← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill

Emergence of the New Testament Canon

Thread ID: 12387 | Posts: 97 | Started: 2004-02-18

Wayback Archive

wild_bill [OP]

2004-02-18 01:29 | User Profile

The Emergence of the New Testament Canon Daniel F. Lieuwen [url]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ntcanon_emergence.htm[/url] Copyright (c) 1995 Daniel Lieuwen Permission is given for the non-commercial reproduction of this material in any format with the proviso that only the whole paper may be reproduced and no more than five copies may be made. Reproductions must credit the author, and include this copyright notice. Other use requires special permission to protect the integrity of the thought unit.

Conciliar Press is editing this paper to produce a booklet.

All Christians agree that Scripture is the heart of the Christian tradition. However, what they mean by this affirmation often differs. To shed light on how this affirmation ought to be understood, this paper will trace the history of the New Testament canon from the apostolic church to the present. The goal is to show how we know that the Church properly identified all and only those books that belong in Sacred Scripture and to consider the implications of the process of identification.

When the church began, there were no New Testament books. Old Testament texts alone were used as scripture. The first book written was probably I Thessalonians (c. 51) (or possibly Galations which may be c. 50-there is some controversy over the dating of Galatians). The last books were probably John, the Johannine epistles, and Revelations toward the end of the first century.(1) The books were written to deal with concrete problems in the church-immoral behavior, bad theology, and the need for spiritual "meat".

Thus, the church existed for roughly twenty years with no New Testament books, only the oral form of the teaching of the apostles. Even after a book was written, it was not immediately widely available. Some books like II Peter were read almost exclusively in their target area, a situation which continued for a long time, leading to their (temporary or permanent) rejection from the canon due to doubts about their apostolic origins. Thus, for instance, II Peter was rejected for centuries by many, and it is rejected by Nestorians to this day.(2) Even if not universally accepted, a book was highly regarded by its recipients and those church's in the surrounding areas. This led to local canonicity, a book being used in public worship in a particular region. Twenty-seven of these books came in time to have universal canonicity, but others (e.g. Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabas, I Clement, Gospel of the Hebrews) were rejected for inclusion in the New Testament canon, even though they often retained a reputation for being profitable Christian reading.(3)

Although the New Testament books we have today were written in the first century, it took time for them to be accepted as universally authoritative. Initially, only the life and sayings of Christ were considered of equal authority with the Old Testament scriptures. For instance, Hegessipus in the first half of the second century accepted only "the Law, the Prophets, and the Lord" as norms "to which a right faith must conform"(4) The Didascalia Apostolurum which appears to have been written in the first half of the third century in Northern Syria similarly states the authoritative norms are "the sacred scriptures and the gospel of God" (which it also refers to as "the Law, the book of the Kings and of the Prophets, and the Gospel" and the "Law, Prophet, and Gospel").(5)

Moreover, the "Gospel" spoken of was often the Oral Gospel and not exclusively the four Gospels we have in our current Bible. There were also many apocryphal gospels written between the late first and early third centuries. Some of them appear to accurately preserve some of Christ's sayings and were long used in Christian circles (for instance, Eusebius (c. 325) writes that the Gospel of the Hebrews was still in use although not widely accepted); others were written to support some heretical sect.(6) While use was made of the four Gospels,

in the first one and a half centuries of the Church's history, there was no single Gospel writing which is directly made known, named, or in any way given prominence by quotation. Written and oral traditions run side by side or cross, enrich or distort one another without distinction or even the possibility of distinction between them.(7)

The reason for this is that the authority of Christ's words came from Christ having spoken them and not from the words appearing in a sacred text in a fixed form. As a result, sayings from apocryphal sources and the Oral Gospel appear alongside quotes from the four Gospels of our present New Testament.(8) Many early Christians, in fact, had a preference for oral tradition. For instance, Papias in the first half of the second century, said that he inquired of followers of the apostles what the apostles had said and what "Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord were still saying. For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice." However, he does mention the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Matthew by name.(9) Early Christian preference for oral tradition had rabbinic parallels-for instance Philo though oral tradition was superior to scripture. In Semitic thought, the idea persisted for a long time. As late as the thirteenth century, Arab historian Abu-el-Quasim ibn `Askir said, "My friend strive zealously and without ceasing to get hold of [traditions]. Do not take them from written records, so they may not be touched by the disease of textual corruption."(10)

St. Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200), Bishop of Lyons and a great fighter against heresy, was the last writer to use the Oral Gospel as an independent source. He initially fought heresy using only the Old Testament and the church's Oral tradition. However, later, in response to needs arising from fighting Gnosticism and Marcionism, he came to use the books of New Testament extensively.(11)

Besides the Oral Gospels, the Diatessaron served as an alternate Gospel. The Diatessaron was a harmony of the four gospels, written c. 150-160 by Tatian. It circulated widely in Syriac-speaking churches-it was their standard text of the gospels until it was superseded by the Peshitta in the fifth century. The Diatessaron's use shows that the four gospels were considered important authorities, but not exclusive authorities. The Diatessaron by itself constituted as the New Testament scriptures for the Syrian churches until the fourteen Pauline epistles were added in the third century.(12)

Thus, we see that for a considerable period of time, many Christians (particularly those in Syria and those from a Jewish background) accepted only the Gospel alongside the Old Testament as Scripture. Further, many accepted it in the form of the Oral Gospel or of both the Oral and written Gospel (where the written Gospel might contain either more or fewer books than are currently accepted).

The Pauline letters achieved acceptance in a fixed form considerably earlier; they were circulating as a body of writing "well before AD 90."(13) In fact, recent research makes it quite likely that p46, an early collection of Pauline letters should be dated in the late first century.(14) The letters were known and circulated among both orthodox and heretics as a collection from the early second century. The collection probably contained ten Pauline letters: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, and Philemon.(15)

The first person to attempt to define the canon precisely was the heretic Marcion. Marcion believed that the God of the Old Testament, the Creator God, was contemptible, a very different God from the God of the New Testament. He believed the Christian Gospel was a Gospel of Love to the exclusion of Law. He rejected the Old Testament as a result. His message was quite popular-it was the chief rival to Orthodox Christianity in the latter half of the second century.(16) He accepted only the Lukan gospel and ten Pauline letters, which he probably chose based on the standard circulating collection.(17) He felt St. Paul alone understood Christ-he was certain that the disciples completely misunderstood their Master. Marcion's motivation for accepting only St. Luke's gospel is complex; he took St. Paul's reference to "his gospel" or "the gospel" to refer to a particular book at St. Paul's disposal and set out to find it. The Oral Gospel was out of the question as the sayings could not be confirmed and hence were dubious-he wanted documents which might have preserved the truth in a pure form. (Incidentally, he is the only critic of the Oral Gospel, or any written Gospel, known in the early church.) St. Matthew, while the most popular Gospel, was out of the question as too "judaising"; St. Mark was not widely used. St. John was a mixture of things he liked and didn't like-and there were questions on its age and authenticity. From Marcion's perspective, St. Luke's Gospel had the fewest problems; further, St. Luke was associated with St. Paul.(18)

However, Marcion was not satisfied with accepting the eleven books of his canon in the form he received them. He was convinced that they had been interpolated with "judaising" material. He set out to reconstruct the original, uncorrupted text, free from all distortions.(19) His mind was too narrow and his ideology too rigid to conceive that there were multiple perspectives on the same truths in St. Paul, that God's Law and Grace while contrasted were not put into opposition-although God's Law and man's laws were. He eliminated all but one perspective from his Gospel and Epistles. This perspective, however, was not St. Paul's, but Marcion's. However, it should be noted that he only subtracted, he never added to the texts he received.(20) (His canon and a number of other canons are summarized in tabular form in the appendix.)

Before Marcion, the question we are addressing in this paper as to how we can be confident that all and only those books that belong in the New Testament in fact are in the New Testament had not begun to be formulated. Marcion formulated part of the question in his attempt to determine a collection of authoritative books. His answer was very wrong, but he forced the church to consider the question of what books should be included in the canon as Marcion's was clearly too small. It left out too much of the Christian message.

In responce to Marcion's canon, the expansion phase of the New Testament canon began. The books in his canon in unmutilated form were at the core of both the final canon and most approximations of it on the path to the final canon. The church insisted on a catholic scripture-one that encompassed Jewish and Gentile Christianity and that faithfully reflected the apostolic teachings. (Marcion had accepted only a small strand of Gentile Christianity and added in much that was his own.) The book of Acts is absolutely crucial to a catholic New Testament because it honored Ss. Peter, Paul, and James. Some Jewish Christians revered St. James and hated St. Paul's memory. Some heretics like Marcion rejected all that was Jewish. However, this polarization is impossible for those who take Acts seriously.(21)

St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), the preeminent apologist of the early church and a vigorous opponent of Gnosticism including Marcionism,(22) was unwilling to accept Marcion's truncated canon. He "quoted freely from" the four canonical gospels, Acts, the Pauline Epistles including Hebrews, and I Peter.(23) However, he does not speak of a canon-for instance he was apparently unacquainted with treating the four church gospels as a unit.(24)

St. Irenaeus, who was previously mentioned in connection with the Oral Gospel, produced the first known catholic canon. He was the first to adopt Marcion's notion of a new scripture. He used this idea to fight heresies, including Marcion's. He recognized the four gospel canon as an already established entity and championed it as "an indispensable and recognized collection against all deviations of heretics."(25) Thus, sometime in the last half of the second century, the four church gospels began to be viewed as a single unit. He defended the four gospels by letting the various heresies that accepted only one of the gospels testify on behalf of the gospel they adhered to (the Ebionites, Docetists, Marcionites, and Valentinians for the gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John respectively.) He refused to accept new gospels, arguing from symbology the appropriateness of having four gospels. He defended Acts by pointing out that it is illogical to accept St. Luke's gospel and reject Acts (as the Marcionites did). The Pauline letters needed no defense as even the heretics acknowledged them as authoritative.(26) He cited most of them, in fact he cited from every New Testament book except Philemon and III John.(27) (Given that both are extremely short, this does not indicate one way or the other what he thought of their canonicity.) While citing both Revelations and the Shepherd, he did not cite them as canonical books, although he considered them important.(28)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) made use of an open canon. He seemed "practically unconcerned about canonicity. To him, inspiration is what mattered."(29) In addition to books that did not make it into the final New Testament canon but which had local canonicity (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Revelation of Peter, the Shepherd, the Gospel according to the Hebrews), he also used the Gospel of the Egyptians, Preaching of Peter, Traditions of Matthias, Sibylline Oracles, and the Oral Gospel.(30) He did, however, prefer the four church gospels to all others, although he supplemented them freely with apocryphal gospels. He was the first to treat non-Pauline letters of the apostles (other than I Peter) as scripture-he accepted I Peter, I and II John, and Jude as scripture.(31)

The expansion phase considerable enlarged the accepted canon. It reached near final form in many quarters by around 200, containing the four gospels, Acts, and the Pauline Epistles. The main books disputed after that time were: Revelations, Hebrews, Philemon, and the Catholic Epistles (I and II Peter, I and II and III John, and Jude).(32) For instance, the Old Latin translation of the New Testament (c. 200) contained the present day canon other than II Peter, James, and Hebrews.(33)

The Muratorian Canon written c. 200 by a private theologian states that the New Testament canon consists of the following: the four gospels (the beginning of the document is mutilated, but it speaks of "the third book of the gospel: according to Luke," which almost certainly implies the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark were included), Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistles, two letters of John (probably I and II John), Jude, and Revelation-as well as the Revelation of Peter ("which some of our people will not have to be read in the church," but which "may be read") and the Wisdom of Solomon.(34) However, it rejected the Shepherd for public reading in church because it was "written by Hermas in the city of Rome quite recently, in our own times, when his brother Pius occupied the bishop's chair in the city of Rome." (Pius was bishop of Rome during part of the reign of Antoninus Pius whose reign ran from 138-161.) It was, however, considered good private reading.(35) The reasoning is that the work was post-apostolic and hence that it could not possibly be canonical. (The history backing up the reasoning is open to debate, dates as early as 90 and as late as 157 are plausible.(36))

The expansion phase was forced to come to an end by the Montanist heresy, an apocalyptic movement that demanded incredible moral and ascetic rigor of its adherents and was convinced that it was Spirit-inspired prophets and not clerics who should lead the church. Montanists claimed that they were completing Christ's unfinished work, that rejecting their three prophets was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Just as Marcion forced the church to think about what books ought to be in the canon of New Testament scripture, the Montanists forced the church to think about what should be excluded from the canon.(37) The attitude that the canon is closed can be found in a quote in Eusebius written "more than thirteen years" after the last of the three Montanist "prophets" died. The writer explains that he was hesitant for a time to write against Montanism

not from inability to refute falsehood and witness to the truth, but a precaution against the danger that some people might think I was adding another paragraph or clause to the wording of the New Covenant of the Gospel, to which nothing can be added, from which nothing can be taken away, by anyone who has determined to live by the Gospel itself.(38)

Scripture came to be seen as a fixed collection of authoritative books, and it was believed to be presumptuous to add to the collection.(39)

While the ideas of a canon became more clear, only the core described previously was certain. Revelation in particular was attacked by many because Montanism had made apocalyptic material suspect. Gaius of Rome, an early third century churchman, attacked the inclusion of the Gospel of St. John, Hebrews, and Revelation on anti-Montanist grounds (he ascribed St. John's Gospel and Revelation to Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who was a contemporary of St. John).(40) In general, however, apocalyptic material, while treated with caution, was not considered as suspect in the West as in the East. The Shepherd was dropped from the Western canon; the Revelation of Peter and the Revelation of John were both challenged. However, in the East (the Greek speaking parts of the world and Egypt), there was nearly universal refusal to allow apocalyptic writings into the canon until Western influence began to sway the Eastern Christians in the fourth century. Moreover, Hebrews was rejected in the West because it was used by the Montanists to justify their harsh penetential system and because the West was not certain of its authorship. Hebrews was not accepted in the West until the fourth century under the influence of St. Athanasius.(41)

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), the most influential Biblical commentator of the first three centuries of Christianity, categorized books into three categories: those acknowledged by all the churches, the disputed books which some churches accepted, and the spurious books. The acknowledged books were the four gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline epistle, I Peter, I John, and Revelation. The disputed books were II Peter, II John, III John, James, and Jude.(42) He may have considered Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd canonical as well-he used the word "scripture" for them. Both Bruce and von Campenhausen indicate that Origen did view them as canonical (although, Origen became more cautious about both Revelation and the Shepherd in later life), while Davis states that even though Origen used the word "scripture" for them, Origen "did not consider them canonical."(43) Origen personally came to consider Hebrews as canonical, stating

