← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · All Old Right

Define Judeo-Christian

Thread ID: 10691 | Posts: 77 | Started: 2003-10-23

All Old Right [OP]

2003-10-23 18:16 | User Profile

Looking for a detailed definition. This mean Protestants like Methodists, etc. What other kind of Christian is there? Anti J-C the same as anti-Protestant?

I've seen a post that equates Protestants to shit, and just want to make sure I've got the message straight. Is that a minority or majority view around here and in WN circles in general?

Agrippa

2003-10-23 20:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I've seen a post that equates Protestants to shit, and just want to make sure I've got the message straight. Is that a minority or majority view around here and in WN circles in general?[/QUOTE]

I can just speak for my own, but I never said that Protestantism in general is just bad for Europeans. But Calvinism, and thats for sure, must be the invention of Satan if Satan exists.

madrussian

2003-10-23 20:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=All Old Right] I've seen a post that equates Protestants to shit[/QUOTE]

Triple shit, to be exact:

Judeo-"Christianity" = :dung: :dung: :dung: :disgust: :yucky:

Are you equating Protestanism to Judeo-"Christianity"?

All Old Right

2003-10-23 21:10 | User Profile

Agrippa: Let the adults talk now. I have you on ignore until you prove worth reading.

Agrippa

2003-10-23 21:16 | User Profile

Interesting if you want a proof if you ignore my posts.

Oh well, just sorry for my bad English. But, I got good reasons for thinking like that about mainstream Calvinism from the time he appeared. I said enough in other threads, same is true for others.

Protestantism is not just Calvinisms you know? Thats what I wanted to say with my last post.

And if I look at the world today and see what Calvinism did or is at least partially responsible for, I can just say he must be bad.

BTW, never heard about humour?

Texas Dissident

2003-10-23 21:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=All Old Right]Is that a minority or majority view around here and in WN circles in general?[/QUOTE]

From the white nationalists that I've been exposed to, I would say it is definitely a majority view. Consider that most are radical atheists on the par of O'Hare and one of their fundamental principles is the complete eradication of Christianity on every level. Hence, the term 'judeo-Christian' is repeatedly brought up and used as a hammer to bash all Christendom as being a tool of the jews, jewish-lackey, etc. ad nauseum.

But that's just my experience.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-23 21:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]From the white nationalists that I've been exposed to, I would say it is definitely a majority view. Consider that most are radical atheists on the par of O'Hare and one of their fundamental principles is the complete eradication of Christianity on every level. Hence, the term 'judeo-Christian' is repeatedly brought up and used as a hammer to bash all Christendom as being a tool of the jews, jewish-lackey, etc. ad nauseum.

But that's just my experience.[/QUOTE]

You're not alone in that experiance Tex! I've seen the same thing.

All Old Right

2003-10-23 21:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Triple shit, to be exact:

Judeo-"Christianity" = :dung: :dung: :dung: :disgust: :yucky:

Are you equating Protestanism to Judeo-"Christianity"?[/QUOTE] No. But some do, and that's what I am asking here and over at SF(not allowed to ask over there).

What is, if there is one, the general concensus in WN circles on this matter of Judeo-Christians? A step further, what is the general view of religion regarding WNs? Or resources discussing this issue? [url]http://fff.fathom.org/links/Society/Religion/[/url] Then there's this... [url]http://biblebelievers.org.au/judeochr.htm[/url] The definitions in this country are getting all messed up so nobody hardly knows what anyone means anymore.

All Old Right

2003-10-23 21:56 | User Profile

But that's just my experience.[/QUOTE] Wow. I had no idea. That explains a lot. That's my experience thus far also. That wasn't a view of the WWII era nazis, was it? Yeah, I know I'm ignorant. Is it safe to say OD is not set up as a WN board, but SF is? I'm just trying to figure out who's who. Or, is ther a single descriptive term for OD members?

PM me if you guys want. I'm no trying to stir any pot around here.

Mithras

2003-10-23 22:11 | User Profile

I think the endless divisions of Christianity are sad. It's not the letter of the law that is important but the spirit of the law. So long as you are racially aware and do not worship israel or the jews than you are a good Christian no matter what silly label you attach to the word. The evangelicals however have been known to be the biggest supporters of israel and are sabotaging their own prophecy as to falsify it by self-fulfilling it. And while they (the majority of them) are doing this the whole world is going to shit. There is a major nuclear arms race, and this one is worse than the US-SU cold war because israel is crazy enough to actually use the weapons, and also ZOG USA of course has no reservations against using nukes to defend the jews. Do I think the world should end for israel? The jew must be exercised from the equation.

golfball

2003-10-23 23:30 | User Profile

Judeo-Christianity is a bastardized, perverted form of Christianity that is submissive to Jews and the Jews agenda. Judeo-Christians preach "Love and Tolerance" for our fellow man. In reality, it means turn away from a Holy God and His Son, Jesus Christ and submit to the Jew and jewish ideas for the sake of America. Tolerance is a Jewish concept, as is integration and other destructive social policies.

Judeo-Christians worship "Tolerance" more than they worship a Holy, Intolerant God. Judeo-Christians promote turning former Christian, God fearing churches into racial cesspools of integrated congregations with tolerance and love for queers and pedophiles. Mixed congregations promote racial miscegenation among the followers of their made up god of "Love and Tolerance"

Real Christians are not so easily fooled, as the Holy Bible says that Jesus comes with a sword. God and Jesus are against race mixing and integration. God and Jesus are against queers and homosexuals. God and Jesus are against pedophiles and those that prey upon children. The Holy Ghost sees all of this filth and corruption, and will be there on Judgement Day.

Judeo-Christians lead the un-wary down the road to Hell and Destruction.

The Judeo-Christian uses the name of Jesus Christ to deceive men, women, and little defenseless children. Yes, deceive children, all in the name of Jesus Christ.

Judeo-Christians are the Apostate that is spoken of in the Holy Bible.

The Judeo-Christians and their churches are very well described in the New Testament book of 2 Peter Chapter 2, ALL OF IT.

By the way, Judeo-Christian is a term coined AFTER World War Two. ( The reference to this word from the 1890's does not indicate the spelling Judeo-Christian. )

Everytime we see an IDIOT get on national T.V. and scream that America was built on "Judeo-Christian" principals, we know that the idiot's mouth is full of lies.

All Old Right

2003-10-24 00:50 | User Profile

I know self-righteous, amateur or professional, preachers do a whole lot of damage. So, I can understand some suspicion out there. It's nothing I haven't experienced. Just as God did not force anything on me, but waited for me to ask(free will). I try to follow that example. There's a tendancy for bad people to hide behind good labels.

I agree that too many Christian churches are footstools for the jews. Thanks for the replies. Good insight given.

Agrippa

2003-10-24 00:53 | User Profile

I personally think that without Calvinism the world would have not been handed over to Judaism, capitalism, radical liberalism and hyper-individualism/egoism.

This ideology was accepting social unbalance, false individual decisions, and the idea of "all humans are equal".

There is no way to have a collective but rational society of kinsmen in the system of modern Calvinism. If I look at the Northern countries, Sweden, Denmark and Prussia before 1945, they had very good moral, the Protestantism was grown in the body of the folk, and not always in a bad way.

So while this Northern Lutheran Protestantism had not just bad results before he was changed by Jews and USrael, it was a totally other thing with Calvinism.

Calvinism was never useful for a collective on the long run, and in fact he corrupted always the mind of the people he influenced, and that in a similar way Jewry did.

Both are accepting a capitalistic materialistic view on the world, and only accepting the holy books as further moral structure. The liberal-capitalism was not born in the US by chance, it was the destiny of this country to spread this unnatural and evil ideology all over the world.

The Calvinist not just didnt resist the Jews, they fought in greater parts WITH THEM for a similar goal. So its wrong to say this Calvinist Elite was just abused, if, then just some ordinary people were abused. The liberal-capitalistic establishment was never too much divided in USrael, both, Calvinist and Jews not just accepted greed, they even promoted it and defended it with praedestination of the individual in Calvinism, and praedestination for Jewish folk in Jewry.

Both are arrogant and sick in their superficial ideology.

Christendom was weak before Calvinism too, but Calvinism is just perverted Christendom. All good things dead and just the worst are not just kept but unnatural strong.

Christendom is just a simple religion, and every religion has for me to do 2 things: 1. To fit in reality at least in that parts which are made clear in the religion and consider moral. 2. To be good for the collective which is believing in it and for the development of mankind on the long run.

Looking on modern Neoliberalism and the challenge to keep our collectives alive, and judging the past, I can just definetely say: Unchanged Christendom is not useful, and Calvinism in special is something like Jewry which has to be changed or destroyed.

Agrippa

2003-10-24 01:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE]There's a tendancy for bad people to hide behind good labels.[/QUOTE]

That, and that Christendom makes you weak against non-believers are too of the major critiques everybody, even believers should see.

The question is, is Christendom even Earth based? I say no, and in fact in never was. At the beginning of Christendom the moral was so strict that everybody was a sinner, but then, the people accepted that you have to make some concessions to reality. That happened in the middle age but was going to far. Because of this fact and because of social changes Protestantism was getting his chance. While Luther was at least partially rational, sometimes even much more than the catholic church of that time, Calvin and his successors were people which were doing two things:

They made up a personal moral of Ur-Christendom, which was by no means Earth based, but because they were modern citizens in another way they promoted individualism and greed too. They said the diluted are the destined people, and they earn what is just, they get rich. So they made it impossible to judge greed like it was common in Christendom before, and they made some rational social changes impossible because of their superficial defending of their principles with using the bible.

friedrich braun

2003-10-24 05:13 | User Profile

The best discussion (to my knowledge) of Christianity and the White race can be found on the American Renaissance site (I especially would like to focus your attention on Edwin Clark's essay -- the last one of the four essays).

"Christianity Pro and Con The AR readers' survey, published in the July-August, 1997, issue, revealed considerable disagreement among subscribers about the effects of Christianity on the struggle to preserve Western Civilization. AR itself takes no position on this question, but in this special AmRen.com feature, four readers offer various views. The Masters article and the Craig article appear in the September issue. The Clark and McDaniel articles are exclusive to AmRen.com."

[url]http://www.amren.com/xtian.htm[/url]

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-24 06:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]The best discussion (to my knowledge) of Christianity and the White race can be found on the American Renaissance site (I especially would like to focus your attention on Edwin Clark's essay -- the last one of the four essays). [/QUOTE]

Not that one again! I've refuted his arguments so many times. I even refuted his claim that there was no such thing as universalism in the Greco-Roman world. Obiviosuly he never heard of the 4th century BC cynic Diogenes, who uttered the famous phrase "I am a citizen of the world", which to this day is a favorite quote for globalists. As for no class struggles, well theres the leftist hero Spartacus, "the finest man in all Ancient history" as Marx called him.

I'm not going to repeat myself but I've refuted this article almost point by point. I even had to resort to 18th century philosophy of art to do so.

friedrich braun

2003-10-24 06:20 | User Profile

You "refuted" diddley, perun.

Let people read those fine essays and make up their own minds.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-24 06:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]You "refuted" diddley, perun.[/QUOTE]

:lol: Man I've already been engaged in 2 flame wars here so far in the past 48 hours, and we now have a potential third. Man, people here must really hate me or something. :lol:

Nice try at blowing off all my arguments against Clark, but the fact still remains his essay against Christianity is overly simplistic and historically inaccurate. Rather than taking a real hard look at the situation, he just takes the easy way out and blames Christianity for everything wrong. Oh no, Rome and Greece never did anything wrong. It was just those bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad very bad Christians**. :blow:

Okiereddust

2003-10-24 11:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Agrippa]I personally think that without Calvinism the world would have not been handed over to Judaism, capitalism, radical liberalism and hyper-individualism/egoism.

