← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 10066 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2003-09-27
2003-09-27 00:20 | User Profile
Friederich Braun wanted me to comment on an essay by Edwin Craig titled "On Victor Craig's 'A Defense of the Faith'". In it, Craig tries to prove that Christianity is the reason for Western Civilization's fall and therefore has outlived its usefulness. Well here is my commentary.
As he writes
Finally, I think Mr. Craig and I could find common ground by agreeing that human beings, including and perhaps especially whites, need some kind of myth of transcendence as a motivating and justifying framework of action. Paganism provided that once, just as traditional Christianity did also once, but today neither one can be revived or restored. What whites need now is a new myth of transcendence that can offer transcendent, absolute validation for what they need to do to survive and continue their civilization. Where they can get such a new myth I don't know.
I don't know sounds like he's preaching moral relativism. A certain truth maybe true, but only for a certain period of time before it is superceded by another truth. Funny he accuses Christianity of being the birthplace of liberalism, yet he himself uses a very typical Liberal/Socialist/Communist argument to further his agenda. Religion is obsolete, its time has been bypassed. Just like the truth of nationalism, its era has been bypassed by globalization.
Funny since this in direct rejection of a basic notion of Western civilization that even many Greco-Roman pagans believed in, that is truth is both objective and not relevant. So rather than defending Western Civilization, Craig is indeed mounting an assault on a very basic notion of it.
Not only has Christianity's time has passed, but its teachings themselves are flawed.
I also don't see why "no student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow `inherently' defective in ways that weaken the race." Liberal Christianity is by no means a product of the post-1945 era; it goes back at least to the Renaissance and maybe to the origins of Christianity. There are certainly passages in the New Testament that instruct us to practice an unmitigated universalism, altruism, subordination of self-interest, and rejection of this world (power, wealth, family, class, nation, race, self, etc.) I am the first to admit that these passages can be interpreted in various ways, but repeatedly throughout Christian history they have been interpreted in "liberal" ways. There is no way to settle what they "really" mean except through imposing your own meaning, which is what the traditional church tried to do, ultimately unsuccessfully.
So because a paasage can be interpreted several ways, therefore its false. But yet any real complex argument about anything can be interpreted many ways, so therefore Craig is in many ways arguing that there is no truth in the world. This would make sense considering his argument that truth is true only for some time only to be bypassed by another truth. Therefore we create our own truth, and that truth can say whatever it wants to say; and it will still be true. Again, while claiming to defend Western Civilization he is in fact launching an assault against it.
the New Testament that instruct us to practice an unmitigated universalism, altruism, subordination of self-interest, and rejection of this world (power, wealth, family, class, nation, race, self, etc.)
Of course just from this sentence he shows his utter ignorance of scriptures. Jesus himself saids "Render unto God what is God's; render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's" so Jesus does not tell us to reject this world or our civil authorities. As for an unmitigated universalism, that is meant in a metaphysical sense not a physical sense. I believe theres one passage of St. Pauls that states there are no "male and female" before God. Now anybody who interprets that in a physical rather than a metaphysical sense is an idiot plan and simple.
Now I don't know what Craig has against altruism and subordination of self-interest, since Nationalism itself is based on these principles. Again, rather than defend Western Civilization, he launches an assault against its most basic moral elements. Even the Greco-Romans talked about altruism and subordination of self-interest.
Liberalism is essentially a secularized version of Christianity that takes its "liberal" branches and exaggerates them into the whole tree. I can grant that this was done erroneously and fallaciously, but it still happened and was bound to happen once people started mouthing off about "the meek shall inherit the Earth" and that sort of stuff. It is very clear that only Christian civilization has ever spawned anything like liberalism. The Greeks and Romans knew nothing of it, and their class struggles were simply that--conflicts between rich and poor for class power--without any jabber about "rights," "equality," "peace," and "universal brotherhood." All these latter blessings derive ultimately from Christianity.