In the epistle entitle To the Hebrews the diction does not exhibit the characteristic roughness of speech or phraseology admitted by the Apostle himself, the construction of the sentences is closer to Greek usage, as anyone capable of recognizing differences of style would agree. On the other hand the matter of the epistle is wonderful, and quite equal to the Apostle's acknowledged writings: the truth of this would be admitted by anyone who has read the Apostle carefully ... If I were asked my personal opinion, I would say that the matter is the Apostle's but the phraseology and construction are those of someone who remembered the Apostle's teaching and wrote his own interpretation of what his master had said. So if any church regards this epistle as Paul's, it should be commended for so doing, for the primitive Church had every justification for handing it down as his. Who wrote the epistle is known to God alone: the accounts that have reached us suggest that it was either Clement, who became Bishop of Rome, or Luke, who wrote the gospel and Acts.(44)

Origen's views were important in making Hebrews widely accepted throughout the East; it had previously been accepted as Pauline and canonical only in Egypt. In time, Eastern acceptance led the West to accept Hebrews as scripture.(45)

For instance, Eusebius wrote in his History of the Church (c. 325) that Paul

was obviously and unmistakeably the author of fourteen epistles, but we must not shut our eyes to the fact that some authorities have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, pointing out that the Roman Church denies it is the work of Paul.(46)

Eusebius' view of the canon was very similar to Origen's, both for the canon's bounds and for the method of specifying the bounds-the main difference being Eusebius' outright rejection of Barnabas, Didache, and the Shepherd. Eusebius followed Origen's classification of alleged New Testament books, stating

It will be well, at this point, to classify the New Testament writings already referred to. We must, of course, put first the holy quartet of gospels, followed by the Acts of the Apostles. The next place in the list goes to Paul's epistles, and after them we must recognize the epistle called I John; likewise I Peter. To these may be added, if it is though proper, the Revelation of John, the arguments about which I shall set out when the time comes. These are classed as Recognized Books. Those that are disputed, yet familiar to most, include the epistles known as James, Jude, and II Peter, and those called II and III John, the work either of the evangelist or of someone else with the same name.

Among Spurious Books must be placed the `Acts' of Paul, the `Shepherd', and the `Revelation of Peter'; also the alleged `Epistle of Barnabas', and the `Teaching of the Apostles' [Didache], together with the Revelation of John, if this seems the right place for it; as I said before, some reject it, others included it among the Recognized Books. Moreover, some have found a place in the list for the `Gospel of Hebrews', a book which has a special appeal for those Hebrews who have accepted Christ. These would all be classed with the Disputed Books, but I have been obliged to list the latter separately, distinguishing those writings which according to the teaching of the Church are true, genuine, and recognized, from those in a different category, not canonical but disputed, yet familiar to most churchmen; for we must not confuse these with the writings published by heretics under the name of the apostles, as containing either Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthias, and several others besides these, or Acts of Andrew, John, and other apostles. To none of these has any churchman of any generation ever seen fit to refer to his writings. Again, nothing could be farther from apostolic usage than the type of phraseology employed, while the ideas and implications of their contents are so irreconcilable with true orthodoxy that they stand revealed as forgeries of heretics. It follows that so far from being classed even among Spurious Books, they must be thrown out as impious and beyond the pale.(47)

The final form of the canon was nearly at hand. Emperor Constantine's order for fifty copies of scripture may have been important in the process. While their exact contents are not certain, some surmise that these copies may have contained the 27 books of the final New testament canon.(48) The canons of the council of Laodicia (c. 363) accepted all the books of the final canon except Revelation.(49) The first list of canonical books of the New Testament that exactly matches our own, having neither more nor fewer books, was contained in St. Athanasius' Easter Letter of 367 which states that

Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.(50)

In addition to the books of the canon, he mentions that other books are profitable for instruction,

that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache], and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read.(51)

The ancient distrust of the Western Church for Hebrews continued. It was probably St. Athanasius' influence during his stay in Rome (he fled there in 339) which helped convince many influential Western churchmen to accept Hebrews as canonical, although not necessarily Pauline. A diversity of opinion as to its authorship continued, but it was eventually accepted.(52)

The final acceptance of exactly this set of 27 books by everyone except the Nestorians (who accept five fewer) and the Ethiopians (who accept more) took some time particularly for Hebrews (because the Roman church was unsure of its authorship), Revelations (because it was easily misused by those with apocalyptic fantasies), and Jude (because it quoted from the apocryphal book of Enoch). While II Peter previously was the most disputed book,(53) by this point, it was less controversial to the Christian mainstream. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386) and St. Gregory Nazianzus (329-389) accepted all 27 books except Revelation. On the other hand, in 405, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter which affirms a 26 book canon that excluded Hebrews.(54) Clearly, it took some time to achieve universal acceptance among the Orthodox for Hebrews in the West, and Revelation in the East.

The Western Council of Hippo (393) was probably the first council to specify the limits of the canon, and it accepted the 27 book canon, allowing only them to be read in church under the name of canonical writings. It "permitted, however, that the passions of martyrs, be read when their [martyrdoms'] anniversaries are celebrated."(55)

Some accepted larger canons as well. St. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-415) accepted all 27 books but also accepted the Wisdom books of Solomon and Ben Sirach. The late fourth century Codex Sinaiticus included Barnabas and the Shepherd "at the end but with no indication of secondary status." The early fifth century Codex Alexandrinus made "no demarcation between I and II Clement" and the rest of the New Testament. St. Jerome (c. 342-420), the translator of the Vulgate and one of the greatest scholars of the early church, seemed to believe that Barnabas and the Shepherd were worthy of inclusion. However, he recognized that they were not in the accepted canon, and he did not believe that anyone had the authority to add them. He also noted that many still rejected Jude because of its quotation from Enoch.(56)

The canon of the Syriac-speaking churches in the third century included the Diatessaron and the fourteen Pauline epistles. In the early fifth century, the Peshitta became the official text of Syriac-speaking churches. It replaced the Diatessaron with the four gospels. It contained the 22 books of our New Testament other than II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation. (The Peshitta is traditionally held to be the work of Rabulla, bishop of Edessa from 412-435. However, it probably built on work of the previous century.) The Nestorian church still uses this 22 book canon. In 508, the Jacobite branch of the Syriac church came to accept the standard 27 book canon.(57)

The longest Biblical canon belongs to the Ethiopian church. Their Old Testament contains the Septuagintal books, Jubilees, the Ethiopic Enoch, IV Edras, the Rest of the Words of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and other books. Their New Testament includes the Shepherd and other books. Some manuscripts of the Ethiopian New Testament include the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the Eusebian Canons which were written by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (c. 260-c. 340).(58)

Thus, we see that producing the final form of the New Testament canon took a considerable period of time. It took still longer to produce near universal agreement. However, to this day, there exist ancient churches which have either never accepted certain books or which accept more than 27 books. The canon in its present form was not a self-evident fact, but the result of a prolonged struggle-we reap the fruits of other men's labors.

The reasons for formalizing the canon included determining which books should be used liturgically and in theological and moral reasoning, heretical stimuli (e.g. Marcionism, Montanism), the "missionary stimulus" which required determining which books to translate, and the need to know which books must be preserved at all costs in persecution. There were a number of principles used in formalizing the canon. Apostolic authority (which required that the book have been written by an apostle, by someone associated with an apostle-for instance St. Mark and St Luke, or by a member of the Lord's family) was a crucial principle in determining canonicity. A corollary was that the book had to be from the apostolic age. It had to conform to Orthodoxy as opposed to Docetism and Gnosticism. Regular use of a book liturgically was also an important principle-and the book must have been widely accepted for a long time and in many places. Note that liturgical use both provided a powerful motivation to produce the canon (since knowing what books ought be used in public worship was critical) and was itself an important determinant in setting the bounds of the canon.(59)

The complexity of the process demonstrates that we can know that all and only those books that belonged in the canon are in fact in the canon only because we know that God is faithful, that He will give us all that is necessary for salvation, that He promised to protect His Church so that the gates of hell will be impotent to prevail against her. If, however, we accept that He led the Church aright in the matter of preserving the apostolic teachings, it seems logical that He must have preserved His bride from errors in other matters as well. The myth of the Church abandoning its Master's precepts shortly after the apostolic age or after the beginning of the Constantinian era must be abandoned by those who wish to affirm the New Testament scripture for those scriptures were recognized by that church.

Many practices that are deplored by Protestants were common before the beginning of the fourth century, a time when many if not most Christians rejected inclusion of at least some of the following books in the canon: Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and Revelations; while others accepted additional books like Barnabas and the Shepherd. For instance, the practice of praying for the dead comes to Christianity from Judaism. This practice is testified to in II Macabees 13:42-45 (RSV) which tells how Judas Maccabeus (d. 161 B.C.)(60) and his men

turned to prayer beseeching that the sin which had been committed [by their dead comrades] might be wholly blotted out... In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore, he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sins.

II Timothy 1: 16-18 may also be a prayer for a departed believer; I Corinthians 15: 29 speaks not merely of prayer for the dead, but even of baptism on their behalf. Many inscriptions in the catacombs contain prayers for the souls of the departed-for instance an inscription for "the dear and well-loved Sirica" concludes with the prayer "Lord Jesus, remember our daughter." The inscription for Agape pleads, "I beg you to pray when you come here and to entreat Father and Son in all your prayers. Do not fail to remember dear Agape so that God Almighty may keep Agape safe forever."(61) The early liturgies typically commemorated the dead. The writings of Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225), St. Cyprian (d. 258), and others demonstrate that private prayers for the dead were also common. While the fourth century heretic Aerius denied the "efficacy and legitimacy" of such prayers, his views on this and other matters were rejected.(62)

Similarly, requesting the prayers of the departed was also common. For instance, the catacombs contain inscriptions like "Atticus, sleep in peace, carefree in your security, and pray earnestly for our sinful selves," and "Holy Xystus, have Aurelius Repentinus in mind during your prayers." Inscriptions like "Paul and Peter, pray for Victor" appear frequently.(63)

The tangible expressions of God's grace through the relics of the saints is attested to in both the Old and New Testaments. For example, II King 13: 21 (RSV) states,

And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.

The woman with the issue of blood was healed by touching Christ's garment and not his person (Matthew 9: 21). Also, Acts 19: 11-12 (RSV) states that

And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.

This knowledge that God's grace is associated in a special way with objects from holy persons led the early church to pay great respect to the relics of the martyrs. Thus, in The Martyrdom of Polycarp 18: 2, 3, we read that after St. Polycarp (traditionally c. 69-c. 155)(64) was killed and his body burned, his congregation

later took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and finer than gold, and deposited them in a suitable place. And there, in so far as it is possible, the Lord will grant that we come together with joy and gladness and celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom both in memory of those who have contended in former times and for the exercise and training of those who will do so in the future.(65)

Here, we see both the honoring of relics and the celebration of saints' days.

These practices, though an integral part of the faith of the early Christian martyrs are tragically a source of divisions among Orthodox and Protestants. It is not because they differ on the central role of scripture in the life of faith. Both Protestants and Orthodox affirm that

everything in the Church is judged by the Bible... Nothing in the Church may contradict it. Everything in the Church must be biblical; for the Church, in order to be the Church, must be wholly expressive of the Bible; or more accurately, it must be wholly faithful and expressive of that reality to which the Bible is itself the scriptural witness.(66)

The point of disagreement is, then, not on scripture's role, but on the proper method of interpreting scripture. The differences comes not because one group studies scripture more carefully and respects it more. Commendable as such diligence is, careful and respectful study, while indispensable, is insufficient to discover the truths of the Christian faith if one comes to the Bible with the wrong set of assumptions. Most Orthodox and Protestant believers must admit that the Jehovah's Witnesses study scripture more carefully than they do-the Jehovah's Witnesses may even respect it more. However, like all of us, the Jehovah's Witnesses come to scripture with a set of presuppositions-this cannot be avoided since

complete objectivity is impossible, even in perceiving the physical environment. What one knows already, one's presuppositions and expectations will not only have a tremendous effect on what one sees and how one interprets but may even determine what one sees.(67)

The Jehovah's Witnesses provide a sobering warning that one's devotion to scripture is not enough-the presuppositions of their tradition prevent them from seeing scripture clearly despite their devotion to it. It is also clear, for instance, that the presuppositions of an early Christian who grew up in a Judaism that was used to praying for the dead will be quite different from those of a twentieth century Protestant who grew up in a culture that has deplored prayer for the dead for over four-hundred years. Both would read the New Testament as justifying their status quo, but the status quo being justified would be quite different. However, it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.(68) Only scripture is ultimately authoritative for the defense of doctrine, but only with tradition can we obtain the correct presuppositions so that we can interpret scripture aright. Personal interpretation leads only to the chaos of literally tens of thousands of denominations-established because each founder, having his own personal presuppositions, taught a somewhat different gospel.

In avoiding the pitfall of incorrect interpretation, then, good intentions are insufficient. Wisdom, accurate information, and the leading of the Spirit are all required-if one is missing any of them, one will almost certainly go astray. However, an accurate reading of history tells us that the Church existed about twenty years with no New Testament books; roughly 150 years before most of the books of the final New Testament canon were known and accepted by some important churchmen-and then, they accepted some additional books and did not know or knew and rejected some of the 27 books; almost 340 years before the first list that exactly matches the final canon was produced; and almost 480 years before the present canon was accepted by the last major group to resist (other than the Nestorians who reject five books to this day). Clearly, it was possible for people to be Christians with something less than total clarity about the contents of the New Testament. They were able to be Christians because they belonged to the Church which existed before the New Testament existed and has frequently been forced to make do with no written copies in whole areas due to persecution or poverty. The Church preserved and preserves the teaching of Christ and of His apostles, and not only the words on the pages of sacred scripture, but also the correct set of presuppositions, the authentic tradition which is required to interpret scripture correctly. Scripture is only properly interpreted in the context of the Church. If one's presuppositions are leading one to conclusions that differ from those of the early Church, one needs to change one's presuppositions. The simplest and safest way to do this is to learn and obey the tradition of the Church.

Bibliography

"Books that Almost Made It," Christian History, 43 (1994), p. 30-31.