This ideology was accepting social unbalance, false individual decisions, and the idea of "all humans are equal".

There is no way to have a collective but rational society of kinsmen in the system of modern Calvinism........

Calvinism was never useful for a collective on the long run, and in fact he corrupted always the mind of the people he influenced, and that in a similar way Jewry did.

The Calvinist not just didnt resist the Jews, they fought in greater parts WITH THEM for a similar goal.......

Both are arrogant and sick in their superficial ideology.

Christendom was weak before Calvinism too, but Calvinism is just perverted Christendom. All good things dead and just the worst are not just kept but unnatural strong. [/QUOTE]

I don't have time to go over all of your almost completely misinformed post abouy Calvinism and Christianity. Just let me say that your thesis that Calvinism is basically responsible for judeophilia in Christianity is completely contridictory to the historical record. Dispensationalism arose as a heresy against orthodox Calvinism.

There are many good links we've discussed in the past on this, in the dispensationalism thread, as well as many other discussions on this in general. Two in particular links which show the vacuousness of yours and other attacks on Calvinism as the origin of judeophilia are

[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6444]Anti-Semitism,Reconstruction,and Dispensationalism[/url]

and

[url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showthread.php?t=6451]Anti-Semitism: A Reformed Response (Book Review)[/url]

While leftists have broader philosophical grounds for opposition to Christianity, most hostility to Christianity and Calvinism in particular among rightists is just based on ignorance and crudity, as Christianity is basically conservative and traditional. The decline of Christianity among far-rightists, which does as a general movement from what I see from here and elsewhere to be somewhat of a trend, is arguably both symptom and contributory to the general decline in rightism and nationalism in the western world. The agnostic mind is more readily attracted to leftism, and even when starting on the right is easily moved to quasi-Bolshevism, as with today's Strasserites and National Bolshevics.

Maxim

2003-10-24 12:54 | User Profile

Sorry for butting in, me being new and all, but i have always thought Calvin was a misspelling of Cohen...

Zoroaster

2003-10-24 13:55 | User Profile

The True Israel of God Dispensational or New Covenant Theology, Which is Right? Pastor K. Kirkland Valdez Apostolic Church, Valdez, Alaska

[Transcribed and edited from cassette tape. Preached in Florida, 1995]

The Jewish interpretation of history refers to the "first Temple period," which was the period of time before the destruction of Jerusalem in 600 BC. The temple was destroyed and the Jews were uprooted out of the land for their apostasy and idolatry, they had blended Babylonian witchcraft and sorcery into their religion. They were carried away, eventually a remnant returned during the "second Temple period" when they rebuilt the temple during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah. The second Temple period lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

According to the Jews there is an ongoing restoration where they are being restored back with God in the promised land, known as the Zionist restoration. They look forward to the Kingdom, the time when they will rule the world. Every Gentile will be their slave. They believe the Bible teaches this, the rabbis teach the same in their Talmud and Kabbalah.

Our Dispensational brethren today believe it much the same way. They see history in that very same pattern, but the only difference is they believe the Church is kind of a side show. The Church, a parenthesis, with all the action to take place among the Jews. The Dispensationalist believe there will be a pre-tribulation rapture that will swish them out of here while God turns back to his true love: the Zionist Restoration of the Jews. The purpose of the tribulation is supposedly to correct the many errors of the Jews these long years they have rejected God. They are to get straightened out during the tribulation, God, preparing them to rule the world during the millennium. Then, Jesus will be their king, and, they in turn will rule the rest of the world. The Dispensationalist doctrine is also the Pre-Trib doctrine.

I want to take a few minutes to drive home a very important point. Many don't seem to realize that when the rapture takes place is only one part of this. People are coming to the realization that there is not a pre-trib rapture. ThereÃ¢â¬â¢s not even a mid-trib rapture, but the Lord in fact comes after the Tribulation, and they feel like they have conquered all the End-Time issues. But that is only part of this truth. In fact pre-trib theory is actually but a subset of Dispensationalism. Dispensational doctrine is built and based upon how you view the church and how you view the Jew.

In the non-Dispensational belief of history and eschatology, indeed there was the "first temple" time period, and indeed the Jews did come back to Palestine. And there was a restoration. Where the non-Dispensationalist differ is this: Dispensational folks teach the restoration period is taking place right now, when in fact it has already happened. The Restoration mentioned in the many scriptures which the dispensational folks say is ongoing right now in the Middle East actually was fulfilled when the Jews were restored back to the land during pre-Christian times. The restoration to the land of Israel, however, was only the beginning, the Messiah was to complete it. The ultimate purpose in being brought back to the land was spiritual. See Ezekiel 37.

When Jesus came, there was more than just a restoration of the land, he dealt with the spiritual. Jesus Christ came to this earth on a spiritual mission. When Nicodemos dropped by, Jesus didnÃ¢â¬â¢t tell him anything about building some political KINGDOM and ruling the Jewish world. .He told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the KINGDOM OF GOD. The Jews belief about the kingdom of God today is the same as what they believed back then. Political, not spiritual.

They thought their Messiah would come and they would have political sovereignty over the world and they would rule the world through their Messiah, but when Jesus came he brought them nothing of the kind. He told Nicodemus in so many words, "You donÃ¢â¬â¢t even know what the Kingdom of God is, and except youÃ¢â¬â¢re born again you canÃ¢â¬â¢t even see it". Then he went a little bit further and expounded upon it and told him about the need to be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. No matter what else we might say about eschatology you must understand what the overriding theme really is.

The dispensationalist doctrine teaches that the Lord is going to rapture the church out and then the Jews, in the tribulation, will have a different form of doctrine and salvation. Gentiles? Well, their salvation is getting their heads cut off and all kinds of other theories. No, I want you to know that what Jesus said will stand and will continue to stand. "Except a man is born of the water and of the spirit he, cannot see the kingdom of God." Whether he is as Nicodemus, a Jew, Chinese or whatever he is, heÃ¢â¬â¢s got to be born into the Kingdom of God. The pre-trib theory has no bearing on it. There is only one plan of salvation and no one, Jew or Gentile, will be saved any other way.

`Jesus came to bring about a spiritual restoration. He brought the New Covenant into the world in his blood (Matt. 26:28). Through Jesus Christ, the Apostolic church is the new Israel of God. Jesus Christ himself was the true Israel. He was everything that Israel was supposed to be, but never was. They never lived up to what they were supposed to be, until Jesus came, and, he, as the promised seed of Abraham, was the true Israel. One of the metaphors the Jews used for their people was the vine (Jeremiah 2:21), but I want you to know when Jesus Christ came he made it clear that HE was the vine (John 15). He said, in effect, "I am the vine. Ye are the branches, I am the true Israel, the Israel of God." It doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t stop there, because the church is his body, he is the head of it. The church is therefore, also the Israel of God. It is the true Israel, the chosen people.

Jews and Dispensationalists use the term "chosen people" so loosely. Does anybody ever stop to think what Jews were chosen for? They were chosen to be a holy people - in the midst of a wicked, perverted and pagan world. They were chosen to be the witnesses of the One God in the midst of a world that believed in numerous gods. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s what they were chosen for. They were chosen to bring forth the Messiah into the world. Now the church, the true church, has become the chosen people because we stand for these things (or should) - holiness and the oneness of God. Hear O, ISRAEL, hear O, Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. The church is the new Israel, the true Israel of God.

These are some of the basic points of the pre-trib, dispensational theory. You need to really understand these basics. A lot of folks think that when you deal with prophecy, you have to get in there and start talking about horns and heads, and thunders. All that is not important until you understand who the church really is. If you get that right then you begin to interpret things in the book of Revelation right. Otherwise youÃ¢â¬â¢re going to come up with the wrong answers. The church is the true Israel of God.

In AD 70 the destruction of Jerusalem happened as Jesus prophesied it would, as Daniel's 70 weeks prophecy said that it would. The middle ages came and went, with all itÃ¢â¬â¢s confusion and darkness. Yet we are in the Apostolic church today and the church is still the true Israel of God. There will be a "catching away of the saints", but it will take place after the tribulation. The church is predestined from before the foundation of the world to play the chief role of the end times. We should feel awed because we have been selected to be part of the chosen people.

In the Millennium, the 1000 year period after the tribulation, the church replaces the synagogue just as the church replaced the law, along with the rest of their system, including their animal sacrifices. When Jesus Christ came, he terminated and abrogated the law. The church has replaced the old covenant. Let me say that again - the church has replaced the old covenant.

It is false doctrine to teach that perhaps thereÃ¢â¬â¢s a possibility the Jews can make it some other way. There is only one valid covenant, and it works, and the Bible doesnÃ¢â¬â¢t tell us about any other covenant to be given before the coming of the Lord. Any other suggestion is false doctrine. Red heifers and turtle doves wonÃ¢â¬â¢t do it. The old covenant is done away with. It has been replaced. You will spend a lot of time at the Christian book store looking at the prophecy shelf before you will find anything about what IÃ¢â¬â¢m teaching. This pre-trib, dispensational stuff is what they are all promoting.

Unless you are grounded in the truth you will be deceived by all the rhetoric and fluff. I want you to know there is only ONE hope, ONE body, ONE spirit (Eph. 4:4). We are looking for that one blessed hope. That one "appearing of the great God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:13, 14).

ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s the hope, the one hope, the only hope. There is no such thing as a different hope for the Jews. Hear me now, there is ONE body, thatÃ¢â¬â¢s the church. Do you know whatÃ¢â¬â¢s in that ONE body? Jews and Gentiles. In one body. IÃ¢â¬â¢m not against the Jews, IÃ¢â¬â¢m for them. I want them to get in the Kingdom of God - and be saved the one and only way.

As long as we teach there is a possibility they can be saved some other way, weÃ¢â¬â¢re not really their friends. When you read their secret material, youÃ¢â¬â¢ll find if there is any thing they are against itÃ¢â¬â¢s the "replacement" idea. They donÃ¢â¬â¢t care if we get the Holy Ghost or any other belief we may have, but if you believe that the church has replaced their covenant, friend, they really donÃ¢â¬â¢t like that. But, it's still the truth, nonetheless.

LetÃ¢â¬â¢s examine 3 major tenants of true eschatology (end times).

It should be based on Apostolic interpretation. Old testament prophecy is understood through the filter of the New Testament. Eschatology is based on the New Testament, not the Old. So many make the error of going back to read the prophecy of the Old Testament and bypass the New. Dispensational theory is based chiefly on the Old Testament, not what the apostles had to say.
Jesus Christ and the gospel have fulfilled and replaced the Abrahamic covenant. The Abrahamic covenant is no more unconditional than the New Covenant is. Obedience and faith has always been GodÃ¢â¬â¢s condition. There has never been any such thing as unconditional security. Adam and Eve found that out when the devil came along with his once saved always saved, unconditional security doctrine. He lied to them and they believed it. Dispensationalism is built on the lie of the devil. The devil himself found out he didnÃ¢â¬â¢t have eternal security when God kicked him out of heaven. But folks come along and teach that the Jews, because of what Abraham did, have unconditional security. Page after page of the prophecy of Jeremiah tells us that God did not let their theory stand. Jeremiah said God was going to uproot them. They never thought it could happen to them. But, they found out otherwise because of their apostasy.
Jesus Christ and the gospel fulfilled the prophesied Davidic covenant and kingdom, both now and in the future. The kingdom of God is not race, but grace. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s really what this is all about. Did you ever stop to think how contrary to the mind of God, that just because you happen to be of a certain blood line, or think you are, somehow that makes you GodÃ¢â¬â¢s favorite child. ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s what Jews believe, and the dispensationalists believe it. Those who teach a pre-tribulation rapture believe it.