Funny considering the fact that modern liberalism(which dates from the 18th century) took its inspirations not from Christianity(which it rejects) but Greece and Rome. If theres no equalitarianism in Greco-Roman thought, Craig should bother to read Plato's "Republic" which is nothing more than an outline for a communistic utopia. Then of course Craig didn't bother to study about Ancient Sparta, which Plato and other equalitarians since have viewed as their model society. Who did Rousseau and the violent Jacobins take as their models, Christian Europe? No, they took Ancient Sparta as their model. Same thing with many socialists and communists. Then of course Craig doesn't seem to show any knowledge of the Sophists, whose philosophy forms the very basis of modern liberalism and moral relevancy. It should also be noted that Socrates, Plato, and I also believe Aristotle stood in direct opposition to Sophist thinking, instead believing in objective truth(and many of their arguments against Sophism are similar to Christian responses to moral relevancy). So Craig's historical assestments are inaccurate.
The fact that it took a long time for the "inherent" tendencies of Christianity to triumph is not a persuasive argument that these tendencies aren't really there. It takes a long time for smoking to cause cancer, but just because you smoke one cigarette and don't get cancer doesn't mean smoking doesn't cause cancer. Most traditional Christians would argue that tendencies planted in the Renaissance or Enlightenment blossomed into modern secularism and communism, but the fact that it took a long time for them to so blossom isn't a problem. Moreover, as I mentioned above, it didn't take so long after all, because the inherent tendencies of Christianity began to sprout even in antiquity in various heresies; they were denounced and suppressed by other tendencies but survived underground and resurfaced later.
Many of the tendencies of liberalism and communism were apparent well before Christ's birth, as I have proven above. Communists and Liberals looked to Athens, Rome, and Sparta; not Christian Europe as their models. To them, Christian Europe was nothing more than a primitive cesspool governed by superstitions. Rome and Greece were lands of enlightenment. So yes Craig's historical assestments are highly inaccurate.
In other words, whites re-invented Christianity to reflect their innate preferences, and it is in that form that Christianity shaped, "created," and pushed white European civilization. Revilo Oliver in his Christianity and the Survival of the West makes the interesting point that Christianity survived only among whites, that it died out in the Near East with the appearance of Islam and never took much root in Asia or Africa. That is because by the time Islam appeared, Christianity had already been re-invented as a European religion that exerted little appeal to non-Europeans. Subsequently it flourished among non-Europeans only at the point of the sword.
Obviously he's ingnorant of recent trends of large growth of Christianity in Africa and Asia. BTW, these parishes are often more traditionalists than European parishes nowadays. Recent proof is the denounciation of the election of a gay bishop in America by Africa's Anglican communities, even going as far as breaking off ties. So as these non-European parishes grow in influence on the universal church, the more a traditionalist agenda will emerge in the churches.
So I think Mr. Craig is wrong in his basic premise that Christianity created the West; on the contrary, the West and its underlying genetic substratum created Christianity. (Even ignoring the genetic factor, it is still clear that whites had civilizations long before Christianity and that a very large part of post-Christian civilization derives from it).
Yes I know full well of that. Christianity was built on top of Europe's non-Christian heritage. Whats interesting is that Christianity gave new life and spirit to the truths of non-Christian europe. Without many great Christian thinkers like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and others would've been lost forever during the Dark Ages. Not to mention that Irish monks preserved these works from destruction during the Dark Ages.
Mr. Craig writes that "Christianity must therefore be rescued and revived." Two points here: (a) why the "therefore"? Even if we concede that Christianity "created" the West, it doesn't necessarily follow that the continuing survival of the West depends on the continuation or revival of Christianity. By analogy, art may have first appeared as a means of propitiating the gods or the forces of nature, but that doesn't mean we have to continue to believe that art can really do that in order to keep producing art.
Well look at the evidence. Once Christianity started to be marginalized, the decline and destruction of the West began. Gramsci himself talked about important Christianity was in keeping the West alive in the face of a communist takeover. So in many ways, Craig is an unwitting ally of the Communists. This may explain why he attacks so many basic Western intellectual notions.
How is it possible for traditional Christianity as Mr. Craig depicts it to be revived? I really don't grasp this. Christianity has died or declined to its present state because of the effects of modern science and historical scholarship; it's all very well for Christian intellectuals to concoct fancy apologetics for Christianity, but the fact is that it is simply impossible for modern educated men to believe in the Bible or the claims of the church to the degree necessary for the revival of traditional Christianity.
Simplistic and also inaccurate. Craig really needs to study his history for he continually betrays an utter ignorance of it. The decline of religion only began in the mid-1900's, almost two/three centuries after the modern age of science began. So just all of a sudden people just woke up to scientific discoveries and decided there was no God? I doubt it. Plus science still has not definately disproven many religious teachings. So basically science is not the problem, but secularists who try to use it to further their agendas.
