PDA

View Full Version : Whose Religion Is STUPIDEST?


il ragno
02-26-2006, 12:38 PM
Sometimes we spend so much time "discussing" race here that we lose sight of the many other ways to wound and assault people's feelings.

As we all know, race and religion are touchy subjects that can easily offend people's tender sensibilities. Luckily, though, the people most offended by intemperate racial comments all love shitting on religion, particularly if it's the faith they think you profess.

Here, then, is the question that this poll will definitively decide once and for all: since my religion is of course the only authentic one, which of these laughable, move-your-lips-while-reading-silently "belief systems" in a crackerjack-prize deity or deities is the hands-down stupidest?

And please...don't just vote. Add derisive comments lampooning the prostrate scroll-kissers of your choice, and share the warmth.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 12:44 PM
Wicca is by far the stupidest 'faith' there is, tied with any belief in old European "Gods". That includes the beatnik at the smoke shop and her Gaia Earth Mother as well as the Nazi "Odin, Thor, Valhalla" nutjobs.

A sentient earth spirit is the thing of Japanese anime, not serious worship. The belief in the primitive, dead "Gods" of marauding barbarians is even more ridiculous.

Petr
02-26-2006, 12:46 PM
The stupidest and most loathsome forms of religion must be these grotesque liberal "churches" filled by hypocrites who clearly don't believe in the Bible, but who lack courage or mere mental energy to honestly break away from the formal religion.

Churches that tolerate people like John Shelby Spong, you know. That particular POS must be lacking all integrity to still call himself a "bishop."

Here is a typical example of what I'm talking about:

"Hillary Klinton, Go-Go-Girls & Glide Church"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1282372/posts


Petr

Ahknaton
02-26-2006, 12:47 PM
Wicca is by far the stupidest 'faith' there is, tied with any belief in old European "Gods". That includes the beatnik at the smoke shop and her Gaia Earth Mother as well as the Nazi "Odin, Thor, Valhalla" nutjobs.

A sentient earth spirit is the thing of Japanese anime, not serious worship. The belief in the primitive, dead "Gods" of marauding barbarians is even more ridiculous.
You'll burn in the Wicker Man for those comments one day, so help me Odin :222:

Ahknaton
02-26-2006, 12:58 PM
Without a doubt the most stupid religion is the grabbag of delusions passing under the name of the "Nation of Islam". Beyond satire really.

As most everyone knows, they believe that White people are the product of an out-of-control science experiment by a deranged Black scientist named Jacub, but less known (and more amusing, to me anyway) is their belief that "Allah" is an acronym for "Arm Leg Leg Arm Head".

5 percent = their percentile on the IQ bell curve?

Helios Panoptes
02-26-2006, 12:59 PM
The Baha'i religion. It is stupider than even Wicca(religion for obese teenyboppers). I can't honestly say it is stupider than Nation of Islam, which is aptly described above, but it deserves mention.

Petr
02-26-2006, 01:13 PM
Without a doubt the most stupid religion is the grabbag of delusions passing under the name of the "Nation of Islam". Beyond satire really.
Many stories about Greek gods also look "beyond satire," but when you look at their esoteric meaning, the impression often changes.


I hereby present my thesis that the American "Black Muslim" movement (which orthodox Muslims denounce as wildly heretical) is saturated with the Gnostic idea of "inner light."

Usually people pay so much attention to the silly Afrocentricism of Elijah Muhammed's followers that they don't notice that they also clearly propound the common Gnostic theme of self-deification.


American Blacks are taught by "the Nation of Islam" that they are spiritually dead, living in a state of artificial reality and oppression. They are supposed to shake off the "matrix" of delusion cast upon them by devilish White oppressors, especially Christianity, and realize their divine origin.


Walter Yannis was here puzzled by the "Five Percenter" interpretation of "ALLAH" as an acronym for "Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm and Head":

"I mean, what is one to make of any group that asserts that the Arabic word Allah is actually an English acronym of the words arm-leg-leg-arm-head?

The internal world of a black man or woman must be a very different place than the mental space I occupy"

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16936&highlight=five+percent

It becomes a whole lot more understandable when you realize that they are peddling the old Gnostic doctrine of deification of man. Allah is Man (Black man).

Likewise, occultists like the pentagram so much precisely because its five points symbolize the divinity of man - remember that famous sketch by Leonardo da Vinci?

http://lionardodavinci.blogspot.com/


Here we have an article that describes how "Five Percenters" are rather typical Gnostic revolutionary sect - fiercely elitist and full of contempt towards the "unenlightened" ("illuminati" happens to mean "enlightened ones" in Latin):

"Molloy continues, "The 39-year-old [sic] movement started as an offshoot of the Nation of Islam, but Five Percenters say they are not Muslims. The group teaches that black men are to be called 'God' and black women 'Earth,' and that only five percent of the population is enlightened."

In reality, the Five Percenters are ultraviolent criminals who believe that all of the Earth shall perish, save for five percent, which suggests that at least half of all blacks will die, in addition to all whites and Asians. So much for the claim that the Five Percenters see all black men as gods. Tim Molloy knows enough about the group, to be aware that it is concerned with genocide, not "enlightenment."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/780091/posts


These Black Gnostics have contributed much of the more esoteric lingo of gangsta rappers. For instance, the saying "knowledge in bond" - "knowledge" means "gnosis" in Greek...

Below we have lyrics to rather typical rap song inspired by NOI doctrines. We can see - beneath all the Afrocentric jargon - typical Gnostic themes.


http://www.lyricsdepot.com/boogie-down-productions/the-real-holy-place.html

The Real Holy Place Lyrics

Artist: Boogie Down Productions
Album: Sex And Violence

Why are metaphysical teachings forbidden?
Why are metaphysical teachings forbidden?
Why are metaphysical teachings forbidden?
The only way to talk to God is in church?
Hah hah hah you must be KIDDING
For years they kept God hidden
Look for God in self not in what's written

(The typical Gnostic introduction: the truth about the divinity of (Black) man is hidden by malevolent powers)

Turn this up and listen
If your slavemaster wasn't a Christian you wouldn't be a Christian
*whip cracks*
If your slavemaster wasn't a Christian you wouldn't be a Christian
*whip cracks*
If your slavemaster wasn't a Christian YOU wouldn't be a Christian!!!
*whip cracks twice*
Your whole culture's missing
Hebrews are African, see they originated Judaism
The belief in one God is monotheism, see the truth is not hard
All you gotta know is the facts
When religion mixes with politics... it ALL GETS WACK
You gotta know your history, or they'll tell you that God is a mystery
And when you're born, you're born in sin
That's bullshit. That's BULLSHIT!

(Take notice. Here is the crucial Gnostic denial of the Original Sin, which obviously contradicts their belief in the divinity of man's soul.)

They're only saying you can't win
You can't succeed, you can't acheive
Don't ask about God, just sit there and believe
Well I ain't tryin to hear that lesson
Cause one thing I know
Cause one thing I know
Cause one thing I know is that the truth can always be questioned
YEAH that's how I'm livin
Ask and ye shall be given
When you're lyin, hah hah hah, you got no answers
You got handclappers and a WHOLE lotta dancers
in the church or sanctuary
They all forgot Jesus was a revolutionary
They all forgot Jesus was a revolutionary
They all forgot Jesus was a revolutionary!!!
that hung out with criminals
I would say read the Bible but it's not the original
So it's really misleading

(Here we have the typical Gnostic denial that the canonical gospels give us reliable information about Jesus Christ. Instead, Gnostics peddle their own mystical scriptures as more trustworthy, like "the Gospel of Thomas")

If you don't know the history of the author you don't know what you're
reading
If you DON'T know the history of the author you don't know what you've
read
You can't taste the nectar
That answers the question on why I do lectures
Cause where every MC claims to be the teacher, I be DISSIN professors
Keep that Bible on your shelf
God helps those that help themselves
Stop reading from a dead book
Stop reading from a dead book for a live God!

(Here we are reminded of Quaker fanatics burning the Bible to emphasize the superiority of their "inner light")

You know how stupid you look!
God reads the Bible with you
You both read the language of the devil that's dissing you
What can the next man do
with a Bible in his hand that you yourself can't do?
Whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or Jew
Burning candles don't get you down with the universal crew
So why you dress up on Easter and worship a false Mary
that looks like Mona Lisa? Hah hah, damn you lost
On Christ-mas, what's the purpose of Santa Claus? *bells jingle*
On Christ-mas, what's the purpose of Santa Claus? *bells keep
jingling*
On Christmas what's the purpose of Santa Claus!!!
Or Saint Nickalaus, I'm sick of this wickedness
All revolutionaries check this
I'm not synthetic
I'm not anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-Buddhist, or anti-Semetic
But I will set it off in the temple
Cause the real holy place is mental

(Meaning: the soul of (Black) man is divine)

The real holy place is mental
The real holy place is mental *starts echoing*
The real holy place is mental *echoing a lot*
The real holy place is mental!
The real holy place is mental!!!
Mental-physical, metaphysical



Here is a long article on these Black Gnostics:

http://comp.uark.edu/~tsweden/5per.html


Petr

il ragno
02-26-2006, 01:30 PM
Only Petr could siphon the hilarity out of an already-funny bongo lyric with his handy blackboard-pointer (Here we are reminded of Quaker fanatics burning the Bible to emphasize the superiority of their "inner light", LOL).

Psst: Petr. It's a rap "lyric"!! Peppering a moolie freestyle with asterisks and ibids of scholarly refutation is a little like killing a housefly with a water cannon.

Petr
02-26-2006, 01:41 PM
Only Petr could siphon the hilarity out of an already-funny bongo lyric with his handy blackboard-pointer (Here we are reminded of Quaker fanatics burning the Bible to emphasize the superiority of their "inner light", LOL).
I simply have this talent of finding profound out of mundane, whereas you, poor thing, just tend to find mundane out of profound. :)

Typically enough, you cannot actually refute what I've said, so you just make a jest.

And like I have explained, the Quakers originally had quite a wild past, and they do share one fundamental trait with Five Percenters (and other revolutionary mystics) - the idea that their inner revelation is superior to any written word of God:


"The leaders of the Anabaptist community in Zurich preached that "all property must be held in common and together." These events were accompanied by strange happenings. Members of some of the groups went naked at their gatherings and, to be like children, crept around on the ground, playing. Others burned the Bible, and with shouts of "Here! Here!" beat themselves on the breast to show the place where the life-giving spirit dwells."

http://robertlstephens.com/essays/essay_frame.php?essayroot=shafarevich/&essayfile=001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_18


“Thus, during the war, a peaceful village church was often startled by the violent entrance of a band of these military reformers, who ordered the priest to close his prayer-book and come down from the reading-desk, with terrible threats if he disobeyed. ... To burn the Bible itself, also, before the eyes of a horror-struck assembly was sometimes the daring act of the wildest of these sectarians, to show that their inward light was superior to all written revelation."

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1895/cromwell/16-quakers.htm


Petr

il ragno
02-26-2006, 01:50 PM
I know, I know...QUOG is real.

But I wasn't questioning your sources, I was questioning why anybody would waste their time pointing out fallacies found in a freakin' rap song.

I mean, I doubt anybody here was reading

God reads the Bible with you
You both read the language of the devil that's dissing you

and thinking, "That is so true. Wow, now I have to rethink everything I believe in."

What's next - the etmology of "motherfucker" complete with footnotes and links for the Hoffman quotes? (No, wait - I was kidding, Petr - Petr, stop! - PETR, NOOOOO-!!!)

Petr
02-26-2006, 01:55 PM
But I wasn't questioning your sources, I was questioning why anybody would waste their time pointing out fallacies found in a freakin' rap song.
Come now, why be so elitist? This is a great example of how ideology works on the grass-roots level.

"The influence of Gnosticism on Afro-American street culture" - there's doctoral dissertation ready for some enterprising student of theology or sociology! :)


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 01:56 PM
Come now, why be so elitist? This is a great example of how ideology works on the grass-roots level.

"The influence of Gnosticism on Afro-American street culture" - there's doctoral dissertation ready for some enterprising student of theology or sociology! :)


Petr

I'm curious to see if Petr believes black people have souls, and if they do, is heaven segregated? :222:

il ragno
02-26-2006, 01:58 PM
I think "Afro-American" is now a no-no, btw. According to the What We're Supposed To Call Them This Week handbook, everything except the fully-spelled-out "African-American" is hate speech of some sort.

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 01:59 PM
Quakers are the worst. Petr was right.

Not that I read Petr's posts... I respect the fact he posts 'em.

Petr
02-26-2006, 02:03 PM
I'm curious to see if Petr believes black people have souls, and if they do, is heaven segregated? :222:
Don't you slander me as some cultist. :mad:

Of course Black people have souls, and on the New Heavens and New Earth, such petty earthly concerns as "segregation" may well lose their meaning, although verses like Revelations 21:24 could indicate that even in heaven, "nations" (ethnos) remain as separate entities.


Petr

Petr
02-26-2006, 02:05 PM
Not that I read Petr's posts...
Why not? :(


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 02:55 PM
Of course Black people have souls, and on the New Heavens and New Earth, such petty earthly concerns as "segregation" may well lose their meaning,


So do you love them?

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:11 PM
So do you love them?
Enough with your manipulative questions. I do love them, but not in any sentimental-mushy hippie way.


Petr

sainte-marthe
02-26-2006, 03:12 PM
Any Petr post about Boogie Down Productions is fine with me. I't just funny to see Petr use the phrase.


According to Bosch, there are not only negroes in heaven, but giant owls, fruit in strange places, and people being eaten by clams.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/robinder99/boschniggers.jpg

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:12 PM
Enough with your manipulative questions. I do love them, but not in any sentimental-mushy hippie way.


I think Jesus would eat at the same lunch counter with a black man. What do you think?

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:18 PM
Any Petr post about Boogie Down Productions is fine with me. I't just funny to see Petr use the phrase.


According to Bosch, there are not only negroes in heaven, but giant owls, fruit in strange places, and people being eaten by clams.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v232/robinder99/boschniggers.jpg


Heaven looks nightmarish. :p

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:22 PM
I think Jesus would eat at the same lunch counter with a black man. What do you think?
Probably so, but not out of any self-righteous liberal principles. He probably wouldn't think that it would be sin to object if your daughter would want to marry a Black man.

(Most interracial marriages are in violation of the Fifth Commandment, marrying someone whom your parents disapprove)


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:24 PM
Probably so, but not out of any self-righteous liberal principles. He probably wouldn't think that it would be sin to object if your daughter would want to marry a Black man.

(Most interracial marriages are in violation of the Fifth Commandment, marrying someone whom your parents disapprove)


Jesus wouldn't care if I didn't care. :D

Are Jews before the breaking of the Covenant in Heaven?

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 03:24 PM
Edmund: Well, well, let's take Hell: You know, Hell isn't as bad as it's
cracked up to be.

Graveney: What?

Edmund: No, no, no, no. No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is
that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go
on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot
plants...

Graveney: Ew...

Edmund: Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other
sorts of things: adultery, pillage, torture -- those areas.

Graveney: Really?

Edmund: Mm! Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you'll
have the time of your life!

Graveney: Adultery? Pillage? Through all eternity?

Edmund: Yep!

William: (???) large sticks against your tender portions!

(Percy beats William over the head with a large Bible; Baldrick kicks him and
beats him with the crucifix.)

King: (handing over a quill) Lord Graveney, your decision...

Graveney: Very well. (signs) I leave my lands to the Crown, and my soul in
the hands of the Lord. May He treat me like the piece of refuse
that I am (rubs his hands together, grinning) and send me to Hell.
(???)

King: Amen.

Edmund: Amen. You're a very lucky man! I wish I could be coming with you, but,
you know, being the Archbishop...

Graveney: I'm so sorry.

Edmund: Oh no, that's alright.

Graveney: (sits up, points) Aaahhh! (everyone looks where he points; he dies)

(Edmund and King laugh and approach each other)

King: My son!