John 1:11-13 (11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (12) But as many as received him, (his own didnÃ¢â¬â¢t receive him, but as many as received him did) to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: (13) Which were born, not of blood (race or bloodline), nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Even to them which believe on his name.

Whether youÃ¢â¬â¢re Red, Black, Yellow, White, or Brown, whatever you are, itÃ¢â¬â¢s not blood line. ItÃ¢â¬â¢s not race. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by what? Jesus Christ (John 1:17). We are talking about TRUTH. Real truth did not arrive on the scene until Jesus came. The dispensationalists have failed to realize that the Holy Ghost is the key.

Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

ThatÃ¢â¬â¢s what the kingdom of God is and they havenÃ¢â¬â¢t seen that. You would think that our Apostolic brethren would not be following along after the Dispensationalists, we should know better. DonÃ¢â¬â¢t you believe that you must have the Holy Ghost? The kingdom of God is not "postponed," the kingdom of God is the church, ruled over by Jesus Christ. The Dispensationalists believe that the kingdom of God was postponed, the church is kind of an accident in history.

The modern state, the nation of Israel, is an impostor kingdom. Modern day Talmudic, Kabbalist, Judaism is not the same as Old Testament Judaism. Not so, neither by genealogy or by ideology. TheyÃ¢â¬â¢re not even true blood line descendants. It would take a while to prove that, but they are really not. Neither is their doctrine the same as what Moses taught and the Old Testament people of God believed. Their ideology is Kabbalist. Occult and pagan. Here you have one of the most unknown facts around, and if the Dispensationalist were to know what the Kabbalah has to say they would know the Jew's ideology HAS to be terribly wrong. Truth is, the ideology of modern day Judaism has more to do with satanic doctrine than it does the Old Testament. Jesus called it "the synagogue of Satan," Rev. 2:9, 3:9. Their anticipated kingdom will be the kingdom of antichrist.

=========================================================== Some ministers of the gospel, a minority to be sure, with a God-given light, have the courage to preach a genuine form of Christianity. I have posted Pastor Kirkland's sermon again, since it's the best refutation I can find for the Judeo-Christian myth.

Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians who cling to the Old Testament and the Judeo-Christian myth are, in effect, masochists who makes idols of the alien destroyers of their race and culture.

-Z-

Patrick

2003-10-24 13:55 | User Profile

.....There is no such thing as "judeo"-Christianity; it is merely a contrivance by the antiChrist "jews" by which they took over true Christianity, and began in the fifteenth century to be realized...

....."...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo- Christian religion...There is not any similarity between the two concepts." (Rabbi Maggal, (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August, 1961)...

Maxim...

.....Very astute observation; Calvin was a "jew" who's "greatest" accomplishment for Christianity was to say that a "little bit" of usury was okay... he was the operative put into the protestant movement from the beginning by the RCC, which was already under sway of the antiChrist "jews"; they even managed to utilize the work done by Luther to their advantage, as a result...

Agrippa

2003-10-24 14:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Patrick].....There is no such thing as "judeo"-Christianity; it is merely a contrivance by the antiChrist "jews" by which they took over true Christianity, and began in the fifteenth century to be realized...

Maxim...

Yes, thats right usury was not accepted by the Catholic church for a very long time, and many of the first Protestants were middle class citizens, business men. Just think about it. In the North of Europe this was good for the economic development AND they were controlled moralic and in other ways.

In the Anglo-Saxon Calvinism the main things were always to be a superficial believer without thinking too much about the bible or your status quo, and to be diligent.

Its wrong to say that all Calvinist were Judaophil from the beginning, but in fact thats not the main point of my argumentation.

I dont say ALL Calvinists loved the Jews, but if they hate them, mainly because they were concurrence for them in business. :clap:

So as I said before it was very small step from a religious pro-judaic position which the Calvinist at least got more than the Catholic church and their agreement in business in America.

Both religions got a similar life concept, and in both religions the more liberal people are the business men, and the more conservatives are religious fanatics, but they dont really attack the greed of their OWN upperclass too much. Because they accept greed and usury to some extend.

These two mentalities are not to far from each other, thats the reason they could come into a symbiosis in USrael.

I mean do so few in US recognize that Liberal-Capitalism in itself is the wrong way? That this have had lead to what we see today in an amoralic consum-oriented hyperliberal lifestyle?

Just think about it. But its a huge difference to be against liberal capitalism and to be a Marxist. I'm for regulated collective oriented, leaded capitalism. But against the dumb idea the market control itself for the best of the majority. Thats just not true, and to believe in it, defines not just the economic freedom of the amoralic, but the personal and political destructive tendencies too.

You cant be a liberal capitalist and nationalist on the long run! You love the money of the plutocrazy or your folk!

We are not equal, we are not the same, but no state should be controlled as much by business combines and money as USrael, against the interest of so much. Leaded capitalism can be used and its development can be more controlled, liberal capitalism just leading to a fractionized, unsocial and on the long term in every way destructive society.

Continental Europeans saw that much better than people in the US, and thats not just by chance, of because of the great "freedom", thats mainly the influence of Calvinist and Jewish moral.

Walter Yannis

2003-10-24 14:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Walter Yannis talks about the church 'breathing with both lungs' again, but I note that a)he himself has taken refuge in a Presbyterian Church and b)would never acknowledge a 'first among equals' rank for the Pope, which is all Orthodoxy ever asked. [/QUOTE]

You lost me, oh Frosty One. When did I take refuge in a Presbyterian Church? I went to a couple of civic functions held in the basement of a Presbyterian Church, but that was about it. It was raining one of those nights, so I guess it could be said that I "took refuge in a Presbyterian church," but it seems to be pushing the point a bit. And besides, that was years ago.

I think you underestimate my admiration for Orthodoxy, which I've expressed here several times, as well as my deep contempt for many of the trappings of the post - Vatican II RCC.

As to the primacy of the Pope, the issue is an old and complex issue, and the first step is to end the excommunication the Churches slapped on each other instead of allowing it to keep each other from Communion. The question is not really one of debate and compromise as you suggest, but rather of revealed Truth. The question is whether the Petrine ministry is what the Popes claim it is. I believe it is, and so do the Orthodox, although their formulation may differ. The successor of Peter has a charism that is unique. He is a sign of unity for Christendom, and yes, he is invested with ecclesiastical power. Most Orthodox agree on that much, which is enough to say with JPII that Rome and Constantinople are the two lungs of a single Church. But this is really an intramural discussion, and the truth be told we're not that far away from each other, at least in terms of doctrine. Worldly power, property and prestige are quite another thing.

I join you in exhorting all to investigate the beauty of Orthodoxy, which is truly the Light of the East, as JPII has taught us. The Orthodox have indeed kept full faith with Holy Tradition and the Sacraments, and this in the face of horrific persecution by the rapacious Turk. I especially ask my Protestant brothers in Christ to check out Orthodoxy, because this is really a step that we could take toward each other. Back toward Tradition. Back to the Sacrament of Unity and the Communion of the Saints. Back toward legitimate authority, and away from the solipcism that is modern Protestantism. It's all in Orthodoxy, and it's just a short step from Rome.

Hey, the Armenians bridged the gap very recently by signing a sort of peace agreement with Rome - this after 1700 (!) years of separation. I mean, here we have a traditional Church (and the Armenian Gregorian Church is traditional with a capital "T") that is in communion with both Rome and Constantinople. We're not so far apart.

I agree that Protestantism, with its rejection of the Eucharist, bears the marks of Jewish infiltration. The Scriptures bear witness to this:

John 6 (emphasis added):

[QUOTE]52 [B]The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?[/B]53 [[I]Everybody got that? - Walter[/I]] Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, [I]Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.[/I] 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 [B]For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.[/B]56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.[B] 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?[/B][I] 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, [B]Doth this offend you?[/B]62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 [B]From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.[/B]67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.[/QUOTE]

Note that the story of the Last Supper isn't in John. It didn't need to be. John wrote his Gospel in the presence of the first three. His Gospel assumes that you know that story, but he adds another story that was left out of the others that I'm sure was aimed at refuting doubts about the tradition of the Eucharist that were actual even in his own day. John's teaching is clear, here. The Real Presence - the doctrine that we traditional Christians actually feast on the flesh of our Victim King, and drink his blood at every Sacrifice of the Mass - is the thing that separates the men from the boys. The followers of the Christ that actually lived accept this teaching. Those who reject the Real Presence and shrink from its savage implications replace the devine madness of the true Church with a dumbed-down idol of their own imaginings. Here John tells us that the very first followers of Jesus rebelled at the absolute madness of this teaching - and that only a few could accept it. And there he was, Peter, the "Rock" (ever wonder why they called him that?), the Big Dumb Fisherman, who got it. Peter, the first Priest of Christ. And His Vicar.

There it, folks.

If you do not hungrily feed on His Crucified Flesh and drink deeply of His Blood spilled for the sins of the world, you will surely die when you die.

This unites Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but separates both of these churches from Protestantism. Come back to us, brothers.

Walter

Agrippa

2003-10-24 15:01 | User Profile

Yannis the problem is, that the Catholic and Orthodox church got many failures too... And Lutheran Protestantism was always something different.

But whats saying this to us today? Nothing.

Today Catholicism and Luthern Protestantism are not the same like before 1945. Christian-social policy is not the same like before 1945 or even in 60s, not in Europe. So the problem is, the American Christian view had changed the Christians in Europe...Today the Catholic church got, as I stated before, just kept the bad things of before 1945, and lost the good. Just their social engagement is something good, but it is leading to no good results too because its not kin oriented.

Walter Yannis

2003-10-24 15:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I don't have time to go over all of your almost completely misinformed post abouy Calvinism and Christianity. Just let me say that your thesis that Calvinism is basically responsible for judeophilia in Christianity is completely contridictory to the historical record. Dispensationalism arose as a heresy against orthodox Calvinism.[/QUOTE]

I agree in part, but I must first point out that "orthodox Calivinism" is an oxymoron. That's because Calvinism is based on Sola Scriptura, the notion that every man has the right to interpret Scripture in his own way, which implicitly denies the very possibility of any normative Tradition that could contain any "orthodoxy."

There can be no real, authoritative "tradition" in Protestantism, obviously, since all are free to reject it at any time by simply opening their Scofield Bibles. We use terms like "the Reformed Tradition", because, well, we can't help it. Words fail us. How can one describe a continuous movement that knocks out from under itself the very possibility of any authority for its most central ideas as "tradition"? Obviously, we cannot. But we also grow weary of pointing out the obvious absurdity of it, so we let the oxymoron slide. We start using terms like the Calvinist Tradition. I do it myself, but I think it's healthy to point out from time to time that it's the tradition that really ain't.

The only arguably "orthodox" doctrine possible within the Calvinist system is an a priori rejection of all orthodoxy. But that's absurd. Get it? I really don't understand how anybody could hold such a patently absurd position, but anyway I'll let the point drop.

I agree that Dispensationalism is a particularly vile excresence of the Calvinist (ahem!) tradition. Let us not forget the very healthy writings of Luther himself on the question of our Elder Brothers in Faith - writings that are now rejected by the mainstream Lutheran Churches, who in good keeping with their own (this hurts!) tradition have no problem taking what they want of Luther and leaving the rest, 500 years of Protestant (insert you word here) notwithstanding.

Hey, guys, you can't deny the authority of Tradition and assert the right of everybody with a fourth grade education to interpret scripture and then profess surprise that you have 28,000 denominations and an atomized society. You also can't feign surprise that a coherent group like the Jews managed to infiltrate such an anti-traditionalist tradition [there I go again!] and turn such a deracinated collection of individuals to their own ends. It was bound to happen.