I do not say that it is not possible to be some kind of a Christian, but it is not possible to be a traditional Christian if you are intellectually serious in the light of modern science.
Well then he has no knowlegde of traditional Christianity. Nothing in Traditional Christianity goes against scientific discovery; only against the secularist agendas among many scientists.
The only people in the last century who have been serious Christians have been either ignoramuses (i.e., people who because of stupidity and ignorance or because of willful blindness have closed their minds to the implications of science) or intellectuals (Kierkegaard, Dostoevski, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, etc.), who are able to come up with extremely sophisticated defenses of it that most people can't understand and which are usually intensely personal.
Yes and atheists are automatically smarter than theists? Does he have any real proof that most serious Christians are ignoramuses? Or is he just making a very cheap knee-jerk remark? Typical of many anti-Christians these days.
That may be fine for intellectuals, but a religion confined to them and the ignorati will not be traditional Christianity and cannot be a culturally dominant force or an effective guide for most people.
Even though most white people are Christians. Therefore most whites are stupid ignoramuses. Gee, he sure does have a high opinion of his people. He wants to save his people by denouncing the majority of them ignoramuses.
Maybe he should study about how important the Orthodox Church was in reviving Russian nationalism against the Communist. Hederick Smith in his 1976 "the Russians" talks about the revival of Russian nationalism, and the Orthodox Church's indispensible role in it.
Given the blows suffered by Christianity in the last 200 years or so, I see no alternative to the conclusion that the Christian cat is out of the bag and can't be put back in as long as the forces that let him out are still in existence, and personally I would take those forces (science and scholarship) over Christianity.
Again he repeats the typical Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Anti-Western view that truth is relevant and is often bypassed by another truth only to be bypassed by another truth. And as I said before science has failed to disproven any major tenent of Christian teachings. So Craig is therefore ignorant of facts and makes simplistic arguments.
Not only that, he ignores the fact that most(if not all) major nationalist movements in Western civilization(past and present) are Christian based. Also most nationalist movements that have major support from the working class are also Christian based. Most nationalist movements, in Europe and around the world, from the 18th century until the present, have come in two versions: a secular version, which appeals to intellectuals, professionals, and officials, and a populist, religious version. That religious version in Europe has almost entirely been Christian based.
So Craig is indeed making an assault on the white majority, which explains why he described most whites as ignormuses. Therefore Craig is not being a true nationalist, for nationalism by its very nature is populist and defends the peoples traditions. Craig doesn't want our traditions preserved, but destroyed.
Find something better Friederich!
2003-09-29 06:20 | User Profile
Perun is referring to the following discussion among contributors to the American Renaissance regarding Christianity and the White race:
[url]http://www.amren.com/xtian.htm[/url]
2003-09-30 04:04 | User Profile
Perun,
I love quoting Nietzsche to "believers": :)
"We have again become pious"- so do those apostates confess; and some of them are still too pusillanimous thus to confess.
To them I look into the eye,- before them I say it to their face and to the blush on their cheeks: You are those who again pray!
It is shameful to pray! Not for all, but for you, and me, and whoever has his conscience in his head. For you it is shameful to pray!
[COLOR=Red][SIZE=4]You know it well: the cowardly little devil in you, which would rather fold its arms, and place its hands in its bosom, and take it easier:- this cowardly little devil persuades you that "there is a God!"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
From Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
2003-09-30 12:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Perun,
I love quoting Nietzsche to "believers": :)
"We have again become pious"- so do those apostates confess; and some of them are still too pusillanimous thus to confess.
To them I look into the eye,- before them I say it to their face and to the blush on their cheeks: You are those who again pray!
It is shameful to pray! Not for all, but for you, and me, and whoever has his conscience in his head. For you it is shameful to pray!
[COLOR=Red][SIZE=4]You know it well: the cowardly little devil in you, which would rather fold its arms, and place its hands in its bosom, and take it easier:- this cowardly little devil persuades you that "there is a God!"[/SIZE][/COLOR]
From Thus Spoke Zarathustra.[/QUOTE]
:wallbash: Oh darn that's just so impossible to counter-argue, guess I'm an atheist again! :clap: (note: I'm being sarcastic! I'll try to find some nice Doestovesky to enlighten your unbelieving heart)
2003-09-30 13:50 | User Profile
Help me not be an atheist, Perun.