Edmund: Father!

(they embrace for a brief period)

King: (kneels) Father.

Edmund: (places his hand on King's head) My Son.

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:28 PM
Are Jews before the breaking of the Covenant in Heaven?
Can't you answer so simple question yourself? Patriarchs and prophets, sure, Israelites who went whoring after Baals and other idols, nope.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:29 PM
Can't you answer so simple question yourself? Patriarchs and prophets, sure, Israelites who went whoring after Baals and other idols, nope.


So it sounds like heaven is a model for what non-racists want to achieve here, on Earth. :)

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:32 PM
Edmund: No, no, no, no. No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is
that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go
on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot
plants...

Graveney: Ew...

Edmund: Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other
sorts of things: adultery, pillage, torture -- those areas.
Filthy blasphemy. :mad: This is the dumb quasi-Manichean idea that Hell is going to be some sort of separate kingdom for Satan, whereas it is actually going to be a trash heap where the refuse of the universe is thrown away - and a boiling one at that (lake of fire).


Petr

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:33 PM
So it sounds like heaven is a model for what non-racists want to achieve here, on Earth. :)
You don't know anything about the Bible, so stop misleading others.


Petr

Helios Panoptes
02-26-2006, 03:37 PM
Probably so, but not out of any self-righteous liberal principles. He probably wouldn't think that it would be sin to object if your daughter would want to marry a Black man.

(Most interracial marriages are in violation of the Fifth Commandment, marrying someone whom your parents disapprove)


Petr


So, interracial marriages are acceptable if they do not happen to violate the 5th commandment?

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:38 PM
You don't know anything about the Bible, so stop misleading others.


Twelve years of Catholic school babe. :D

The gospels were to be taught to all men, of all 'races'. Brothers in Christ. Jesus died for the sins of everyone, from the black child herding cattle in Central Africa to the Jewish fellow celebrating the Sabbath in Tel Aviv to you, here.

It is Christian to treat your brothers as you would have them treat you.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:47 PM
So, interracial marriages are acceptable if they do not happen to violate the 5th commandment?

Sure.

"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."

Galatians 3:28

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:47 PM
So, interracial marriages are acceptable if they do not happen to violate the 5th commandment?
There isn't dogmatic teaching on this point (as far as I'm aware of), but sometimes it could be so. Just like the existence of bastard children, race-mixing is something that Christians simply have cope with somehow in this fallen world.

There isn't any basis in the Bible for the state-enforced integration or multiculti programs, though.


Petr

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:52 PM
"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."

Galatians 3:28
Your superficial knoweldge of the Bible shows. This is the verse that all multi-cultists always refer to with monomaniacal regularity.

http://littlegeneva.com/gal328.html

Raping Sacred Scripture

The Violation of Galatians 3:28

...

One of the most raped texts of Scripture in the Bible today is, "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" (Gal. 3:28). This verse has been forced for years by abolitionists, feminists, sensualists and others. The verse has been used to endorse the abandonment of race distinctions, it has been used to endorse race mixing, and it has been used to foster a world without nations based on a faulty understanding of the phrase "there is neither Jew nor Greek." Another misuse of the verse has been to condemn slavery in the South and in the Bible because of the words, "there is neither bond (slave) nor free." The sacred text has been used to encourage unisex, sodomy, and other perverted sexual habits since the text says, "there is neither male nor female." For example, the verse was quoted as an endorsement encouraging the acceptance of homosexuals in an Atlanta church. One writer said the meaning of this verse "does away with all human distinctions." Later the writer said, "all human barriers are broken down." Another writer said, "All class distinctions disappear in the new fraternal life in Christ." One feminist gave the following distortion of the text, "There is no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, cleric and lay, white and multicultural." These various corruptions of the truth belie unsound thinking and an unregenerate heart. This is equalitarianism (or the often-used French form, egalitarianism), which is a leveling movement that does not have anything to do with justice and is not Biblical. It is the product of humanism and involves the worship of man. The Bible is really the opposite of equalitarianism, for it teaches us to treat our own families, our own fellow believers and other men differently. For instance, love does not mean equality; a man is not to love his neighbor's wife as his own wife. Dr. R.J. Rushdoony in Law and Society clearly noted, "Scripture gives no justification for an equalitarian order, and it also gives no ground whatsoever for an elitist order. Only a godly order established in terms of ... Scripture." And then he remarked, "Both equalitarianism and elitism are in essence contemptuous of man in the name of man. The elitist despises the majority of men, and the equalitarian despises all able and independent men, but, in essence, both despise all men as men and love rather their idea of men, not man himself in singular."



Petr

tricknologist
02-26-2006, 03:54 PM
That's a lot of votes for the Nation of Islam. I take it that no one here believes that the blackman invented the moon (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4236) ?

Petr
02-26-2006, 03:55 PM
Twelve years of Catholic school babe. :D
Roman Catholic schools (especially after the Vatican II) are pretty bad places to get reliable knowledge on what the Bible really teaches. I bet they pandered to PC humanism.


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 03:57 PM
There isn't dogmatic teaching on this point (as far as I'm aware of), but sometimes it could be so. Just like the existence of bastard children, race-mixing is something that Christians simply have cope with somehow in this fallen world.


Actually the bible only requires you to be of the same faith. Not the same race. There's no sorrow about it.


There isn't any basis in the Bible for the state-enforced integration or multiculti programs, though.


Sure there is. A brotherhood in Christ.

Helios Panoptes
02-26-2006, 03:57 PM
There isn't dogmatic teaching on this point (as far as I'm aware of), but sometimes it could be so. Just like the existence of bastard children, race-mixing is something that Christians simply have cope with somehow in this fallen world.

There isn't any basis in the Bible for the state-enforced integration or multiculti programs, though.


Petr


In this case, why should one care about race/nation? If a true Christian obeys only scripture and there is nothing within it that opposes miscegenation, it seems to be only arbitrary, personal bias that would make one value such concepts. Isn't this an example of man's wisdom, which you hold in low regard?

Note that I'm not Christian, so it's not as if I'm grappling with myself here. I'm simply curious.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:02 PM
Your superficial knoweldge of the Bible shows. This is the verse that all multi-cultists always refer to with monomaniacal regularity.

http://littlegeneva.com/gal328.html

Raping Sacred Scripture

The Violation of Galatians 3:28

...

One of the most raped texts of Scripture in the Bible today is, "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" (Gal. 3:28). This verse has been forced for years by abolitionists, feminists, sensualists and others. The verse has been used to endorse the abandonment of race distinctions, it has been used to endorse race mixing, and it has been used to foster a world without nations based on a faulty understanding of the phrase "there is neither Jew nor Greek." Another misuse of the verse has been to condemn slavery in the South and in the Bible because of the words, "there is neither bond (slave) nor free." The sacred text has been used to encourage unisex, sodomy, and other perverted sexual habits since the text says, "there is neither male nor female." For example, the verse was quoted as an endorsement encouraging the acceptance of homosexuals in an Atlanta church. One writer said the meaning of this verse "does away with all human distinctions." Later the writer said, "all human barriers are broken down." Another writer said, "All class distinctions disappear in the new fraternal life in Christ." One feminist gave the following distortion of the text, "There is no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual, cleric and lay, white and multicultural." These various corruptions of the truth belie unsound thinking and an unregenerate heart. This is equalitarianism (or the often-used French form, egalitarianism), which is a leveling movement that does not have anything to do with justice and is not Biblical. It is the product of humanism and involves the worship of man. The Bible is really the opposite of equalitarianism, for it teaches us to treat our own families, our own fellow believers and other men differently. For instance, love does not mean equality; a man is not to love his neighbor's wife as his own wife. Dr. R.J. Rushdoony in Law and Society clearly noted, "Scripture gives no justification for an equalitarian order, and it also gives no ground whatsoever for an elitist order. Only a godly order established in terms of ... Scripture." And then he remarked, "Both equalitarianism and elitism are in essence contemptuous of man in the name of man. The elitist despises the majority of men, and the equalitarian despises all able and independent men, but, in essence, both despise all men as men and love rather their idea of men, not man himself in singular."



Petr


Um....Petr.....are you aware that there is actual no Biblical rebuttal to my quote in that paste of yours? You just posted a websites opinion of the use of that quote....without any explaination of how its false. Thats also misleading, since there ARE prohibitions against sodomy and same sex coupling. There is no such prohibition against interracial marriage.

And yes, 'love' does mean treat with respect and equality. The quote ACTUALLY SAYS:

"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."

I mean, you're welcome to rebutt it with Biblical citation. If you can. :)

Or you can acknowledge that all men are your brothers and that you love them and that you are no more or less than one in Jesus Christ.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:03 PM
In this case, why should one care about race/nation? If a true Christian obeys only scripture and there is nothing within it that opposes miscegenation, it seems to be only arbitrary, personal bias that would make one value such concepts. Isn't this an example of man's wisdom, which you hold in low regard?


This is a very good question.

Petr
02-26-2006, 04:05 PM
If a true Christian obeys only scripture and there is nothing within it that opposes miscegenation, it seems to be only arbitrary, personal bias that would make one value such concepts.
God has implanted some healthy instincts on us, and an aversion to race-mixing and a special love for our kinsmen is one of them.

When the state and the media are not aggressively promoting race-mixing, we will see that races will naturally self-segregate (just like God intended them to do). We can see evidence for this everywhere:

"Despite growing 'diversity' and innumerable laws and programs to force the races together, the human subspecies' tendencies to naturally sort and segregate themselves is just too powerful."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8050

This is, of course, apart from morally defective individuals like Sulla, who are unbelievers anyways.

(Even in the olden days, it was usually the badly-churched "white trash" who usually were involved in race-mixing.)


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:07 PM
Roman Catholic schools (especially after the Vatican II) are pretty bad places to get reliable knowledge on what the Bible really teaches. I bet they pandered to PC humanism.


I'm an atheist so no big deal to me. :p

And God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …

Acts 17:26

The bible, while believing in nations, doesn't believe in the modern concept of race at all. :p

A single bloodline.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:10 PM
God has implanted some healthy instincts on us, and an aversion to race-mixing and a special love for our kinsmen is one of them.

When the state and the media are not aggressively promoting race-mixing, we will see that races will naturally self-segregate (just like God intended them to do). We can see evidence for this everywhere:

"Despite growing 'diversity' and innumerable laws and programs to force the races together, the human subspecies' tendencies to naturally sort and segregate themselves is just too powerful."

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=8050

This is, of course, apart from morally defective individuals like Sulla, who are unbelievers anyways.

(Even in the olden days, it was usually the badly-churched "white trash" who usually were involved in race-mixing.)


Petr


Petr, are you saying that NATIONAL VANGUARD is the vehicle through which you are interpreting God's gift?

Actually the idea of 'race' in the ancient world was more the way we view ethnicity. An analogy would be if we viewed the Germans as a race, the same way we view Asians.

The ancients did consider nations as races. The suggestion that they viewed people who SLEPT with other 'races' as white trash is silly. And I'll point out, not substantiated by any biblical citation by you.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:13 PM
God has implanted some healthy instincts on us, and an aversion to race-mixing and a special love for our kinsmen is one of them.


How do you recognize that as "God's implant" rather than Satan's curse? First of all I don't even recognize that 'instinct'. :p

Secondly how is rejecting a biblical mandate to be "one in Christ" related to God?

jcs
02-26-2006, 04:17 PM
In this case, why should one care about race/nation? If a true Christian obeys only scripture and there is nothing within it that opposes miscegenation, it seems to be only arbitrary, personal bias that would make one value such concepts.
A true Christian shouldn't obey only scripture; only the silliest of silly prodz believe in that nonsense.

I'm an atheist so no big deal to me.

And God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …

Acts 17:26

The bible, while believing in nations, doesn't believe in the modern concept of race at all.

A single bloodline.
He who quotes passages without considering context, demonstrates his lack of hermeneutic knowledge, and shall be executed most violently.
Seriously, that annoys the fuck out of me.

il ragno
02-26-2006, 04:22 PM
...and there's the bell for Round 6. Petr, the Lord's champion, is ahead on points so far, but lapsed-Cat'lick challenger Sulla the Dictator has opened up a nasty cut over the Helsinki Flash's left eye....and they circle each other warily...there's a jab from Petr...another...natural tendency of the races to self-segregate....Sulla the Dictator, head-bobbing to deflect the impact...and a Gospel/Epistle combination misses....two battle-tested veterans here, ladies and gentleman, neither wanting to make the first ecclesiastical mistake...Sulla crouching low, covering up with both mitts, AS A FLURRY OF OLD TESTAMENT PUNCHES FROM PETR BACKS HIM INTO THE CORNER!!....but, no; Sulla's got him in an all-men-are-brothers clinch, and the referee breaks it up....forty seconds remaining in this round....now Sulla, the challenger, connects with a jab from Jeremiah! PETR SEEMS WOOZY...SULLA GOES BACK TO WORK ON THE MOTE IN THAT LEFT EYE....A WILD ATHEISTIC UPPERCUT MISSES...AND THERE'S THE BELL!

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:24 PM
A true Christian shouldn't obey only scripture; only the silliest of silly prodz believe in that nonsense.


What is supposed to moderate the weight of scripture?


He who quotes passages without considering context, demonstrates his lack of hermeneutic knowledge, and shall be executed most violently.
Seriously, that annoys the fuck out of me.

What about the rest of the paragraph lends itself to a different context than what I quoted?

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us

This lends itself MORE to my usage of the quote, not less.

Helios Panoptes
02-26-2006, 04:29 PM
A true Christian shouldn't obey only scripture; only the silliest of silly prodz believe in that nonsense.

I defined "true christian" myself for the purpose of posing the question because it is Petr's definition. You tell me what a "true christian" is and explain why. I'd like to know for future reference. :)

He who quotes passages without considering context, demonstrates his lack of hermeneutic knowledge, and shall be executed most violently.

Unlike Eastern texts, the Bible is fairly straightforward. However, I'd agree that context is useful. Anyway, what does Act 17:26 mean? Feel free to look at the sentences surrounding it in the Bible, if you'd like.

Petr
02-26-2006, 04:29 PM
And yes, 'love' does mean treat with respect and equality. The quote ACTUALLY SAYS:

"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."

You reading that verse with humanist equalitarian glasses on, and with wooden literalism. We can easily argue that this is verse was meant to be interpreted spiritually because:


a) We know from apostle Paul's other writings that was a "chauvinist" who decreed that women shouldn't be preachers or rule over a man:

1 Corinthians 14:34:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

1 Timothy 2:12:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

So much for literalist gender equality in Galatians 3:28.


b) We also know that apostle Paul approved the institution of slavery:

Ephesians 6:5-9:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.


1 Timothy 6:1-2:

Let all who are servants under the yoke give all honour to their masters, so that no evil may be said against the name of God and his teaching.

And let those whose masters are of the faith have respect for them because they are brothers, working for them the more readily, because those who take part in the good work are of the faith and are dear. Give orders and teaching about these things.

So much for literalist class equality in Galatians 3:28.


Since we have seen that Paul clearly didn't intend his remark in Galatians 3:28 to be interpreted as a support either for gender of class equality, why should we assume that he supported literal ethnic equality either?

In fact, here we can see Paul committing something that is known in modern PC jargon as a group libel, stereotyping an ethnic group with negative connotations:


Titus 1:12-3:

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

This witness is true.


So much for literalist ethnic equality in Galatians 3:28.


Petr

Banat
02-26-2006, 04:35 PM
Filthy blasphemy. :mad: This is the dumb quasi-Manichean idea that Hell is going to be some sort of separate kingdom for Satan, whereas it is actually going to be a trash heap where the refuse of the universe is thrown away - and a boiling one at that (lake of fire).

Actually, that was but a Black Adder (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/blackadder/) quote. :)

Sinclair
02-26-2006, 04:39 PM
I am boycotting this poll as Mormonism is not on the list.

il ragno
02-26-2006, 04:46 PM
I am boycotting this poll as Mormonism is not on the list.