Walter

Agrippa

2003-10-24 15:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree in part, but I must first point out that "orthodox Calivinism" is an oxymoron. That's because Calvinism is based on Sola Scriptura, the notion that every man has the right to interpret Scripture in his own way, which implicitly denies the very possibility of any normative Tradition that could contain any "orthodoxy."

Walter[/QUOTE]

Very good Walter, applause!

If the traditional view of American Calvinist Protestants is they need just a bible which you interpret by yourself and a gun, you will hardly ever have a unified and strong tradition against the plutocracy. And in fact, Calvinism in itself had the seed to plutocracy, almost to the same extend it was in the Jewish religion. This two "traditions" (just think about what is Jewish now, and what was Jewish before the Talmud) are both responsible for mixing the poison of liberal-capitalism for the world. Reject this ideology or you fight your own folk and people, and not to forget, the good parts of the European cultural tradition.

Texas Dissident

2003-10-24 16:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I don't have time to go over all of your almost completely misinformed post abouy Calvinism and Christianity. Just let me say that your thesis that Calvinism is basically responsible for judeophilia in Christianity is completely contridictory to the historical record. Dispensationalism arose as a heresy against orthodox Calvinism.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, Okie.

While leftists have broader philosophical grounds for opposition to Christianity, most hostility to Christianity and Calvinism in particular among rightists is just based on ignorance and crudity, as Christianity is basically conservative and traditional. The decline of Christianity among far-rightists, which does as a general movement from what I see from here and elsewhere to be somewhat of a trend, is arguably both symptom and contributory to the general decline in rightism and nationalism in the western world. The agnostic mind is more readily attracted to leftism, and even when starting on the right is easily moved to quasi-Bolshevism, as with today's Strasserites and National Bolshevics.

Brilliant. These guys are basically anti-Jewish Bolsheviks. There's nothing conservative or traditional about them and how they all seem to end up here is a mystery to me.

Agrippa

2003-10-24 16:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, Okie.

Brilliant. These guys are basically anti-Jewish Bolsheviks. There's nothing conservative or traditional about them and how they all seem to end up here is a mystery to me.[/QUOTE]

Well TD say to me what you think about liberal-capitalism and your plutocracy? Are you a plutocrat or just a slave of them?

You dont see, or you dont want to see what lead to the catastrophy of USreal?

I'm as traditional as you are a traditional European. And I know organisations which exists about more than 150 years and are fighting for quite similar things I do now. At that time USrael doesnt really exist, and some parts of today USreal were just still only populated by indigineous people.

The conservative and neo-conservatives in US lost their roots, and now they wonder why they lose identity and ground and will be exterminated in near future if nothing changes. Well, you can betray yourself at every time...

Okiereddust

2003-10-24 16:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Agrippa]Very good Walter, applause!

And in fact, Calvinism in itself had the seed to plutocracy, almost to the same extend it was in the Jewish religion.This two "traditions" (just think about what is Jewish now, and what was Jewish before the Talmud) are both responsible for mixing the poison of liberal-capitalism for the world.

Not entirely true. Against some one also needs a stake for the heart. For such an advocate of rationalism, you sure have an irrational, quasi-Bolshevic vendeta against Christianity and Calvinism in particular. You obviously didn't read a word of what I wrote.

Weisbrot I think noted how so much of the attack on Calvinism is a subtle apologia for modern Judaism. Obviously its not just, or even princibly, the jews at fault for much of the western world. You can just hear the quiet "here here's" from the rabbi's in the background.

Agrippa

2003-10-24 16:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Not entirely true. Against some one also needs a stake for the heart. For such an advocate of rationalism, you sure have an irrational, quasi-Bolshevic vendeta against Christianity and Calvinism in particular. You obviously didn't read a word of what I wrote.

Do you really think just the bad, bad Jews alone could have done all of this? Really? In many countries were there were more Jews the public moral and integrity was better than in USreal even in the 19th century.

There is a similarity of the behaviour of Calvinist and Jewish establishment, be honest to yourself and accept it as a fact.

You can deny it and still stay just the Jews are responsible for all, but thats just not true.

If you want to change something and want to ban Jewish moral in US you have to change "your" own establishment of superficial Calvinists too, there is no other way.

I dont want to offend honest and honorous Calvinists which exists, sure, I know that. But there is always a difference between individual and collective. And the Calvinists as collective did a job like Jewry did in corrupting the Europeans mind. Its the same like it is with USreal today, indivduals can be decent, good forward looking people, but the state is shit. Same with Calvinism which was an instrument of liberal-capitalism and hyper-individualistic thoughts.

I assume you are a liberal-capitalist and hyper-individualist arent you?

Mithras

2003-10-24 16:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Zoroaster] Jesus Christ came to this earth on a spiritual mission. When Nicodemos dropped by, Jesus didn?t tell him anything about building some political KINGDOM and ruling the Jewish world. .He told him that unless he was born again he could not even see the KINGDOM OF GOD. The Jews belief about the kingdom of God today is the same as what they believed back then. Political, not spiritual.

They thought their Messiah would come and they would have political sovereignty over the world and they would rule the world through their Messiah, but when Jesus came he brought them nothing of the kind. He told Nicodemus in so many words, "You don?t even know what the Kingdom of God is, and except you?re born again you can?t even see it". Then he went a little bit further and expounded upon it and told him about the need to be baptized and filled with the Holy Ghost. No matter what else we might say about eschatology you must understand what the overriding theme really is. [/QUOTE]

And this provides us with another interpretation of the doomsday "prophecy." The jewish version is purely a materialist one. Why would God care so much about who rules over who? It is tradition that Magicians were the Kings, but the Kingdom of God is not of this earth. Therefore the prophecy deals with Magick, or more properly, what is referred to as the Philosophers' Stone, the Gold of the Philosophers, the Great Work, the Light of the Most High, and so on and so forth. Therefore all who place value in material things are not the true followers of the Law. To achieve the Holy Ghost or Holy Guardian Angel and be "born again" one must perform the Operation proper. Such salvation cannot be achieved by simply converting to Christianity or defending israel in order that Jesus may come down into the physical world. It is attained through the Angel. The jewish interpretation of the prophecy is therefore nothing short of blasphemy.

:1eye: :thumbsup:

Texas Dissident

2003-10-24 16:28 | User Profile

Belfast here we come!

Zoroaster

2003-10-24 17:05 | User Profile

TD:

Although I don't agree 100% with Walter, I do respect his intellect and his honesty. To say Walter has a "fanatical mind" is going beyond the pale, don't you think? Did Walter call you a fanatic? Name-calling and labelling are straight out of the Frankfurt School of Political Correctness, an institution you and Okie lampoon while you accuse your opponents, white nationalists, of employing the school's tactics to bash Christianity.

This forum is fast becoming a joke.

-Z-

Texas Dissident

2003-10-24 17:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Zoroaster]This forum is fast becoming a joke.[/QUOTE]

You know what, Zoroaster? I'm starting to agree with you.

Zoroaster

2003-10-24 17:14 | User Profile

Thanks Tex,

We can all use a kick in the butt now and then.

-Z-

friedrich braun

2003-10-24 17:26 | User Profile

"If you do not hungrily feed on His Crucified Flesh and drink deeply of His Blood spilled for the sins of the world, you will surely die when you die."

Walter: you're basically saying that Protestants are going to Hell.

That's not the teaching of Catholicism. Catholics consider Protestants as their brothers-in-Christ. As a matter of fact, the standard teaching of the Catholic Church is that Protestants ARE Catholics (yes, let me say that again: Catholic theologians consider Protestants to be part and parcel of the Catholic Church) [COLOR=Black]because of their common baptism (or through their common baptism)[/COLOR].

I will further say that I've personally heard Catholic priests refer to orthodox Protestants as members of the Catholic Church [COLOR=Red]who will be saved[/COLOR].

"One cannot charge with the sin of separation those who are born into these communities [Protestant church bodies] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers...All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."[CCC #818]

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You lost me, oh Frosty One. When did I take refuge in a Presbyterian Church? I went to a couple of civic functions held in the basement of a Presbyterian Church, but that was about it. It was raining one of those nights, so I guess it could be said that I "took refuge in a Presbyterian church," but it seems to be pushing the point a bit. And besides, that was years ago.

I think you underestimate my admiration for Orthodoxy, which I've expressed here several times, as well as my deep contempt for many of the trappings of the post - Vatican II RCC.

I agree that Protestantism, with its rejection of the Eucharist, bears the marks of Jewish infiltration. The Scriptures bear witness to this:

John 6 (emphasis added):

There it, folks.

If you do not hungrily feed on His Crucified Flesh and drink deeply of His Blood spilled for the sins of the world, you will surely die when you die.

This unites Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but separates both of these churches from Protestantism. Come back to us, brothers.

Walter[/QUOTE]

friedrich braun

2003-10-24 17:38 | User Profile

Moreover, since the Council of Florence, the Catholic Church has abandoned the idea that there's "no Salvation outside the Church" [url]http://www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm[/url]

friedrich braun

2003-10-24 17:55 | User Profile

Walter: when you're implying that Protestants are going to Hell, you're going outside Catholicism, and you are being a heretic.

golfball

2003-10-24 19:10 | User Profile

Could someone tell me which "Church" it was that pardoned, or absolved the Jews in their responsibility for the Death of Christ on the Cross?

Patrick

2003-10-24 19:32 | User Profile

.....That would be the RCC...

golfball

2003-10-24 19:44 | User Profile

That would not be the Protestant branch of Christianity.

I see.

Okiereddust

2003-10-24 22:28 | User Profile

Weisbrot I think noted how so much of the attack on Calvinism is a subtle apologia for modern Judaism. Obviously its not just, or even princibly, the jews at fault for much of the western world. You can just hear the quiet "here here's" from the rabbi's in the background.[QUOTE=Agrippa]Do you really think just the bad, bad Jews alone could have done all of this? Really? In many countries were there were more Jews the public moral and integrity was better than in USreal even in the 19th century.

Ah I see. So its actually just the Christians fault and the more Jews the merrier. In fact completely uncalvinist Israel must have the most public morality and integrity of all.

There is a similarity of the behaviour of Calvinist and Jewish establishment, be honest to yourself and accept it as a fact.

You can deny it and still stay just the Jews are responsible for all, but thats just not true.

If you want to change something and want to ban Jewish moral in US you have to change "your" own establishment of superficial Calvinists too, there is no other way. [/QUOTE]

So I see, its not really the jewish question, more like the Christian question.

If a few jews are bad, its probably because the Christians have corrupted them.

Isn't that exactly what the ADL says? How much do they pay you guys?

All Old Right

2003-10-24 22:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, Okie.

Brilliant. These guys are basically anti-Jewish Bolsheviks. There's nothing conservative or traditional about them and how they all seem to end up here is a mystery to me.[/QUOTE] That reality confused me when I first got here. I was looking for conservative insights and was shocked to see members hammering right wingers and mocking all conservatives(making no distinction of neocon or paleocon).

Not that the board still isn't excellent. Just surprised some are here since they appear so hostile to the theme of "traditional conservatism".

Okiereddust

2003-10-24 22:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Thank you, Okie.

Brilliant. These guys are basically anti-Jewish Bolsheviks. But are they really even anti-Jewish? It seems to me a lot of them spend most of their time attacking Christianity.

There's nothing conservative or traditional about them and how they all seem to end up here is a mystery to me.[/QUOTE]

Could it be the ADL? See [url=http://forums.originaldissent.com/showpost.php?p=63715&postcount=43]Post 43[/url]

I wonder if any of our posters use the same IP address as one of the four (New York, San Francisco, Paris, and Tel Aviv) that Daisy11 of Liberty Forum uses?