2003-10-04 21:12 | User Profile
QUOTE=RitterHelp me not be an atheist, Perun.[/QUOTE]
Ritter,
Try fasting and prayer.
(The Lord works in mysterious ways...blah, blah, blah...)
2003-10-04 21:29 | User Profile
Yes, that's right.
Discuss whether Christianity is the reason our poeple are in such bad shape on a board that welcomes, coddles, and proffers Jews as our "people".
Since peolple can't seem to add, let me do the calculations.
Hyman is a cowbird. As Amren again demonstrates. Since from the purely non-religious standpoint the Church was the "Institution" and "Glue" of Europe and her people, Hyman targeted the Church to become the receptacle for his eggs.
If a different organization was the unifier of Europe, Hyman would have targeted it, and "it" would be the "cause" of our problems.
Go back to sleep.
2003-10-04 22:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Ritter,
Try fasting and prayer.
(The Lord works in mysterious ways...blah, blah, blah...)[/QUOTE]
:ohmy:
You mean the Lord which died on the cross for all of our sins, yet saw fit to bless the Hebrews hundreds of years before as the chosen people[size=1][url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people]î[/size][/url]? I love the God which demands that we worship him or spend an eternity in a lake of fire. Well, what ever shall I choose? Hmm, spend eternity in Hell or in Heaven, a place of wonderfulness where the streets are paved with gold and we will live forever in luxury - that is a hard decision.
Friedrich the Great said, "Superstition is the child of fear, weakness and ignorance."
:smoke:
2003-10-04 22:47 | User Profile
You mean the Lord which died on the cross for all of our sins, yet saw fit to bless the Hebrews hundreds of years before as the chosen people[size=1][url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chosen_people]î[/size][/url]? I love the God which demands that we worship him or spend an eternity in a lake of fire. Well, what ever shall I choose? Hmm, spend eternity in Hell or in Heaven, a place of wonderfulness where the streets are paved with gold and we will live forever in luxury - that is a hard decision.
Friedrich the Great said, "Superstition is the child of fear, weakness and ignorance."
:smoke:[/QUOTE]
Ok whatever................................................
2003-10-05 06:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Campion Moore Boru]Yes, that's right.
Discuss whether Christianity is the reason our poeple are in such bad shape on a board that welcomes, coddles, and proffers Jews as our "people".
Since peolple can't seem to add, let me do the calculations.
Hyman is a cowbird. As Amren again demonstrates. Since from the purely non-religious standpoint the Church was the "Institution" and "Glue" of Europe and her people, Hyman targeted the Church to become the receptacle for his eggs.
If a different organization was the unifier of Europe, Hyman would have targeted it, and "it" would be the "cause" of our problems.
Go back to sleep.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
Say what you will about the authenticity of the Protocols, but the genius who created them was right to equate Nietzsche and Marx. Both were aimed at dissolving the relgious bonds that held Christendom together. Both were embraced by Jews and others who would complete that work for their own ends.
[I]DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
My position is this: one need not personally subscribe to the tenets of Christianity to be loyal to Christendom, but one absolutely must get behind the project of building up Christian institutions, and cease all anti-Christian propaganda.
All else only lends aid and comfort to our enemies.
Walter
2003-10-05 07:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]My position is this: one need not personally subscribe to the tenets of Christianity to be loyal to Christendom, but one absolutely must get behind the project of building up Christian institutions, and cease all anti-Christian propaganda.
All else only lends aid and comfort to our enemies.[/QUOTE]
My posistion is this: I seek truth, regardless. I wont be loyal to Christendom (no such thing), when the holy books of that faith say the jews are the chose people, that israel will be saved in the end of days, that enemies of israel are enemies of God, and if one doesn't worship the monotheistic representation of the polytheistic Elohim pantheon and the El Shaddai leader. It is a total fake superstition, which only limits us and divides us.
I said above that there is no such a thing as Christiandom, anymore. That can be interpreted in a few ways. Christianity is so divided it has more branches than a tree. Christianity has a history of division.
The basic message of christianity is love thy neighbor, the lord came to save all, and more of this altruistic, man-kind equality, peace on earth stuff. It doesn't go with Europe, it never has! If we continue to hang onto it, it we mean the death of european man. Christianity is expanding into Africa, Asian (expecially India) at an astonding rate. Will you consider these your christian brothers? Are Ethiopians your brothers? They have one of the oldest christian populations.