Cha[dwick], H[enry]. "Christianity Before the Schism of 1054," Encyclopedia Britannica:Macropaedia, 1977 edition.

Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin, 1993.

Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingston, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1974.

D[avis], H. G[rady]. "Biblical Literature," Encyclopedia Britannica:Macropaedia, 1977 edition.

Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson. New York: Penguin, 1989.

Geisler, Norman and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Harris, R. Laird, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971.

Hopko, Thomas. "The Bible in the Orthodox Church."' St. Vladamir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1-2, 1970, pp. 66-99.

Louth, Andrew. "Who's Who in Eusebius" in The History of the Church from Constantine to Christ. New York: Penguin, 1989.

May, Herbert and Bruce Metzger, The New Oxford Study Bible. New York: Oxford Press, 1977.

Meyendorff, John. "Does Christian Tradition Have a Future." St. Vladamir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1982, pp. 139-154.

Milburn, Robert. Early Christian Art and Architecture. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.

Sanford, Mary. "An Orthodox View of Biblical Criticism." Sourozh, 26 (November 1986), pp. 25-32.

Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2nd series), 14 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982.

Sparks, Jack. The Apostolic Fathers. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1978.

Thiede, Carsten Peter. "A Testament is Born," Christian History, 43 (1994), pp. 24-29.

von Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of the Christian Bible. trans. J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

V[ööbus], A[rthur]. "Eastern Christianity, Independent Churches of," Encyclopedia Britannica:Macropaedia, 1977 edition.

End Notes

(1) F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford Press, 1974), pp. 134, 300, 544, 1365. Herbert May and Bruce Metzger, ed., The New Oxford Study Bible (New York: Oxford Press, 1977), pp. 1286, 1433, 1484, 1489, 1490, 1493. Note that I am rejecting these sources' second century date for II Peter. It is traditionally ascribed to St. Peter, and possible citations from it exist in I Clement and Barnabas, both of which were written in the first century-see scripture index in Jack Sparks, ed., The Apostolic Fathers (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 1978), p. 328, particularly to the similarities to II Peter 3: 4, 8 in those books.

(2) Carsten Peter Thiede, "A Testament is Born," Christian History, 43 (1994), 28. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 215. (3) Norman Geisler and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), p. 313. (4) Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Canon, trans. J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 167. (5) von Campenhausen, p. 167. Cross and Livingston, p. 401. (6) Cross and Livingston, p. 7. Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, trans. G. A. Williamson (New York: Penguin, 1989), p. 88. (7) von Campenhausen, p. 121. (8) Ibid, p. 121. (9) Eusebius, pp. 102-104. (10) von Campenhausen, p. 130. (11) von Campenhausen, pp. 185, 202. Cross and Livingston, p. 713. The books he used will be discussed later in the paper. (12) Cross and Livingston, pp. 400, 1067. Davis. von Campenhausen, p. 203 states that Acts, too, was included in the third century Syrian canon. (13) H[enry] Cha[dwick], "Christianity Before the Schism of 1054," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1977 ed. (14) Thiede, p. 27. The standard dating was previously c. 200. (15) Bruce, pp. 130-131. (16) Cross and Livingston, p. 870. (17) von Campenhausen, p. 153. Bruce, p. 148. (18) von Campenhausen, pp. 151, 152, 155, 156, 159, 160. (19) A mission repeated in our day by those on a "quest for a historical Jesus" and those infatuated with higher criticism. (20) Bruce, p. 152. von Campenhausen, p. 161. (21) Bruce, p. 152. (22) Cross and Livingston, p. 770. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (New York: Penguin, 1993), p. 77. (23) H. G[rady] D[avis], "Biblical Literature," Encyclopedia Britannica:Macropaedia, 1977 ed. (24) von Campenhausen, p. 171. (25) Ibid, pp. 172, 186. (26) Ibid, pp. 189, 196, 201. (27) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), I, 599-602. These pages contain an index to scriptural references in St. Irenaeus. The index showed more books being cited than some of my secondary sources (e.g. Davis) indicated. (28) von Campenhausen, p. 219. (29) Davis. Cross and Livingston, p. 303. (30) Bruce, p. 190. (31) von Campenhausen, p. 213, 294. (32) Ibid, p. 327. (33) R. Laird Harris, Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible: An Historical and Exegetical Study (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1971), p. 217. (34) Davis. von Campenhausen, p. 244. Bruce, pp. 159-161. A translation of the Muratorian Canon appears in Roberts and Donaldson, V, 603, 604. (35) Bruce, pp. 161, 166. van Campenhausen, p. 259. (36) "Books that Almost Made It," Christian History, 43 (1994), 30. (37) Henry Chadwick, 1993, pp. 52, 53. Andrew Louth, "Who's Who in Eusebius" in The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (New York: Penguin, 1989), pp. 396, 397. (38) Eusebius, p. 160, 163. (39) von Campenhausen, p. 230. (40) von Campenhausen, p. 238. Louth, p. 369. Eusebius, p. 91. (41) von Campenhausen, pp. 232, 233, 235, 237. Bruce, p. 221. (42) Bruce, pp. 192, 193. Davis. Cross and Livingston, p. 1008. (43) von Campenhausen, p. 320. Bruce, p. 194. Davis. (44) Eusebius, p. 202. (45) von Campenhausen, pp. 232, 233. (46) Eusebius, p. 66. (47) Ibid, p. 88. (48) Bruce, pp. 203, 205. Geisler and Nix, p. 282. (49) Bruce, p. 210. (50) Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (2nd series), (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), IV, 552. (51) Ibid, p. 552. The "[Didache]" interpolation is mine, while "[merely]" appeared in the translation. Note that while the vast majority of Christians agree on the books of the New Testament canon, there is great disagreement to this day on the bounds of the Old Testament. (52) Bruce, p. 221. Cross and Livingston, p. 101. (53) Geisler and Nix, p. 299. It was disputed because of doubts that is was a genuine writing of St. Peter due to stylistic differences between I and II Peter. (54) Norman Geisler and William Nix, p. 104. Bruce, pp. 211, 212, 234. Cross and Livingston, pp. 369, 599. (55) Bruce, p. 232. (56) Bruce, p. 213, 214, 227. Cross and Livingston, p. 309, 310, 464, 731. Davis. (57) Cross and Livingston, p. 1067. Bruce, p. 215. Davis. (58) A[rthur] V[ööbus], "Eastern Christianity, Independent Churches of," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1977 ed. Cross and Livingston, pp. 475, 481. (59) Geisler and Nix, p. 277. Bruce, pp. 256-269. von Campenhausen, p. 331. (60) Cross and Livingston, p. 763. (61) Robert Milburn, Early Christian Art and Architecture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), pp. 36, 37. (62) Cross and Livingston, pp. 367, 381, 1352. (63) Milburn, p. 38 (64) Cross and Livingston, p. 1107. Some following Eusebius place his death in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180) and his birth a corresponding amount later. His birth year is estimated using his trial statement that he had served Christ for 86 years. (65) Sparks, p. 148. (66) Thomas Hopko,"The Bible in the Orthodox Church," St. Vladamir's Theological Quarterly, Vol 14, No. 1-2 (1970), 66, 67. (67) Mary Sanford, "An Orthodox View of Biblical Criticism," Sourozh, 26 (November 1986), 30. Emphasis in the original. (68) "the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" II Thessalonians 2:15 (RSV)

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-18 13:32 | User Profile

"However, it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.(68) Only scripture is ultimately authoritative for the defense of doctrine, but only with tradition can we obtain the correct presuppositions so that we can interpret scripture aright."

James/Yakob, of the family and true community of Jesus/Yeshua, affirmed Works and the Law as against the deluded heretic, Paul's, Faith and Grace.

So Paul rearranged "Jesus" for the ageless Morons into something that fit neo-pagan gentile "presuppositions," and sugar-coated him with an Advent soon to come, to which was added John's Apocalyptic cherry on top.

wild_bill

2004-02-18 16:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]"However, it makes more sense to assume that the interpretations of the early church are correct; being closer to the founding of the faith, they share more of the presuppositions of Christ and the apostles, both in terms of general cultural assumptions and in terms of oral tradition.(68) Only scripture is ultimately authoritative for the defense of doctrine, but only with tradition can we obtain the correct presuppositions so that we can interpret scripture aright."

James/Yakob, of the family and true community of Jesus/Yeshua, affirmed Works and the Law as against the deluded heretic, Paul's, Faith and Grace.

So Paul rearranged "Jesus" for the ageless Morons into something that fit neo-pagan gentile "presuppositions," and sugar-coated him with an Advent soon to come, to which was added John's Apocalyptic cherry on top.[/QUOTE]

(Yawn) Once again you apply your predicatable anti-Christ interpretation and assume that will carry some weight. You hate Christianity and regard all Christians with the typical contempt common among most fans of the of the lunatic Nietzsche. Ok, we got the message.

-

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-18 21:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill] (Yawn) Once again you apply your predictable anti-Christ interpretation and assume that will carry some weight. You hate Christianity and regard all Christians with the typical contempt common among most fans of the of the lunatic Nietzsche. Ok, we got the message.[/QUOTE]

Your non-denial of the facts as alleged suggests that they are more than a mere "interpretation". And I do confess to disliking public indulgence in intoxicants and to regarding those who indulge as something of a lesser breed. Also, Nietzsche as a "lunatic," in your mind, suggests that his contribution is of a quality that exceeds your grasp. I suspect, then, that your having "got the message" was not achieved with the most sophisticated facility.

Never fear, however, we are here to assist in the refinement of your capabilities.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-18 21:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Your non-denial of the facts...[/QUOTE]

Facts?! LOL! :lol:

More like vomited-up bile thrown on the wall hoping something will stick.

Please do us a favor and refrain from the subject at hand until you are in possession of some facts.

madrussian

2004-02-18 21:55 | User Profile

Now that I am paying more attention, I see the "God Squad"'s complaints about posters attacking Christianity as valid. A non-agression principle is the only solution that I can see :hitler:

wild_bill

2004-02-18 22:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Your non-denial of the facts as alleged suggests that they are more than a mere "interpretation".[/QUOTE]

I don't see conclusive "facts" in your postings, but opinions.

-

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-19 15:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Facts?! LOL! :lol:

More like vomited-up bile thrown on the wall hoping something will stick.[/QUOTE]

Not at all, Tex - I wrote, rather sweetly, of a sugar-coated treat with a cherry on top in what ought to have been taken as an obvious explanation of the distinctive appeal of Paul's adulterated version of a neo-pagan mystery religion designed to appeal to the "ageless morons," i.e., those who are always most numerous in terms of intellectual capacity/incapacity for having been thus arrested at about the age of twelve years.

[QUOTE]Please do us a favor and refrain from the subject at hand until you are in possession of some facts.[/QUOTE]

It appears that the facts are yet to come into dispute, since the self-evident commonplace of the history of the episode is that brother James and cousin Simeon were the leaders of what, properly-speaking, was the "early church". And we have from James the counter-Pauline doctrine of that church (the short-lived Nazorenes/Ebionim) in affirmation of his brother's own dedication, in Matthew, to "every jot and tittle" of the Law, as well as James' own emphasis on works as opposed to Paul's mere faith. Paul is thus the true "heretic" here, qualified only by his cultivation and elevation of Peter, and his "faith" survived, obviously, because he designed it, as explained above, to have universal rather than provincial appeal.

With regard to WB's tautology-imperiled material, above, I properly reduced the issue to the question of the origin of "presuppositions" alleged to be requisite for proper "interpretation" of scripture which obviously requires said interpretation in view of its historic lack, as recited above, of self-evident meaning and instruction. And it is simply the case that the referenced "early church" which is supposed to have shared by propinquity the presuppositions of "Christ and the Apostles" was not, as explained, derivative of that early church which fits this description such as would supply Paul's surviving "Christianity" with its putative pedigree.

And we have discussed at great length, on prior occasion, the issue of pre-suppositions/pre-conceptions as the basis of "faith," wherein history is invested with pre-prepared meanings and interpretations which events themselves do not support. So this protest regarding some as-yet unspecified impropriety in the recounting of history here evidences incompetence in mastering one's own argument, wherein history must defer to the requirement for being invested or suggestively trimmed, as was done above, to mythologically fit the framework devised to meet the inward needs of the believer. Presumably, then, this trimming was performed under the circumlocutory supervision of "interpretations" based upon "presuppositions" derived from the propinquity of churchs alleged to be in such relation based upon said interpretations and presuppositions. As I am not privy to the specifics of these arcana (left unspecified, we note, above), my mythology is, indeed, not in order here, so I am discussing the history of the event undisturbed by the requirements of the former.

Neo

UnsleepingFlame

2004-02-20 17:25 | User Profile

I have deleted my too-strongly-phrased message in wholly uncoerced deference to the Christian upkeepers here. I hope that I may continue to participate without such ill-bred assertion of ideas.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-20 18:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=UnsleepingFlame]People should know it is impossible to be a Christian, and at the same time a player on the world's stage. The small presence the Roman Catholic Church has established for itself is only possible by a shrewd forgetting of the way-of-life promoted by Jesus. If you follow Christ, that means you give up all right to self-defense, all dedication to time and space itself. Nationalism is the exact counterideal of Christ's example. It will yet probably be a few hundred more years before people have the courage to drop the Christian pose.[/QUOTE]

No disrespect intended UF, but since a good portion of our membership are Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, perhaps your time would be better spent at other secular boards.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-21 16:14 | User Profile

Indeed, "UnsleepingFlame". Nationalism is the counter-ideal of Beatitudinal prescriptions.

My own small hope is that Nietzsche was on to something in his expectation that a putative Christian "truthfulness" of long cultivation would incline Europeans to an ironic "self-overcoming" of their pathological intoxication with "Christianity". And I am reminded by an excellent article, reproduced on another current thread, of Professor Oliver's belief that the superiority of the Aryan lay in the latter's willingness to face reality.

Also, and most immediately, we find Tex and "Wild Bill" :cowboy: resorting to an emphasis on "history," as if they were acceding and adhering to the fundamental epistemological proprieties of logical coherence and factual correspondence. So I again find myself tantalized by the preliminary, ostensible, objectivity of the God-squad such that I am slightly, momentarily, hopeful of a breakthrough to whatever of the inner Nazi has survived down-breeding. But - so far- arguing at length with comrades who are under the intoxicating influence of self-serving circumlocutions, preconceptions, and terminological abuses has proven an exercise in futility for the "Aryans".