Texas Dissident

2003-10-24 22:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Could it be the ADL?[/QUOTE]

Dang, Okie. You know that's something that I hadn't even considered yet. Usually I'm not very conspiratorial minded, but now that you mention it their positions are very nuanced and particular. Just what I would expect from real ADL operatives.

Franco

2003-10-25 00:05 | User Profile

Well, this matter is pretty simple. If you are a Father Coughlin-type, fine, great. But if you are a JudeoChristian who is not "conserving" anything except Jewish ideas [i.e. your average TV preacher], then piss on ya!

Simple, itz! Which form of Christian are ya???

:king:

Okiereddust

2003-10-25 00:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Simple, itz! Which form of Christian are ya???

:king:[/QUOTE]Well, nothing in this world is simple, least of all when it comes to religion and politics. But that's a good start.

Bardamu

2003-10-25 00:48 | User Profile

Problem is there isn't a church that remains defiant in the face of diversity, Jews, and political correctness. Who can be interested in them nowadays?

The problem with Orthodox churches for outsiders is that they tend to be national churches, so what are a bunch of Russians, Serbians, or Greeks going to think if I, a working class transplanted midwesterner with a drawl, come traipsing in? They are going to wonder what the hell I'm doing there.

golfball

2003-10-25 01:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Problem is there isn't a church that remains defiant in the face of diversity, Jews, and political correctness. Who can be interested in them nowadays?

.........[/QUOTE]

Yes there are Protestant Churches that remain defiant in the face of the un-godly, but the numbers are dwindling. However, Christians are gathering at rallying points and different organizations serve Christian political and racial purpose well.

I have noticed quite a drop in Judeo-Christian numbers in my area alone. Some folks are waking up to the facts....... Christians are starting to question Judeo-Christian doctrine and begin to distance themselves from the lie of Judeo-Christianity. Race and racial discussion are not seen as "horrid", or "disgusting" as it once was.

Ruffin

2003-10-25 01:56 | User Profile

golfball:

I have noticed quite a drop in Judeo-Christian numbers in my area alone. Some folks are waking up to the facts....... Christians are starting to question Judeo-Christian doctrine and begin to distance themselves from the lie of Judeo-Christianity. Race and racial discussion are not seen as "horrid", or "disgusting" as it once was.

Ain't the internet wunnerful?

Or maybe being spit on by the leaders they're supposed to worship and die for, for decades, is taking its toll, f-i-n-a-l-l-y.

Bardamu

2003-10-25 02:00 | User Profile

golfball,

This Im sure wont interest you, but lately i have been trying to get a grip on my cultural and just plain civic alienation by rekindling an old hippy-days-gone-by interest in zen buddhism. I find the doctrine of non-attachment helpful in these days of nihilism and apparent defeat.

golfball

2003-10-25 02:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]golfball:

Ain't the internet wunnerful?

Or maybe being spit on by the leaders they're supposed to worship and die for, for decades, is taking its toll, f-i-n-a-l-l-y.[/QUOTE]

Just by discussing the Holy Bible that they carry into church with them about the racial aspects is enough to tug at their Judeo-Christian imposed blinders. With many, the blinders have fallen off, then when they go to the Judeo-Christian church, they realize it is no longer a Christian church at all, just a house full of lies and deception.

That is what happens so they are able to distance themselves from the Apostasy of the Judeo-Christian entity contained in all Judeo-Christian churches.

golfball

2003-10-25 02:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]golfball,

This Im sure wont interest you, but lately i have been trying to get a grip on my cultural and just plain civic alienation by rekindling an [B]old hippy-days-gone-by interest[/B] in zen buddhism. I find the doctrine of non-attachment helpful in these days of nihilism and apparent defeat.[/QUOTE] Those hippy days are full of Marxist and Communist ideology, ain't they?

However, to each their own.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-25 03:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu] The problem with Orthodox churches for outsiders is that they tend to be national churches, so what are a bunch of Russians, Serbians, or Greeks going to think if I, a working class transplanted midwesterner with a drawl, come traipsing in? They are going to wonder what the hell I'm doing there.[/QUOTE]

Have you ever been to an Orthodox church before? As long as your not rude or anything, they won't bother you. An Orthodox church is open to everyone. A Greek orthodox can freely go to a Russian church and vice versa.

Patrick

2003-10-25 03:44 | User Profile

"If you are a Father Coughlin-type, fine, great."

.....I knew we'd get along, Franco... :)

friedrich braun

2003-10-25 06:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]golfball,

Bardamu,

May I suggest one of my favourite writers: Emil Cioran?

[url]http://www.spikemagazine.com/1197cior.htm[/url]

Sadly, he isnÃ¢â¬â¢t as well known in America as he is in Europe; I suspect that in your present mood you will enjoy him.

Emile Cioran (1911 - 1995) Aphorist, Essayist A Romanian writer who spent most his life in Paris writing 'a philosophical romance on modern themes of alienation, absurdity, boredom, futility, decay, the tyranny of history, the vulgarities of change, awareness as agony, reason as disease.'

Quote

Paradise was unendurable, otherwise the first man would have adapted to it; this world is no less so, since here we regret paradise or anticipate another one. What to do? where to go? Do nothing and go nowhere, easy enough. - The Trouble with Being Born

It is written in the Zohar: "When man appeared thereupon appeared the flowers." I suspect they were there long before him, and that his advent plunged them all into a stupefaction from which they have not yet recovered. -

-The Trouble with Being Born

Biography

Born April 8, 1911 in Rasinari, Romania Ethnicity Romanian Residence Rasinari, Sibiu Romania, Bucharest, Hungary, Berlin Germany, Paris France Died June 20, 1995 in Paris France Nationality Romanian/French Language French, Romanian Other occupations Graduate Student, Translator, Publishing House Reader, High School Teacher

Cioran was born in 1911 to Emilian, a Romanian Orthodox priest, and his anguished wife, Elvira in a Rasinari, a small idyllic Transylvanian town Emile remembered fondly throughout his life. Cioran's family, comprised of an older sister, Virginia, and younger brother Aurel, was one of the wealthiest and most prestigious in the small town and had a long tradition of priests. Cioran enjoyed what he considered a happy childhood, though this happiness consisted of fond memories of town drunks and playing with skulls in the cemetery. Emile's world collapsed at the age of 10 when his family sent him to live with a German family in the larger town of Sibiu, which, despite the trauma, allowed the young boy to develop a facility with, and love for, the German language. The rest of the family joined Cioran three years later when his father was appointed archpriest of the town. In his teens, Cioran read copiously during the day and wandered the lonely streets at night when suffering from bouts of insomnia, which could last up to several weeks. As his feelings of despair and depression increased, Emile lost interest in his beloved violin and developed a morbid interest in religion. He delved into the writings of saints and Christian mystics and voiced his own religious doubts while debating religious questions with his father and other priests. Cioran never specified the time or circumstances surrounding his personal loss of religious faith, but his fascination with such faith, especially its extreme forms, never waned and perhaps intensified only after he had lost faith himself. In 1928, Cioran became a philosophy student at the University of Bucharest, where he continued his study of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, who he discovered while a teenager, in addition to Kantian and Hegelian German Idealism, Phenomonology, Bergson, Shestov and Worringer's aesthetics. Bucharest was a cultural and political hotbed which gave birth to the '27 generation', a group of students like Cioran who sought cultural revolution. Two members of the group would become lifelong friends of Cioran: Mircea Eliade, who became an influential religious scholar and Eugene Ionesco, who became one of the twentieth century's best playwrights and founded the Theater of the Absurd. In 1928, Cioran graduated with a thesis on Bergsonian intuitionism. He also began publishing articles, often in support of the extreme right wing Iron Guard, in several leading publications. His first book, on the Heights of Despair, was published in 1934 and won the prestigious King Carol II Foundation for Art and Literature Prize, which allowed Cioran to study in Berlin from 1933 to 1935. Before he left, his mother told Cioran that if she knew he was going to be this unhappy she would have aborted him. In Germany, he grew disillusioned with academic philosophy and began gravitating to the aphoristic philosophical style that would become his trademark. After spending a year teaching high school in Brasov in 1936, he convinced the French Institute of Bucharest to provide a dissertation fellowship to allow him to continue his study of Bergson's Intuitionism in Paris. By the time he reached Paris in 1937, Cioran had published three books in Romanian, but was forced to live meagerly, as a 'parasite', often depending on the charity of dinner parties thrown by the friends of his fellow Romanian expatriates. As all parasites, he adapted well. Cioran would live meagerly (though in the company of the finest minds) in Paris for the rest of his life. He worked as a translator and reader for various publishing houses to support himself. He conquered his insomnia by cycling until the point of exhaustion. In 1944, while trying to translate Mallarme into Romanian, Cioran discovered the inherent weakness of Romanian and the limitations his native language imposed on his creative expression, so he decided to write exclusively in French from then on (though at the time he more fluent in German). Cioran rewrote his first book in French, A Short History of Decay, four times even after it was accepted by Gallimard. Upon publication, the book won the Rivarol prize, the only award Cioran accepted in his lifetime. Sometime during the 1950's, Cioran met Simone Boue, who became his lifelong companion. He lead a predominately quiet and solitary life of study and composition, but later became increasingly involved in the Parisian community of artists and writers that was especially vibrant in the 50's and 60's. He befriended Samuel Beckett, but Beckett later lost sympathy with Cioran's pessimism. He was personal friends with most of the Romanian expatriates as well as many Existentialists, Surrealists and founders of the Theater of the Absurd. Though he was highly regarded in Parisian literary circles, he was not well known to the French public or to the rest of the world, except for certain groups of international writers with avant garde tendencies. Though he had published many books at this point, Cioran continued to apply for grants, and work as a translator or reader for various publishing houses to survive. In his own words: I don't make a living, I eke one out. He lived in the same small apartment in the fashionable Latin Quarter of Paris from 1960 on. Yet he still maintained influence back home, evidenced by a letter Cioran published in a French journal that led to a 25 year prison term for the philosopher Constantine Noica in Romania. In his later years, Cioran withdrew from social life. He no longer frequented cafes and refused invitations to dinners. Instead, Cioran spent his time strolling through the Luxembourg Gardens and Parisian cemeteries, along with the occasional excursion to his 'refuge,' the seaside town of Dieppe when he wasn't engrossed in his literary pursuits. By the mid-80's Cioran grew tired of 'slandering the world and God' and no longer felt the need to write, a turn of events he accepted as a reward for his work rather than a punishment of it. He gave up writing definitively in 1987, though he continued to do a interviews into the 1990's. Alzheimer's disease began slowly deteriorating his mind in the 1990's, just as native country began rediscovering him after the fall of Communism. He fell ill in 1994 and, after a year long battle, Emile Cioran finally found his long sought bliss in nothingness.

[url]http://www.littlebluelight.com/lblphp/intro.php?ikey=5[/url]

Walter Yannis

2003-10-25 08:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE]"If you do not hungrily feed on His Crucified Flesh and drink deeply of His Blood spilled for the sins of the world, you will surely die when you die."

Walter: you're basically saying that Protestants are going to Hell.

That's not the teaching of Catholicism. Catholics consider Protestants as their brothers-in-Christ. As a matter of fact, the standard teaching of the Catholic Church is that Protestants ARE Catholics (yes, let me say that again: Catholic theologians consider Protestants to be part and parcel of the Catholic Church) because of their common baptism (or through their common baptism).

I will further say that I've personally heard Catholic priests refer to orthodox Protestants as members of the Catholic Church who will be saved.

You're right, of course. I've always taken pains to recognize Protestants as our brothers in Christ. My understanding is that the grace of the Church is imputed to them. They are in communion with us, through faith, even if they don't know that.

Thank for clarifying that point, and for the wonderfully relevant quote from the Catechism.