Fuck, I knew I'd forgotten one! And a religion founded by a 'Joe Smith' yet!

jcs
02-26-2006, 04:48 PM
What is supposed to moderate the weight of scripture?
I didn't say something should moderate the weight of scripture. However, there are things outside of scripture itself that are important. Interpretation of scripture, for one; also, a ton of theology.
(Theology is more interesting, IMO)

What about the rest of the paragraph lends itself to a different context than what I quoted?
In Act 17, Paul is preaching to the people of Athens. The quoted text is part of his glorification of God, preceded by the Judeo-Christian account of the creation of the world, followed by him saying that the men created by God should seek him (presumably due to thankfulness).
Placed in this context, the notion of 'one blood' for 'all nations' is not something Paul was stressing. He was basically refering to the 'one blood' of Adam, to the human race as a whole; in Darwinistic terms, he could have said, "The 'one blood' of our common ancestor...," and the meaning would have been the same.

You tell me what a "true christian" is and explain why.
Christian: one who 'follows' Christ (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375700188/sr=8-2/qid=1140972279/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8325890-7591356?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

Unlike Eastern texts, the Bible is fairly straightforward.
Eastern texts are quite straightforward; the Bible fairly straightforward as well--when read without the bastardization of passages to lend Biblical support to one's ideological ends.

Anyway, what does Act 17:26 mean?
I could have swore that, prior to clicking the 'reply' button, you were asking for a passage from Galatians.

ironweed
02-26-2006, 04:48 PM
I'd say Scientology, personally. Not only do they have about the weirdest collection of beliefs of any religion in history, they're also savage in their reprisals to critics or to anyone who joins and tries to leave.

I think they're a criminal enterprise masquerading as a religion, at least the leadership.

jcs
02-26-2006, 04:49 PM
Wicca is by far the stupidest religion, closely followed by any other 'new age' movement, then modern feel-good Christian stupidity, then spiritual dabbling (in Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabballah, etc.)

Helios Panoptes
02-26-2006, 04:49 PM
You're right about the last part because I was mistaken about the post you'd responded to.

Edit: rather than make another post, I'll say here that I need to sleep and I'll get back to those who've replied to me in awhile.

Petr
02-26-2006, 04:50 PM
How do you recognize that as "God's implant" rather than Satan's curse?
Here's Biblical verse for you to chew on:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

1 Timothy 5:8


And here is a spot-on parody of this quasi-Gnostic notion of "spiritual meritocracy":

http://littlegeneva.com/?p=342


Our friend Ralph Watson just sent this to me:


Fight Familism

by Rev. Jack O’Kobian


Modern Christians have made great strides against racism. But much more needs to be done if we are to be true servants of Equality.

Now we must confront a form of racism that most people don’t even recognize as such. This is the sin of familism, the preference for one’s children over other children. Admittedly this seems natural, but in the fallen world most sins seem natural. Only as we follow the spiritual truth of Equality can we rise above this sinful material world.

Do you doubt that familism is racism? Consider how racists often justify their hate by saying that it’s really no different from preferring one’s child. And consider how familists often use such terms as “my flesh and blood.” The similarity to the Nazi’s “blood and soil” is obvious. Only a bigot would disagree.

In the words of no less than Martin Luther King, the only basis for judging another human being is the “content of character.” Thus if a “father” prefers his “son” to another child who is morally superior to that “son,” he is clearly a bigot because he values flesh more than morality. Such a “father” clearly views his “family”—physical traits, genes and all—as a miniature Master Race.

While it is true that the Old Testament affirms family lineage and says “honor thy father and thy mother,” the law of the OT no longer applies because now, under the New Testament, we are under grace instead of law. Jesus said, “call no man your father.” Grace is spirit and abolishes physical distinctions.

Throughout history we can see the evil caused by familism, wars of dynasty, family feuds, jealousy, and favoritism. Blood ties lead to bloodshed. It is the shame of the Church that Marxists have long understood the evils of familism better than Christians and have worked to attack this and other sins against Equality. Indeed, it was the Marxist Leon Trotsky who invented the term “racism.”

To fight familism, the Church must set the long-range goal of raising all children in common. In the words of Hillary Clinton, “It takes a village to raise a child.” As a preliminary step to that goal, Christian parents should make a practice of swapping their newborns with other “families.”

Some “mothers,” of course, will object, and they will play on the sentiments of a mother holding her infant child. Nevertheless, we must cut through this sentiment and understand the sin that motivates it. The extent to which a “mother” focuses on her child is the extent to which she tunes out other children—and that is hate.

Although abortion is a bad thing, it may be serving what is ultimately a good purpose. When a woman has the child in her womb killed, it desensitizes her to warmth and favoritism toward children of her own, and thereby opens her heart to impartial feeling toward all children. Gay marriage also may have a beneficial side by undercutting the prestige of familism.

We should never fail to denounce familism whenever we encounter it, even in tough cases. For example, if a couple has just lost its child in an accident, the moral response is to withhold sympathy for their grief. Tell the couple “to get over it” because there are plenty of living children around for them to love, many with a “content of character” superior to that of “their” deceased child.

Admittedly, the path to True Equality will not be easy, but it is the only way we can purge the sin of earth with the spirit of heaven. One day this love will trample out the vineyards of hate.


Before any of you scoff at this parody, keep in mind that kinists are called sinful for appreciating their connection to extended family. In our time, being a few generations removed makes all the difference between being a loving relative and a hateful racist.



First of all I don't even recognize that 'instinct'.
Well, you seem to be rootless-cosmopolitan (or to put it more Biblically, "Babelian") riff-raff, so perhaps you just can't help it. :(


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 04:56 PM
You reading that verse with humanist equalitarian glasses on, and with wooden literalism. We can easily argue that this is verse was meant to be interpreted spiritually because:


Actually I'm arguing about the bible's view of race. Which is quite clear.


a) We know from apostle Paul's other writings that was a "chauvinist" who decreed that woman shouldn't be preachers or rule over a man:

So much for literalist gender equality in Galatians 3:28.


No one was arguing about gender equality. :confused:

What the heck is going on here?


b) We also know that apostle Paul approved the institution of slavery:

Ephesians 6:5-9:

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.


1 Timothy 6:1-2:

Let all who are servants under the yoke give all honour to their masters, so that no evil may be said against the name of God and his teaching.

And let those whose masters are of the faith have respect for them because they are brothers, working for them the more readily, because those who take part in the good work are of the faith and are dear. Give orders and teaching about these things.


Irrelevant, since a slave was more likely to be white than black. In fact, he was more likely to be what people on this board classify as 'Nordic' than black. :D

I'll remind you that this has to do with race. And while Paul recognized the institution of slavery, he's concered with the promulgation of the Faith. He has no interest in slave rebellions or some wierd Classical Marxist revolution. :p

But Paul recognizes that the Master and the slave are equals in the eyes of Christ. And that inequities of life do not come between what is moral and just in the eyes of the Lord.


So much for literalist class equality in Galatians 3:28.


Who's talking about class equality? I'm talking about the CHRISTIAN notion of equality. The Master is not BETTER than the slave in the eyes of Christ. It is the way of the times. Paul recognizes that, but says that inequity is one of those misfortunes that plagues the world of the flesh.

That relationship will not exist in heaven, will it? :p


Since we have seen that Paul clearly didn't intend his remark in Galatians 3:28 to be interpreted as a support either for gender of class equality, why should we assume that he supported literal ethnic equality either?


How did you transpose your point for CLASS equality for RACIAL equality? If we are all Brothers in Christ, which you don't argue, and that we are no more than or less than that, which you don't argue with, how can you as a Christian believe you are BETTER THAN another man?

Atleast, another man who is not a sinner or a worshiper of false Gods. And in that way it is incumbant on you to treat your fellow man, OF ANY RACE, as you would treat Christ himself.

The New covenant is replete with Christ humbling himself before the lowest society has to offer. The people you refer to as 'white trash'. Christ would treat the Pope no different than he would treat the most humble black man on the planet who believed in Him. He would embrace them as brothers.

Do you think your skin would grant you favor with him over another follower of a different color?


In fact, here we can see Paul committing something that is known in modern PC jargon as a group libel, stereotyping an ethnic group with negative connotations:


We're going to have to give some context here.



Titus 1:12-3:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

This witness is true.


Therefore, admonish them sharply, so that they may be sound in the faith

He's stamping out heresy.

(Cough)

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Colossians 3:11


So much for literalist ethnic equality in Galatians 3:28.


Paul is ridiculing a sect, not a people. Paul is quoting someone ridiculing a people.

il ragno
02-26-2006, 04:57 PM
I'd say Scientology, personally. Not only do they have about the weirdest collection of beliefs of any religion in history, they're also savage in their reprisals to critics or to anyone who joins and tries to leave.

I think they're a criminal enterprise masquerading as a religion, at least the leadership.

Hey, they're all criminal enterprises to me, but I couldn't bring myself to list Scientology. It's all scam and no religion. I mean,if Tommy Cruise and John Travolta both believe in it, then you know it's a 'faith' that asks nothing from you but money and false humility.

Sinclair
02-26-2006, 04:58 PM
I think we should have a Mormonism vs Nation of Islam cage match.

Petr
02-26-2006, 05:02 PM
Petr, are you saying that NATIONAL VANGUARD is the vehicle through which you are interpreting God's gift?
A disingenious objection, since NV is just reporting what a new Harvard study shows.

And anyways, that was just one of the countless sources I could have picked out to demonstrate the natural tendency of normal, decent people to self-segregate among their own in private life.

(So we are not talking about rabble willing to screw anything that moves)


Actually the idea of 'race' in the ancient world was more the way we view ethnicity.
Ancient people, and today's third-worlders, both Christian and pagan, had and have a very developed sense of familism and its logical extension, tribalism. Are you perpetrating PC revisionism?


Petr

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 05:03 PM
Ugh, I hate talking about religion.

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 05:04 PM
Nation of Islam will soon gather all the brothaz who can't ball.

Petr
02-26-2006, 05:08 PM
Ugh, I hate talking about religion.
It shows, you don't probably even sincerely believe in your own tendentiously PC interpretation of the Bible, but just push it to provoke me.

You are getting whipped and you cannot escape that fact with you usual semi-clever faux-cosmopolitan blah quips. Are you getting annoyed? :p


Petr

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 05:09 PM
Are you getting annoyed? :p

I know I am.

ironweed
02-26-2006, 05:11 PM
Hey, they're all criminal enterprises to me, but I couldn't bring myself to list Scientology. It's all scam and no religion. I mean,if Tommy Cruise and John Travolta both believe in it, then you know it's a 'faith' that asks nothing from you but money and false humility.

Good point, though I read a book by a sociologist who spent time with the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. (This was sometime in the late '80s.) His view was that the Moonies were on their way to becoming the Mormons of the 21st century, but that the Scientologists would never be anything but a savage cult. And given that what passes as representatives for U.S. Conservativsm nowadays slobber all over themselves to get a byline with the Washington Times, a/k/a The Moonie Paper, I'd say his analysis is dead on.

I guess I was thinking in terms of what faith, if you joined it, would send your life down the shitter the fastest. And it seems like Scientology is tough to beat in that department.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 05:13 PM
It shows, you don't probably even sincerely believe in your own tendentiously PC interpretation of the Bible, but just push it to provoke me.


No, the bible is inarguably multiculturalist. Christianity is a slave's religion, after all, and you can't be too picky who you're talking to when you go amongst the gentiles. :p

You're just projecting your views of race on a world that didn't have the same ideas. Thats your mistake. Its just tedious going through this book of platitudes and nonsense.


You are getting whipped


LOL You and I are reading two different threads, it would seem. National Vanguard excerpts unrelated to religion not withstanding. :rofl:


Are you getting annoyed? :p


Reading the bible is annoying, yes.

il ragno
02-26-2006, 05:18 PM
I guess I was thinking in terms of what faith, if you joined it, would send your life down the shitter the fastest. And it seems like Scientology is tough to beat in that department.

Ahhh...but they generally aren't interested in you until/unless you got plenty of loot. Somebody whose 'religious contributions' loses them their Roman villa and fleet of antique Bentleys, forcing them to make do with a plain ol' mansion with one measly tennis court, and a jacuzzi with algae buildup constantly jamming the rotors, isn't exactly 'in the shitter'.

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 05:21 PM
Anyway, I couldn't say that any religion is stupid,
most of them say stupid things, do smart things and use stupid people.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 05:21 PM
A disingenious objection, since NV is just reporting what a new Harvard study shows.


Regarding people's natural inclinations. You know what the Church used to refer to people's natural inclinations as? SINS.

Its my natural inclination to mate with attractive women at a whim. It is sinful for me to do so. :p


And anyways, that was just one of the countless sources I could have picked out to demonstrate the natural tendency of normal, decent people to self-segregate among their own in private life.


Natural tendancies are not in any way necessarily Christian. Thats why the holiest among you mortify their flesh. :p


(So we are not talking about rabble willing to screw anything that moves)


That is their natural tendancy.


Ancient people, and today's third-worlders, both Christian and pagan, had and have a very developed sense of familism and its logical extension, tribalism. Are you perpetrating PC revisionism?


Romans did not. And as they brought slaves from across the known world to serve their needs, Rome became a melting pot for freedmen and slaves alike. So this is absolutely ridiculous.

And furthermore, it applied to EVERY trading city in one way or another. Athens wasn't a Hellenistic paragon by the time Christ was strapping his sandals on.

So its irrelevant what some silly mountain people think about 'familism' or 'tribalism'. The apostles are peddling their wares amongst the slave and freedmen masses of Rome. The amorphous mob from Britannia to Syria who clog the streets of the Subura doing menial tasks when they aren't fucking every prostitute from Scythia to Iberia in the doorways of the public toilets.

Petr
02-26-2006, 05:28 PM
Christianity is a slave's religion, after all, and you can't be too picky who you're talking to when you go amongst the gentiles. :p
Your petty hatred of Christianity is showing.

Actually, you should read Rodney Stark's bestseller The Rise of Christianity - you would learn that the early Christianity was actually middle-class dominated religion, attracting upward-mobile people.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060677015/qid=1140974337/sr=1-19/ref=sr_1_19/102-9552333-4770517?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Pg. 30:

After a careful analysis of the ranks and occupation of persons mentioned in the sources, Judge concluded:

"Far from being a socially depressed group, then ... the Christians were dominated by a socially pretentious section of the population of big cities. Beyond that they seem to have drawn on a broad consistuency, probably representing the household dependents of leading members ...

"But the dependent members of city households were by no means the most debased section of society. If lacking freedom, they still enjoyed security, and a moderate prosperity. The peasantry and persons of slavery on the land were the most under-privileged classes. Christianity left them largely untouched. (60)


"Christianity that began as a proletarian cult" is a revisionistic Marxist-Nietzschean creation.


Petr

il ragno
02-26-2006, 05:30 PM
That's what endears me to the Sulla-nian worldview. 3000 years ago? Just like today, except no HBO. If Nefertiti were alive right now, she'd be booty-popping bond traders at Les Girls, and Shakespeare would be script-doctoring CSI. The past is always following today's footsteps for the modern day, whore-fucking anti-racist on the go.

Sulla the Dictator
02-26-2006, 05:37 PM
That's what endears me to the Sulla-nian worldview. 3000 years ago? Just like today, except no HBO. If Nefertiti were alive right now, she'd be booty-popping bond traders at Les Girls, and Shakespeare would be script-doctoring CSI. The past is always following today's footsteps for the modern day, whore-fucking anti-racist on the go.