Walter Yannis

2004-02-21 16:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No disrespect intended UF, but since a good portion of our membership are Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox, perhaps your time would be better spent at other secular boards.[/QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more.

There's no point to continuing the conversation with these assorted others, including especially Pagans and Nazis, as close as some of them are to my heart. It's clear that we can't work on anything together, at least not on anything more productive than entertaining conversation (and it's certainly been entertaining).

"Shoemaker, tend to thy last!" Only focus makes us effective. Without focus, we're just gesture without motion and headpieces of straw.

Nobody can be all things to all people, and it's as hopeless for us Christians to find common ground with Nazis and Pagans as it is for us to make an alliance with Pharisees. We're utterly at odds on the most fundamental things, and our only hope for accomplishing anything practical is to focus on building our common vision of a Christian nation.

We Christians have our own divisions, after all, and although it will be tough we've proven that we can work togther and trust each other to protect each other's rights in a shared polity. Evangelicals and Catholics have spoken as one on the abortion issue for the past 30 years, to name just one example of our successful cooperation. We have the Truth in common, after all.

But that obviously isn't the case with the Nazis. Carrying on a conversation with a man like Alex Linder, who uses the worst sort of epithets in regard to our Lord and obviously has naught but sneering contempt for us Christians, is obviously self-defeating. Clearly, his more vile utterances place him with the Pharisees in diametrical opposition to us. He is every bit the enemy of Christ as is Rabbi Foxman of the ADL, so why would it even occur to us that we can make common cause with him and his followers? The Nazis are just flip sides of the Jewish Bolshevik coin, after all. Isn't that clear, my friend?

From our point of view, they are the same. They are equally our enemies, as sad as that may be. And let's not fool ourselves about their intentions toward us - they'll stick a knife in our backs as soon as we turn around.

And as the astonishing success of our brother in Christ Mel Gibson proves, we surely don't need them. In fact, the sooner we're shut of them the better off we'll all be, including them.

So, as I've written previously, I'm all for narrowing our focus. Our little God Squad can only accomplish anything of value by setting our sights on a European, Christian and English-speaking American nation, and throwing out all the excess baggage. Heaven knows, we have plenty of our own.

Walter

All Old Right

2004-02-21 17:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Facts?! LOL! :lol:

More like vomited-up bile thrown on the wall hoping something will stick.

Please do us a favor and refrain from the subject at hand until you are in possession of some facts.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and they feel welcome enough to come back here over and over and post that garbage. You seldom do anything about it, so it must not bother you but so much.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-21 17:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] The Nazis are just flip sides of the Jewish Bolshevik coin, after all. Isn't that clear, my friend?

From our point of view, they are the same. They are equally our enemies, as sad as that may be. And let's not fool ourselves about their intentions toward us - they'll stick a knife in our backs as soon as we turn around. [/QUOTE]

So it must seem to those, our paranoid cultist comrades, whom we are trying, patiently and reasonably for the most part, to subject to an intervention and extraction from the delusional influence of the enemy.

Avalanche

2004-02-21 17:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE] UnsleepingFlame wrote: If you follow Christ, that means you give up all right to self-defense, [/QUOTE]

[B] What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control? [/B] by Larry Pratt Executive Vice-President Gun Owners Foundation [url]www.gunowners.org[/url] Aug1999

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

[B] Did Christ Teach Pacifism?[/B]

Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance – was also proper for an individual.

Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times.

Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written").

To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.

The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.

The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals.

Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant's life in certain circumstances.

[B] Self-Defense in the Old Testament [/B]

Exodus 22:2-3 tells us "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

One conclusion which can be drawn from this is that a threat to our life is to be met with lethal force. After the sun has risen seems to refer to a different judgment than the one permitted at night. At night it is more difficult to discern whether the intruder is a thief or a murderer. Furthermore, the nighttime makes it more difficult to defend oneself and to avoid killing the thief at the same time. During the daytime, it better be clear that one's life was in danger, otherwise, defense becomes vengeance, and that belongs in the hand of the magistrate.

In Proverbs 25:26 we read that "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well." Certainly, we would be faltering before the wicked if we chose to be unarmed and unable to resist an assailant who might be threatening our life. In other words, we have no right to hand over our life which is a gift from God to the unrighteous. It is a serious mistake to equate a civilized society with one in which the decent people are doormats for the evil to trample on.

[B] Trusting God [/B] Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?"

Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments. (John 14:15)

Those who trust God work for a living, knowing that 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God.

King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1).

The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages cited above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God.

There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."

At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).

It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.

[B] Role of Government [/B]

The Bible records the first murder in Genesis 4 when Cain killed his brother Abel. God's response was not to register rocks or impose a background check on those getting a plough, or whatever it was that Cain used to kill his brother. Instead, God dealt with the criminal. Ever since Noah the penalty for murder has been death.

We see the refusal to accept this principle that God has given us from the very beginning. Today we see a growing acceptance of the idea that checking the criminal backgrounds of gun buyers will lessen crime but we should seldom execute those who are guilty of murder.

In Matthew 15 (and in Mark 7) Christ accused the religious leaders of the day of also opposing the execution of those deserving of death -- rebellious teenagers. They had replaced the commandments of God with their own traditions. God has never been interested in controlling the means of violence. He has always made it a point to punish, and where possible, restore (as with restitution and excommunication) the wrongdoer. Control of individuals is to be left to self-government. Punishment of individuals by the civil government is to be carried out when self-government breaks down.

Man's wisdom today has been to declare gun free school zones which are invaded by gun-toting teenage terrorists whom we refuse to execute. We seem to have learned little from Christ's rebuke of the Pharisees.

Nowhere in the Bible does God make any provision for dealing with the instruments of crime. He always focuses on the consequences for an individual of his actions. Heaven and hell only applies to people, not to things. Responsibility only pertains to people, not to things. If this principle, which was deeply embedded in the common law, still pertained today lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be thrown out unless the product malfunctioned.

Responsibility rightly includes being liable for monetary damages if a firearm is left in a grossly negligent fashion so that an ignorant child gets the gun and misuses it. The solution is not to require that trigger locks be used on a gun to avoid being subject to such a law suit. Some might argue that this is nothing more than an application of the Biblical requirement that a railing be placed around the flat rooftop of a house where people might congregate. But trigger locks are to be used with unloaded guns which would be the same as requiring a railing around a pitched roof where people do not congregate.

Surely in protecting against accidents we do cannot end up making

ourselves more vulnerable to criminal attack, which is what a trigger lock does if it is in use on the firearm intended for self protection.

The firearm that is kept for self defense should be available in an emergency. Rooftop railings have no correspondence to the need for instant access to a gun. On the other hand, guns that are not intended for immediate use should be kept secured as a reasonable precaution. But to make the owner criminally or monetarily liable for another's misuse violates a basic commandment of Scripture: "the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself" (Ezekiel 18:20b).

[B] Self Defense Versus Vengeance [/B]

Resisting an attack is not to be confused with taking vengeance which is the exclusive domain of God (Romans 12:19). This has been delegated to the civil magistrate, who, as we read in Romans 13:4, "is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Private vengeance means one would stalk down a criminal after one's life is no longer in danger as opposed to defending oneself during an attack. It is this very point that has been confused by Christian pacifists who would take the passage in the Sermon on the Mount about turning the other cheek (which prohibits private vengeance) into a command to falter before the wicked.

Let us consider also that the Sixth Commandment tells us "Thou shall not murder." In the chapters following, God gave to Moses many of the situations which require a death penalty. God clearly has not told us never to kill. He has told us not to murder, which means we are not to take an innocent life.

Consider also that the civil magistrate is to be a terror to those who practice evil. This passage does not in any way imply that the role of law enforcement is to prevent crimes or to protect individuals from criminals. The magistrate is a minister to serve as "an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Romans 13:4).

This point is reflected in the legal doctrine of the United States. Repeatedly, courts have held that the government has no responsibility to provide individual security. One case (Bowers v. DeVito) put it this way: "there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."

[B] Self Defense in the New Testament [/B]

The Christian pacifist may try to argue that God has changed His mind from the time that He gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Perhaps they would want us to think that Christ canceled out the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 or the provision for justifiably killing a thief in Exodus 22. But the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that this cannot be, because "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). In the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi records God's words this way: "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Paul was referring to the unchangeability of God's Word when he wrote to Timothy that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Clearly, Paul viewed all Scripture, including the Old Testament, as useful for training Christians in every area of life.

We must also consider what Christ told his disciples in his last hours with them: "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Keep in mind that the sword was the finest offensive weapon available to an individual soldier -- the equivalent then of a military rifle today.

The Christian pacifist will likely object at this point that only a few hours later, Christ rebuked Peter who used a sword to cut off the ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest in the company of a detachment of troops. Let us read what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 26:52-54: Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?

In the companion passage in John 18, Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away and told him that He had to drink the cup that His Father had given Him.

It was not the first time that Christ had to explain to the disciples why He had come to earth. To fulfill the Scriptures, the Son of God had to die for the sin of man since man was incapable of paying for his own sin apart from going to hell. Christ could have saved His life, but then believers would have lost their lives forever in hell. These things only became clear to the disciples after Christ had died and been raised from the dead and the Spirit had come into the world at Pentecost (see John 14:26).

While Christ told Peter to "put your sword in its place" He clearly did not say get rid of it forever. That would have contradicted what he had told the disciples only hours before. Peter's sword was to protect his own mortal life from danger. His sword was not needed to protect the Creator of the universe and the King of kings.

Years after Pentecost, Paul wrote in a letter to Timothy "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). This passage applies to our subject because it would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property. Likewise it would be absurd not to take, if necessary, the life of a night-time thief to protect the members of the family (Exodus 22:2-3).

A related, and even broader concept, is found in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Christ had referred to the Old Testament summary of all the laws of the Bible into two great commandments: "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' and your neighbor as yourself'" (Luke 10:27). When asked who was a neighbor, Christ related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37). It was the Good Samaritan who took care of the mugging victim who was a neighbor to the victim. The others who walked by and ignored the victim's plight were not acting as neighbors to him.

In the light of all we have seen the Scriptures teach to this point, can we argue that if we were able to save another's life from an attacker by shooting the attacker with our gun that we should "turn the other cheek instead?" The Bible speaks of no such right. It only speaks of our responsibilities in the face of an attack -- as individual creatures made by God, as householders or as neighbors.

[B] National Blessings and Cursings [/B]

The Old Testament also tells us a great deal about the positive relationship between righteousness, which exalts a nation, and self defense.

It makes clear that in times of national rebellion against the Lord God, the rulers of the nation will reflect the spiritual degradation of the people and the result is a denial of God's commandments, an arrogance of officialdom, disarmament and oppression.

For example, the people of Israel were oppressed during the time of the rule of the Judges. This occurred every time the people apostatized. Judges 5:8 tells us that, "They chose new gods; then there was war in the gates; not a shield or spear was seen among forty thousand in Israel."

Consider Israel under Saul: The first book of Samuel tells of the turning away of Israel from God. The people did not want to be governed by God; they wanted to be ruled by a king like the pagan, God-hating nations around them. Samuel warned the people what they were getting into -- the curses that would be upon them -- if they persisted in raising up a king over themselves and their families. Included in those curses was the raising up of a standing, professional army which would take their sons and their daughters for aggressive wars (I Samuel 8:11).

This curse is not unknown in the United States. Saul carried out all the judgments that Samuel had warned the people about. His build up of a standing army has been repeated in the U.S., and not just in terms of the military, but also the 650,000 full-time police officers from all levels of government.

Saul was the king the Israelites wanted and got. He was beautiful in the eyes of the world but a disaster in the eyes of the Lord. Saul did not trust God. He rebelled against His form of sacrifice unto the Lord. Saul put himself above God. He was impatient. He refused to wait for Samuel because God's way was taking too long. Saul went ahead and performed the sacrifice himself, thus violating God's commandment (and, incidentally, also violating the God-ordained separation of duties of church and state!)

Thus was the kingdom lost to Saul. And, it was under him that the Philistines were able to defeat the Jews and put them into bondage. So great was the bondage exerted by the Philistines that "Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, 'Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.' But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen each man's plowshare, his mattock, his ax, and his sickle;...So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan..." (1 Samuel 13:19-20; 22-23).

Today, the same goals of the Philistines would be carried out by an oppressor who would ban gunsmiths from the land. The sword of today is the handgun, rifle or shotgun. The sword control of the Philistines is today's gun control of those governments that do not trust their people with guns.

It is important to understand that what happened to the Jews at the time of Saul was not unexpected according to the sanctions spelled out by God in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. In the first verses of those chapters, blessings are promised to a nation that keeps God's laws. In the latter parts of those chapters, the curses are spelled out for a nation that comes under judgment for its rebellion against God. Deuteronomy 28:47-48 helps us understand the reason for Israel's oppression by the Philistines during Saul's reign: [QUOTE] Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things, therefore you shall serve your enemies, whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in need of all things; and He will put a yoke of iron on your neck until He has destroyed you. [/QUOTE] The Bible provides examples of God's blessing upon Israel for its faithfulness. These blessings included a strong national defense coupled with peace. A clear example occurred during the reign of Jehoshaphat. 2 Chronicles 17 tells of how Jehoshaphat led Israel back to faithfulness to God which included a strong national defense. The result: "And the fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat" (2 Chronicles 17:10).

The Israelite army was a militia army (Numbers 1:3, ff.) which came to battle with each man bearing his own weapons -- from the time of Moses, through the Judges, and beyond. When threatened by the Midianites, for example, "Moses spoke to the people, saying, 'Arm some of yourselves for the war, and let them go against the Midianites to take vengeance for the Lord on Midian'" (Numbers 31:3). Again, to demonstrate the Biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13).

Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders, each man -- each servant -- armed with his own weapon: Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built (Nehemiah 4:17-18).

[B] Conclusion [/B]

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution is consistent with the lessons of the Bible. Instruments of defense should be dispersed throughout the nation, not concentrated in the hands of the central government. In a godly country, righteousness governs each man through the Holy Spirit working within. The government has no cause to want a monopoly of force; the government that desires such a monopoly is a threat to the lives, liberty and property of its citizens.

The assumption that only danger can result from people carrying guns is used to justify the government's having a monopoly of force. The notion that the people cannot be trusted to keep and bear their own arms informs us that ours, like the time of Solomon, may be one of great riches but is also a time of peril to free people. If Christ is not our King, we shall have a dictator to rule over us, just as Samuel warned.

