The soul in terms of "atma" does not. But the ego, the jiva, the individual identity does have racial identity/identities. And that can be complex. A jiva can have experience being more than one race. But he/she may inclined more or less towards a particular race, at a particular incarnational time or situation. We get our race because of our conditioning and affinities. A strong identity of "I was a White European" will tend to draw the soul over and over again into those kinds of incarnations. He will have the "oomph," the attraction, and the resonances to acquire those kinds of births with those kind of parents. Over and over again. This does not mean that he did not sometimes live with other racial identities, though.

That's my opinion.

[Crowley]

How did Christians justify the enslavement of Africans in the past?

I get the impression this practice was uncontroversial for centuries, until the 19th century

By hearkening back to the OT.

[Petr]

Today's racialists, fixating on this theme of segregation and separation, seem just as intent on eliminating caste and purifying society of differences, in the name of equality ('superior and purified, hence equal'), as early socialist utopians.
An interesting point - see this thread of mine:


Were Fascism and Nazism actually modernist-egalitarian movements?

Those who have been duped by the dominant Marxist discourse into classifying Fascism as Rightist would do well to study Evola’s Rightist critique of Fascism. He attacked Fascism on the following points: its anti-traditionalism and zest for newness and youth (as exemplified by its term Duce/“leader”, i.e. one who takes the people to a distant goal, a utopia, as opposed to the premodern “ruler” who merely maintains the existing order); its superficial modernist optimism (best seen in Fascist, Nazi, Stalinist and Maoist visual art); its equalizing “Jacobin” nationalism which minimizes class differences; its totalitarianism, as opposed to premodern culture’s sense of measure and division of powers; its secularism, which creates an opposition between the political and the sacred; its socialism; its personality cult (one ought to revere the institution of kingship, not the person of the king); and its natalist policy based on the vulgar cult of numbers, neglecting quality for the sake of quantity. (23)

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1509&highlight=egalitarian


Petr

[Dr. Gutberlet]

Interesting. Joseph Farah recently wrote an article on fascism for Worldnet Daily:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56152

I've believed for some time now that the greatest threat to America's freedoms is not specifically from socialism or communism but rather an "ism" you seldom hear much about these days – fascism.

To understand what I mean, most people need to rethink their notions about the political spectrum. At the left end, most people agree, you have communism – total government control over the means of production and property. It's at the other end of the spectrum that many get confused.

Ask most left-wingers and they'll suggest that fascism is on the extreme right – 180 degrees from communism. Uh-uh. I've got news for you, friends. Fascism and communism are ideological kissin' cousins. I would place fascism and socialism just a few degrees to the right of communism.

Remember, both fascism and socialism favor – to one degree or another – government control of production and distribution. The only thing that distinguishes fascism from socialism in economic theory is how they get that control.

(Column continues below)

Fascists realize the government doesn't need to own industry to control it. Through regulation and taxation, fascists know they can achieve the same results without nearly as much work and responsibility.

So what's at the other end of that political spectrum? This surprises a lot of people, but it's really quite logical, if you think about it. If total government control in the form of communism is at the left end, wouldn't it make sense that anarchy – no government control – is at the extreme right?

I envision many libertarians nodding in agreement as they read this. So where do they fit in? Just a few degrees to the left of the anarchists, of course. "Conservatives," favoring less government as they do, would find themselves 20 or 30 degrees to the left of the libertarians, while liberals could shake hands with the socialists and fascists to their left.

And that's really why we're facing a serious threat today. You see, most liberals think they hate fascism. They equate it, understandably, with Nazism, Hitler, Mussolini, racism, anti-Semitism and imperialism. But they forget what the definition of fascism is.

It's not just about economics, either. Look at the way we have abdicated our God-given individual liberties in favor of "group rights." That's a fascist concept. Look at the way we demonize certain groups (whether it's smokers or Bible-believing Christians) and elevate others (native Americans and environmentalists) in our society.

Look at all the threats to freedom on the planet today:

* Islamo-fascists – need I say more?

* China – actually a fascist enterprise rather than a Marxist-Leninist model;

* Political correctness that singles out certain individuals and groups for preferential treatment – a fascist concept.

How did we get here? It didn't happen overnight. It's a slow-moving process. It develops incrementally. Compare it to that frog slowly boiling in a pot of water – never noticing the temperature was approaching the lethal limit until it was too late.

One of the reasons America is moving toward fascism today is because it has lost its constitutional moorings. We're supposed to believe in limited government in the United States. The federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution. But, in recent years, Washington has far exceeded its authority. And very few politicians – Democrats or Republicans – seem to give a darn.

Another reason is that Americans are losing their sense of morality – the Judeo-Christian value system that established this country and strengthened its foundation for nearly 200 years.