Incorrect. The Ancient world was FAR MORE loose in what we consider 'moral virtue' than the pruddish world we live in today. You would have learned this the first day of school in the lyceum when your forty year old teacher ejaculated on your 11 year old theighs to introduce you to the purity of love between citizens. :p

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 05:42 PM
Incorrect. The Ancient world was FAR MORE loose in what we consider 'moral virtue' than the pruddish world we live in today. You would have learned this the first day of school in the lyceum when your forty year old teacher ejaculated on your 11 year old theighs to introduce you to the purity of love between citizens. :p

Just when I think I have the answer to the question: "what is the gayest thing ever posted by Sulla the Dictator?", Sulla posts something new that utterly shames it.

This may be the gayest Sulla post to date.

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 05:44 PM
Back to Ragno's actual quiery:

I cannot believe nobody has mentioned the "Born Again"/Rapture movement. My sister in law is all involved in that nonsense and it is by far the stupidest "faith" interpretation that I have ever heard of. Its essentially a Dungeons and Dragons LARP where people pretend that they are old testement Hebes and that the world is going to end in the next 20 minutes. They also believe that God is interested in things like what they eat for lunch on any given day, and whether or not they get a winning lottery ticket. Hands down, stupidest shit ever.

Hermetic
02-26-2006, 05:49 PM
Any religion that says salvation is of the jews.lol

Camacho
02-26-2006, 05:55 PM
Roman Catholic schools (especially after the Vatican II) are pretty bad places to get reliable knowledge on what the Bible really teaches. I bet they pandered to PC humanism.
Every other page of my religion book was filled with pics like the following:

- Mexican teenagers helping poor white people at the local homeless shelters
- A group photo featuring even numbers of black, white, Hispanic and Asian children, half male and half female, doing something totally lame like holding hands and/or jumping up and down with a cheesy caption at the bottom like "Celebrate God's gifts!"
- A crowd of (again, multiracial) demonstrators at an anti war rally (the text would go on to explain how these people were "living in the footsteps of jesus" or something)
- A white kid pushing around an old, wheelchair-bound Chinese/Mexican/black woman
- Excercises featuring stories like '"Felipe wants to bring his white girlfiriend to the prom, but he's afraid he'll be made fun of because he is Hispanic." - Break up into small groups and discuss what Felipe should do.'
- Pics of yarmulke-wearing jews and lots and lots 'a shit about jewish traditions and holidays--- much more than you'd expect in a Catholic textbook-- talking about how jews are our brothers, etc.

And so on and so forth. I remember the book was actually written by some jew (I could tell by the name). Shit, I may just have one of those old books lying around somewhere, maybe I can scan a few of the funnier pics! :p Lots of them were doodled on tho....

Camacho
02-26-2006, 05:57 PM
BTW, the Niggers of Islam edge out "grunting savages" in the stupidest religion contest.

Sinclair
02-26-2006, 06:00 PM
Incorrect. The Ancient world was FAR MORE loose in what we consider 'moral virtue' than the pruddish world we live in today. You would have learned this the first day of school in the lyceum when your forty year old teacher ejaculated on your 11 year old theighs to introduce you to the purity of love between citizens. :p

OMG EDANA IS UNBANNED

Petr
02-26-2006, 06:09 PM
No one was arguing about gender equality. :confused:

What the heck is going on here?
That's right, just play dumb and pretend it is totally irrelevant to your case for Biblical equalitarianism.


Irrelevant, since a slave was more likely to be white than black. In fact, he was more likely to be what people on this board classify as 'Nordic' than black. :D
It's your own dodge that's irrelevant. Paul clearly didn't propound any "liberation theology" - hmm, I wonder, could that possibly indicate that his views on racial issues weren't too PC-modernist either?


Who's talking about class equality? I'm talking about the CHRISTIAN notion of equality. The Master is not BETTER than the slave in the eyes of Christ. It is the way of the times. Paul recognizes that, but says that inequity is one of those misfortunes that plagues the world of the flesh.
Just where is Paul saying that slavery in itself is completely wrong? The Law of Moses permitted slavery, you know. As described in the epistle to Philemon, Paul even sent a runaway slave Onesimus back to his owner.

And what in the text might indicate that Paul taught that a Christian master was duty-bound to give his daughter married to a Christian slave, should the latter ask for her hand?


How did you transpose your point for CLASS equality for RACIAL equality? If we are all Brothers in Christ, which you don't argue, and that we are no more than or less than that, which you don't argue with, how can you as a Christian believe you are BETTER THAN another man?

Atleast, another man who is not a sinner or a worshiper of false Gods. And in that way it is incumbant on you to treat your fellow man, OF ANY RACE, as you would treat Christ himself.

Mealy-mouthed pieties sound really fake in your mouth. :rolleyes:


The New covenant is replete with Christ humbling himself before the lowest society has to offer. The people you refer to as 'white trash'. Christ would treat the Pope no different than he would treat the most humble black man on the planet who believed in Him. He would embrace them as brothers.
What has this rhetoric got to do with allowing your children to be married with the lowest elements of the society?


Do you think your skin would grant you favor with him over another follower of a different color?

No, I don't. So what is your point?


Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Colossians 3:11
It's the same simple message as in Galatians 3:28, that Holy Spirit can inhabit in all these people, and that members of all races can get to heaven - nothing less, nothing more.


Paul is ridiculing a sect, not a people.
That's what you wish were the case, but the truth is more un-PC.

As a classic Biblical commentator Matthew Henry puts it:

"3. Here is the verification of this by the apostle himself: v. 13. This witness is true, The apostle saw too much ground for that character. The temper of some nations is more inclined to some vices than others. The Cretans were too generally such as here described, slothful and ill-natured, false and perfidious, as the apostle himself vouches. "

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/titus/mh/titus1.htm


Petr

il ragno
02-26-2006, 06:13 PM
Incorrect. The Ancient world was FAR MORE loose in what we consider 'moral virtue' than the pruddish world we live in today. You would have learned this the first day of school in the lyceum when your forty year old teacher ejaculated on your 11 year old theighs to introduce you to the purity of love between citizens. :p

Athens: what happens here, stays here.

Context, Sulla, context. Fast-forwarding to the good parts saves time, I understand, but it leads to the ancient world being viewed through priapic, cum-colored glasses.

Sure plenty of ancient-history teachers give up on keeping the kids awake and go right to the money shots, but I'm pretty sure there was more to it than feeding your brunser stuffed grape-leaves in the homoerotic afterglow.

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 06:14 PM
OMG EDANA IS UNBANNED

LOL.

His view about the ancient world is about as silly and skewed as
anyone else's.

Petr
02-26-2006, 06:21 PM
And here is good example on how the early church fathers didn't see any necessary connection between the concept of ultimate equality before God's judgment and the "equality of condition" here on earth:


From "Readings in Late Antiquity - a sourcebook" by Michael Maas, page 65:


Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 20

(Peter Garnsey, Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 45)


Some say that the Spirit is neither master or slave, but like a freeman. What miserable nonsense! What pitiful audacity! What shall I lament, their ignorance or their blasphemy? They insult the dogmas pertaining to the divine nature by confining them within human categories. They think they see the differences of dignity among men, and then apply such variation to the ineffable nature of God.

Do they not realize that even among men, no one is slave by nature? Men are brought under the yoke of slavery by either because they are captured in the battle or else they sell themselves into slavery owing to poverty; as the Egyptians became the slaves of Pharaoh.

Sometimes, by a wise and inscrutable providence, worthless children are commanded by their father to serve their more intelligent brothers and sisters. Any upright person investigating the circumstances would realize that such situations bring much benefit, and are not a sentence of condemnation for those involved.

It is better for a man who lacks intelligence and self-control to become another's possession. Governed by his master's intelligence, he will become like a chariot driven by a skilled horseman or a ship with a seasoned sailor at the tiller.

That is why Jacob obtained his father's blessing and became Esau's master: so that this foolish son, who had no intelligence properly to guide him, might profit from his prudent brother, even against his will. Canaan became a "slave of slaves to this brother", because his father Ham was void of understanding, unable to teach his son any virtue.

That is why men become slaves, but those who escape poverty, war, or the need of a guardian, are free. And even though one man is called master, and another a slave, we are all the possessions of our Creator; we shall all share the rank of slave.


Petr

bardamu
02-26-2006, 07:05 PM
...and there's the bell for Round 6. Petr, the Lord's champion, is ahead on points so far, but lapsed-Cat'lick challenger Sulla the Dictator has opened up a nasty cut over the Helsinki Flash's left eye....and they circle each other warily...there's a jab from Petr...another...natural tendency of the races to self-segregate....Sulla the Dictator, head-bobbing to deflect the impact...and a Gospel/Epistle combination misses....two battle-tested veterans here, ladies and gentleman, neither wanting to make the first ecclesiastical mistake...Sulla crouching low, covering up with both mitts, AS A FLURRY OF OLD TESTAMENT PUNCHES FROM PETR BACKS HIM INTO THE CORNER!!....but, no; Sulla's got him in an all-men-are-brothers clinch, and the referee breaks it up....forty seconds remaining in this round....now Sulla, the challenger, connects with a jab from Jeremiah! PETR SEEMS WOOZY...SULLA GOES BACK TO WORK ON THE MOTE IN THAT LEFT EYE....A WILD ATHEISTIC UPPERCUT MISSES...AND THERE'S THE BELL!


I would say this is probably my favorite il ragno quote. :D

Petr
02-26-2006, 07:36 PM
What about the rest of the paragraph lends itself to a different context than what I quoted?

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us
See that: Lord determined "the bounds of their habitation". Lord purposefully splintered the mankind after the Tower of Babel to prevent the birth of an anti-christ one-world system - which modern humanists are busily rebuilding!

Some good comments on the issue:

“In the Bible, every move to integrate mankind is a God-defying idol-worshipping, tyrannical move to enslave everyone to the whims of one Satanic dictator (Psa. 2:13, Dan. 4:30). Yes, at that point, every common man is equal; i.e., every one of no importance is a slave (Rev. 18:11-13).

… “Now, this is what the Bible says about the races. God divided them. He divided them so they would not fall into the gross sin of the antediluvians. The only time He gathers them together is for judgment (Zeph. 3:8). He never removes boundaries to end war, oppression, hate, or any other news media clichés. He will divide the races in future (Rev. 22:2)."

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4375&page=2&highlight=familism


"That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him" - Paul seems to be clearly implying that mankind will find God better in smaller, organized units than as a large amorphous blob!


"Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section, men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries. [In this manner,] God, by his providence reduces to order that which is confused." ~ John Calvin

http://littlegeneva.com/interracial.html


Here is good early (2nd-century AD) witness on how early Christians were not a unitarian-uniform mass of similarized peoples, but that genuine Christian diversity was flourishing already back then:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diognetus-roberts.html


The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus

CHAPTER V -- THE MANNERS OF THE CHRISTIANS.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life.


These believers were obviously not interpreting Galatians 3:28 with wooden literalism! :)


Petr

Jimbo Gomez
02-26-2006, 07:41 PM
The wiccans, those moronic smelly hippie potsmoking useless airheads are without a doubt the most annoying excuse for a religion ever.

Petr
02-26-2006, 07:55 PM
Many non-Christians may not realize just how rich and relevant doctrine Trinity really is. It is not a small matter - it is fundamentally related to the basic way men view their relation to the Divine and towards other men.

Actually Trinity is a sublime example of the principle "separate but equal (before God)" in action!


Here is a piece from a just "average conservative" (but non-racialist) Christian blog, followed by an un-PC commentary from Little Geneva blog:



Feminism and the Trinity

One of the central idolatrous ideologies of our day is feminism. Although it is just one of the hydra heads (the monster being egalitarianism), it is nevertheless one of the most important hydra heads. This is because God created us male and female, and our sexual identity is right at the center of the image of God in us. Therefore, even though egalitarianism is the general error, when the error is applied to something as important as sexual identity, the results can be disastrous. Apply egalitarianism to something like money, and you get the inequities and imcompetencies of socialism. Apply egalitarianism to sexual identity and you get Michael Jackon.

So feminism is the one of idols of the day that must be toppled, an idol that must come down. Every faithful Christian must oppose feminism, root and branch.

But unfortunately, many traditionalist Christians have assumed that feminism can be effectively opposed with something that might be called "not feminism." A moment's reflection should reveal the problem here. There are many things that are "not feminism" that are also "not biblical." Take the Saudi view of women for just one example. Take rape for another.

Feminism is actually a Trinitarian heresy, but unfortunately many of the Christian world's "not feminism" reactions are equally heretical. Within the triune Godhead, we learn that authority and submission on the one hand, and equality on the other, are ultimately harmonious. At the point of ultimate reality, the Son of God is begotten by the Father and submits to His will. At the same time, Paul tells us in Philippians that Jesus did not consider His equality with God something to be grasped. Consequently, for the Trinitarian Christian, submission and equality together are not examples of trying to square the circle.

Our gender heretics feel like they have to pick one or the other. The feminists choose equality and so they think they must reject submission. The "masculinists" choose submission and so they think they have to reject equality. The feminists are modalists, who think that all the persons of the Godhead are the same, morphing into one another, depending on the circumstances. Whenever we hear of sex change operations, we should understand it as an idolatrous attempt to mimic a false understanding of god. Psalm 115 makes it very clear that we become like what we worship.

The so-called traditionalists are Arians, believing that if Jesus Christ was submissive to his Father, He must therefore be created, and ontologically inferior to the Father. This is why Unitarian cultures (like the Muslim world) are so readily hostile to women, and contemptuous of them. And this is also why any "Christianized" form of contempt for women is evidence of a functional Unitarianism in our midst. It is not enough for our answer to feminism to be "anything but feminism." Sabellianism is not Arianism, but they are both heretical.

Posted by Douglas Wilson - 6/18/2004 12:10:46 PM


http://www.dougwils.com/index.asp?Action=Anchor&CategoryID=1&BlogID=257


////////////////////////////////////////////////


Here Doug Wilson rightly calls feminism a trinitarian heresy because it is sexual egalitarianism. His problem is in understanding that another form of biological unitarianism that we like to call neo-Babelism is also a trinitarian heresy; it is racial egalitarianism. Recall that race is not accepted by the Babelists as a legitimate divider among men because of their interpretation of Galatians 3:28, which is the very interpretation that logically undercuts their rejection of feminism and sodomy.

Because they have twisted themselves into a logical pretzel, it is not surprising to read rubbish like this from Dougs Wilson and Jones. Quite frankly, this is one of the most bizarre articles ever printed in Credenda (and that’s saying a lot). It even surpasses the sophistry that emanates from CCL, but it shouldn’t be surprising to any of us. Sodomite marriage is the latest chapter in anti-Christian debauchery, but its logical progression is not what most would expect. Most Christians would like to connect it to another great act of judicial tyranny, Roe v. Wade. They forget about the Loving v. Virginia decision which outlawed the ban against miscegenation, and they forget about it precisely because they think it was just. Badonicus points out that the Massachusetts court cited Loving 25 times in their decision but mentioned Roe in passing only four times. The very heart of the decision was based on the illegal Fourteenth Amendment, which was cited 13 times. So if you’re looking for a logical progression, it is to be found in the religion of Equality: citizenship was granted to ex-slaves, therefore interracial marriages may not be forbidden, therefore sodomite marriages may not be forbidden. It all makes perfect sense if you have the courage to open your eyes.

If you don’t open your eyes, you might find yourself nodding in agreement with the Dougs. They say that homosexuality "is not a typical sin that cultures face like theft, lying, or murder" but is "the sign of God’s abandonment of us," that it "is primarily a judgment against the Church… God’s curse of homosexuality is a special judgment against His people… Christian fathers are a primary cause of the curse of homosexuality… We should, therefore, ‘own’ homosexual sin… So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church." They even go so far as to say that "we mean we must accept the fact of [homosexuality] as just… we should own the curse of same-sex marriage and not fight it so far as it concerns them." In other words, we should not proclaim biblical law. We should pretend that God has not prescribed the means of dealing with this particular sin. Instead, I should gaze at my navel and cry that Jimmy and Steve are down at the courthouse getting married because I’ve been a poor father. We must accept this state of affairs "as a just judgment on us and our culture"! "In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it). We ought to declare publicly (frustrating both sides) that we embrace this curse." They actually say that "gay-baiting" (whatever that is) is as bad as sodomy! When punishment is severed from the crime, it shows that we don’t really believe there is a crime. All Christians pray that sinners will repent of their sin, but God told us how we are to deal with certain sins. Christ Church is apparently content to ignore these commands. They have abandoned every pretense of theonomy.