For those who think that God treated Israel differently from the way He will treat us today, please consider what God told the prophet Malachi: "For I am the Lord, I do not change..." (Malachi 3:6).

madrussian

2004-02-21 17:53 | User Profile

It seems that Tex was starting to make a lot of progress in what could be termed as "recognizing race first", but the latest "dialogue" destroyed that good will he had. It's futile to try to make people change their mind by attacking what they've grown up with.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-21 18:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]It seems that Tex was starting to make a lot of progress in what could be termed as "recognizing race first", but the latest "dialogue" destroyed that good will he had. It's futile to try to make people change their mind by attacking what they've grown up with.[/QUOTE]

That's right, MR.

I'm please to see that you've undestood this key point.

Walter

madrussian

2004-02-21 18:13 | User Profile

Never stopped knowing that. I can return fire but I am not even going to try to make you change your mind in these matters.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-21 18:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian] It seems that Tex was starting to make a lot of progress in what could be termed as "recognizing race first", but the latest "dialogue" destroyed that good will he had.[/QUOTE]

Oops - my bad.

[QUOTE]It's futile to try to make people change their mind by attacking what they've grown up with.[/QUOTE]

And which of us grew up with Paganism (properly speaking for Wintermute's sake) or National Socialism? I started out in the nursery at a Presbyterian church and went through every Sunday school level right up through college classes. Obtaining objectivity in regard to such matters seems, rather, to depend upon whether your wiring can stand a confrontation with the abyss. Looks like I queered the deal in bringing Tex along gently.

Ragnar

2004-02-21 19:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]So, as I've written previously, I'm all for narrowing our focus. Our little God Squad can only accomplish anything of value by setting our sights on a European, Christian and English-speaking American nation, and throwing out all the excess baggage. [/QUOTE]

Some of us have made the same point in a different way. Wilde said that to define is to limit, and once OD makes itself officially a voice of white Christian nationalism, it will eliminate all this unnecessary wheel-spinning.

Race consciousness among Europeans is a minority position as it is. No point is served when this minority fractures itself, given its inherent status as the world's most completely insignificant ideological posture.

Consider the real possibility that even posting in places like that might be a Hate Crime already -- and no group of Europeans would have the power counter the charge if it were served. Whites generally have no clue to their own debased and inferior status in the current world order.

Angler

2004-02-21 22:59 | User Profile

If Christianity is so definitely true, then I see no reason why anyone should be afraid to debate it or its origins (minus the insults/blasphemy, of course). It should be quite easy to do so, if evidence and logic are on one's side.

Thinking people will not only tolerate opposing viewpoints, they will actually seek them out in order to test their own views. Few people, however, are willing to abandon their comfort zone for even a few seconds. It's just too painful for most people to really test long-cherished beliefs. When serious doubts about Christianity first popped into my mind, it literally made me feel ill, as if someone had told me a loved one had died. Nevertheless, absolute, unflinching honesty is at the core of my being, and I refused to suppress my doubts for the sake of comfort. That's how I and others (including the writers of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution) ended up becoming free-thinkers.

Regardless of claims to the contrary, no Christian knows that Christianity is true. It cannot be emphasized enough: when you trust in a "revealed religion," you are not trusting in God, but in human beings who CLAIM to have been inspired by God. Anyone can make that claim, and many have done so. Should they all be taken at their word?

Sadly, I know all of this is falling on deaf ears. If the Bible stated that "2+2=3.14159", then Bible believers would not merely claim that 2+2=3.14159; they would know it, base their lives around it, and get angry with those who insisted otherwise.

madrussian

2004-02-22 00:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche] And which of us grew up with Paganism (properly speaking for Wintermute's sake) or National Socialism? I started out in the nursery at a Presbyterian church and went through every Sunday school level right up through college classes. Obtaining objectivity in regard to such matters seems, rather, to depend upon whether your wiring can stand a confrontation with the abyss. Looks like I queered the deal in bringing Tex along gently.[/QUOTE]

But can you require of everyone to make that journey?

Why try to prove to Christians that their religion is silly? I fail to see what's to be gained and why that's important?

Walter Yannis

2004-02-22 08:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE]to depend upon whether your wiring can stand a confrontation with the abyss.[/QUOTE]

We agree that this is the fundamental question.

The answer is clearly and demonstrably "no," as evidenced by no less than Nietzche's own emotional breakdown. He was weeping over a horse, and then he spent the rest of his days in an asylum, if memory serves. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We just weren't built for looking down into the Abyss.

So, let's accept that fact of our own natures and move on. End this talk of the Abyss, Neo, it can only lead to failure, both personal and collective.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-22 08:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ragnar]Some of us have made the same point in a different way. Wilde said that to define is to limit, and once OD makes itself officially a voice of white Christian nationalism, it will eliminate all this unnecessary wheel-spinning.

Race consciousness among Europeans is a minority position as it is. No point is served when this minority fractures itself, given its inherent status as the world's most completely insignificant ideological posture.

Consider the real possibility that even posting in places like that might be a Hate Crime already -- and no group of Europeans would have the power counter the charge if it were served. Whites generally have no clue to their own debased and inferior status in the current world order.[/QUOTE]

Very well put, Ragnar. That's a grand slam.

As I've said previously, it's really just basic management theory. Every business must first define its mission. It has to know what it wants, and the more clearly that mission can be stated the better. The next step is to define core competencies - what do we know how to do better than anybody else?

We can't hope to achieve anything practical if we don't clearly define what we're about and what we can do to achieve it.

Purge the ranks, I say.

Walter

Angler

2004-02-22 08:53 | User Profile

Walter,

Can we really afford to be divided on the basis of religious belief? Do we who oppose the Jewish agenda have sufficient numerical strength to indulge in the luxury of clannishness?

The leaders of all major Christian denominations condemn racism in unequivocal terms, and their flocks follow them. Most mainstream Christians will never join any pro-White movement. The sooner everyone accepts this reality, the better.

The only way the pro-White movement will ever be united enough to make any sort of a dent in the Jewish juggernaut is if believers and nonbelievers are willing to make religion a non-issue as far as our political goals are concerned.

Linder and the other militant atheists should stop insulting Christians and Jesus. Christians should stop bugging atheists with unprovable claims about the Almighty. Then we can move on from there.

Angler

2004-02-22 09:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We agree that this is the fundamental question.

The answer is clearly and demonstrably "no," as evidenced by no less than Nietzche's own emotional breakdown. He was weeping over a horse, and then he spent the rest of his days in an asylum, if memory serves. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We just weren't built for looking down into the Abyss. Obviously what happened to Nietzsche does not happen to all atheists, Walter. There is no correlation between religious belief/unbelief and mental illness -- at least none that I'm aware of. And even if there were, that would still not be a reason to believe or disbelieve in any religion. If one of my family members dies, should I avoid the acceptance of that fact in order to spare myself mental anguish? Should I fool myself and persist in denial?

Regardless of whether one believes in Christianity or not, his belief should be based on evidence and logic (both inductive and deductive). Those are the only legitimate reasons to believe in anything.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-22 09:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]The only way the pro-White movement will ever be united enough to make any sort of a dent in the Jewish juggernaut is if believers and nonbelievers are willing to make religion a non-issue as far as our political goals are concerned.

Linder and the other militant atheists should stop insulting Christians and Jesus. Christians should stop bugging atheists with unprovable claims about the Almighty. Then we can move on from there.[/QUOTE]

Christians can't make their religion a non-issue towards any temporal goal and also cannot stop bugging anyone about it. It's in our charter.

Atheists need to stop bugging Christians with their unprovable claims.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-22 09:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=All Old Right]Yeah, and they feel welcome enough to come back here over and over and post that garbage. You seldom do anything about it, so it must not bother you but so much.[/QUOTE]

That hurts coming from you, AOR, but I'll take it into account. Please pray for my wisdom.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-22 09:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Isn't that clear, my friend? [/QUOTE]

Well admittedly I'm a slow learner and naively idealistic. Thank you for sharing your wisdom Walter. I've got to pray and think on the matter. It will sound silly to the unbelievers here, but I am seeing the Lord's hand in so many things going on in my life right now. Please pray for a Christian brother and know that I will do likewise.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-22 09:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Obtaining objectivity in regard to such matters seems, rather, to depend upon whether your wiring can stand a confrontation with the abyss. Looks like I queered the deal in bringing Tex along gently.[/QUOTE]

It looks like your objectivity falls short of the mark, NN. You shouldn't presume (leap of faith) to know whether one has confronted the abyss or not by their professed belief in Christianity and assuming that such confrontations lead one away from faith.

Recheck your epistemology and read some Kierkegaard.

Angler

2004-02-22 10:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Christians can't make their religion a non-issue towards any temporal goal and also cannot stop bugging anyone about it. It's in our charter. But isn't the whole point of Christianity to concern oneself with the afterlife rather than the present world?

There's nothing wrong with Christians trying to convince other people of the truth of their claims. But if they wish to do so, then it makes no sense for them to become indignant when people make counter-arguments.

Atheists need to stop bugging Christians with their unprovable claims. I agree that the existence of God cannot be disproved -- that's why I'm not an atheist, but lean more toward Deism. (Christianity cannot be disproved either -- but then again, neither can Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Odinism, etc.)

Walter Yannis

2004-02-22 13:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The only part of your post that actually stings, is where you call me enemy. Now, we all know that a man can be judged by the enemies that he keeps. A person like yourself, who can tell any lie in the 'defense' of his faith, who can twist its texts to mean anything that is momentarily useful, who salivates over the idea of causing pain to others, who gladhandles with the best of them and slips in the knife with rattlesnake suddenness . . . so far as I can tell, you are a moral non-entity . . . [/QUOTE]

Harsh words, Wintermute. I didn't deserve that.

We've come a long way together, and that really does sting.

But, I guess it proves the point that we really have so little in common that it's pointless to continue this conversation.

I sincerely wish you every happiness in life. I hope we both find what we're looking for.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-22 13:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Can we really afford to be divided on the basis of religious belief? [/QUOTE]

Religious belief is the first thing. If we don't agree on that, then there is no commonality and there is no common goal to achieve. Why fool ourselves about that?

[QUOTE]Do we who oppose the Jewish agenda have sufficient numerical strength to indulge in the luxury of clannishness?[/QUOTE]

No, but then again neither did Saints Peter and Paul. We'll win if God wants us to win. Our job is to do His will, and leave the results up to Him.

Our eyes are fixed on very different things. You assume I think incorrectly that we share a common goal. Nationalism is merely a subsidiary thing in God's plan of salvation for us. It just happens to be the one that's now out of vogue with the forces that rule this world, but I certainly will not make my race into some sort of pagan idol. It's an important thing, but it isn't the thing itself.

I have no desire to work with those who mock my Faith. Seriously. I scarcely have enough time for my friends and family, and every moment spent on this sort of endless drivel is a moment not spent doing things that are valuable to me.

Walter

Angler

2004-02-22 15:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Religious belief is the first thing. If we don't agree on that, then there is no commonality and there is no common goal to achieve. Why fool ourselves about that? So, for the record, you're not willing to compromise or cooperate, even though nonbelievers are? That's a shame.

We'll win if God wants us to win. Our job is to do His will, and leave the results up to Him. That would be nice, if anyone could agree on what God's will actually is. For every person who says that Nationalism is part of God's will, there are probably 1000 who claim the opposite.

You're a Catholic, right, Walter? Here's the official teaching of the Catholic Church on racism:

Racism is a sin; a sin that divides the human family, blots out the image of God among specific members of that family, and violates the fundamental human dignity of those called to be children of the same Father. Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of races. It is the sin that makes racial characteristics the determining factor for the exercise of human rights. It mocks the words of Jesus: "Treat others the way you would have them treat you." Indeed, racism is more than a disregard for the words of Jesus; it is a denial of the truth of the dignity of each human being revealed by the mystery of the Incarnation.

[url]http://www.osjspm.org/cst/q_racism.htm[/url]

Our eyes are fixed on very different things. You assume I think incorrectly that we share a common goal. Nationalism is merely a subsidiary thing in God's plan of salvation for us. It just happens to be the one that's now out of vogue with the forces that rule this world, but I certainly will not make my race into some sort of pagan idol. It's an important thing, but it isn't the thing itself. I believe that there is a morality higher than race as well. I am not an atheist, but even if I were, my inner moral barometer tells me that some things are wrong no matter whom they're done to (including animals, even).

You mentioned common goals. I don't know precisely what your goal is, but mine is simply to see the defeat of Organized Jewry's bid to fully enslave the world. A good start would be the permanent cessation of taxpayer-funded foreign aid to Israel.

I have no desire to work with those who mock my Faith. Seriously. I scarcely have enough time for my friends and family, and every moment spent on this sort of endless drivel is a moment not spent doing things that are valuable to me.[/QUOTE]And I have no desire to mock your faith -- I merely question it. In any case, if you expect to establish Christianity as the "official religion" of the pro-White movement -- at least that's how I understand your position -- then you must expect to be able to prove your case to skeptics.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-22 16:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Religious belief is the first thing. If we don't agree on that, then there is no commonality and there is no common goal to achieve. Why fool ourselves about that?[/QUOTE]

I'm with you, Brother Walter - let's get together in a common faith, one worthy of men rather than women, slaves, overgrown boys and eunuchs. I suggest that we compromise and get it on with Huitzilopochtli, and make him a singular deity in the pursuit of war and human sacrifice.

For Hummingbird Feather of the West led real men, better men, more orderly and provident men, in battle against those who prevailed by virtue of ten-thousand years of advantage in technology. It is the case that the globe's colonial frontier has run out of space, Walter, such that the continued foolish, suicidal, Western indulgence in derivatively Semitic theological intoxicants and government via hypocratic impostures, formerly permitted thereby, can no longer be tolerated.

But your initial reaction to this suggestion will of course be that this is ridiculous, and that, in any case, better we perish than that we thus pursue the retention of some measure of order in the lives for which we are responsible. So consider this a Patton-esque slap in the face, administered in the hope of recalling you to a sense of the full, extra-reproductive, extent of your responsibilities as a man, rather than as a child devoted to an unfortunate but rectifiable selection amongst possible deities.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-22 16:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It looks like your objectivity falls short of the mark, NN. You shouldn't presume (leap of faith) to know whether one has confronted the abyss or not by their professed belief in Christianity and assuming that such confrontations lead one away from faith.

Recheck your epistemology and read some Kierkegaard.[/QUOTE]

Thanks again, Tex,

My brief remark did not make my point clear. I do not presume to know or suspect a confrontation accomplished on the basis of profession of faith, nor do I assume that one is thus led away from faith.