Is there any hope? Well, unless we understand what we're up against, it's difficult to fight it. We have to redefine our terms, comprehend the nature of the beast. That's always a good first step on the road back to freedom.

[littlewhitelies]

I think 90% of Chistians would abandon their faith if they found out Christ was actually black. Puts this thread into perspective.

Kinda like that old joke: Why is Ray Charles always smiling? He doesn't know he's black.

[Macrobius]

I suppose we shouldn't veer too much off topic on slavery -- my point of bring up the three classical social relations was to point out that Christian understanding of Race cannot be divorced from an understanding of marriage and slavery or at least social dominance. If people really want to discuss this extensively, we should probably spin off another thread.

The christian justification for slavery was twofold

1) Its permitted explicitly in the old testament, and while not approved of in the New Testament is not condemned either.


This comments and the others pointing out the role of the OT is quite correct as regards 19th century rationalisations for the existing institution. However, it is quite unhistorical with regard to the origins of race slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries.

The original accepted basis was quite simple: slavery was contemplated in English Common Law, and with respect to International Law, in continental Civil Law in the Spanish and French areas. Colonial administration was obliged to recognise the validity of status from other jurisdictions, esp. since serfdom and social servitude of various sorts was not obsolete in English Law at the time, however ameliorated the condition compared to other parts of Europe.

The first black slaves in Virginia were bonded to an African negro plantation owner, who claimed in law that since they were his slaves in his native country, they should retain their social status in the New World. The white slaves in Virginia were mostly Irish or Scottish. In the 17th century, slavery laws were race blind, with non-free status following the mother. After the 1715 failed rebellion in Scotland, the deportation and emigration that followed created large numbers of new white slaves, in comparison to existing white and black ones, so that maintaining racial boundaries in the growing slave class became a concern. By 1729, court cases had established a black/white intermarriage prohibition, specifically aimed at preventing the intermarriage of black and white slaves, though actual enforcement varied by time and from colony to colony. Not all colonies, even all Southern ones, had the same social structure as Virginia. South Carolina, and later of course Louisiana and Florida, were quite distinctive.

The religious justifications for slavery and race mixing prohibitions were mostly retroactive and taken in light of Abolitionist invective. Before the 19th century, no justification for slavery or racial attitudes were needed, as they agreed with the historical norms for Christians everywhere.


2) Slaves were generally taken from non christians (or occasionally pows from other christian denominations) and were forcibly baptized in the new faith, and it was justified that saving their souls outweighed the evil of imposing slavery upon them.


This is ahistorical, as 'imposing slavery' on the conquered was quite normal and required no particular justification. Christians were exceptional in having social measures to *ameliorate* enslavement of the conquered and serfdom (read, say, Belloc's The Servile State). Whom were you thinking of for comparison? Muslims? Vikings? Huns? Who else was in Europe in the last millenium with a better, kinder, gentler attitude toward slaves. Maybe the Finns. :)


That being said there were always some people against slavery. Augustus outlawed mass manumissions because a lot of aliens were being transported to Rome and becoming free citizens via it as later in the Roman Republic many senators and knights were (guilty conscience) freeing their slaves en masse in their wills.

Later emperors simplified the Republican legal classifications, so that in the end there were just citizens, freedmen, and slaves. Justinian eliminated the freedmen (agricultural dependency, the client-patron relationship, being less important in Byzantium I suppose). However, 'slavery' as a social classification existed, via various forms of serfdom, in all countries of Europe and all New World colonies. The Roman Law's highest and least disabled form of dependency (coloni) ex-military colonists given agricultural grants in new settlements, called 'colonies' -- became the standard term for 'serf' as the lower, more degrading forms disappeared. 'Colonist' is a very apt legal term for the agricultural grants, *subject* to corporate charters, that were given to the New World white serfs. The Revolution, in many respects, was a success White Slave revolt from serfdom. As such, it had *no* religious or Christian justification, being, for all intents and purposes, the European and Christian World Turned Upside Down.

[Macrobius]

So, circling 'round to finally answer the topic.

What is your conception of the afterlife?


Standard Christian. I will focus on race with respect to it, since Christian beliefs about the afterlife are well-known and can in any event be discovered easily by enquiry any number of places.


Does race mean anything there?


It should be clear now from the discussion, that Christians have a specific, 'initiatic' view of possible futures for humanity, which has both points of comparison with sophia perennis ( the latter so nicely summarised by Julian Lee), but also differences.

First of all, genetic race of the sort grounded in ethnicity, family relations such as marriage, and contingent social relations, such as serfdom or employer/employee, do not have a basis for continuing beyond this life. It is precisely *with respect to the mysteries* (that is, the sacraments, the Church as *the* incarnate mystery of the Body of Christ), and thus with respect to the evangelical Life in Christ -- the life of poverty, obedience, chastity -- that Christian denials of these social distinctions most directly apply. It does not apply in any changed sense with respect to continued life in the world, which remains the same as regard to marriage, race, dominance, and so forth -- albeit transfigured by the Christian virtues and love.