Perhaps the most ironic passage of all: "At its root, homosexuality is a love of sameness rather than difference. Jehovah teaches us to love difference, and in this fallen world obsessed with finding ways to deface God, homosexuality rejects difference in order to spite God." If only they could extend this principle to miscegenation. God created a diverse and beautiful world. Why are so many people trying to destroy that diversity, and why are ministers of the gospel assisting them? The Dougs complete their metamorphosis by lapsing into utter absurdity at the end of the article, calling true marriage "queer" because men and women are different. Actually, this is the most ironic statement: "we confess our disobedience in refusing to see the world in Trinitarian ways." Amen!

http://littlegeneva.com/?p=169



Petr

il ragno
02-26-2006, 08:04 PM
Ok. Sincere question to Petr:

Putting aside my non-belief for a moment, it always gets up my nose when some smirking Tim Wisoid offers a blithe, "I suppose next you're gonna tell me Jesus was a white guy", part of this new How the World Always Was, As Of Last Tuesday gestalt currently infecting the West. I mean, I know it's code for, "Take that, racist crackers! Your Jesus was a wooly-haired shoeshine boy", aka, Jesus was black-African black, not olive-complected as most Semites are. It's (I feel) distorting a detail of history out of all proportion specifically to keep the white self-hatred convoy rolling on.

So what's your take on this? Was the J-man white, black, brown, really really tan....again, not a bogus question.

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:06 PM
I just said muslims( sand monkeys) because I hate them though in terms of sheer stupidity that Yakub on the mothership of black muslims and the whole evil space emperor chained people to volcanoes and nuked them of scientologists are tied.

Petr
02-26-2006, 08:07 PM
So what's your take on this? Was the J-man white, black, brown, really really tan....again, not a bogus question.
I think He was probably a heavily tanned Medish Caucasoid type, a bit like you perhaps. :)


Petr

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:07 PM
Who the fuck said Prots, Jaybird wtf are you thinking I'm gonna bitch slap you. The catholic church is for wetbacks and commies.

Jimbo Gomez
02-26-2006, 08:10 PM
In other words: you're a dirty swarthoid, but so was Jesus so it's all cool.

Petr
02-26-2006, 08:13 PM
To put it succinctly, I oppose both "anti-racism" that is a vain attempt to deny the God-originated reality of race ("what God hath separated, let no man integrate"), as well as "hyper-racism", which means turning one's ethnos into a supreme idol to which all else that is good and proper in this world is sacrificed.


Petr

albion
02-26-2006, 08:17 PM
http://www.newprophecy.net/Marshall_Applewhite_aka_Do.jpg This poll forgot to list UFO cults,
and "the aliens are our parents" Art Bell subculture.

Petr
02-26-2006, 08:18 PM
In other words: you're a dirty swarthoid, but so was Jesus so it's all cool.
Aw, that was a mean-spirited interpretation. :(


Petr

jcs
02-26-2006, 08:25 PM
I think He was probably a heavily tanned Medish Caucasoid type, a bit like you perhaps.
Jesus may have been born to a Jewish mother, but he was the son of God, and therefore at least half Nordic. [/nordicist]
:p :p :p

il ragno
02-26-2006, 08:29 PM
Didn't offend me because it doesn't pertain to me. Northern wop, probably migrated down from southern Germany at one point in the early 1800s - fair skin, blue eyes, sandy hair. Can dance the tarantella, but need at least a sixteen-bar intro to acclimate myself.

Pablo Escobar
02-26-2006, 08:31 PM
Didn't offend me because it doesn't pertain to me. Northern wop, probably migrated down from southern Germany at one point in the early 1800s - fair skin, blue eyes, sandy hair. Can dance the tarantella, but need at least a sixteen-bar intro to acclimate myself.

Yeah, you AND every other Italian on the internet :p

sainte-marthe
02-26-2006, 08:32 PM
That's not true, the phora once had a med faction which left to start their own board. Later that forum split too, between white meds and "olives".

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:33 PM
That's not true, the phora once had a med faction which left to start their own board. Later that forum split too, between white meds and "olives".

Those crazy medicists.

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 08:40 PM
Didn't offend me because it doesn't pertain to me. Northern wop, probably migrated down from southern Germany at one point in the early 1800s - fair skin, blue eyes, sandy hair. Can dance the tarantella, but need at least a sixteen-bar intro to acclimate myself.

You're membership in the Goombah club has been revoked on account of you foresaking the Pope on this thread.

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:41 PM
You're membership in the Goombah club has been revoked on account of you foresaking the Pope on this thread.

American wops tend to be catholic in name only( and republican) unlike the irish...

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 08:43 PM
American wops tend to be catholic in name only( and republican) unlike the irish...

I live amongst the wops, and they seem pretty Catholic to me...a good way to get your ass kicked in around here is to go around talking trash about the Papacy.

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:47 PM
I live amongst the wops, and they seem pretty Catholic to me...a good way to get your ass kicked in around here is to go around talking trash about the Papacy.

Interesting... east coast wops ain't like that. If you want your ass kicked start making comments about their female family members appearances( good or bad)...

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 08:54 PM
Interesting... east coast wops ain't like that. If you want your ass kicked start making comments about their female family members appearances( good or bad)...

Chicago is a real parochial place, and its a super Catholic city.

I went to a Jesuit university, and my buddy and I were the only "White bread Prots" in sight, and he had the grand idea one St. Paddy's day to take my bright orange, Chicago Bears scarf and drape it over the neck of the Ignatius Loyola statue in the quad. (FYI, St. Paddy's Day in Chicago is like thanksgiving, new year's, and x-mas rolled into one)

Suffice to say that people went totally bugfuck (many of them Il Ragno's brethren) and many threatened to do horrible and unnatural things to the perpetrator. Thankfully, he was never discovered.

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 08:55 PM
Let me say that I am not bashing Italians on this thread...they are some of the best people around...and I have a real weakness for their women.

Kodos
02-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Chicago is a real parochial place, and its a super Catholic city.

Boston...

il ragno
02-26-2006, 08:56 PM
Yeah, you AND every other Italian on the internet

Yeah. We're kind of like those civilized Serbs you read about in Mother Goose books. Only not as imaginary.

Thomas777
02-26-2006, 09:06 PM
Another thing:

How come nobody has mentioned the CI wackos?

il ragno
02-26-2006, 09:09 PM
I thought 11 poll-categories was already pushing it; for brevity's sake I left out the cults (well, Wicca made it, but the difference between CI and Wicca is that the media kinda-sorta wink-wink promotes Wicca as legitimate; you know they'd never give dual-clownline mamzerism the same clean bill of health.)

Billy Score
02-26-2006, 09:12 PM
Wicca is by far the stupidest religion, closely followed by any other 'new age' movement, then modern feel-good Christian stupidity, then spiritual dabbling (in Buddhism, Hinduism, Kabballah, etc.)
Agreed. i voted wicca

Where does scientology fit in?

Camacho
02-26-2006, 09:20 PM
Emp. palp how could you vote Arab Islam over nigger Islam? I guess you kind of said the answer yourself-- you hate them, but that wasn't the question!

At least the Arabs are sort of the "inner party" of Islam because it was them who spread it; the niggers actually think they're considered equals; they haven't figured out the joke's on them! :rofl:

And then add in all those fairy tales and it's the Farrakhan naggers by a landslide.

Kodos
02-26-2006, 09:23 PM
At least the Arabs are sort of the "inner party" of Islam because it was them who spread it; the niggers actually think they're considered equals; they haven't figured out the joke's on them!

Like I said I fucking hate them...

il ragno
02-26-2006, 09:39 PM
At least the Arabs are sort of the "inner party" of Islam because it was them who spread it; the niggers actually think they're considered equals; they haven't figured out the joke's on them!

Like I said I fucking hate them...

Let Puerto Rican terrorists level the Civic Center or the Beacon Hill district and there'll be a new #1 on Weikel's hit parade.

BaronBloodSpawn
02-26-2006, 10:13 PM
I voted for Evangelicals although I also didn't know whether to vote those Quaker or Wiccan hippies:222: :222: :222:

Kodos
02-26-2006, 11:43 PM
Let Puerto Rican terrorists level the Civic Center or the Beacon Hill district and there'll be a new #1 on Weikel's hit parade.

Well they are #2 already... although like I said the few times ive driven in downtown Boston I very very very much wanted to sack the city and rebuilt it with a grid traffic system.

ironweed
02-26-2006, 11:58 PM
Let Puerto Rican terrorists level the Civic Center

Does Boston even have a "Civic Center?" :confused: Hartford does, but any PR that wants to blow it up should get a medal for timely urban renewal. Awarded posthumously or not.

Or, do you mean the Boston Gahhdenzz? My sister-in-law's husband says going to hockey games at the new one sucks. The seats are set way back from the ice. Unlike the old one, where you could practically spit on the ice from any of the balconies. That is, if you weren't behind an air duct.

or the Beacon Hill district and there'll be a new #1 on Weikel's hit parade.

That would kind of suck. Beacon Hill is rather quaint. Even if the flower boxes are technically as historic as satellite dish antennas.

Sulla the Dictator
02-27-2006, 12:14 AM
Context, Sulla, context. Fast-forwarding to the good parts saves time, I understand, but it leads to the ancient world being viewed through priapic, cum-colored glasses.


Now that has to be the best il ragno quote. :p

However, it is a bit inaccurate. That is the context. The Classical world had a more moral emphasis on different issues. For example, the notion of loyalty to family and obediance to your patriarch. The loyalty to your city, or in the case of greater societies like Rome, the Republic.

Sacrifice. Courage. Fearlessness. A different world, il ragno. In a world as brutal and sometimes horrifying as the Classical world, SEX is not something the ancients had time to worry about. :p

Indeed, sexual 'morality' was relegated to one of those casual moralities we shrug at without thinking twice, like traffic laws. We can't expect a people living in a world surrounded by hostility and threats of extinction to apply some bizarre Victorian sensibility to their sexual appetites.


Sure plenty of ancient-history teachers give up on keeping the kids awake and go right to the money shots, but I'm pretty sure there was more to it than feeding your brunser stuffed grape-leaves in the homoerotic afterglow.

You can be as cute as you want to be il ragno, but I have yet to read something like this from even a modern homosexual:

In a maid there is no question of a real sphincter nor a simple kiss, no natural nice smell of the skin, nor of that sweet sexy talk or limpid look. Besides, when she's being taught she's worse. And they're all cold behind; but a greater nuisance is this-there's no place where you can put your wandering hand.

--Strato
The Greek Anthology

Sinclair
02-27-2006, 12:39 AM
Write-in for Mormonism. Look, when it comes to what-religion-is-wackiest, it wins.

I think Mormonism comes in ahead of NoI Islam because NoI Islam is more excusable. Poor, discriminated-against people want a mythology that makes them feel good. Whereas I can't for the life of me figure out WHY any number of people decided to follow Joseph Smith, a complete loony. The NoI's loony stuff is also more forgiveable since the vast majority of it is "3 trillion years ago ALLAH created the BLACK MAN and gave him the ability to LEAP TALL BUILDINGS IN A SINGLE BOUND", nutty stuff in the past is less nutty. Mormonism had Smith claiming to have visions at the time. Pretty nutty.

O'Zebedee
02-27-2006, 12:52 AM
Mormonism is certainly the lamest religion going - ever try to get through their fifth rate attempt at a Bible?

bardamu
02-27-2006, 01:06 AM
Mormonism is certainly the lamest religion going - ever try to get through their fifth rate attempt at a Bible?

Yes, I have tried reading the Book of Mormon and no I couldn't get through it, but I do give Mormons credit for one thing, they are the fastest growing subgroup of white people in the world. That's worth something, even a boring book. Go Mormon!

Helios Panoptes
02-27-2006, 01:32 AM
God has implanted some healthy instincts on us, and an aversion to race-mixing and a special love for our kinsmen is one of them.

Petr, how does one distinguish between a God-given instinct and a fallen tendency?

In Act 17, Paul is preaching to the people of Athens. The quoted text is part of his glorification of God, preceded by the Judeo-Christian account of the creation of the world, followed by him saying that the men created by God should seek him (presumably due to thankfulness).
Placed in this context, the notion of 'one blood' for 'all nations' is not something Paul was stressing. He was basically refering to the 'one blood' of Adam

Why would he refer to that? What is this information about the origin of all peoples supposed to impart to Christians?

Christian: one who 'follows' Christ.

Where does one learn about Christ if not the Bible? Where, if not the Bible, does the Christian find wisdom?

Eastern texts are quite straightforward

There is a sense for paradox in them that is not found in the Bible, but that's a digression.

il ragno
02-27-2006, 01:38 AM
The Classical world had a more moral emphasis on different issues. For example, the notion of loyalty to family and obediance to your patriarch. The loyalty to your city, or in the case of greater societies like Rome, the Republic.

Indeed, sexual 'morality' was relegated to one of those casual moralities we shrug at without thinking twice, like traffic laws. We can't expect a people living in a world surrounded by hostility and threats of extinction to apply some bizarre Victorian sensibility to their sexual appetites.

I technically agree with a lot of this, but of course you serve evil gods so I nod my head tentatively at best. And let's point out that the sexual license condoned by the Republic was increasingly frowned upon by the Empire. Justinian in particular was no fan of the "night-time boys".

Btw, may I ask what the hell is this?

Sacrifice. Courage. Fearlessness. A different world, il ragno. In a world as brutal and sometimes horrifying as the Classical world, SEX is not something the ancients had time to worry about.

I'm the last jamoke to carp at another man's melodramatic flourishes, but this sounds like the voice-over for a summer movie trailer! Here, let me finish it for you:

Sacrifice. Courage. Fearlessness. In a world as brutal and sometimes horrifying as the Classical world, SEX is not something the ancients had time to worry about. Paramount Pictures proudly presents: ANTONIO BANDERAS - KATE WINSLET - CLIVE OWEN - MORGAN FREEMAN - and SIR ANTHONY HOPKINS as "Gaius Drusillus" - in a film by TONY SCOTT - "BROKEBACK ATRIUM". All the majesty....all the savagery...all the pageantry...all the buggery the screen can hold....this June: "BROKEBACK ATRIUM"....Only in theaters.

jcs
02-27-2006, 01:39 AM
Yes, and why would he refer to that?
To dumb it down: God created the human race.

Where does one learn about Christ if not the Bible?
The Bible, of course, is the primary source for information.

Where, if not the Bible, does the Christian find wisdom?
And theological works, from Biblical interpretation to mysticism, is the source for understanding.

There is a sense for paradox in them that is not found in the Bible
The paradox is a method of communicating the necessity of synthetic/holistic living. And it's pretty straight-forward when one gives it some thought, as the paradox exists because the author considered it the best way to communicate his idea.

Sulla the Dictator
02-27-2006, 03:01 AM
I'm the last jamoke to carp at another man's melodramatic flourishes, but this sounds the voice-over for a summer movie trailer! Here, let me finish it for you:

Sacrifice. Courage. Fearlessness. In a world as brutal and sometimes horrifying as the Classical world, SEX is not something the ancients had time to worry about. Paramount Pictures proudly presents: ANTONIO BANDERAS - KATE WINSLET - CLIVE OWEN - MORGAN FREEMAN - and SIR ANTHONY HOPKINS as "Gaius Drusillus" - in a film by TONY SCOTT - "BROKEBACK ATRIUM". All the majesty....all the savagery...all the pageantry...all the buggery the screen can hold....this June: "BROKEBACK ATRIUM"....Only in theaters.