It is out-date, it is false, and most importantly, it doesn't fit with the future of European man; unless you want the death of European man.
2003-10-05 07:24 | User Profile
With all due respect Walter, I would much prefer a revival of the religion of Odinism and the Norse gods. At least I have a biological connection to them, since these glorious gods were worshipped by my Northern European ancestors. The Norse gods are part of my racial heritage, the same cannot be said of a fundamentally alien faith that has been force-fed to us for centuries. Actually, there is a substantial Pagan revival in Europe. I welcome this revival of idigenous European spirituality. Alain de Benoist is definitely right on this point.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Exactly.
Say what you will about the authenticity of the Protocols, but the genius who created them was right to equate Nietzsche and Marx. Both were aimed at dissolving the relgious bonds that held Christendom together. Both were embraced by Jews and others who would complete that work for their own ends.
[I]DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
I'll put in yet another plug for David Sloan Wilson's "Darwin's Cathedral" - a book that mwdallas rightly urges upon us all.
That book removed any lingering doubt from my mind that the only hope we have of survival as a race is to unite in a common religion. That religion will of historical necessity be a revitalized Christianity. There is no way around this - and it we're dealing with a matter of life and death.
My position is this: one need not personally subscribe to the tenets of Christianity to be loyal to Christendom, but one absolutely must get behind the project of building up Christian institutions, and cease all anti-Christian propaganda.
All else only lends aid and comfort to our enemies.
Walter[/QUOTE]
2003-10-05 07:28 | User Profile
One more point Walter, I have read the "Protocols" and they do not mention Nietzsche. Unless you can provide a quote -- and I'm not even sure about Marx. Nietzsche was of good Saxon racial stock and loathed the "commune" (i.e., socialism).
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Exactly.
Say what you will about the authenticity of the Protocols, but the genius who created them was right to equate Nietzsche and Marx. Both were aimed at dissolving the relgious bonds that held Christendom together. Both were embraced by Jews and others who would complete that work for their own ends.
[I]DESTRUCTIVE EDUCATION
My position is this: one need not personally subscribe to the tenets of Christianity to be loyal to Christendom, but one absolutely must get behind the project of building up Christian institutions, and cease all anti-Christian propaganda.
All else only lends aid and comfort to our enemies.
Walter[/QUOTE]
2003-10-05 07:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]With all due respect Walter, I would much prefer a revival of the religion of Odinism and the Norse gods. At least I have a biological connection to them, since these glorious gods were worshipped by my Northern European ancestors. The Norse gods are part of my racial heritage, the same cannot be said of a fundamentally alien faith that has been force-fed to us for centuries. Actually, there is a substantial Pagan revival in Europe. I welcome this revival of idigenous European spirituality. Alain de Benoist is definitely right on this point.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotan]Donar[/url] mit uns!
We are definately reviving our old cutlure. [url=http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C1satr%FA]ÃÂsatrú[/url] is a recognized religion in some countries. I agree. I rather burn in hell with my ancestors than go to heaven with the chosenî.
2003-10-05 07:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]One more point Walter, I have read the "Protocols" and they do not mention Nietzsche. Unless you can provide a quote -- and I'm not even sure about Marx. Nietzsche was of good Saxon racial stock and loathed the "commune" (i.e., socialism).[/QUOTE]
I did quote it, above.
Here it is again.
[I]3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM. [/I]
Walter
2003-10-05 08:14 | User Profile
Well, Darwin and Nietzsche were brilliant Aryans and I'm glad that they had, have, much success. They have both done a great deal for the advancement of science and philosophy, I doubt that the Special People helped them in any way, that would be out of character -- helping the goyim, I mean.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I did quote it, above.
Here it is again.
[I]3. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the GOYIM. [/I]
Walter[/QUOTE]
2003-10-05 08:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]Well, Darwin and Nietzsche were brilliant Aryans and I'm glad that they had, have, much success. They have bothe done a great deal for the advancement of science and philosophy, I doubt that the Special People helped them in any way, that would be out of character -- helping the goyim, I mean.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree that Darwin was a great scientist, and while I don't have much use for Nietzsche's "philosophy" he was certainly a writer of towering stature, and credit should be given where due.
But the point remains that Jews latched on to our own revolution against the Church and used it to destroy us.