To the extent the evangelical life is and can be lived in *this* world, we see a direct and informative prefiguring of what the post-resurrection state is like -- that is, in the life of the Saints, and how *they* express the Christian's higher tribal identity as the New Israel, his marriage to Christ and the Church, and his servanthood. Bear in mind though the possibility of a Christian society incarnate in this world -- the later Roman or Russian Empires give historical examples. This possibility is currently lost, as there are no longer any specifically Christian states (compare the quart monarchia theory mentioned in the Rosicrucian manifestos, for example, or the Russian 'Third Rome' theory).

In order to understand *either* the sophia perennis *or* the Christian views of Race at the higher, metaphysical, and spiritual levels, requires initiation in these respective Traditions. Conveying in words, to the profane, the exact meaning of what Race [either the new, higher 'ethnicity' or the old one] -- or indeed any other aspect of Humanity -- becomes in the context of the Christian Mysteries is no more to be expected than one can expect to do the same for the Eleusinian, Orphic, Pythagorean, or Neo-Platonic equivalent. It is simply the nature of Religion in general that prohibits this, not some attempt to 'cover things up' or be disingenuous. (Funny word in this context). If you have to *ask* it can't be explained. :)

Even then, a mystery is just that -- does one really expect to understand the Incarnation? The taking up of Humanity into God? Understanding the Christian notion of Race is precisely that, as Race is the Genus of which Man is the Species. If the substance Man is taken up, then we can predicate that Man's Race, The Human Race, is likewise. If the Many are in-corporated into the One, partaking of communion, and sharing a common energy or activity by part-icipation, what happens to their individual, yet clearly substantial natures? This is a detailed metaphysical and theological question, and can only be answered if one is *prepared to hear the answer*. To some extent, this preparation can be long and arduous, and so difficult to convey succinctly to outsiders [sometimes called 'auditors' or 'hearers of the word' -- 'doing' or praxis leads to understanding by a much shorter road than listening to long winded explanations!]

The male/female distinction, racial differences, and lordship/slavery are all everyday phenomena that point to higher possibilities, but they do so a symbols of what post-death survival is like. In their terrene, contingent, most obvious form they do *not* survive. (One might, as a point of comparison, see Evola's doctrine of the Spiritual Jew vs. the everyday variety for a pagan, that is Primordialist but of course Traditional, view of exactly this issue. We are resurrected to bodies, but they are *spiritual* bodies -- by no means am I denying corporeality here. Likewise it is the Spiritual Jew, not the Ethnic Jew, who survives death. It is our spiritual race too, that determines our eternal destiny -- this is somewhat elastic then, or no one would be saved! To be saved you must align, ethnically, with the New Israel and not some old one or a counterfeit of one. It is certainly a point of the gospel that Greeks -- i.e., non-Jews -- now qualify, in terms of their ethnicity, for this new, spiritual race. To deny Christ and be anti-Christian is also an ethnic choice, of sorts.)

Explaining the ins and outs of how the Primordialist/Hindu/Neo-Platonic view [if indeed Guenon and Evola are correct these can be assimilated to each other] differs from the Christian view of the same thing is probably pointless *until* one understands the viewpoint from the perspective of 'initiation into the mysteries'. To the profane, both Traditions look alike anyway -- equally ludicrous -- so making fine distinctions is quite pointless. The similarities between the two Traditions are much greater than the differences.

[quote]
Is it racially segregated / divided? Does a person's soul have race?
[/quote]

Soul is [i]psyche[/i] (Greek) or [i]anima[/i] (Latin). This word means, primarily, the life-function of a body, which necessarily as a complex substance (a Man, in old language; a Human, in newer) belongs to 'second substance', which is the Genus 'animal' with the specific [Species-forming] difference 'rational'. All substances have accidents and properties, and it is a property of human soul to have what we call race -- which is essentially a subspecies according to various genetic characteristics.

(Please note that Spirit, which at a physical, corporeal level is simply Breath, but which has higher spiritual dimensions, is quite different from 'Soul'. There is a reason for comparing the two however -- the Divine Breath's inspiration is the cause of Soul in Man. It is also necessary for the Soul's survival of the decomposition of the corporeal complex, and hence its [now contingent] immortality, until the Resurrection of the Body).

It should be evident from all this that a person's soul 'has race', because 'soul' in the scientific sense [which is what Christianity means by it] embraces such physical functions as breathing, blood-pumping, procreation, and similar bodily functions, all of which indeed express the genotype. The soul (again, psyche, as the totality of organic life-function including of course the lower parts of mental activity) is the organising principle of the Human organism, and all members of the Human Race have, in their biological or physical expression, genetic or subgenus determinants that we call racial. Higher functions, such as Nous or Intellect, and the various kinds of Higher Mind exist, but they are grounded in -- effectively, functions of -- the Soul. However, the Pneumatic Man is not entirely reducible to the Psychic phenomena of the Soul.