I wish I knew how to quit you. :p

Donny the Punk
02-27-2006, 03:03 AM
I'm the last jamoke to carp at another man's melodramatic flourishes
You ought to be, since everything you type sounds like it came straight from the "smooth phrases for sophisticated men" column of the march 1978 Playboy. :p

Pablo Escobar
02-27-2006, 03:06 AM
You ought not to be, since everything you type sounds like it came straight from the "smooth phrases for sophisticated men" column of the march 1978 Playboy. :p

Bullseye!

I have at least 10 late 70's Playboy issues. Same style and wit.
Great stuff really.

il ragno
02-27-2006, 03:09 AM
The issue with the Nabokov interview? Cool, thanks.

Petyr Baelish
02-27-2006, 03:16 AM
Just when I think I have the answer to the question: "what is the gayest thing ever posted by Sulla the Dictator?", Sulla posts something new that utterly shames it.

This may be the gayest Sulla post to date.

The description is so graphic because Sulla speaks from experience.

Pablo Escobar
02-27-2006, 03:31 AM
The issue with the Nabokov interview? Cool, thanks.

Heh, must've been a stiff interview.

I have an issue where they interviewed Shockley.
They sent some black dude to interview him.

A few years ago I found some site that had all the Playboy interviews
for free, but I can't seem to find it anymore. Anyone have a URL?

Sinclair
02-27-2006, 03:37 AM
You ought to be, since everything you type sounds like it came straight from the "smooth phrases for sophisticated men" column of the march 1978 Playboy. :p

In this issue, we show you how to seduce women using your gigantic stereo system.

brigadier Biggles
02-27-2006, 04:24 AM
far too many articles and quotes for a lounge thread...

they're all a load of crap, but you can say at least people who believe in them (or pretend to..) will live and die in happy ignorance..

even so i have a soft spot for germanic religion, its so science fiction like and spectacular, must be something in the blood...

OVERWATCH
02-27-2006, 04:29 AM
Jainism, Baha'i, Jehovah's Witnesses...betcha can't just pick one.

Pablo Escobar
02-27-2006, 04:38 AM
I wish at least one of 'em was true. Life would be so simple.

Helios Panoptes
02-27-2006, 04:52 AM
To dumb it down: God created the human race.

I don't disagree with that interpretation.

And theological works, from Biblical interpretation to mysticism, is the source for understanding.

The "mysticism" you speak of, I take it, falls back upon the Bible. All Christian thought must be utterly dependent upon it.

The paradox is a method of communicating the necessity of synthetic/holistic living. And it's pretty straight-forward when one gives it some thought, as the paradox exists because the author considered it the best way to communicate his idea.

"Straightforward" isn't a value judgment on my part. Some ideas, by their very nature, defy direct statement. A paradoxical idea requires a paradoxical expression. However, a "paradox" is not straightforward.

Thomas777
02-27-2006, 04:59 AM
I had the George Lincoln Rockwell Playboy interview floating around at one time...that one is worth a gander (for its sheer bizarro quality) if you ever run across it.

Thomas777
02-27-2006, 05:01 AM
In this issue, we show you how to seduce women using your gigantic stereo system.

I wonder if Ragno ever did one of those testimonial-style "Campari" ads that used to pop up in Penthouse back in the 70s and 80s...don't know if the Ragman has a face for magazine ads though...I imagine him as looking like Sid Haig from "the Devil's Rejects".

il ragno
02-27-2006, 05:12 AM
I wonder if Ragno ever did one of those testimonial-style "Campari" ads that used to pop up in Penthouse back in the 70s and 80s...don't know if the Ragman has a face for magazine ads though...I imagine him as looking like Sid Haig from "the Devil's Rejects".

This is what happens when word gets out that you're barred from the Goombah Club: every pistolero in town takes a shot at you. The other day even PLAYBOY called to say they'd decided to take the column in a different direction - it was now Sophisticated Phrases For Smooth Men - and that my services would no longer be required.

If this keeps up, I'll have to send ten bucks to Miller just to get a rep point!

Scorpius
02-27-2006, 05:14 AM
Where is the choice for "Man's" ?

Kodos
02-27-2006, 05:17 AM
This is what happens when word gets out that you're barred from the Goombah Club: every pistolero in town takes a shot at you.

I thought that was when the people in the goombah club decided that you had turned states evidence?

il ragno
02-27-2006, 05:21 AM
This is what happens when word gets out that you're barred from the Goombah Club: every pistolero in town takes a shot at you.

I thought that was when the people in the goombah club decided that you had turned states evidence?

Nah, it's actually determined by an old Sicilian ritual. You run a comb through your hair and hand it to your skipper, who lights a match under it. If it catches fire, you're in.

Thomas777
02-27-2006, 05:26 AM
Nah, it's actually determined by an old Sicilian ritual. You run a comb through your hair and hand it to your skipper, who lights a match under it. If it catches fire, you're in.

I hear Martin Scorcese is considering a film project that documents the rise and fall of the White Patriot Party and the Christian Identity movement. Chuck Norris is slated to play Glenn Miller, Joe Don Baker is slated to play Martin Lindstedt, Sig Haig will play Il Ragno, Dom DeLuis as Harold Covington, Jake Gyllenhall will play FadetheButcher, and Dustin Hoffman will play Alex Linder.

It will be called "WhitePatriotFellas"

the tagline is: "we were White Patriots...we were 'amongst friends'...White Patriots never came to wack you with anger and warning...they came drunk, in piss-stained footsie pajamas, telling you about prion-poisoned deer meat and dual seedlines".

Kodos
02-27-2006, 05:30 AM
Chuck Norris is slated to play Glenn Miller

Oh man did you fuck up (http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/)

Dan Dare
02-27-2006, 06:22 AM
I'm not quite sure what they are called, but I recall seeing a item on 60 Minutes (or it may have been PBS) about a southern Christian sect that combined holy rolling and canoodling with poisonous snakes.

Up to that point I'd thought those Jews with them funny little pillboxes on top of their heads and thongs all up their arms were as strange as it could get but it seems I was wrong.

Petr
02-27-2006, 09:45 AM
Petr, how does one distinguish between a God-given instinct and a fallen tendency?
God-given instincts are given support, or at least no opposition, in the Bible. Family values (which in the ancient world meant clan values) are clearly such a case of written revelation confirming the revelation of nature.

Apostle Paul himself to appeals to "natural sense" of decency when defending gender barriers, and opposing unmasculine behavior:

1 Corinthians 11:14:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.


Petr

Anima Eternae
02-27-2006, 09:46 AM
I must be really holy since I shaved my head.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:07 PM
Hard choice, but Ive have to say Wiccans/neo-pagans/neo-gnostics; largely because most of what the heritage they claim to represent never actually existed.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:10 PM
So much for literalist ethnic equality in Galatians 3:28.

Petr

You forgot to mention the verses where Paul boasts of his own ethnicity.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:19 PM
No, the bible is inarguably multiculturalist.

No it is not. The seperation of people according to nation, ethnicity, tribe, race, occurs under divine guidance. And this occurs before the Tower of Babel, so cant argue that it's a curse. Then the event of Pentecost.


Christianity is a slave's religion

XXX...wrong.

"Abraham J. Malherbe analyzed the language and style of early church writers and concluded that they were addressing a literate, educated audience." Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity pg.31

"Although Acts might not give a clear indication of status for all the people mentioned, the internal evidence from the Pauline Corinthian correspondence would seem to indicate that by the third quarter of the first century A.D. the Christian community contained a good number of members of the social elite. First some members of the Christian community could be described as wise, powerful and well-born. Some members of the community were involved in vexatious litigation which is suitable for members of the elite. 'Boasting' may reflect the keenness to display social position. Enmity within the church reflects the case in the wider Roman world. The form of worship with its concern over dress seem to be more suitable to people familiar with formal Roman worship. The Lord's supper may reflect the wider tensions within Corinthian elite society."
--The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting--Graeco-Roman Setting pg.111

And so on.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:25 PM
Where does one learn about Christ if not the Bible? Where, if not the Bible, does the Christian find wisdom?


Speaking as a Catholic, we rely on the Church fathers and tradition as well as scriptures.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:32 PM
Perhaps the best source for the Catholic position on nationality and race comes from Cardinal Stepinac's "Three Sermons Against Racism".


http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/stepinac-sermans(n).htm

As in the case of the doctrines on the natural law and on the equality of all men, the popes have not been indifferent to the question of nationality; rather have they always exalted the praiseworthy and noble qualities of individual nations and defended their rights if they were exposed to danger. But they have never considered them through the narrow prism of human passions, which makes of one's own nation an idol before which all must prostrate themselves; but instead through the prism of the Gospels which sees in these nations only the work of God the Creator with the fixed purpose of serving the glory of God as well as the national community. Only when considered in this way, does the Christmas message of Pope Pius XII ring true: "Within the scope of the new social order, based on moral principles, there is no place for the violation of the liberty, inviolability or security of other nations, no matter what their territorial extent or their capacity for defense. If, it is inevitable that large states because of their greater capacities and power dictate conditions in the establishment. of economic groups between themselves and smaller and weaker nations, the rights of the smaller and weaker nations are, nevertheless, incontestable, according to the common good which does not distinguish their rights from the rights of larger nations: the right to liberty in their political domain; the right to guard actively their neutrality in quarrels between states, which right belongs to them by natural and national law; the right to defend their economic development. It is only in this way that they will be able to achieve — in the interest of the common good - the material and spiritual prosperity of a true nation" (Osservatore Romano, 1941).
///////

The first thing that we affirm is that all nations, without exception, are as nothing before God. "All nations are before him as if they had no being at all" says the prophet, "and are counted to him as nothing, and vanity" (Isa. 40:17). These words of the prophet have already found their affirmation many times in the history of the world, when the Divine Hand, for various reasons, has swept individual nations from the face of the earth. It is, moreover, in the act of doing that today to every nation, if as nations they do not conform to the laws given by God, because "The Lord made the little and the great" (Wisd. 6:8).

The second thing that we affirm is that all nations and all races have their origin in God. Only one race really exists and that is the divine race. Its birth certificate is found in the book of Genesis, when the Divine Hand formed the first man from earthly clay and breathed into him the spirit of life (Gen. 2:7). He made him as well a woman, blessed them saying, "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen. 1:23). Among all who belong to that race, entrance into the world and their departure from it is the same and will remain the same until the end of time, for it is written by the Divine Hand for all, "For dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return" (Gen. 3:19 ). Those who belong to the race may have a greater or lesser culture, may be white or black, separated by oceans, live at the North or the South pole, but they remain essentially the race which comes from God and which must serve God according to the norms of the divine natural and positive law, written. in the hearts and in the souls of men and revealed by the Son of God, Jesus Christ, Prince of all peoples.

But why, then, the different nations? What is their function? They are all here, without exception, for the glory of God. Because, even if God is in Himself a simple being, for us men His greatness and His beauty are made more evident by the diversity of created things. How much God ought to be admired in the creation of the vegetable kingdom with colors so varied! The mineral kingdom so diverse! The animal kingdom so diversified! The enormous number of stars in the sky! The immense oceans! But does not His greatness manifest itself in an extraordinary manner, as well as His wisdom and His power, by the fact that He created such a great number of peoples on the earth, with such different languages? This diversity of languages and peoples can lead to much rivalry among nations and much cultural progress, as life is much more animated in families where there are many children!

Finally, nationality as such can be a strong factor in resisting the moral decadence which springs from and is propagated by another nation. God, therefore, had great and wise reasons when He created diversity among peoples and when He gave the commandment of sincere love for one's own nation to the hearts and souls of men.

But this diversity must not become a source of mutual destruction. For the third thing that we affirm is that all nations and all races, as reflected in the world today have the right to lead a life worthy of men and to be treated with the dignity with which one treats a man. All of them without exception, whether they belong to the race of Gypsies or to another, whether they are Negroes or civilized Europeans, whether they are detested Jews or proud Aryans, have the same right to say, "Our Father, who art in Heaven" (Mt. 6:9). And if God has given this right to all, what is the human power that can deny it? All nations, no matter what their names, have the same duty: to beat their breasts and to say, "And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" (Mt. 6:12).

That is why the Catholic Church has always condemned, and condemns today as well, every injustice and every violence committed in the name of the theories of class, race, or nationality. One cannot exterminate intellectuals from the face of the earth because it may be agreeable to the working class, as Bolshevism has taught and done. One cannot extinguish from the face of the earth Gypsies or Jews because one considers them inferior races. If the racist theories, which have no foundation, are to be applied without scruples, is there any security for any nation at all? The Catholic Church had the courage in the very recent past, as it always has when it is necessary to lift its voice against the secret work of international Freemasonry, against the moral deprivation of our youth by the unscrupulous press, against crimes of abortion practiced by those who, without conscience, are eager only for material gains. It had the courage to defend our Croatian national rights, and to hurl that word of defense before crowned heads. It would be unfaithful to its duty if it did not raise its voice today, with the same energy, in defense of all those who suffer from injustices, without consideration of the race to which they belong. No one has the right to kill or harm in any way those who belong to another race or another nation. That can be done only by the legitimate authorities, if they had proved the crime of an individual and if the crime merits such punishment.

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:35 PM
Our model for what it means to be a nation came from the Bible:

"Rreligion is an integral element of many cultures, most ethnicities and some states. The Bible provided, for the Christian world at least, the original model of the nation. Without it and its Christian interpretation and implementation, it is arguable that nations and nationalism, as we know them, could never have existed. Moreover, religion has produced the dominant character of some state-shaped nations and of some nationalisms. Biblical Christianity both undergirds the cultural and political world out of which the phenomena of nationhood and nationalism as a whole developed and in a number of important cases provided a crucial ingredient for the particular history of both nations and nationalisms."
--Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism page 4

Boleslaw
02-27-2006, 07:41 PM
Some more Catholic assestments on the issue of nationality:


Here's a quote from the Catholic Association for International Peace:

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=1125

"Men have always lived in groups. Apparently it is a part of God's plan that they should. And one of the things which have enabled them to live in groups has been the loyalty —the patriotism—which God has implanted in their very nature. This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas...."


"[S]maller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."
--John Paul II, Feburary 2000

"The term 'nation' designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that families and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. Therefore, in human history they cannot be replaced by anything else."
--John Paul II Memory and Identity pg. 69-70

"The point is that Catholic Christianity, understood in a wide sense, was both incarnationalist and universalist - it tended to both identify closely with particular communities, cultures, and nations, and to insist upon a communion transcending such particularities. It oscillated, one might say, between Old and New Testament sources of inspiration."
-- Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood pg.203

Jaybird
02-27-2006, 08:10 PM
Jaybird's Guide to Religion

Catholic pope-a-dopes: A Church full of faggots, dagos, micks, and spics. But hey! At least there's no niggers.
Evangelical snake handlers: '70s polyester, hair-sprayed pompadours, rockabilly bands. Pass the strychnine, dude,
White-bread Prots (Presbys, Methos, Episcos): The worst. Send your money to the Lawd, but put my name on the check! I tried to join, but I got bad credit.
Money-mad Jews: Did I say Prots were the worst? God must've been wasted when he chose these miserable pieces of shit.
Muslim, sand nigger: If I was ugly, stinky, and hairy, I'd be pissed off too.
Muslim, Farrakhan nigger: Homeboys from Outer Space
http://i2.tinypic.com/oqjgbl.jpg
Scientologists: Actors from Outer Space
Filthy, fawning Hindus: Where's the beef?
Buddhist dog eaters: A religion full of chinks, gooks, and Richard Gere.
Scheming Quaker devils: Wilford Brimley, party animal.
Wiccan bubblebrains: Is being a washed up hippie a religion now?
Grunting savages (Volcano God, Great Spirit, etc): The food sucks, but the drugs are killer, man.
Church of Satan/Anton LaVey Circle Jerk: Like nudist colonies. Lots of fat guys join for the kinky sex, not a lot of chicks.