My point was that the abyss, rather, drives one toward faith and away from its terrors - and that, evidently, if such as yourself were to withstand a confrontation, without the subsequent reflexive retreat which is claimed to have happened on my watch, you would have required preliminary progressive desensitization for lack of the "wiring" that permits others of us to confront it forthrightly.

Neo

Walter Yannis

2004-02-22 16:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE][Angler]You're a Catholic, right, Walter? Here's the official teaching of the Catholic Church on racism:[/QUOTE]

Well quoth, but I'm not a racist by that definition. I acknowledge the humanity of all, sometimes through gritted teeth but I don't recall denying the humanity of any other group. In fact, I've often expressed my admiration for other races and nations, especially the Chinese.

Racism is a form of idolotry - putting some lesser value before God, before which by definition all things are puny. Race is something God invented, racism makes an idol of that, as did the Nazis.

I'm not a racist, so define. I am a nationalist, again in keeping with Catholic teaching (Articles 56-58 of the Catechism). Mankind's division into nation's is an integral part of God's plan of salvation. We've discussed this at length previously, so I won't go into it here.

[QUOTE]I believe that there is a morality higher than race as well. I am not an atheist, but even if I were, my inner moral barometer tells me that some things are wrong no matter whom they're done to (including animals, even).[/QUOTE]

Animals can't sin, because they don't have the mental capacity to conceive of the Natural Law (much less the revealed law) and willfully to break its commandments.

[QUOTE]You mentioned common goals. I don't know precisely what your goal is, but mine is simply to see the defeat of Organized Jewry's bid to fully enslave the world. A good start would be the permanent cessation of taxpayer-funded foreign aid to Israel.[/QUOTE]

Both worthy goals. Our best chance of success is, as Mel Gibson recently proved yet again, is to simply be true to the Gospel.

[QUOTE]And I have no desire to mock your faith -- I merely question it. In any case, if you expect to establish Christianity as the "official religion" of the pro-White movement -- at least that's how I understand your position -- then you must expect to be able to prove your case to skeptics.[/QUOTE]

I don't recall anything but kind and measured words from you, and my remarks in regard to those sneering at my religion were not directed toward you.

I see your point about being ready to prove my case to skeptics, but I don't think I've shrunk from honest efforts in that regard. Neither has Tex. Heck, an honest debate is fine. The nasty rhetoric didn't start with me, although I flung a few nasties after having been provoked which I regret.

But in truth it's best all around to avoid the whole thing. I have nothing in common with those who worship the abyss or those personified human instincts we call the Greek pantheon.

There's nothing to gain by it, so again I ask what's the point?

Walter

Angler

2004-02-22 18:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Well quoth, but I'm not a racist by that definition. I acknowledge the humanity of all, sometimes through gritted teeth but I don't recall denying the humanity of any other group. In fact, I've often expressed my admiration for other races and nations, especially the Chinese. I think we're in substantial agreement on the issue of race. While I do believe that races differ, on average, with respect to certain important attributes, that doesn't mean I wish to exterminate or enslave non-Whites. I believe that all human beings have the same basic rights (e.g., not to be tortured or enslaved). My view is that if those rights don't exist, then neither do any other rights -- including the right to govern.

Racism is a form of idolotry - putting some lesser value before God, before which by definition all things are puny. Race is something God invented, racism makes an idol of that, as did the Nazis. Although I am not convinced of the existence of a personal God, I do understand your point. Even if I were an atheist, I still would see no a priori reason to make a religion out of race. While I do have White Nationalist sympathies, my concern is less with White Nationalism per se than with fighting the lies and evil of Zionism.

Animals can't sin, because they don't have the mental capacity to conceive of the Natural Law (much less the revealed law) and willfully to break its commandments. Agreed. Actually, though, I only mentioned animals to make the point that I even believe that they should be treated according to certain moral standards. (I'm not a vegetarian, have no problem with responsible animal experimentation, and have no problem with those who hunt for sport; but I detest the torture of animals by certain sick individuals for their own sadistic enjoyment.) And if even animals shouldn't be treated with needless cruelty, then that's all the more true of non-White humans, as despicable as many act.

Our best chance of success is, as Mel Gibson recently proved yet again, is to simply be true to the Gospel. This is where we differ somewhat. With all due respect, I see nothing in the Gospels that have much bearing on Nationalism. To my eye, the Gospels essentially say this: "Put all your eggs in the single basket of the afterlife." That's just my honest interpretation of the Gospel message.

I don't recall anything but kind and measured words from you, and my remarks in regard to those sneering at my religion were not directed toward you. I appreciate that. To be honest, I didn't actually think you were directing your remarks toward me, but I'm glad you realize that I do respect your views (and those of ALL other posters on this board). Heck, my own father is a Clinton-loving liberal, and I still love him. :)

I see your point about being ready to prove my case to skeptics, but I don't think I've shrunk from honest efforts in that regard. Neither has Tex. Heck, an honest debate is fine. The nasty rhetoric didn't start with me, although I flung a few nasties after having been provoked which I regret. While some of the hard-core Christians here have definitely been hypersensitive at times, there has definitely been a considerable amount of baiting from the non-Christians as well -- much of which I probably haven't even seen -- so I can understand if frustrations get expressed. In any case, neither you, Tex, nor anyone else has ever actually been rude to me personally (maybe to some others here :)).

But in truth it's best all around to avoid the whole thing. I have nothing in common with those who worship the abyss or those personified human instincts we call the Greek pantheon.

There's nothing to gain by it, so again I ask what's the point?[/QUOTE]Well, you can all agree to name the Jew! :lol:

Seriously, though -- right now one of the main objectives of everyone here is to get the word out about the grievous damage Organized Jewry is doing to the US. Regardless of whether someone wants to send that message using Christianity (like Mel Gibson is -- in fact if not by design) or any other medium, they're doing us all a favor in my opinion. Basically, that's where I'm coming from.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-22 20:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche] I'm with you, Brother Walter - let's get together in a common faith, one worthy of men rather than women, slaves, overgrown boys and eunuchs. I suggest that we compromise and get it on with Huitzilopochtli, and make him a singular deity in the pursuit of war and human sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

"Further, even if the average White Man is physically intact, he is still as much of a eunuch as the guard of an Ottoman harem, perhaps even more so. His castration has been subtle but sure; his neutering has been both mental and spiritual. He is a human steer, placidly standing in his field chewing his cud, carefully not giving offence to the bulls who rut with the cows that were once his. Quiet, calm and cooperative, he will stand back from the trough while they eat his food, and when that final truck comes, he will climb aboard with little urging. Disembarking and making his way down the bloody chute, he may, with his final thought, dare to wonder what that man with the bloody apron is doing standing at the end with the sledgehammer in hand."

Now wouldn't Jee-zus be beatitudinally proud of us, Brother Walter? Shall we not likewise surrender ourselves to our fate and forgive them, they that again await with the sledgehammer in hand, for they know not what they do in eliminating what little of ordered existence survives with the White race?

wild_bill

2004-02-23 01:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Now wouldn't Jee-zus be beatitudinally proud of us, Brother Walter? Shall we not likewise surrender ourselves to our fate and forgive them, they that again await with the sledgehammer in hand, for they know not what they do in eliminating what little of ordered existence survives with the White race?[/QUOTE]

Why do you assume Christianity is totally passive? Its not.

The Virtue of War by Alexander F.C. Webster & Darrell Cole [url]http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/viofwaalfwea.html[/url]

The way of life in the West is currently under assault, and Western Civilization hangs in the balance. Christians need to reclaim the great moral teachings on war and peace from the contemporary revisionists who would have Christians believe it is necessary to choose a “lesser evil” for a good cause or as a way of being “responsible” citizens of a nation-state.

Professors Webster and Cole explore in detail the great moral teachings found in Holy Scripture, the ancient and Byzantine Church Fathers, canon law, manuals of penance, lives of the saints, liturgical texts, visual icons, the medieval Scholastics, the great Reformers, and even among modern theologians and literary authors. They present a powerful, genuinely ecumenical, meticulously documented, incontrovertible case on behalf of the moral teachings known to Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant Christians as the just or justifiable war traditions. This book provides a firm biblical, theological, and historical foundation for that confidence and is an incontrovertible answer to the “Christian” peace movement.

=====

An important and timely contribution to one of the most important ecumenical debates of the early twenty-first century. -George Weigel, Senior Fellow & Director of the Catholic Studies Project, Ethics and Public Policy Center Washington, D.C.

This book usefully broadens the shape of reflection about just war and its implications by addressing both these critical matters and setting them in relation to Roman Catholic and Reformation Protestant just war thought, producing a genuinely comprehensive study of Christian tradition on the justification and limitation of war. -Dr. James Turner Johnson, Professor of Religion, Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ

In The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West the authors deal with the intractable issues of peace and war from within the Christian Traditions of both Eastern and Western Christian thought. Webster and Cole make a strong case for their convictions that war by Christians can be virtuous and justifiable. -V. Rev. Stanley S. Harakas, Archbishop Iakovos Professor of Orthodox Theology Emeritus, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology Brookline, MA

Fr. Alexander F. C. Webster holds a B.A. degree in history (Summa cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of Pennsylvania, a Master of Arts in history and education from Columbia University, a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University Divinity School, a Graduate Certificate in International Security Studies from the University of Pittsburgh, and a Ph.D. in religion/social ethics from the University of Pittsburgh.

Dr. Darrell Cole holds a B.A. degree in philosophy from Lynchburg College, a Master of Arts in philosophy from Ohio University, a Master of Religion in ethics from Yale Divinity School, a Master of Theology from Duke Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in religion from the University of Virginia.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 02:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Wild_Bill] Why do you assume Christianity is totally passive? Its not.[/QUOTE]

The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus preaching passivity and surrendering himself to execution.

"Churchianity," of course, must preserve its flock from being eaten by the wolves, and so must hypocritically rationalize combat.

Do I need to point out that the Nazis don't have this problem with passivity, hypocrisy, and identification of the enemy?

wild_bill

2004-02-23 03:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus preaching passivity and surrendering himself to execution.

"Churchianity," of course, must preserve its flock from being eaten by the wolves, and so must hypocritically rationalize combat.

Christ was passive, but that was His mission on earth. Of course, He wasn't passive when throwing the Jewish moneychangers out of the temple, was He?

The Church has never taught that self-defense by Christians is a sin. Strictly speaking, I suppose, there can be no truly justified wars, but rather there can be necessary wars. Likewise, there is no justified violence by individuals, but I don't think many would argue against some situations where violence may be unavoidable. BTW, I have little respect for people who attempt to use the Scriptures to justify their own cowardice. The fact that some people do this doesn't mean its right.

Do I need to point out that the Nazis don't have this problem with passivity, hypocrisy, and identification of the enemy?[/QUOTE]

They have many other problems besides the most obvious one that they have zero power and only a miniscule number of followers.

In any case, I must observe that once again, you do what many other antagonists of Christ do. You make an argument on false premises, then knock it down. I know this is what Christian bashers do amongst themselves so they can convince themselves of their arguments, but it doesn't work here.

-

Walter Yannis

2004-02-23 08:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]The Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus preaching passivity and surrendering himself to execution.[/QUOTE]

That's a common misperception. Again, you're mistaking the suburban version of the Faith that you learned in the Presbyterian Sunday school for the real Christian Faith of the Holy Inquisition.

Jesus was no pacifist, as evidenced by the passages below. Note that Peter carried a sword (because he also carried the purse - a portent of the militant Papacy to come), and that Jesus knocked down those who came to arrest him in a display of spiritual power designed to show that He chose to die a cruel death in the ultimate sacrifice play to save his followers. Jesus clearly had the power to stop his arrest and torture, but he heroically endured it in submission to the Will of His Father, Who for reasons of spirit that are obscure to us bound as we are in Creation needed the sacrifice of Christ to save us from death.

[QUOTE]John 18 1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 [B]As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.[/B]7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10 Then [B]Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. [/B] The servant's name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, 13 And led him away to Annas first; for he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. 14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Matthew 10 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Luke 22 36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.[/QUOTE]

That last one should make it abundantly clear that Jesus was no hippie. He clearly foresaw the Church Militant, may She reign again in glory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church expressly condones violence when used in self defense:

[QUOTE]Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; [B]and the killing of the aggressor[/B]. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 [B]Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality.[/B] Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder [B]even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow[/B]:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. [B]For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. [/B]

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. [B]Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. [/B] Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 [/QUOTE]

This paragraph 2266 goes directly to the discussion on dealing with sexual immorality, including homosexual sodomy, on another thread. The Catholic Church has always held that the civil authorities are OBLIGED to wield the sword to protect the commonweal, albeit predictably, measuredly, and with restraint born of mercy.

The protection of the common good is an act of Christian charity. Thus, Aquinas held that war waged in justice was as holy and act as giving alms.

Here are the relevant articles of the Catechism:

[QUOTE]Avoiding war

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.105

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, [B]governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense[/B], once all peace efforts have failed."106

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the [B]"just war" doctrine.[/B]

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have [B]responsibility for the common good[/B].

2310 [B]Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. [/B]

[SIZE=2][U][I][B]Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[/B][/I][/U][/SIZE]107

2311 [I]Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.108 [/I]

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."110 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:

Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."112 [/QUOTE]

I don't know what Gospel you were preached as a child, but it has nothing to do with the Holy Catholic Faith, which drove the Moors from Spain and stopped the Turks at the gates of Vienna.

You are kindly asked to cease imputing to me and the Catholic Church the anorexic beliefs of your childhood.

Walter

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 14:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] That's a common misperception. Again, you're mistaking the suburban version of the Faith that you learned in the Presbyterian Sunday school for the real Christian Faith of the Holy Inquisition.[/QUOTE]

Evidently the suburbs missed that "straight line" that Tex was talking about. Guess we'll have to resort, once again, to those "interpretations" based upon "presuppositions" that were not, as it turns out, a legacy of the actual "early church".

[QUOTE]Jesus was no pacifist, as evidenced by the passages below. Note that Peter carried a sword (because he also carried the purse - a portent of the militant Papacy to come), and that Jesus knocked down those who came to arrest him in a display of spiritual power designed to show that He chose to die a cruel death in the ultimate sacrifice play to save his followers. Jesus clearly had the power to stop his arrest and torture, but he heroically endured it in submission to the Will of His Father, Who for reasons of spirit that are obscure to us bound as we are in Creation needed the sacrifice of Christ to save us from death.[/QUOTE]

So, Peter carried a sword, for the defensive use of which Jesus rebuked him. Jesus had to power to resist and nevertheless surrendered himself. You make my point, thank you. But why does a Papist bother with Scripture in an honest discussion, anyway? The text is merely, like the Constitution, so much buttwipe to be used and abused as it serves the purposes of the authorities.