Walter

The point is that

Walter Yannis

2003-10-25 08:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball]Could someone tell me which "Church" it was that pardoned, or absolved the Jews in their responsibility for the Death of Christ on the Cross?[/QUOTE]

I must admit that you've got me there.

The RCC was infiltrated by modernists and you-know-who. This Pope did some questionable things, to my mind.

I understand his desire to reach out to other religions, but that sort of thing can only go so far, lest the central claim of salvific exclusivity is lost. JPII entered a mosque (going so far as to kiss a Koran, I think), entered a synagogue and labeled Jews our Elder Brothers in Faith, and even said some nice things about voodoo.

None of that goes to the repository of faith, which remains uncorrputed and indeed incorruptible, but I can see how outsiders are reluctant to make such fine distinctions between a pope's public actions and his magisterial powers.

I have very mixed feelings about JPII. He will certainly go down in history as one of the great popes of all time, yet I think that he pushed the envelope on a number of these kinds of issues, and did terrible damage to the RCC's institutional integrity.

For example, the whoe lavender clergy scandal in the States, Ireland and elsewhere could have been avoided had he simply used his lawful authority to appoint bishops to sees where they could do no harm. If Cardinal Law was letting fag priests molest children, as soon as that became known JPII should have transferred him to a purely theoretical see somewhere in Northern Africa. He couldn't strip from him the dignity of his see, but he could transfer him to whereever he wanted.

But he didn't do that, and we all pay a terrible price, not least of all the victims of those sick and evil man in collars. JPII is a great philosopher, theologian, preacher, evangelist, and politician, but he was afailure as an organizational man. He needed desparately to take a basic B-school course in administration - especially basic HR policy. As it is, his failures as a business executive lead to ruinous lawsuits and horrific PR impact that threaten his entire legacy.

Sorry to break into B-school speak, but that's my background, and it's just true. The RCC is a sort of spiritual amphibian - it has a worldly institution that is corruptible, and a devine repository of faith that is beyond worldly worm and rust. He failed in taking care of the former, in my estimation.

Walter

Agrippa

2003-10-25 13:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE] Problem is there isn't a church that remains defiant in the face of diversity, Jews, and political correctness. Who can be interested in them nowadays?

Thats right, today the difference is not too big between the churches. The main difference is that the Calvinists and Neo-Christs are even ready to fight for Israel, but the other churches are rather passive.

I never said that Protestantism in general was a mistake, but Calvinism was.

Liberal-Capitalism and Hyper-Individualism wouldnt have been possible, at least not so fast without this ideology.

Same true for the Jews. They were under the first promoters of Liberal-Capitalism and Hyper-Individualism, egalitarian ideologies in general in Europe.

In USrael you wouldnt even have needed to much Jews, because the Calvinist establishment was superficial and corrupted enough. The Jews made just the last impacts in Hollywood and Wall Street which were necessary to kill the old moral and to destroy the roots of white America. It was damaged long ago by false superficial believe and moralistic fanatism.

Or would you say that just Jews were responsible for the civil war? Or the 1st world war? They just supported in their ugly way tendencies which were already in your country and made it, thats clear, just worse, as worse as possible as we see today.

So I dont defend Jews, and make Calvinists for all responsible, but see it that way:

Jews influenced the Calvinist establishment, but if their would be a strong and unified tradition, or even especially in economic questions a more collectivistic approach in Calvinism, that could have never infiltrated the US as much as they did.

Its always a question of how strong is the group which influence and how strong or much different the group is which get influenced. ...The US were strong enough to kill Communism in their country, but how could the destroy the liberal and liberal-capitalistic Jewish movement? How? This was and is the heart of America, a capitalist no matter how amoralic he is was always accepted in Calvinist tradition. In the frame of this tradition Jews had not to change their character to much, they fit in perfectly...

If you just see the Jews its not enough, you have to see your own failures or better that of your group and state too.

golfball

2003-10-25 14:12 | User Profile

Walter, I respect your views towards your faith, as I have strong convictions in mine. The Apostasy places themselves above God and pardons/practices atonement where they have no Godly appointment to do so.

It is very true that John Paul II is a political correct Pope. JP II has made some very bad calls. Do not think that I am picking on him. I take a severe view with ALL of those that use the pulpit or throne to justify Apostasy on believers.

Not ALL Catholics are bad.

Not ALL Protestants are bad.

A Holy Intolerant God and His Son Jesus Christ ARE the answer.

ALL Jews that reject Christ ARE Bad.

ALL Whites that reject Christ will share eternity with Jews that reject Christ.

ALL Judeo-Christians, ( Apostate ) will share the fate of the afore-mentioned.

They will co-habit in a special place designed for people that reject Christ.

Revelation 21:8

Judeo-Christianity is the way of Death.....

Agrippa

2003-10-25 14:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE]ALL Whites that reject Christ will share eternity with Jews that reject Christ.[/QUOTE]

Dont be so cruel. :furious:

golfball

2003-10-25 14:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Agrippa]Dont be so cruel. :furious:[/QUOTE] What a beautiful day in the neighborhood, a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

Oh won't you be my neighbor..... Hello neighbor!

[SIZE=4][COLOR=Red]Depends on which neighborhood you want to reside in.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Think about it!

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-25 16:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball]Walter, I respect your views towards your faith, as I have strong convictions in mine. The Apostasy places themselves above God and pardons/practices atonement where they have no Godly appointment to do so.

Not ALL Catholics are bad.

Not ALL Protestants are bad.

A Holy Intolerant God and His Son Jesus Christ ARE the answer.

ALL Jews that reject Christ ARE Bad.

ALL Whites that reject Christ will share eternity with Jews that reject Christ.

ALL Judeo-Christians, ( Apostate ) will share the fate of the afore-mentioned.

They will co-habit in a special place designed for people that reject Christ.

Revelation 21:8

Judeo-Christianity is the way of Death.....[/QUOTE]

Hey Golfball, you forgot to mention the Orthodox Churches. What happens to them?

** "We find the most terrible form of atheism, not in the militant and passionate struggle against the idea of God himself, but in the practical atheism of everyday living, in indifference and torpor. We often encounter these forms of atheism among those who are formally Christians." --Nikolai Berdyaev, Russian philosopher**

Bardamu

2003-10-25 17:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball]Those hippy days are full of Marxist and Communist ideology, ain't they?

[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, almost overwhelmingly. But, arguably, the only right wing influence I had in those days was reading in eastern philosophy.

[Quote=Prerun]Have you ever been to an Orthodox church before? As long as your not rude or anything, they won't bother you. [/Quote]

Yes, but we don't go to church to be ignored, which is what would happen primarily because they wouldn't understand my purpose in being there. And then I think there would be a language problem. One can't take ex-patriotism lightly. My culture, so far as Christianity is concerned, is Protestant or Catholic. I [I]belong[/I] to both of those even if I never go to church again. Just like I belong to America and the English language. I would not give up either lightly. Expatriotism is a rough road.

All Old Right

2003-10-25 19:00 | User Profile

Not ALL Catholics are bad.

Not ALL Protestants are bad.

A Holy Intolerant God and His Son Jesus Christ ARE the answer.

ALL Jews that reject Christ ARE Bad.

ALL Whites that reject Christ will share eternity with Jews that reject Christ.

ALL Judeo-Christians, ( Apostate ) will share the fate of the afore-mentioned.

They will co-habit in a special place designed for people that reject Christ.

Revelation 21:8

Judeo-Christianity is the way of Death.....[/QUOTE] Which brings us back to the definition, and that seems to vary based on who you talk to.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-25 20:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]

Ok, theres the Orthodox Church of America [url]http://www.oca.org[/url] that gives it liturgy in English and also there is a Western branch of the Orthodox church which pretty much like the Roman rite and Protestant churches. Just like theres an Eastern branch to the Catholic church(and to which I belong).

[url]http://www.westernorthodox.com/western-rite[/url]

golfball

2003-10-25 22:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]Hey Golfball, you forgot to mention the Orthodox Churches. What happens to them?

.........[/QUOTE]

If they practice tolerance for [COLOR=Red]integrated[/COLOR] congregations, as in [COLOR=Red]White and non-White[/COLOR], tolerance for queers, tolerance for pedophiles, tolerance.....

Tolerance is the destruction of ALL churches. If the Orthodox tolerates, they are dead already. Intolerance and Conviction is the key difference between Christian and Judeo-Christian. Remember that the Devil demands "Tolerance" of his followers. Satan "Tolerates" almost anything, and stands in front of every "Tolerant" church with arms wide open welcoming those that listen to his lies spoken in all Judeo-Christian churches.

The way to Hell is broad and wide, narrow is the way at the strait gate.

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-25 22:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball]If they practice tolerance for [COLOR=Red]integrated[/COLOR] congregations, as in [COLOR=Red]White and non-White[/COLOR], tolerance for queers, tolerance for pedophiles, tolerance..... [/QUOTE]

Well I hope this editorial from Orthodox America will answer your question.

** [url]http://www.roca.org/OA/41/41a.htm[/url]

Narrow is the Way

[COLOR=DarkGreen]God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will. (Rev. 17:17)[/COLOR]

 How often do we hear someone say, "Well, take it easy," or "Don't work too hard." We have grown accustomed to the idea that life should be easy, that we have every right to enjoy ourselves, ironically, it is this pervasive attitude of 'taking it easy' that creates such difficulties for us as Christians. The American way is "the good life." Christ, however, has called us to the narrow path.

 "Take up thy cross and follow Me," the Saviour commands. He also tells us, "In this world ye shall have tribulation..." and "the servant is not greater than his Master. If they persecute Me, they will persecute you." How many times we have heard these words from the Gospel. And yet, we prefer to grumble when things don't go our way. We seek compliments and recognition. We spend our life creating a comfortable niche for ourselves and resent the intrusion of others. We try to isolate ourselves from pain and sorrow. Even spiritually, we would sooner sleep than think about struggling for the Kingdom of Heaven and taking it by force as it must be. And where does our complacency show most of all? In our attitude towards our neighbor. How little we care to exert ourselves for the sake of someone else. But how else do we expect to show our love for Christ?

 We have no excuse. The Gospel states very clearly the two commandments on which "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:40). Here we read: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Many times we simply throw up our hands: "I admit that I don't love God or my neighbor as I should. That's just the way it is, and until love comes into my heart, I can't do anything about it," As if love were bestowed as an automatic virtue. We must try to reverse this attitude. Even without any feeling of love, let us make an effort to reach out to our neighbor, to make even a small gesture of concern. If we struggle to take this first step, we shall, with God's help, gradually grow in love.

If we wish to please the Lord, our efforts must always be made for His sake--and not because we hope others will think well of us or return us a favor. St. Seraphim of Sarov teaches that we benefit from good deeds only if they are done in the name of the Lord. We should know that of ourselves we can do nothing good. We are all sinners and have no good in us apart from God.    We have, therefore, no reason to be proud of ourselves when we do accomplish something good. In the Gospel we read: "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). By clinging to the Lord, and by listening to what the Church, the priest and the Gospel teaches, we can avoid many fails into pride.

Here again we are surrounded by a worldly attitude: pride is considered to be a virtue. How many have said, "You should be proud of yourself!" If we wish to follow the narrow path, however, we must constantly struggle against pride, for the Holy Fathers teach that pride is at the root of all sin. Through pride we lose sight of the fact that the Lord created the whole universe; He gave us life and sustains it. Without Him we are but dust and ashes. We forget this. We look at nature and do not glorify its Creator. We rejoice not in the Lord, but in ourselves.