P.S.- Does anybody have that old "A Stoner's Guide to Religion?"

Keystone
02-27-2006, 10:58 PM
NONE OF THEM ARE STUPID THEY ARE ALL A SEARCH FOR GOD.

(Except Islam, they just wanna have fa-un).

Kodos
02-27-2006, 11:18 PM
Catholic pope-a-dopes: A Church full of faggots, dagos, micks, and spics. But hey! At least there's no niggers.


Thats changing Jay, ( though the African and Haitian followers tend to mix it up with some animist and vodoo shit).

White-bread Prots (Presbys, Methos, Episcos): The worst. Send your money to the Lawd, but put my name on the check! I tried to join, but I got bad credit.


The religion of our fathers back when we were a great country... how could that possibly be the worst?

Keystone
02-27-2006, 11:34 PM
White-bread Prots (Presbys, Methos, Episcos): The worst. Send your money to the Lawd, but put my name on the check! I tried to join, but I got bad credit.


The religion of our fathers back when we were a great country... how could that possibly be the worst?
The Prots have been pussies for years now. Not a good burning or blue law for ages. Talk about resting on your laurels. The Episcos are hip deep in gays, the Presbys are worse. I can't think of anything to say about the Methos because they don't do anything.

Kodos
02-27-2006, 11:39 PM
The Prots have been pussies for years now. Not a good burning or blue law for ages

LOL

The Episcos are hip deep in gays

Which is why most of the WASPs left, catholics tend to cling to their church no matter what...

Keystone
02-27-2006, 11:57 PM
[I]
Which is why most of the WASPs left, catholics tend to cling to their church no matter what...
Because our hierarchy is stuck in the middle ages which is pretty radical and cool today, and you get to DO stuff. Pray rosaries, light candles, wear medals, pray to lots of saints and Mary, go in the confessional box (pretty hairy stuff, there! gets your heart going), give up stuff for lent, get ashes on your head, chant chants....all kinds of stuff. You participate. Nothiing like the Prots with the endless bible studies, studying the bible, listening to sermons on the bible, not doing works but faith in the bible, etc......Pretty dry stuff.

Kodos
02-28-2006, 12:06 AM
Because our hierarchy is stuck in the middle ages which is pretty radical and cool today, and you get to DO stuff. Pray rosaries, light candles, wear medals, pray to lots of saints and Mary, go in the confessional box

Why would I want to do any of that ESPECIALLY confession. Loose lips sink ships, no way im trusting anyone with my deepest darkest secrets.

participate. Nothiing like the Prots with the endless bible studies, studying the bible, listening to sermons on the bible

Some of that old testament is pretty cool( although I can't imagine god being really like that, even if god is a total bastard I can't imagine him being something out of the computer game "Black and White").

jcs
02-28-2006, 12:11 AM
catholics tend to cling to their church no matter what...
s'called faith, buddy.

Kodos
02-28-2006, 12:14 AM
s'called faith, buddy.

Faith is in whatever metaphysical higher forces you believe in, not the building you gather in and its gay and/or socialist pastor. Haven't you ever met any non churchgoers who also claim to be fundamentalist christians( that can mean a lot of diffrent things) of some kind.

Keystone
02-28-2006, 12:19 AM
Because our hierarchy is stuck in the middle ages which is pretty radical and cool today, and you get to DO stuff. Pray rosaries, light candles, wear medals, pray to lots of saints and Mary, go in the confessional box

Why would I want to do any of that ESPECIALLY confession. Loose lips sink ships, no way im trusting anyone with my deepest darkest secrets.
Don't knock it if you haven't tried it, Otto. It keeps you spiritually busy. Yeah. Plus, it's tradition! Good for the soul it is. Confession isn't that bad. The guy hearing it has heard it all, (or has done lots of it). Very therapeutic. Better than a shrink. Trust me.
Some of that old testament is pretty cool( although I can't imagine god being really like that, even if god is a total bastard I can't imagine him being something out of the computer game "Black and White").
Yeah, but the bible gets played out. How many times can you hear the same sermons on the same damn topics. It's been laid out a billion times. You haven't heard what Jesus is about yet? He's saved ya once, ya?

You need something to DO. Enter....Catholicism.

jcs
02-28-2006, 12:20 AM
Faith is in whatever metaphysical higher forces you believe in, not the building you gather in and its gay and/or socialist pastor. Haven't you ever met any non churchgoers who also claim to be fundamentalist christians( that can mean a lot of diffrent things) of some kind.
Catholics believe in certain 'Holy Mysteries' which can only be received through the Church, and therefore their adherence, their 'clinging,' is part of their Faith.

il ragno
02-28-2006, 12:45 AM
Why would I want to do any of that ESPECIALLY confession. Loose lips sink ships, no way im trusting anyone with my deepest darkest secrets.

Anybody as hard-core bitter as you doesn't have any deep dark secrets to betray. It''s why you're hard-core bitter!

You'd go into that confessional and go into your "women won't fuck you unless you're famous or have coke/the major engineering firms are all conspiring against me/Mecca must be destroyed" act until your confessor has to blow an air-horn to get you to stop.

Do an act of contrition, gimme half-a-dozen Our Fathers and Hail Marys, and get the fuck out of my booth!

Camacho
02-28-2006, 12:50 AM
Keystone didn't you say on VNN that the only reason you're still a Catholic is because you don't want to upset your mother?

Keystone
02-28-2006, 01:05 AM
Keystone didn't you say on VNN that the only reason you're still a Catholic is because you don't want to upset your mother?
Ya. But I can still enjoy it. If she were a Protestant I wouldn't bother.

The reasons I gave for Catholics holding on to their faith are still true.

Kodos
02-28-2006, 06:53 AM
Anybody as hard-core bitter as you

Less then you think man more hardcore cynical.

the major engineering firms are all conspiring against me

I don't believe that Ragno I just think the job market sucks and can never answer that retarded "whats your ideal job" question( the close 2nd is "what do you see yourself doing in 5 years" if I could see the future I'd hit the lottery today and put it all on the zombie stock options tommorow which will actually win. I'd own everything in a month)... running the world, owner of playboy...

Petr
02-28-2006, 07:09 AM
Yeah, but the bible gets played out. How many times can you hear the same sermons on the same damn topics. It's been laid out a billion times. You haven't heard what Jesus is about yet? He's saved ya once, ya?

You need something to DO. Enter....Catholicism.
Admittedly Roman Catholicism has always been good in pandering to worldly people who think they can earn their own salvation.


Petr

Petr
02-28-2006, 07:45 AM
Speaking as a Catholic, we rely on the Church fathers and tradition as well as scriptures.
Conservative "Protestants" (I dislike using that term) often rely on church fathers and the history of the faith as well, but that is always seen and remembered to be just a secondary source, although often very edifying. We have a hierarchy where Tradition is sub-ordinated to Scriptures, instead of them being equals.


Petr

Jimbo Gomez
02-28-2006, 12:15 PM
Anybody as hard-core bitter as you doesn't have any deep dark secrets to betray. It''s why you're hard-core bitter!

You'd go into that confessional and go into your "women won't fuck you unless you're famous or have coke/the major engineering firms are all conspiring against me/Mecca must be destroyed" act until your confessor has to blow an air-horn to get you to stop.

Do an act of contrition, gimme half-a-dozen Our Fathers and Hail Marys, and get the fuck out of my booth!

k3ik3l = pwn3d

jcs
02-28-2006, 03:16 PM
Admittedly Roman Catholicism has always been good in pandering to worldly people who think they can earn their own salvation.
Catholics believe in salvation through grace, a grace that must be accepted (not earned) through faith and by obeying God's will.

Conservative "Protestants" (I dislike using that term) often rely on church fathers and the history of the faith as well, but that is always seen and remembered to be just a secondary source, although often very edifying. We have a hierarchy where Tradition is sub-ordinated to Scriptures, instead of them being equals.
Catholics do not dispute that Scripture is the primary source--that seems quite obvious; but Catholics understand Scripture in light of Tradition, as Tradition has been passed down from Christ, the Apostles, and the Church Fathers. Basically, it's a couple millenia of understanding of the Scripture, and thus quite important. Given this significance, it makes little sense that the understanding of Scripture should be of less value than the Scripture itself.

Boleslaw
02-28-2006, 06:31 PM
Admittedly Roman Catholicism has always been good in pandering to worldly people who think they can earn their own salvation.


Protestants have been just as bad if not worse. At least the Catholic church represented an alternative power in the world and helped keep the state in check. Yet the weakening of the Church's position by the Reformation and other factors help give rise to the absolutist state, which laid the groundwork for totalitarianism and the nanny state we see today.

And many monarchs, most famously Henry VIII, justified their absolutist rule with Protestant theology.

Fade the Butcher
02-28-2006, 09:06 PM
Perun,

Who comes to mind when you hear the phrase absolute monarchy? Which states come to mind when you hear the word fascism?

Fade the Butcher
02-28-2006, 09:11 PM
And many monarchs, most famously Henry VIII, justified their absolutist rule with Protestant theology.

The Anglican Communion is Catholicism Lite.

Boleslaw
02-28-2006, 09:12 PM
Perun,

Who comes to mind when you hear the phrase absolute monarchy? Which states come to mind when you hear the word fascism?

Touche, but I addressed this at my blog and if you want I will post it. But basically without the weakening of the geo-political power of the Papacy, Europe's monarchs were held in check to a large extent. After the Reformation and the mess it created, the Papacy was forced to take a more passive role on the international stage.

Boleslaw
02-28-2006, 09:14 PM
Fade read here:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=51223#post51223

Boleslaw
02-28-2006, 09:25 PM
The Anglican Communion is Catholicism Lite.

Yeah....ok. We can also say that dissolving monastaries(which served as centers of community life as much as for religious purposes) and such are Catholicism lite as well. :rolleyes:

Damavand
02-28-2006, 09:42 PM
a few points about black muslims...

first there are many black muslims who do not follow the farrakhan cult but instead orthodox islam.

second even the farrakhan cult has good to say for it. it retains just enough real islam to be somewhat useful. even if you don't like some of the wierd beliefs they do support strong families and self sufficiency which american blacks sorely need, they also prohibit alcohol and drugs which can only be good. they are against the drunken crackhead ways that cause so many problems in the black community.

also, it is easy to laugh at some of their funny beliefs, but let me ask you, are they any wierder than the belief in all animals in the world fitting on noah's ark? just for an example. fact is, funny beliefs or not, black islam keeps black people away from alcohol, drugs, and aimless promiscuity, and that is uplifting. basically it turns "niggers" back into proud black men and women. also black muslims (real ones and farrkhanites) are jew aware, another thing that is urgently needed in america. while "superior" white politicians are bending over for the jew, farrakhan is opposing them at every opportunity. who really looks dumber?

Fade the Butcher
02-28-2006, 09:56 PM
Touche, but I addressed this at my blog and if you want I will post it. But basically without the weakening of the geo-political power of the Papacy, Europe's monarchs were held in check to a large extent.

This cuts both ways. The Treaty of Tordesillas which arose out of Alexander VI's Inter Caetera divided the world between Spain and Portugal. Catholicism was also used to justify expansionism, say, against the Muslims in Spain and Sicily or the Balts and Slavs in Eastern Europe as well against the Islamic world generally during the Crusades. And yes, European monarchies had been held in check by the Papacy, but whether or not this was a good thing is disputable, as it propped up feudalism and the self serving interests of the nobility. The Anglo-Saxons suffered mightly because of the Norman Conquest. The distintegration of the Holy Roman Empire is also probably the clearest example of the interference of the Papacy in secular affairs as well. Few German historians, however, see this in a positive light.

After the Reformation and the mess it created, the Papacy was forced to take a more passive role on the international stage.

You seem to be confusing causes with effects here. The Reformation was an effect, not the cause of the decline in the prestige of the Papacy. The Papacy had been losing prestige and power for centuries before the Reformation: The Great Famine of 1315-1317, The Black Death, Great Schism, Conciliarism, the reaction of Philip IV of France to Boniface VIII's Unan sanctam and Clericos laicos, the rise of the nation-state in France, England, and Spain; Marsilius of Padua's Defensor pacis, the various heretical movements from the Hussites in Bohemia to the Lollards in England, the notorious corruption and wordliness of the Renaissance popes like Alexander VI and Leo X and so on.

Fade the Butcher
02-28-2006, 10:05 PM
Yeah....ok. We can also say that dissolving monastaries(which served as centers of community life as much as for religious purposes) and such are Catholicism lite as well. :rolleyes:

Anglicanism is Catholicism Lite. It's a halfway house between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's nothing like Calvinism. Henry VIII also spoke out against Luther and his followers. The Puritans also spent centuries trying to reform to the Church of England, but ultimately failed to do so after the English Civil War and emigrated to America.

sainte-marthe
03-01-2006, 12:34 AM
Anglican services aren't radically different from those of Lutherans. There were some Calvinist elements in Anglicanism, there was a divide (high church [including Anglo-Catholic, just a step away from Rome] which is more liturgical and low church, more Calvinist influenced), which still exists to some extent, but has become somewhat less marked since a regularization of the prayerbook in the 1970s.

William Pitt said "We have a Calvinist creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy."

I would add though, being raised Episcopalian that Anglicanism is a motley mix of Presbyterianism without a sense of morality, Catholicism without guilt, and Methodism without having to care for people.

brigadier Biggles
03-01-2006, 12:44 AM
after glancing over the last few pages of peruns posts my vote goes to catholics.

Petr
03-01-2006, 06:14 AM
Anglicanism is Catholicism Lite. It's a halfway house between Catholicism and Protestantism. It's nothing like Calvinism. Henry VIII also spoke out against Luther and his followers. The Puritans also spent centuries trying to reform to the Church of England, but ultimately failed to do so after the English Civil War and emigrated to America.
Mostly true, but some "Puritans" did stay behind - famous Victorian-era British preacher Charles H. Spurgeon reacted with great indignation on the re-catholicization phenomenon in the Anglican church with people like John Henry Newman:


http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Voice/Spurgeon.On.Catholicism.html.htm


Against Romish Anglicanism

August 1865 issue of The Sword and the Trowel.


Who is this gentleman? You guess him to be a Romish priest; and so indeed he is, but he is not honest enough to avow it. This, with the exception of the face, is a correct representation of a clerical gentleman, well known in the South of England, as a notorious clergyman of that religious association, which is commonly, but erroneously, called "The Church of England." We can assure the reader that our artist has faithfully given the robes and other paraphernalia with which this person makes a guy of himself. We beg to ask, what difference there is between this style and the genuine Popish cut? We might surely quite as well have a bona fide priest at once, with all the certificates of the Vatican! There seems to be an unlimited license for papistical persons to do as they please in the Anglican Establishment. How long are these abominations to be borne with, and how far are they yet to be carried?

Protestant Dissenters, how can you so often truckle to a Church which is assuming the rags of the old harlot more and more openly every day? Alliance with true believers is one thing, but union with a Popish sect is quite another. Be not ye partakers with them. Protestantism owed much to you in past ages, will you not now raise your voice and show the ignorant and the priest-ridden the tendencies of all these mummeries, and the detestable errors of the Romish Church and of its Anglican sister.

Evangelical Churchmen, lovers of the Lord Jesus, how long will you remain in alliance with the defilements of High Churchism? You are mainly responsible for all the Popery of your Church, for you are its salt and its stay. Your brethren in Christ cannot but wonder how it is that you can remain where you are. You know better. You are children of light, and yet you aid and abet a system by which darkness is scattered all over the land. Beware, lest you be found in union with Antichrist, when the Lord cometh in his glory. What a future would be yours if you would shake yourselves from your alliance with Papists and semi-Papists. Come out for Christ's sake. Be ye separate, touch not the unclean thing!

Petr
03-01-2006, 06:23 AM
I would add though, being raised Episcopalian that Anglicanism is a motley mix of Presbyterianism without a sense of morality, Catholicism without guilt, and Methodism without having to care for people.
I'd say that this inherent mongrel nature of Anglicanism (already at its origin during the time of whoremonger Henry VIII) is one of the biggest reasons for the secularization of the British society.