[QUOTE]I don't know what Gospel you were preached as a child, but it has nothing to do with the Holy Catholic Faith, which drove the Moors from Spain and stopped the Turks at the gates of Vienna.

You are kindly asked to cease imputing to me and the Catholic Church the anorexic beliefs of your childhood.[/QUOTE]

Might I mention that it would be nice if Papists learned to read before they write (assuming that you're not merely the unprincipled propagandist that you otherwise appear to be):

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche] "Churchianity," of course, must preserve its flock from being eaten by the wolves, and so must hypocritically rationalize combat.[/QUOTE]

Angler

2004-02-23 14:27 | User Profile

[quote=Walter Yannis]Again, you're mistaking the suburban version of the Faith that you learned in the Presbyterian Sunday school for the real Christian Faith of the Holy Inquisition. I don't want to butt into this debate, but Walter...there most certainly was nothing "holy" about the Inquisition. Even as a devout Catholic, I never doubted for a second that it was the greatest, most hypocritical, and most blasphemous evil ever to scar the face of the earth -- bar none. How can you call it "holy"? Is it your opinion that God gave men free will to accept or reject Him, then turned around and sanctioned the Church's revocation of that free will? That makes not a whit of sense.

Of course today's Christians are by no means responsible for what happened in medieval times, but the fact remains that the Inquisition was evil beyond measure. If there is a God, then those who took part in the tortures and burnings Inquisition are the greatest sinners who ever lived.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 15:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I don't know what Gospel you were preached as a child, but it has nothing to do with the Holy Catholic Faith, which drove the Moors from Spain and stopped the Turks at the gates of Vienna. [/QUOTE]

This provokes another interesting question, Walter, my brother in shameful dispossession:

What if, contrary to the reality of his utter incapacity and lack of design, Hitler had managed to "shake hands" with the Japanese in Iowa (as the vicious cretin broadcast the lie in '43) and so eliminated the Judeo-Communist FDR regime. Wouldn't you have loyally, joyfully collaborated with this new regime of racial fraternity such as was Hitler's wishful hope for us? Do you see my point as regards a Muslim conquest and the imposition of a faith worthy of men rather than women, slaves, overgrown boys (big balls, little brains) and eunuchs. Do you see that you do not necessarily endorse your faith with its record of geopolitical misfortunes perpetrated.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-23 15:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I don't want to butt into this debate, but Walter...there most certainly was nothing "holy" about the Inquisition. Even as a devout Catholic, I never doubted for a second that it was the greatest, most hypocritical, and most blasphemous evil ever to scar the face of the earth -- bar none. How can you call it "holy"? Is it your opinion that God gave men free will to accept or reject Him, then turned around and sanctioned the Church's revocation of that free will? That makes not a whit of sense.

Of course today's Christians are by no means responsible for what happened in medieval times, but the fact remains that the Inquisition was evil beyond measure. If there is a God, then those who took part in the tortures and burnings Inquisition are the greatest sinners who ever lived.[/QUOTE]

You're repeating Jewish propaganda here, Angler. I don't blame you for that, I did some of it myself. The fact is that the Jews hate the Inquisition for obvious reasons - it crushed their power in Spain. Along with the power of their Muslim allies, the Moors.

Which weapons exactly do you propose that we use against the Tribe - harsh language?

The Inquisition acted like men and did what the circumstances required. We're getting our a$$es kicked because we're little weenies and don't understand the noble men who, under the flag of the Church, saved the Spanish nation from total destruction.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-23 16:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Evidently the suburbs missed that "straight line" that Tex was talking about. Guess we'll have to resort, once again, to those "interpretations" based upon "presuppositions" that were not, as it turns out, a legacy of the actual "early church".[/QUOTE]

Thank you for conceding the point.

[QUOTE]So, Peter carried a sword, for the defensive use of which Jesus rebuked him. Jesus had to power to resist and nevertheless surrendered himself. You make my point, thank you. But why does a Papist bother with Scripture in an honest discussion, anyway? The text is merely, like the Constitution, so much buttwipe to be used and abused as it serves the purposes of the authorities.[/QUOTE]

Nonsense. This was a military operation, and Jesus sacrificed his life to win the war.

There's a great Russian opera called "A Life for the Tsar" based on historical events. A peasant man named Susanin led a group of foreign agents who were looking to kill the Tsar deep into the forest where he froze to death with them. Susanin chose death in order to let Russia live, and he is rightly celebrated as a hero.

Another example, a friend who served in Vietnam told me of a NVA regular who intentionally had himself captured, where he was very foreseeably tortured until he agreed to lead the Americans to their base, but only to lead them into an ambush. My friend told me that as soon as it was clear that they'd been had, his commanding officer pulled out his pistol and shot that man in the head. Was that NVA soldier a coward? He knew that he was going to give himself up without a fight, be tortured and then surely killed - the very actions you would condemn Christ for. If you see nothing to admire in that, then you haven't a shred of nobility in you, and there's no point in my talking to you. But I don't believe that's the case.

Surely, you understand the nobility of such sacrifice? Please tell me that you do, I need to hear this.

Anyway, that's exactly what Jesus did, only the stakes were much, much greater.

[QUOTE]Might I mention that it would be nice if Papists learned to read before they write (assuming that you're not merely the unprincipled propagandist that you otherwise appear to be)[/QUOTE]

I didn't understand this your latest snarl, please explain.

Did I miss something?

Walter

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 16:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Which weapons exactly do you [Angler] propose that we use against the Tribe - harsh language?[/QUOTE]

My own suggestion is that the elementary application of Classical rationality to the question was and is indicated. After all, it was the stoo-pid Christian superstition that the Jews could be "converted," with a mere baptismal sprinkling, that led the monarchy to initially tolerate the alien racial presence rather than simply ordering the Juden raus in the first place, so sparing all the infliction of the horrifying Christian tortures and executions which so exquisitely appeal to Brother Walter's prurient interests.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 16:33 | User Profile

Do I need to mention that the Nazis, with contrasting Classical rationality, ordered the Juden raus at the first opportunity to realize such a project and put them to useful work elsewhere?

madrussian

2004-02-23 17:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]My own suggestion is that the elementary application of Classical rationality to the question was and is indicated. After all, it was the stoo-pid Christian superstition that the Jews could be "converted," with a mere baptismal sprinkling, that led the monarchy to initially tolerate the alien racial presence rather than simply ordering the Juden raus in the first place, so sparing all the infliction of the horrifying Christian tortures and executions which so exquisitely appeal to Brother Walter's prurient interests.[/QUOTE]

Since that happened during the time of the Catholic Church being of the "El Cid" kind, one can safely assume the conversion of the zhids must be approved by Walter. Not exactly a shrewd step.

And I am still waiting to hear how not accepting messicans as "Christian Brothers" can be squared with Christian teaching.

madrussian

2004-02-23 17:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Do I need to mention that the Nazis, with contrasting Classical rationality, ordered the Juden raus at the first opportunity to realize such a project and put them to useful work elsewhere?[/QUOTE]

Are there different forms of rationality?

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-23 19:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian] Are there different forms of rationality?[/QUOTE]

MR,

I mean to refer to rationality as it was largely characteristic of the culture from which the European ought to have been more derivative if the new, Germanic nobility had been less the hardy but gullible bumpkins that they were. The quality of culture-reviving barbarian intruders has been declining globally throughout the ages, and thus, in the present instance of our own unfortunate origins, gross superstitions barely elevated above the level of Voodoo could be imposed by an international clique of malevolent castrati upon primitive peoples whose new, natural masters could not see through the scam for their possession, negroid-like, of more balls than brains. The claim of which reminds me that Weisbrot is yet among us.

Neo

weisbrot

2004-02-23 19:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]MR,

I mean to refer to rationality as it was largely characteristic of the culture from which the European ought to have been more derivative if the new, Germanic nobility had been less the hardy but gullible bumpkins that they were. The quality of culture-reviving barbarian intruders has been declining globally throughout the ages, and thus, in the present instance of our own unfortunate origins, gross superstitions barely elevated above the level of Voodoo could be imposed by an international clique of malevolent castrati upon primitive peoples whose new, natural masters could not see through the scam for their possession, negroid-like, of more balls than brains. The claim of which reminds me that Weisbrot is yet among us.

Neo[/QUOTE]

That's a pretty funny statement, Neo.

Guess your kids aren't being raised with all those gross superstitions being imposed. Good for them, and for the army of Sssupermen spreading rapidly all over the globe.

Angler

2004-02-23 20:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You're repeating Jewish propaganda here, Angler. I don't blame you for that, I did some of it myself. The fact is that the Jews hate the Inquisition for obvious reasons - it crushed their power in Spain. Along with the power of their Muslim allies, the Moors.

Which weapons exactly do you propose that we use against the Tribe - harsh language?

The Inquisition acted like men and did what the circumstances required. We're getting our a$$es kicked because we're little weenies and don't understand the noble men who, under the flag of the Church, saved the Spanish nation from total destruction.[/QUOTE]Of course it's not "Jewish propaganda," Walter. It's nothing but me stating my own conviction that torture and needless brutality is evil that must be resisted at all costs. Why do you imply that "harsh language" is the only alternative to the use of unmitigated evil?

I'm not a pacifist. I own a formidable arsenal, I know how to use it, and I have no problem whatsoever with pulling a trigger to defend lives and rights from ZOG and its attack dogs. But to try to force Jews or anyone else to convert is ABSURD, Walter. Surely you know that! Not only is it immoral, it's impossible. If you torture a person enough, he'll tell you he believes in flying polka-dotted elephants. Does that mean he actually believes in flying polka-dotted elephants? This is so obvious, Walter, that I'm having a hard time believing you're not pulling my leg.

Furthermore, although I am not a Nazi, I will point out that your argument for the adoption of the Inquisition's tactics could just as easily be adapted to Nazism. In other words, the Nazis dealt with Jews pretty ruthlessly, so why not adopt their methods and beliefs?

One final point. Even if you're still convinced that torturing people and burning them at the stake is a good idea -- a truly sick philosophy which I hope you don't seriously subscribe to -- then whom, exactly, do you expect to help you carry out this carnage? Any group that attempts such an endeavor will have far, far, FAR more Whites fighting against it than for it. If you attempt to recruit members of this 21st-Century Inquisition in public, you just might end up being visited by the men in the white coats, and you will give the pro-White movement an even worse name than it already has. So, please don't.

Angler

2004-02-24 03:04 | User Profile

Anyway, as I'm making all these notes, it occurs to me that I was very rude to you on our first meeting and have not yet apologized. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, but no apology is necessary, wintermute. If I remember the thread you're referring to correctly -- it was at least a couple of months ago, right? -- it was just a simple misunderstanding. At any rate, I believe you did apologize at the time and showed a lot of character in doing so. Not to worry!

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-24 04:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Nonsense. This was a military operation, and Jesus sacrificed his life to win the war.[/QUOTE]

Right now it's a toss-up, Brother Walter, between you and "Wild Bill" as to whom will receive this year's Official NeoNietzschean Certification in Mastery Rightly Shown in Art with Application of Terminological Abuse.

[QUOTE]There's a great Russian opera called "A Life for the Tsar" based on historical events. A peasant man named Susanin led a group of foreign agents who were looking to kill the Tsar deep into the forest where he froze to death with them. Susanin chose death in order to let Russia live, and he is rightly celebrated as a hero.[/QUOTE]

No disputing that this self-sacrifice was "heroic" in the modern use of the term - it was nevertheless passive and self-sacrificial, as is the point regarding the example of Jesus.

[QUOTE]Surely, you understand the nobility of such sacrifice? Please tell me that you do, I need to hear this.[/QUOTE]

More terminological abuse in the misapplication of the term "nobility". An example of the commonplace value inversion achieved by the cultivation of Christianity. I do, however, consider the sacrifice involved a worthy act. But you again seek to misrepresent the point about the scriptural exhortation, explicit and implicit, to passivity and self-sacrifice, where the opposite qualities of the collective community of our cause are called for.

[QUOTE]Anyway, that's exactly what Jesus did, only the stakes were much, much greater.[/QUOTE]

No, Walter. Jesus (if we credit this episode as semi-historical) delusionally surrendered himself as a supposed propitiatory offering (in Paul's attribution of significance to the event), not as a soldier dying for his comrades. It wasn't "war".

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 08:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Do I need to mention that the Nazis, with contrasting Classical rationality, ordered the Juden raus at the first opportunity to realize such a project and put them to useful work elsewhere?[/QUOTE]

Do I need to mention that the Holy Inquisition taught the Nazis (and the Jewish Bolsheviks) everything they knew about effective tactics, organizational or otherwise?

If the German Nazis understood juden raus it's only because the noble King Ferdinand of Spain figured it out for them centuries earlier. Same with revolutionary theory (Jesuits) that both the German Nazis and the Jewish Bolsheviks adopted. Not to mention their tactics for hanging on to power once achieved.

Both of those parties were the merest imitations of the greatness of the Holy Inquisition, a phenomenon that has yet to be surpassed in the genius of both its conception and execution.

You waste your time with these purely derivative things, Neo. I urge you to get back to original sources.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 08:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE]No disputing that this self-sacrifice was "heroic" in the modern use of the term - it was nevertheless passive and self-sacrificial, as is the point regarding the example of Jesus.[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that passive self sacrifice is always ignoble, even where it is intended to aid one's group?

Just to make sure I understand you, were the actions of the NVA soldier mentioned above ignoble, in your estimation?

Please advise.

Walter

Angler

2004-02-24 08:48 | User Profile

Both of those parties were the merest imitations of the greatness of the Holy Inquisition, a phenomenon that has yet to be surpassed in the genius of both its conception and execution. The ashes of that supremely wicked institution known as the Inquisition will remain under man's feet forever, and the ignorance of the Dark Ages has been utterly supplanted by the light of reason.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 09:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]The ashes of that supremely wicked institution known as the Inquisition will remain under man's feet forever, and the ignorance of the Dark Ages has been utterly supplanted by the light of reason.[/QUOTE]

Oh, puh-Leeze.