The higher parts of man -- the intelligence, logical reasoning, intellect/nous, the spirit -- are the parts least susceptible to race. Nevertheless, it is quite reasonable to posit *some* racial differences, as well as intra-race variations, in capacities and propensities. Even, with regard to the distribution of spiritual gifts. It is very seldom that the *same* spiritual gifts are given to individuals in the same proportions. There is nothing that says the gifts are equally distributed, or equally usable in all circumstances. Quite the contrary. Some lives are 'harder' in some regards, and easier in others.

None of this is to deny that humans (anthropoi) have a common genus and species, by virtue of which they constitute a single race with descent from a common pair of biological ancestors. Some of what we call racial characteristics are related to the cosmic events called the Flood (especially) and the destruction of the Tower of Babel. Without denying the literalness or physicality of these, we must nonetheless remember that their full cosmic, metaphysical, and spiritual importance can only be understood after much meditation on scripture and reception of Holy Tradition. Indeed, conveying this understanding of Holy Scripture, and of Tradition, is *the* purpose of the Church services, the first part of the Divine Liturgy and the Daily Office, under the superintendency of the priesthood specifically. That is, it is the middle part of the threefold initiation of Baptism, Scriptural Illumination, and the Eucharist [see St Dionysios, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, for a fuller explanation].

[quote]
How does a veritable race cocktail, such as Tiger Woods, get processed in the context of the eternal?
[/quote]

The problems of being a 'racial cocktail' are surely in the biological functioning of his organism, in the here and now. The various aspect of our 'real, physical' life as we live it very much affect our spiritual possibilities, but do not limit them. They have everything to do with which passions are hard for him to overcome, and what specific resources are available to him in terms of his natural (but now fallen) inclinations -- by grace he can overcome his Nature, however. One could speculate that he has 'more to forgive' that Whites, say, but it is precisely this spiritual sense of superiority based on race and other personal (contingent) attributes that constitutes the 'Pharisaic' attitude. Speculations of this sort are harmful to one's own spiritual progress. It is one thing to believe, abstractly, that tax collectors are a low and worthless class; it is quite another to apply this spiritually at the level of 'thank god I am not a publican'. This stands in the way of Justification -- that is, of illumination as to the inner meaning of Holy Scripture, which is a gift to the Righteous, not the Profane. The road to righteousness is humility and love for one's fellow man.

[kane123123/Eagle Eye/stumbler/iceman]

You're late to the party.

We've been through the CI craziness before. I wish Marty Lindstedt would've had a chance to talk to you...:rofl:
Maybe world church of the creator then.

My viewpoint on religion is that morality is good but religion is created by man, and there if no evidence on whether or not there is an afterlife. I don't think there will be some judgment.

Islam is the most dangerous religion though.

[Boleslaw]

I
This is ahistorical, as 'imposing slavery' on the conquered was quite normal and required no particular justification. Christians were exceptional in having social measures to *ameliorate* enslavement of the conquered and serfdom (read, say, Belloc's The Servile State).

Belloc does indeed talk a bit about the relationship between early Christianity and slavery; and how the early Medieval Church did much to try to eliminate it, but for reasons other than theology.

[Gregz]

Maybe world church of the creator then.

My viewpoint on religion is that morality is good but religion is created by man, and there if no evidence on whether or not there is an afterlife. I don't think there will be some judgment.

Islam is the most dangerous religion though.

In this video a Arab Muslims cleric clearly states the aims of Islam.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MHPt6ehelwA

Your screwed Jew boy.

:wailingjew:

[Brechun]

Petr, what's your opinion of the Ethiopian christians? They've been Christian nearly as long as Rome, and likewise does the Queen of Sheba tie heavily into their history and that of the Bible.

[Petr]

Petr, what's your opinion of the Ethiopian christians?
They are an example of how an African people can adopt Christianity, and even defend it with great martyrdom.

The Ethiopian church survived the Islamic siege for multiple centuries, and even bloody Communist dictatorship in the 1970s-80s.


Petr

[Brechun]

They are an example of how an African people can adopt Christianity, and even defend it with great martyrdom.

The Ethiopian church survived the Islamic siege for multiple centuries, and even bloody Communist dictatorship in the 1970s-80s.


Petr

It was more of how they really tie into Christianity's history, and how they've faired throughout the ages- they were easily just as developed as many European nations when the Portuguese came across them.

Did they really play much of a role in European and Christian history beyond that though? It never made any sense how they, er, managed to lose contact for about 1,000 years and took the role of Prester John's magical kingdom.