Actually we can make it a candidate of the stupidest religion ever!


Petr

Ahknaton
03-01-2006, 06:57 AM
The Muslim, Farrakhan nigger (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=61591) has been in the news, upsetting the ADL again.

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 04:22 PM
And yes, European monarchies had been held in check by the Papacy, but whether or not this was a good thing is disputable, as it propped up feudalism and the self serving interests of the nobility.

I sincerly doubt the self-serving interests of the monarch was anything better, as we saw in the age of aboslute despots. At least Feudalism limited rulers power.


The Anglo-Saxons suffered mightly because of the Norman Conquest.

Yet in the long run England actually benefited greatly from the Normans. England was already heavily proned to invasions, as the constant Viking raids proved, but the Normans put that to an end with their effective administration of the country, which provided greater unity than the Anglo-Saxon kings were able to do.

Not to mention England stopped being an isolated backwater of Europe and was brought more fully into the orbit of European culture.


The distintegration of the Holy Roman Empire is also probably the clearest example of the interference of the Papacy in secular affairs as well.

If Im not mistaken, the Holy Roman Empire disintegrated when Napoleon invaded, and the Papacy at this time had little geo-political influence; having gone through its lowest point ever in 1799 when the French armies entered Rome and forced the Pope to flee. Many at the time considered this the official end of the Papacy, but thank god they were wrong.

Only recently has the Papacy begun to regain its influence on the world stage. Stalin once mockingly asked how many battalions the Pope commanded, and the Soviet empire recieved an answer 50 years later from a Polish Pope.


Few German historians, however, see this in a positive light.

Well the world doesnt revolve around Germany now does it?


You seem to be confusing causes with effects here.

Actually I am not. Both in my previous post and the thread I linked to, I made refrences to late Medieval developments like the Great Schism and such which helped to weaken the Papal influence. Nevertheless, the Papacy was still seen as the center of European Christendom and still commanded influence. The Reformation was pretty much the death nail that ended that.

Afterwards, you literally had large portions of Europe that did not recognize the Pope's authority even in a symbolic sense. Since then the Papacy and the Church has had to play a more reactive role when concerning secular issues.

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 04:28 PM
Anglicanism is Catholicism Lite.

You're being too kind to Anglicanism for calling it such.


Henry VIII also spoke out against Luther and his followers.

True but that doesnt negate the fact there were influential Protestants in Henry's inner circle: there was of course Ann Boleyn(Henry's mistress and later queen) who was a patron to Thomas Crammer(the main theologian for the Anglican church) along with Henry's right hand man Thomas Cromwell, who even tried to forge an alliance between England and the Protestant German states with Henry's marriage to Ann of Cleves(which proved disasterous).

Henry's anti-Lutheranism does not mean he wasnt a Protestant of sorts. Protestantism after all is not a monolith, not to mention Luther himself constantly and harshly attacked fellow Protestants.

Kodos
03-01-2006, 05:18 PM
True but that doesnt negate the fact there were influential Protestants in Henry's inner circle: there was of course Ann Boleyn

The Brits have never been sentimental about religion. Ann Boleyn was just a gold digger, but as long as her nephew was Charles V Henry was not going to get a divorce in the catholic church.

along with Henry's right hand man Thomas Cromwell

Probably a total nonbeliever.

Crunch_Hardtack
03-01-2006, 05:25 PM
To me, a stupid religion is one that doesn't "work" for it's practioners. Out of all those listed, it's the fundie protestants who seem to have the biggest difficulty proving that they're "filled with the holy spirit".

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 05:34 PM
The Brits have never been sentimental about religion.

Not true. Before the Reformation England had a reputation for being one of the most devout countries in Europe, something that even many Europeans mock them for.


Ann Boleyn was just a gold digger,

No doubt about that, in fact thats the one thing that really discredits the Protestant Reformation as some kind of noble revolt against a corrupt Church. It was really nothing of the sort, just powerful people using Protestantism as an excuse to get their hands on the lands and wealth of the Church, nothing more. As Chesterton stated, the Reformation was nothing more then the revolt of the rich who made themselves richer.

But it doesnt change the fact that Ann was influenced by Protestant thinkers and tried to convince Henry of their wisdom.


but as long as her nephew was Charles V Henry was not going to get a divorce in the catholic church.

I think you're confusing Ann with Catherine of Aarogan now.


Probably a total nonbeliever.

Maybe, but again he was a fierce champion of the Protestant cause. Hell its even possible that Thomas Crammer was probably an unbeliever as well, we do know he certainly was an amoral oppurtunist.

Which again brings me to my point that one cannot paint the Protestant Reformation in idealistic colours. In fact I think I already posted a thread about the brutal persecutions of the Protestants which often was far worse than anything the Spanish Inqusition did.

Thomas777
03-01-2006, 06:07 PM
What is the relationship between dissenting Protestantism and the Church of England in history? What I mean is, did the Crown try to enforce compliance with the C of E? How did dissenting Protestantism take hold in much of England? Was it a grass roots sort of occurance that was tolerated by the political authorities, or did the Crown ever try to suppress it in favor of the national church?

Please forgive my ignorance.

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 06:20 PM
Well I can say that new evidence is beginning to show that majority of England still remained Catholic well into the 16th century.

Fade the Butcher
03-01-2006, 06:39 PM
I sincerly doubt the self-serving interests of the monarch was anything better, as we saw in the age of aboslute despots.

I would assume you are referring to Louis XIV here. This was actually a period of enormous scientific and cultural progress in France unlike, say, France under the early Capetians.

At least Feudalism limited rulers power.

To what end? To prop up the power of the Papacy and the landed nobility? Are you trying to argue here in favor of manorial justice?

Yet in the long run England actually benefited greatly from the Normans.

Explain.

England was already heavily proned to invasions, as the constant Viking raids proved, but the Normans put that to an end with their effective administration of the country, which provided greater unity than the Anglo-Saxon kings were able to do.

England was prone to invasion precisely because it was already such a rich country, as the Domesday Book shows. If I recall correctly, the Normans maintained the shire system and existing Anglo-Saxon administrative apparatus. The Normans also maintained the preexisting legal system which evolved into the common law. Furthermore, England was mired in the politics of France for the next several hundred years because of the Normans and emerged from the Middle Ages as a relatively backward state. Losing its French possessions was one of the best things that ever happened to England.

Not to mention England stopped being an isolated backwater of Europe and was brought more fully into the orbit of European culture.

England was transformed from a land of free peasants into a land of exploited feudal serfs by the Normans. Furthermore, England was already a rich Christian nation before the Norman Conquest.

If Im not mistaken, the Holy Roman Empire disintegrated when Napoleon invaded, and the Papacy at this time had little geo-political influence; having gone through its lowest point ever in 1799 when the French armies entered Rome and forced the Pope to flee. Many at the time considered this the official end of the Papacy, but thank god they were wrong.

I was referring to the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire into petty principalities, bishoprics, free cities and so on after the Investitute Controversy between the Empire and the Papacy. I honestly have no idea how you have construed this as progress.

Only recently has the Papacy begun to regain its influence on the world stage. Stalin once mockingly asked how many battalions the Pope commanded, and the Soviet empire recieved an answer 50 years later from a Polish Pope.

Are you trying to say here that John Paul II caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? :p

Well the world doesnt revolve around Germany now does it?

No. Germany was retarded for centuries because of the events that unfolded during the High Middle Ages.

Nevertheless, the Papacy was still seen as the center of European Christendom and still commanded influence. The Reformation was pretty much the death nail that ended that.

The influence of the Papacy was already in long term decline before the Reformation. This had more to do with the rise of the nation-state than Protestantism.

Afterwards, you literally had large portions of Europe that did not recognize the Pope's authority even in a symbolic sense.

The Netherlands, Scandinavia, England, Scotland, parts of Switzerland, France, and Germany. The United States later. The Golden Age of many of these countries was still in the future.

Since then the Papacy and the Church has had to play a more reactive role when concerning secular issues.

The Papacy lost a lot of credibility after it put Galileo on trial.

Kodos
03-01-2006, 06:44 PM
No doubt about that, in fact thats the one thing that really discredits the Protestant Reformation as some kind of noble revolt against a corrupt Church.

The Church was corrupt and for the most parasitic and useless( some monks were exceptions) that doesn't mean that Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII, and Thomas Cromwell were of noble character( unlike ironically their daughter Elizabeth Tudor, the fact that the virgin queen slept with everybody notwithstanding).

Kodos
03-01-2006, 06:45 PM
I think you're confusing Ann with Catherine of Aarogan now.

My sloppy proofreading strikes again.

Kodos
03-01-2006, 06:57 PM
England was prone to invasion precisely because it was already such a rich country, as the Domesday Book shows. If I recall correctly, the Normans maintained the shire system and existing Anglo-Saxon administrative apparatus. The Normans also maintained the preexisting legal system which evolved into the common law. Furthermore, England was mired in the politics of France for the next several hundred years because of the Normans and emerged from the Middle Ages as a relatively backward state.

I agree with most everything in your post except this... when was England ever really backward( granted early Norman rule was a ruthless tyranny)???

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 07:00 PM
I would assume you are referring to Louis XIV here.

He's only one of many rulers Im referring to.


This was actually a period of enormous scientific and cultural progress in France

Which created a heavily centralized state with an overbloated bureaucracy, whose corruption would later lead to the French Revolution.


To what end?

Towards the limitations of governmental powers.


Are you trying to argue here in favor of manorial justice?

Im arguing for the principle of subsidarity.


Explain.

I will.


England was prone to invasion precisely because it was already such a rich country, as the Domesday Book shows.

Yes but it lacked any effective means of defending itself. There was a joke at the time that the Saxons were good at everything except ruling and fighting.


The Normans also maintained the preexisting legal system which evolved into the common law.

Actually that was fully developed under Henry II.


I was referring to the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire into petty principalities, bishoprics, free cities and so on after the Investitute Controversy between the Empire and the Papacy.

Ok, please be a little more specific next time.


I honestly have no idea how you have construed this as progress.

Well Kirkpatrick Sale in outlining the benefits of decentralized control gave an interesting argument for such:


http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/conferences/kirkkey.html

Among the many historical proofs of this is one of my favorites, having to do with the German people. When they were divided into dozens of little principalities and duchies and kingdoms and sovereign cities, from about the 12th century to the 19th, they engaged in fewer wars than any other peoples of Europe: they were so small attacks by them were few and feeble enough, and so small attacks on them by larger powers were seen as useless. But when the German people were united and formed into a state of 25 million people and 70,000 square miles, it almost immediately embarked on wars against the other European powers, conquered territories in Africa and the Pacific, and ultimately instigated two devastating world wars within the space of thirty years.


Are you trying to say here that John Paul II caused the downfall of the Soviet Union? :p

He certainly a major factor in brining that about.


The influence of the Papacy was already in long term decline before the Reformation. This had more to do with the rise of the nation-state than Protestantism.

Protestantism was often highly tied to nationalism. Protestantism gave rulers the ideological justification for breaking away from the Papacy.



The Papacy lost a lot of credibility after it put Galileo on trial.

:rolleyes: Dont tell me you're going to try to pull this old one.

Fade the Butcher
03-01-2006, 07:03 PM
True but that doesnt negate the fact there were influential Protestants in Henry's inner circle: there was of course Ann Boleyn(Henry's mistress and later queen)

What happened to Anne Boleyn?

who was a patron to Thomas Crammer(the main theologian for the Anglican church)

What happened to Thomas Cranmer?

along with Henry's right hand man Thomas Cromwell, who even tried to forge an alliance between England and the Protestant German states with Henry's marriage to Ann of Cleves(which proved disasterous).

What happened to Thomas Cromwell?

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 07:06 PM
That doesnt refute my argument Fade.

Fade the Butcher
03-01-2006, 07:11 PM
I will answer for you. Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell were executed. Thomas Cranmer was burnt at the stake.

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 07:15 PM
Thomas Cranmer was burnt at the stake.

By whom? Not Henry VIII or even his son(whom he served as a major advisor to).

The fact they were executed doesnt diminish the influence they had on Henry VIII. Or did Henry, after executing Boleyn and Cromwell, suddenly reconcile with the Papacy and gave the lands he took from the monastaries, among other things?

Kodos
03-01-2006, 07:19 PM
Yes but it lacked any effective means of defending itself. There was a joke at the time that the Saxons were good at everything except ruling and fighting.

Harry Godwineson was actually just extremely unlikely, after emerging from a mini civil war he had to immediately march North to fight the Norwegians( themselves a strong military power at the time) and then after that fight the Normans, who had the strongest army on the continent( and they came very close to winning the battle).

Boleslaw
03-01-2006, 07:23 PM
Actually the Saxons did pretty well against the Normans, if they wouldve maintained their defensive position on the high ground. The Norman horsemen had great difficulty in breaking through and were driven back a few times.

It was just when the Saxons broke rank to pursue what they thought was a Norman retreat that exposed them.

But either way, the Saxon armies did do well against the Vikings on many occasions. Particularly at Malden.

limit
04-20-2012, 01:45 PM
Yes but it lacked any effective means of defending itself. There was a joke at the time that the Saxons were good at everything except ruling and fighting.

Harry Godwineson was actually just extremely unlikely, after emerging from a mini civil war he had to immediately march North to fight the Norwegians( themselves a strong military power at the time) and then after that fight the Normans, who had the strongest army on the continent( and they came very close to winning the battle).

No but it lacked any effective means of defending itself. There was a joke at the time that the jews were good at everything except ruling and fighting.

Quoted from the above post, and somewhat edited.

:hump:

Burrhus
04-20-2012, 07:46 PM
6 years, 3 months and 20 days. That's what I call a real...

...thread bump

Mentious
04-20-2012, 09:34 PM
Sometimes we spend so much time "discussing" race here that we lose sight of the many other ways to wound and assault people's feelings.
I'd say Creepy Analist religion is the stupidest by far.

BobbyT.
04-21-2012, 02:05 AM
The 'snake handlers' are actually pretty cool services to watch, everything from 'speaking in tongues' to people passing out and dancing around in trances. Everybody should attend one at least once; they're very entertaining, as are many of the Pentecostal services. Certainly a lot more entertaining than sitting and listening to insipid, droning priests and monotonic Lutheran screeds, and watching a room full of people trying to stay awake, then hustling insurance and peddling cars to each other on the steps in the socializing after the services.

Przemysław
04-21-2012, 02:54 AM
I'd say Creepy Analist religion is the stupidest by far.
I'm quite shocked that your hokey pokey religion didn't make the list.

TheForbidden
04-21-2012, 04:14 AM
Add and big-assed Orthodox apes.
Otherwise the list isn't complete. Orthodox christianity is dominating Russia and the Balkans and can't be disregarded. Its distinctive feature is that most popes are fat and impudent mercenaries who ride expensive limousines and are covered with gold like the worst of your gangsta-rappers.

Petr
04-29-2012, 12:39 PM
Walter Yannis was here puzzled by the "Five Percenter" interpretation of "ALLAH" as an acronym for "Arm, Leg, Leg, Arm and Head":

"I mean, what is one to make of any group that asserts that the Arabic word Allah is actually an English acronym of the words arm-leg-leg-arm-head?

The internal world of a black man or woman must be a very different place than the mental space I occupy"

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16936&highlight=five+percent

It becomes a whole lot more understandable when you realize that they are peddling the old Gnostic doctrine of deification of man. Allah is Man (Black man).

Likewise, occultists like the pentagram so much precisely because its five points symbolize the divinity of man - remember that famous sketch by Leonardo da Vinci?
Here is an alchemical image that illustrates my point:

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-that-secret-gnosis.html


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VM6BJVpAYLw/T5z8R_n9ANI/AAAAAAAABEs/v8fjEruZseI/s1600/gnostic.jpg