The narrow way is difficult, and it can be very lonely. Nevertheless, we can find consolation in knowing that Christ has gone before us. Even His closest disciples abandoned Him in His time of need; they fell asleep when He asked them to keep vigil and pray with Him in the Garden of Gethsemane; they fled when He was crucified. And in the agony of the last hour, Christ cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Mark 15:3l) Truly, Christ suffered alone. If we earnestly wish to follow Him, we all must be willing to walk this narrow path. There will be times of loneliness, but however we feel, we should take courage in knowing that our guardian angel and the Lord will always be with us, as He promised.

 At times we may feel that the way is impossibly narrow, that the Lord is demanding too much from us. Here we have only to look at the example of Job in the Old Testament. By the Lord's allowance, the Evil One stripped Job bare of everything: his possessions, his family, his reputation, his health. After enduring all of this, Job did not curse or complain, but in longsuffering and patience he preserved his soul, saying, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.' For such an attitude, the Lord restored to Job his earthly wealth and crowned him with eternal glory. The Old Testament gives us another example of unmurmuring acceptance of God's will in Abraham' readiness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac. What God did not require of men, He did Himself in the sacrifice of His Only-begotten Son. Thus, we can tread the narrow path more easily, knowing that Christ has "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Is, 53:4).

The Lord is working His will with each of us. If we are going through hard times now. we must follow the path a little farther, a little higher, for there awaits us tile outstretched hand of God to help us along our way. He is only waiting for us to make that extra effort, that extra step to seize the Kingdom of Heaven, for this Kingdom , just needs be taken by force. As difficult as this may, seem, it is not impossible, for the Kingdom of Heaven lies within our own hearts. We can be overcome by ail manner of difficulties, we can be persecuted and experience great trials, and yet within our hearts we can possess that great treasure, that peace that passes all understanding, which is obtained by following Christ's narrow path.

May we not be fainthearted. May we resolve to struggle just a little harder. Then, putting all our trust in the Lord, acknowledging the Theotokos as our mother and Jesus Christ as our Saviour, we shall, with the help of the Church and the Holy Mysteries, persevere in our spiritual journey and find at last the peace and rest which we all long for deep in our hearts.

Archpriest Konstantine Feodoroff Kursk Icon Hermitage, Mahopac. NY**

Franco

2003-10-25 22:20 | User Profile

I wanna state, once again, for the record, that my attacks on Christians here at OD are directed at JUDEO-CHRISTIANS WHO 1] FAIL TO NAME THE JEW; 2] IGNORE RACIAL ISSUES; 3] EMBRACE FEMINISM.

All of you other Christians who do name the Jew, etc. can rest easy -- no one is gonna bad-rap you.

:king: :king:

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-25 22:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]I wanna state, once again, for the record, that my attacks on Christians here at OD are directed at JUDEO-CHRISTIANS WHO 1] FAIL TO NAME THE JEW; 2] IGNORE RACIAL ISSUES; 3] EMBRACE FEMINISM.

:king: :king:[/QUOTE]

Well the Orthodox does none of those things. Only on the racial issue will the Orthodox hesitate a bit. They prefer to see things within the national context rather than purely in a racial one. In other words, the Orthodox church doesn't take an overt racial stance.

For example, the Orthodox Church believes(anybody can comment or correct me) that inter-racial marriages are often based purely on simple lustful desires for members of that race as opposed to being based on true love. Plus the fact that inter-marriage between races will cause conflict within the family simply because of the different cultural backgrounds it involves. So the Orthodox church may not have an overt ban on inter-racial marriages, but neither do they encourage or celebrate it as other churches do. But they do encourage people to marry within their general ethnic/cultural background. The Eastern churches place more emphasis on national traditions than do the Western churches often.

golfball

2003-10-26 00:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=perun1201]Well I hope this editorial from Orthodox America will answer your question.[/QUOTE]

I wonder just how much of this you live your life by....... I disagree with a few issues myself. I will point out my differences. [QUOTE=perun1201] ** [url]http://www.roca.org/OA/41/41a.htm[/url]

Narrow is the Way

[COLOR=DarkGreen]God hath put in their hearts to fulfill His will. (Rev. 17:17)[/COLOR]

 How often do we hear someone say, "Well, take it easy," or "Don't work too hard." We have grown accustomed to the idea that life should be easy, that we have every right to enjoy ourselves, ironically, it is this pervasive attitude of 'taking it easy' that creates such difficulties for us as Christians. The American way is "the good life." Christ, however, has called us to the narrow path.

 "Take up thy cross and follow Me," the Saviour commands. He also tells us, "In this world ye shall have tribulation..." and "the servant is not greater than his Master. If they persecute Me, they will persecute you." How many times we have heard these words from the Gospel. And yet, we prefer to grumble when things don't go our way. We seek compliments and recognition. We spend our life creating a comfortable niche for ourselves and resent the intrusion of others. We try to isolate ourselves from pain and sorrow. Even spiritually, we would sooner sleep than think about struggling for the Kingdom of Heaven and taking it by force as it must be. And where does our complacency show most of all? In our attitude towards our neighbor. How little we care to exert ourselves for the sake of someone else.**[/QUOTE]

This next sentece was the first red flag, because it is used to steer the reader into "Tolerance".... [QUOTE=perun1201] But how else do we expect to show our love for Christ?[/QUOTE] Yes, what about this love? Is it a Love to obey Christ, or Love to embrace the world? [QUOTE=perun1201] We have no excuse. The Gospel states very clearly the two commandments on which "hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:40).[/QUOTE] Yes, this is true! It is the split between worldliness and Godliness. Dont forget the Old Testament Commandment to be seperate! Deuteronomy 7 is STILL IN EFFECT! So are ALL Commandments and Laws regarding sexual responsibility and racial miscegenation. You are to SEPARATE yourselves from the filthy and corrupt. See 1 Corinthians chap 6 and 2 Corinthians chap 6. Separation is mandantory, no room for wiggling. [QUOTE=perun1201] Here we read: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." [/QUOTE] As long as you follow the Commandments to stay separate and practice sexual responsibilty. This verse does not give one "Carte Blanche" to racially mix or turn pedophile/queer. This verse in particular is directed at Christians to love their Christian peers. There were no non-whites as "Christians" when this was uttered. Non-whites are heathen then as they are now. This racial fact NEVER CHANGES. [QUOTE=perun1201] Many times we simply throw up our hands: "I admit that I don't love God or my neighbor as I should. That's just the way it is, and until love comes into my heart, I can't do anything about it," As if love were bestowed as an automatic virtue.[/QUOTE] It is! God has his Commandments already in our hearts! Our love for our kind is present as children, only the filthy and corrupt would steer children away from God's commandment to be separate and into an integrated environment. Integration is against God. As children, we know that the dark skinned ones are heathen, the stranger, the non-kin. When an adult comes up and says you must sit next to that colored or mexican, the child knows that the adult is wrong but cannot do anything about it so enters into an integrated society that turns away from a Holy Intolerant God. [QUOTE=perun1201] We must try to reverse this attitude.[/QUOTE] Another red flag! I see which way this article is going already. [QUOTE=perun1201] Even without any feeling of love, let us make an effort to reach out to our neighbor, to make even a small gesture of concern. If we struggle to take this first step, we shall, with God's help, gradually grow in love.[/QUOTE] This is "TOLERANCE", an abomination to an Intolerant God. I see how the author of the article calls upon the "God" of tolerance to foster this corruption, misnamed "Love". [QUOTE=perun1201] If we wish to please the Lord, our efforts must always be made for His sake--and not because we hope others will think well of us or return us a favor.[/QUOTE] This is true. [QUOTE=perun1201] St. Seraphim of Sarov teaches that we benefit from good deeds only if they are done in the name of the Lord. We should know that of ourselves we can do nothing good. We are all sinners and have no good in us apart from God.[/QUOTE] Ooops! Here comes the [B][I]we are all trash[/I][/B] drivel. I have separated from the trash so I am not part of that. [QUOTE=perun1201] We have, therefore, no reason to be proud of ourselves when we do accomplish something good.[/QUOTE] Do you need me to bring up the interpretation of pride when exercised by Jews? Psalms 10:2,4 Psalms 59:12

[COLOR=Red]You are to take pride in your work.[/COLOR] Psalms 31:23 [QUOTE=perun1201]** In the Gospel we read: "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do" (Luke 17:10). By clinging to the Lord, and by listening to what the Church, the priest and the Gospel teaches, we can avoid many fails into pride.

Here again we are surrounded by a worldly attitude: pride is considered to be a virtue.**[/QUOTE]

Whoops! here is the [B][I]we are all trash[/I][/B] stuff again. [QUOTE=perun1201] How many have said, "You should be proud of yourself!" If we wish to follow the narrow path, however, we must constantly struggle against pride, [COLOR=Blue]for the Holy Fathers teach that pride is at the root of all sin.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] That is not in my Bible, is it in yours? [QUOTE=perun1201] Through pride we lose sight of the fact that the Lord created the whole universe; He gave us life and sustains it. Without Him we are but dust and ashes. We forget this. We look at nature and do not glorify its Creator. We rejoice not in the Lord, but in ourselves.[/QUOTE] Boy howdy! This pride stuff sure is bad, aint it? Look at Psalm 75. What is exalted? [QUOTE=perun1201]** The narrow way is difficult, and it can be very lonely. Nevertheless, we can find consolation in knowing that Christ has gone before us. Even His closest disciples abandoned Him in His time of need; they fell asleep when He asked them to keep vigil and pray with Him in the Garden of Gethsemane; they fled when He was crucified. And in the agony of the last hour, Christ cried out: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Mark 15:3l) Truly, Christ suffered alone. If we earnestly wish to follow Him, we all must be willing to walk this narrow path. There will be times of loneliness, but however we feel, we should take courage in knowing that our guardian angel and the Lord will always be with us, as He promised.

 At times we may feel that the way is impossibly narrow, that the Lord is demanding too much from us. Here we have only to look at the example of Job in the Old Testament. By the Lord's allowance, the Evil One stripped Job bare of everything: his possessions, his family, his reputation, his health. After enduring all of this, Job did not curse or complain, but in longsuffering and patience he preserved his soul, saying, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away; blessed be the name of the Lord.' For such an attitude, the Lord restored to Job his earthly wealth and crowned him with eternal glory. The Old Testament gives us another example of unmurmuring acceptance of God's will in Abraham' readiness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac. What God did not require of men, He did Himself in the sacrifice of His Only-begotten Son. Thus, we can tread the narrow path more easily, knowing that Christ has "borne our griefs and carried our sorrows" (Is, 53:4).**[/QUOTE]

This is agreeable. However.... [QUOTE=perun1201] The Lord is working His will with each of us. If we are going through hard times now. we must follow the path a little farther, a little higher, for there awaits us tile outstretched hand of God to help us along our way. He is only waiting for us to make that extra effort, that extra step to seize the Kingdom of Heaven, for this Kingdom , just needs be taken by force.[/QUOTE] Is this the real intention of the author? To take the Kingdom of Heaven, by force if necessary? Sounds like Someone wanting to ascend the throne...

[QUOTE=perun1201] As difficult as this may, seem, it is not impossible, for the Kingdom of Heaven lies within our own hearts.[/QUOTE] And quite unreachable from Judeo-Christians if one separates as God has commanded his people to do. [QUOTE=perun1201]** We can be overcome by ail manner of difficulties, we can be persecuted and experience great trials, and yet within our hearts we can possess that great treasure, that peace that passes all understanding, which is obtained by following Christ's narrow path.

Archpriest Konstantine Feodoroff Kursk Icon Hermitage, Mahopac. NY**[/QUOTE]

perun1201, I see too many red flags. I read this and I'm giving you an honest answer.

What is important is that you know where you are going, the why's and what for's. Your relationship with God and Jesus Christ is sacred. Do not let anything, (Churches, Holy Fathers, Priests,...) come between you and the Lord.