I urge you to read "Darwin's Cathedral." This book really is, at least for me, a Darwinist argument for a unified religion for any self-identified group.
I contend that our religion must be a revitalized Christianity. Certainly the neo-Pagan religions alluded to above make no sense for our group purposes, as their adoption would entail the rejection of our glorious 2,000 years of Christian cultural.
I also point out that the only ideology that ever actually united Europe - albeit imperfectly - was Christianity. Pagan Europe was an atomized Europe, at least after Rome. Only the Church saved us from the mixed-race Arabs and the Turks.
Nazism and Marxism only divided us against ourselves.
We need to build on our history, and not reject it. That means Christianity.
There's really no way around it.
Regards,
Walter
2003-10-05 08:53 | User Profile
The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no way of getting it back in.
The West (especially Europe) is leaving Christianity in a hurry, this process is irreversible. A Christian revival is a pipe dream. Race realists in Europe are overwhelmingly secular.
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Oh, I agree that Darwin was a great scientist, and while I don't have much use for Nietzsche's "philosophy" he was certainly a writer of towering stature, and credit should be given where due.
But the point remains that Jews latched on to our own revolution against the Church and used it to destroy us.
I urge you to read "Darwin's Cathedral." This book really is, at least for me, a Darwinist argument for a unified religion for any self-identified group.
I contend that our religion must be a revitalized Christianity. Certainly the neo-Pagan religions alluded to above make no sense for our group purposes, as their adoption would entail the rejection of our glorious 2,000 years of Christian cultural.
I also point out that the only ideology that ever actually united Europe - albeit imperfectly - was Christianity. Pagan Europe was an atomized Europe, at least after Rome. Only the Church saved us from the mixed-race Arabs and the Turks.
Nazism and Marxism only divided us against ourselves.
We need to build on our history, and not reject it. That means Christianity.
There's really no way around it.
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
2003-10-08 02:46 | User Profile
QUOTE=RitterMy posistion is this: I seek truth, regardless. I wont be loyal to Christendom (no such thing), when the holy books of that faith say the jews are the chose people, that israel will be saved in the end of days, that enemies of israel are enemies of God, and if one doesn't worship the monotheistic representation of the polytheistic Elohim pantheon and the El Shaddai leader. It is a total fake superstition, which only limits us and divides us.
Dude, you've been reading Hal Lindsey way too much.
I said above that there is no such a thing as Christiandom, anymore. That can be interpreted in a few ways. Christianity is so divided it has more branches than a tree. Christianity has a history of division.
Gee is that because Christianity is an international faith. Christianity adopts itself according to the traditions of each of the countries its in.
The basic message of christianity is love thy neighbor, the lord came to save all, and more of this altruistic, man-kind equality, peace on earth stuff. It doesn't go with Europe, it never has! If we continue to hang onto it, it we mean the death of european man. Christianity is expanding into Africa, Asian (expecially India) at an astonding rate. Will you consider these your christian brothers? Are Ethiopians your brothers? They have one of the oldest christian populations.
Yes they are Christian brothers. But that does mean we accept them into our civil society. Traditionalist Christian thinkers always stated that having society based on ethnic/racial kinship was the best way to preserve social stability.
It is out-date, it is false, and most importantly, it doesn't fit with the future of European man; unless you want the death of European man.[/QUOTE]
yawn. This has to be the stupidest rant I've ever heard against Christianity. Ritter clearly shows off his ignorance of Christian teachings and instead relies heavily on Hal Lindsey types(which is typical of Atheists). Atheism often comes about out of ignorance of religious teachings. Sad really!
2003-10-08 02:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]The toothpaste is out of the tube and there's no way of getting it back in.
The West (especially Europe) is leaving Christianity in a hurry, this process is irreversible. A Christian revival is a pipe dream. Race realists in Europe are overwhelmingly secular.[/QUOTE]
Don't tell me we're starting with this nonsense again. Just like fighting communism is only delaying the inevitable trumiph of the workers paradise.
With all due respect Walter, I would much prefer a revival of the religion of Odinism and the Norse gods. At least I have a biological connection to them, since these glorious gods were worshipped by my Northern European ancestors. The Norse gods are part of my racial heritage, the same cannot be said of a fundamentally alien faith that has been force-fed to us for centuries. Actually, there is a substantial Pagan revival in Europe. I welcome this revival of idigenous European spirituality. Alain de Benoist is definitely right on this point.
Friederich has just proven my view that many neo-pagans are nothing more than Euro-centric Jews. Rather than reject Christianity based on its teachings, we must reject it because its not "kosher" enough for the white European race.
And as for being forced-fed, it should be noted that more European nationalist rally around the banner of national Christian saints than they do to old pagan gods. This is especially true with the Slavic and Cetlic peoples. So this nonsense that all Racial realists are secular is innacurate and you know it!
2003-10-16 04:10 | User Profile
What is a "Euro-centric Jew"? :holiday:
White Nationalism is fundamentally tribal; Christianity is universal in outlook.
2003-10-16 04:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=friedrich braun]What is a "Euro-centric Jew"? :holiday:
White Nationalism is fundamentally tribal; Christianity is universal in outlook.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/eastern.html[/url] ** All the rites of the Catholic Church also hold the same dogmas; they are unequivocally united in faith and moral teachings, for they are all part of one Holy Mother Church. Yet their policies and practices often differ according to custom. This is a good and healthy thing; it shows that the One Truth of God can be celebrated in many different ways by various cultures.**
Yes Christianity is universal, but universal in the fact that it can adopt to each and every culture. Universal does not neccessarily mean uniform.
** [url]http://www.truecatholic.org/pope/condemnationsbypius13.htm[/url]
No matter how well such a universal state is composed it can never provide proper care for the citizens of the world as natural law requires. There must be independent and sovereign states. Those states must be composed by the rules of natural law. They have ideals and a purpose all their own. They have, so to say, a personality which makes the citizens different in each state. The esprit de corps of the Japanese differs from that of the Chinese. The esprit de corps of the Germans differ from that of the Italians. It is a common and necessary way people want to conduct themselves.
(further down at the end)
Our Lord Jesus Christ was born at a time when there was a one world government under Caesar. His Church was birthed during the same era. By the directions and divine assistance of the Church that One World Government ended, and the Christian social order with sovereign states filled the earth. Once again, if the world generally becomes Catholic the slip into the slavery of the now encroaching New World Order of the One World Government can be stopped, and once again sovereign states can fill the world. In that form of civil order God ordained that men work out their eternal salvation, and that is their one and only reason for being on this earth.**
** [url]http://www.duke.org/library/race/christianity_nationalism.html[/url]
Christian authors repeatedly stated that all who accept Jesus Christ as their savior are one in Christ. Yet, this is meant in a mystical/spirtual sense, not in a social, political or racial sense. That this is indeed the case is proven by the fact that the New Testament accepts the institution of slavery (Col 3: 22-25). The master and slave could both attain eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, but in the earthly realm there is still the distinction between them. (This writer believes that human slavery is an evil institution which should be abolished for all time.)
In a spiritual/mystical sense, New Testament Christianity is indeed "multiracial." It teaches that all men and women, regardless of their race or nationality, will be granted eternal life if they adhere to the teachings of the Bible. However, the New Testament in no way implies that whites--or any race for that matter--must forcibly integrate with other races and negate their collective racial/cultural identities.**
** [url]http://www.cwmebwy.fsnet.co.uk/barry/christianity_and_nationalism.htm#nt[/url]
If Paul took such pride in his nationality, how can we reconcile this with Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28, where he writes: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus"? This verse has been used by many to argue that the distinction between Jew and Gentile has been removed and that now both are the same, thereby denying the importance of the nation as a separate entity. However, this verse also refers to male and female, slave and free. Though these are equal in the sense that neither has priority in God's sight, the physical differences still remain. Men and women are not the same, though they have equal priority in the Kingdom of God. In the same way, Jews and Gentiles are not the same.7 The national difference remains. Therefore this verse should not be used to argue against the validity of separate nations. "Yet the children of God through faith still bear the marks of different cultures, still retain sexual and related personality distinctions, still exist in given communities with particular social structures."8
The book of Revelation hints that the grouping of humanity into separate nations is not confined to the present order, but will continue for eternity. Revelation 21:24, 26 says of the New Jerusalem: "The nations shall walk by its light... The glory and honour of the nations will be brought into it." The various nations and cultures which make up the rich diversity of humanity will have a place in God's kingdom.
It seems, then, that both the Old and New Testaments justify the existence of nations as a God-ordained part of human existence. **
So clearly Traditional Christianity and nationalism are fully compatible!