If you read the Holy Bible, and a choice between "Tolerance" and God's Will comes up, which one will you choose? I think I already know the answer. God's Will overcomes "Tolerance" everytime.

It is apparent to me that the author of this article embraces "Tolerance" and that is not good. Tolerance leads to destruction. Always has, always will.

Franco

2003-10-26 01:21 | User Profile

Yes, I second Golfball's attitude. Modern JudeoChristianity keeps people whupped, weak, just like an overbearing wife. There is no backbone, no pride in these "new" Christians. They are wimps, so to speak. "Oh, I better not be too proud or strong 'cause God might not like it" is no way to go thru life, friends...that makes me wonder just who created the various JudeoChristian doctrines....hint, hint...

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-26 03:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=golfball] perun1201, I see too many red flags. I read this and I'm giving you an honest answer.

If you read the Holy Bible, and a choice between "Tolerance" and God's Will comes up, which one will you choose? I think I already know the answer. God's Will overcomes "Tolerance" everytime.

It is apparent to me that the author of this article embraces "Tolerance" and that is not good. Tolerance leads to destruction. Always has, always will.[/QUOTE]

And you know nothing of the Orthodox Church and are approaching this purely from a Protestant point of view.

Also from a lack of knowledge of church history. This is probally one of the biggest flaws of Protestantism is that it claims that scriptures is the only source for inspiration, yet which scriptures are to be used? Need we forget that the Bible as we know it today was organized by Church elders(whom Protestants are quick to condemn) who decided which books were in and which were out. People don't realize that during the early church, there as many bible versions as there were individual churches. So to claim that there has only one true Bible is to be ignorant of the facts. Christian scholars and elders had to decide which books were appropiate and which were not.

Just compare the King James version with say a Catholic or Orthodox bible. The Catholic bibles actually have more books than most Protestant bibles. But yet which books are to be used? Thats a real dilema for Protestants who believe only in scriptures. Technically a Protestant is free to use the Gnostic bibles, which declares that Jesus had intercourse with Mary Magdalene and they had a child together. Also they declare that Mary, not Peter, was "the rock" which Jesus built the Church.

** [url]http://www.orthodox.net/articles/orthodox-mind.html#n2_8[/url]

III. The Orthodox Mind Coming to the point where a Protestant realizes the spiritual bankruptcy of the Western Worldview may bring them to the doors of the Church, but simply rejecting Protestantism is not enough. For that matter, being convinced that Orthodoxy is the true Faith is good enough to have you made a Catechumen, but much more is needed. One must enter into the Spirit of Orthodoxy. Even when one reaches the point at which they are ready to receive Holy Baptism, this process must continue -- Baptism is the beginning of your life in the Church, it is a spiritual birth, but only a stillborn baby will not continue to grow spiritual. For a convert, must not only struggle against demons and against the flesh to accomplish this, but one must still contend with the modes of thought that he operated in prior to conversion.

Before we deal with how one goes about acquiring an Orthodox mind, however, let me briefly describe what an Orthodox mind is, especially as distinct from the Protestant mindset we have been discussing.

A. Corporate / Theocentric Rather than the Humanism and Individualism of Protestantism -- Orthodoxy is Theocentric, and corporate in its focus.

The focus of Orthodox worship is not on the personality of the priest, nor is it focused on meeting the needs of individuals, or on contrived emotional experiences -- the focus is on God. Unlike Protestant churches, in which the church rises or falls on the personality of the minister -- one need not even like the priest personally, and he can still worship in that parish, because we are there to worship God, not to hear a good and stirring sermon. It certainly a nice touch to have a priest with a good personality and who can give a good sermon -- but that is icing on the cake, not the cake itself.

The Church is not the sum total of individuals who are Christians, it is a community. Christ came to build His Church, not to establish a school of thought, or to save individuals apart from a community. This does not negate individual responsibility -- the Orthodox Church firmly believes that you can go to hell all by yourself, if you want to, without any help from anyone else -- but if you want to be saved, the Scripture is clear... you need the Church.

An Orthodox Christian is also held accountable by the Church. Christ spoke of Church discipline, and said that if someone would not "hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen and a publican" (Matt 18:17).

Christ also gave the Apostle the power to forgive sins in John 20:23 when He said: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained. It is amazing how Protestants, who say that they take the Bible literally, blow this verse off -- and when pressed, will flatly deny the plain meaning of this verse.

But far from being the horrible thing that Protestants think confession is -- it is both Biblical, and a great gift. Because we must humble ourselves, we gain victory over pride, and because we are held accountable we are given a powerful tool to help us advance in the Christian life.

One of the biggest criticisms Protestant make of confession is they claim that we can go out and sin all we want, and then have it all forgiven at confession -- that therefore confession is a license to sin. Obviously no one who has ever gone to confession would think this -- because although we should be shamed just by the fact that God knows we have sinned, in fact in our flesh we are more shamed when other men know our sins. When you go to confession to the same priest week after week -- we have added to our fear of God (which is something that we must develop) a witness who will call us to task for it. When temptation comes, the fact that we know we will be shamed to confess this sin next weekend is adds further strength to our resistance.

B. Antiquity / Unchanging Rather than the Modernists continual desire to be relevant, and their valuing of innovation. In the Orthodox Church, we view innovation as the mark of heresy. St. Jude says that the Faith was once delivered unto the saints -- we can expect no new revelation until the second coming.

We are taught that it is our duty to live and pass on the Orthodox Faith in its purity -- just as we have received it without changing it either by adding to it, or taking from it. We Orthodox have no need to be relevant to the Modernist spirit -- because we have seen heresies come and go. Long after Modernism has been completely discredited and is a faint memory -- the Orthodox Faith will still be standing. Rather than trying to hitch our wagon to the latest fad (such as environmentalism) we hold fast to the Traditions we have received from the Apostles, just as we have received them.

C. Humility, Repentance. Because Orthodoxy is not individualistic, rather than the arrogance that goes with that individualism, in Orthodoxy we are taught to humbly listen to the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. We are taught not to think ourselves more holy or clever than the Fathers of the Church who have clearly shown themselves to be doers of the Word, and men of holiness -- and so when we read the Bible, we read it in accordance with the testimony of the Church rather than in the vanity of our individualistic minds.

As I said earlier, this is not a false humility, but is simply a realistic assessment of things. When there are 23,000 denominations that all claim to believe the Bible, but which cannot agree on what it is that the Bible says -- it is humility that is realistic, and arrogance that is fanciful. Obviously they cannot all be right, and so humility with regard to one's own interpretations of the Scriptures is the only reasonable approach to the subject.

This is not to say that all Orthodox Christians are truly humble, or that all Protestants are arrogant themselves and lack humility. I have known many Protestants who were themselves very humble, and I know that I myself am often very prideful. But having operated in both ways of thought, I can say experientially that the Orthodox approach to theology and spirituality is the path of humility and repentance.

D. Maximalism / Full Worldview. Rather than the minimalism of Protestantism, which asks questions like "What are the essentials? What is the minimum requirements to be a Christian?" The Orthodox ask what is the most I can do as a Christian?

The Orthodox Faith is a lifestyle, rather than a weekend hobby. We affirm the Inspiration of the Scriptures as firmly as any Protestant, but we also affirm the Apostolic Tradition that St. Paul told us included both written Scripture and oral Tradition -- both of which we are to hold fast to. Christianity is not reduced to a book, we have received our worship, as well as our theology from the Apostles.

Rather than the Empiricism of Western Rationalism, that makes Christ and the Apostles out to be primitive thinking men who were foolish enough to believe in such phenomena as Demonization and miracles, the Orthodox Church affirms Christ as maker of all things visible and invisible -- both of the empirical and of the supernatural. We pray for healing and call on physicians -- because God is not limited to either to natural or to supernatural means to accomplish his purposes. God can heal through the wisdom and skill of a doctor, and through the anointing of oil from St. John Maximovitch's tomb.

In the Orthodox Church, we affirm that there are demons that influence people and that people are responsible for their own actions. Our worldview can allow that a man could be driven insane by demons, and that a man could be insane because of a physical disease. We see no contradiction between the Empirical and the Supernatural -- and so we are not blind to either reality. Miracles are in fact such an accepted fact of life in the Church, that we do not go ga ga just because a miracle takes place -- because we realize that it is not just God that works miracles, but demons as well. Our society in general has been so closed to the supernatural, that when they are confronted with an undeniable supernatural happening -- they automatically assume it to be divine, and so many have fallen into demonic deception in our times. **

Hilaire Belloc

2003-10-26 03:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Yes, I second Golfball's attitude. Modern JudeoChristianity keeps people whupped, weak, just like an overbearing wife. There is no backbone, no pride in these "new" Christians. They are wimps, so to speak. "Oh, I better not be too proud or strong 'cause God might not like it" is no way to go thru life, friends...that makes me wonder just who created the various JudeoChristian doctrines....hint, hint...[/QUOTE]

Oh shut the hell up Franco! :furious:

Walter Yannis

2003-10-26 14:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Walter, I respect your views towards your faith, as I have strong convictions in mine. The Apostasy places themselves above God and pardons/practices atonement where they have no Godly appointment to do so.[/QUOTE]

Same here, Golfball.

I'm on your side, man.

We share a common goal and a common Way to that goal.

That's an awful lot to have in common. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss our differences, but let's keep in mind that what unites us is 10 more than what separates us.

Walter

golfball

2003-10-26 14:54 | User Profile

The church used to be good, perun1201. It is heartening to see that you are willing to stand up for your faith. I am of a branch of Protestantism, Old Time Gospel Baptist, that does not believe that Jesus had a child with ,Mary. We believe "the rock" to be Jesus Christ, the same rock that Moses struck in the wilderness to draw water from when God CLEARLY told him not to strike.

The King James Version 1611 is the scriptures we have as God has given to us and I just as feverently stand by them as you stand by your church. On that we agree.

I do not stand with most of the Baptist churches because they have ascribed to that "New" god of tolerance. Hence, I do not follow the same path as most Baptist churches. I did not leave the church, [B][I]they[/I][/B] wandered after that god of tolerance, away from The Holy, Intolerant God, Our Heavenly Father and His Son, Lord Jesus Christ.

In the Judeo-Christian lie, they deceive others by using the name of Jesus Christ to justify their deception. They seem to forget that The Holy Ghost is watching......... The Holy Ghost is not called The Holy Ghost for nought. [B][COLOR=Red]Even God, our Heavenly Father treads lightly around the Holy Ghost.[/COLOR][/B]

If a church steps away from God, then those that follow after a Holy, Intolerant God are not going to go with them. The church goes one way, Christians go another. When a church becomes worldly and corrupt, scriptures are all that we have left. You know, I miss singing those great songs like "At The Cross" and "Faith of our Fathers", "There is Power in the Blood" and many others, but me and my family will not share fellowship and fall under the doctrine of deception provided by Judeo-Christians just because we do not have Pastors that would run those damn Apostates and corrupt out of our churchs. A lot of the Pastors are abominable themselves.

So, we read the bible at home. Word for righteous Word out of the K J V 1611. Me and children take turns reading verses, That's the BEST Sunday schooling they are going to get! They will not be tainted by Judeo-Christian doctrine and will know the truth by the time they grow up and are old enough to marry and raise children of their own. Christians are in the tribulation, this is the light period...It is about to turn ugly for many, REAL UGLY.

All these folks have to do is turn away from the "Tolerance" and the Judeo-Christian lies, Churches and leaders, then turn to a Holy Intolerant God understanding the racial boundries and sexual responsibility as presented in the Holy Bible. Pretty soon, you will see others dealing with the ugliness, while you and your children do not. Yes the ugliness can get within millimeters to you, but this is just a friendly reminder. What do you want to embrace?

Right.