You're saying that modernity has improved on Aquinas in philosophy and theology?

The Cathedral of Notre Dame in achitecture?

Perhaps it's modernity's romance with usury, abortion on demand, and gay marriage that you like so much?

How about the assault on private property and the sanctity of marriage and family by both capitalism and socialism?

Maybe the real progress is to be found in the liberating effects of modern televitzion and reality shows? Perhaps you think that MTV is a major improvement over the comedia del arte of the old merchant towns of Northern Italy? Is "Jackass" and improvement on "Punch and Judy?" You tell me.

Because, frankly speaking, I'm not seeing a lot of genuine moral progress. What was that you said, "and the ignorance of the Dark Ages has been utterly supplanted by the light of reason?!"

Do you really mean that? Does the light of reason include Jewish rule of the minds of our own people?

Again, you tell me.

It was the modern age and its resurgent paganism that gave us carpet bombing of civilians and nuclear war. It was the modern age that gave us the GULAG and the Collectivization of Agriculture.

The modern age gave us Michael Eisner.

Where is this light of reason you're talking about? I'd really like to see some of that light illuminating the modern world.

Again, you're giving me here the received version of history. Not that I blame you, but the Middle Ages weren't so terribly dark, it turns out.

At least not in comparison to our modern American "Democwacy."

Walter

il ragno

2004-02-24 09:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE]The Nazis are just flip sides of the Jewish Bolshevik coin, after all. Isn't that clear, my friend? [/QUOTE]

David Horowitz's point [B]exactly[/B]!

[QUOTE]And as the astonishing success of our brother in Christ Mel Gibson proves, we surely don't need them. In fact, the sooner we're shut of them the better off we'll all be, including them.[/QUOTE]

The movie hasn't even [I]opened [/I] yet and has yet to earn dime one so far. Nor would it have a prayer (oh the irony!) of turning a profit were it not for the evangelicals - those Izzy-loving, Cat'lick-bashing, hold-for-red-heifer-please paragons of rational thought and wise military adventures.

[QUOTE]So, as I've written previously, I'm all for narrowing our focus. Our little God Squad can only accomplish anything of value by setting our sights on a European, Christian and English-speaking American nation, and throwing out all the excess baggage. Heaven knows, we have plenty of our own. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I've noted the distinct turn Heavenward of the OD board these last few days. "Purge the ranks", hurray for the Holy Inquisition, Christ was actually leading a military reconnoissance team ("this is Yahweh-1 to Able Company, come in Able Company"- "Yahweh-1 this is Able Company - Shecky has us pinned down, requesting immediate air support!") - all the sorts of nonsense I'd expect to find in a Tony Alamo or Church of the SubGenius pamphlet. Except less tethered to reality.

Interesting that Walter Yannis is so busy printing up I'D RATHER BE FISHING WITH EL CID t-shirts and bumper stickers in bulk volume for that burgeoning God Squad of his that he neglects to mention that ohhh, maybe about, say, 90% of the Catholic Church including the Pope and the College of Cardinals would vociferously reject his sort of Catholicism as a lunatic-fringe holdover from the Middle Ages. Given that he's offered two thumbscrews-up for conversion-by-torture you have to wonder if his antipathy towards Muslims is akin to one streetwalker fighting another over the same corner.

As far as Tex's 'pray for my wisdom' business....well, I'm starting to think that this whole forum-hosting business is getting to be more bother thanit's worth to him. Certainly a huge number of posts (and posters) are articulating creeds and beliefs he either rejects or feels flat-out uncomfortable with. I don't think he's ever been crazy about the race stuff, the Jew stuff, the NS stuff, etc, though he's certainly allowed it; but I think he's edging closer and closer to the day when he realizes that what much of OD is about has little to do with what he personally believes or enjoys being associated with. Hey, he could shut 'er down tomorrow and I'll always be grateful for having had the podium and the opportunity to rant from it. But I don't really get the feeling he's all that gung-ho for an all-Xian forum, either. (Naturally, I could be wrong.)

I certainly wish he would give such a venture a try. Just yank the forum authorizations of all we heathen dancers-round-the-fatted-calf and pare the place down to the few, the proud, the devout.....because I can think of few things funnier than seeing such a forum in four to six weeks' time, when these pious and high-minded few will be at each others' throats with tooth, fang and claw.

[QUOTE]....we've proven that we can work togther and trust each other to protect each other's rights in a shared polity. Evangelicals and Catholics have spoken as one on the abortion issue for the past 30 years, to name just one example of our successful cooperation. We have the Truth in common, after all. [/QUOTE]

As with the "successful cooperation" we've seen in Ireland, I look forward to a good old-fashioned all-Christian [I]bloodbath[/I]. If there's one thing we [I]haven't [/I] seen [besides God, angels, bodies of water parting and such, that is] it's the amity and fellowship of Christians when the playing field has been swept clear of all infidels and heretics. (If my vote even counts, I'd like to see Matthew Hopkins played by Exelsis Deo.)

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 11:21 | User Profile

[B]David Horowitz's point [B]exactly[/B]![/B]

Horowitz knows whereof he speaks. Best take them at their word, Ragman.

[QUOTE]The movie hasn't even [I]opened [/I] yet and has yet to earn dime one so far. Nor would it have a prayer (oh the irony!) of turning a profit were it not for the evangelicals - those Izzy-loving, Cat'lick-bashing, hold-for-red-heifer-please paragons of rational thought and wise military adventures. [/QUOTE]

That isn't the point. Its success lies thus far in having forced a number of people to show their hand. You described it as pushing all the Armageddon buttons. Exactly. Money is great, but not the main thing. That notwithstanding, it seems to be that the commercial success of this film is assured, and namely by all the bad publicity the Pharisees tried to smear it with, as Joe Sobran pointed out.

[QUOTE]Interesting that Walter Yannis is so busy printing up I'D RATHER BE FISHING WITH EL CID t-shirts and bumper stickers in bulk volume for that burgeoning God Squad of his that he neglects to mention that ohhh, maybe about, say, 90% of the Catholic Church including the Pope and the College of Cardinals would vociferously reject his sort of Catholicism as a lunatic-fringe holdover from the Middle Ages. [/QUOTE]

Did I forget to mention that?

Actually, it's a lot more than 90%.

[QUOTE]Given that he's offered two thumbscrews-up for conversion-by-torture you have to wonder if his antipathy towards Muslims is akin to one streetwalker fighting another over the same corner.[/QUOTE]

I'm not for conversion by torture, which is of course a contradiction in terms. I am for the cultural supremacy of Christianity.

[QUOTE]As with the "successful cooperation" we've seen in Ireland, I look forward to a good old-fashioned all-Christian [I]bloodbath[/I]. If there's one thing we [I]haven't [/I] seen [besides God, angels, bodies of water parting and such, that is] it's the amity and fellowship of Christians when the playing field has been swept clear of all infidels and heretics. [/QUOTE]

Actually, no we have seen that. It was called the Wars of the Reformation.

QUOTE[/QUOTE]

Only if Neo plays Calvin and I get to play Luther. You'll have to settle for the role of [URL=http://www.mcs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Torquemada.html]Tomas de Torquemada.[/URL]

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-24 14:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Are you saying that passive self sacrifice is always ignoble, even where it is intended to aid one's group?[/QUOTE]

Technically, yes. It is a non-noble but nevertheless worthy act in the instances cited. In the instance of the Jesus story, however, neither comrades in war nor a living sovereign were to be preserved in life by his act. His was the final act of acts exhorting and performing the resignation of life for the sake of the resignation of life ("and they lived with all things in common in anticipation"). Only the eternal soul of the believer's imagination was supposedly "saved" thereby - and I take it that the present object is the preservation of the race in this life.

[QUOTE]Just to make sure I understand you, were the actions of the NVA soldier mentioned above ignoble, in your estimation?[/QUOTE]

Worthy, but not distinctively noble. You, as a Papist and heir of the inversion of values, do not know what nobility is.

wild_bill

2004-02-24 15:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Technically, yes. It is a non-noble but nevertheless worthy act in the instances cited. In the instance of the Jesus story, however, neither comrades in war nor a living sovereign were to be preserved in life by his act. His was the final act of acts exhorting and performing the resignation of life for the sake of the resignation of life ("and they lived with all things in common in anticipation"). Only the eternal soul of the believer's imagination was supposedly "saved" thereby - and I take it that the present object is the preservation of the race in this life.[/QUOTE]

At a very basic biological level, Christian ideals of faith and self-sacrifice preserve our race. (Funny how God's rules work, eh?) For example, the birthrate. Right now we are on a collision course with self-extinction. This also parallels the degeneration of devout Christianity. No connection, you say? How about this.

The truly devout Christian couple will avoid birth control as is the Church policy, put off self-gratification, and simply have faith that God will provide their necessary needs. Result: large families and our race is saved. (It almost seems unimaginable that not so long ago the average, and I mean the average, white woman over her lifetime produced 8 to 12 kids, but it wasn't but 100 years ago.)

The average non-Christian couple will "plan" their family and have only children when they can "afford" them, which in reality means none or at most two. Then they ceaselessly worry about money and whether they are maintaining their socioeconomic position. Result: fewer and smaller, yet more well-off families, but our race is doomed.

Now tell me about the worthlessness of Christian self-sacrifice.

-

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 15:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]It is a non-noble but nevertheless worthy act in the instances cited.[/QUOTE]

I'm reminded of the Diane Keaton character in Woody Allen's "Love and Death" stating with portentous meaning "I fear Napolean, but I'm not afraid of him."

I fail to see any difference here. Please distinguish between "noble" and "worthy."

Kindly illustrate your point with examples.

Walter

MadScienceType

2004-02-24 16:49 | User Profile

As far as Tex's 'pray for my wisdom' business....well, I'm starting to think that this whole forum-hosting business is getting to be more bother thanit's worth to him. Certainly a huge number of posts (and posters) are articulating creeds and beliefs he either rejects or feels flat-out uncomfortable with. I don't think he's ever been crazy about the race stuff, the Jew stuff, the NS stuff, etc, though he's certainly allowed it; but I think he's edging closer and closer to the day when he realizes that what much of OD is about has little to do with what he personally believes or enjoys being associated with. Hey, he could shut 'er down tomorrow and I'll always be grateful for having had the podium and the opportunity to rant from it. But I don't really get the feeling he's all that gung-ho for an all-Xian forum, either. (Naturally, I could be wrong.)

I certainly wish he would give such a venture a try. Just yank the forum authorizations of all we heathen dancers-round-the-fatted-calf and pare the place down to the few, the proud, the devout.....because I can think of few things funnier than seeing such a forum in four to six weeks' time, when these pious and high-minded few will be at each others' throats with tooth, fang and claw.

??????????????

Did I totally brain-fart and miss an announcement around here? Did Tex hint or outright say that the board's going to an all-Christian format? I understand why the attacks on Christianity are so upsetting (speaking more of the Linder-style ones) in that it's like someone coming up to you and saying, "Well, you stupid, inbred, toothless, sister-f***ing moron, let's get to work!" It's very hard to find common ground after that. I still don't think that it requires anything drastic.

What's going on? What's with all the digging-in of heels?

The board is great, and bless Tex for providing it, nurturing it and generally dealing with all the headaches generated from running it, but the forum itself is only the framework for the posters. Being a mere simple-minded redneck, I'll use the analogy that the forum's the gun, and the posters are the ammo. Each one apart isn't very useful, but no need to throw away the whole box of shells.

I'll say for the record that I for one enjoy WM's posts very much, even if a fair portion sail right over my noggin. I hope you stick around, WM!! If he gets booted involuntarily, then you might as well toss me also, because it ain't the same place I thought it was.

Can we have a moratorium on sticking fingers in each other's eyes for a few days? Heck, shut the board down for a week and let everyone cool off a while. I know I need a beer about now.

friedrich braun

2004-02-24 17:02 | User Profile

TD's Lutheranism and Walter's Catholicism aren't problematic for White racialism. Conversely, Christian-Zionism (i.e., the dispensationalist heresy) and left-liberal Catholic clerics are a real problem.

Perhaps we should focus our attention on what represents a mortal danger to our biological survival instead of getting bogged down in sterile, circle-jerk metaphysical debates?

Those who wish to discuss Christian theology have a forum almost strictly dedicated to that purpose, see [url]http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php[/url]

Walter Yannis

2004-02-24 18:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Perhaps we should focus our attention on what represents a mortal danger to our biological survival instead getting bogged down in sterile, circle-jerk debates? [/QUOTE]

But that's just the point, FB.

Experience proves that's impossible.

Until we have agreement on the fundamentals a circle jerk is the best we can hope for.

Walter

friedrich braun

2004-02-24 18:53 | User Profile

"agreeing on the fundamentals" doesn't necessarily entail marching in lock-step on all metaphysical questions.

Ragnar

2004-02-24 19:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=MadScienceType]??????????????

What's going on? What's with all the digging-in of heels?

Can we have a moratorium on sticking fingers in each other's eyes for a few days? Heck, shut the board down for a week and let everyone cool off a while. I know I need a beer about now.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the original point (now long lost in the fog) was that making the rules for religious discussion clearer would simplify things a lot. Right now you can't even make wise cracks without getting flamed.

I agree with you completely. Give the whole thing a break.

MadScienceType

2004-02-24 19:58 | User Profile

[quote=wintermute]While the Christians here debate whether or not to break rank with their non Christian but white brothers, gentile antichrist Alex Linder orders his troops to go forth and buy 'Passion' tickets.

Fair enough, but does he have to be so friggin' antagonistic about it? Does this really help matters?

[quote=VNN]We're only 24 hours from several wonderful hours of seeing a dirty kike tortured in dying color by every means jewy wit can devise. Not to like, whatz? Let me just say that all you who identify with Christ's suffering are latent homos.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-24 20:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill] At a very basic biological level, Christian ideals of faith and self-sacrifice preserve our race. (Funny how God's rules work, eh?) For example, the birthrate. Right now we are on a collision course with self-extinction. This also parallels the degeneration of devout Christianity. No connection, you say? How about this.

The truly devout Christian couple will avoid birth control as is the Church policy, put off self-gratification, and simply have faith that God will provide their necessary needs. Result: large families and our race is saved. (It almost seems unimaginable that not so long ago the average, and I mean the average, white woman over her lifetime produced 8 to 12 kids, but it wasn't but 100 years ago.)

The average non-Christian couple will "plan" their family and have only children when they can "afford" them, which in reality means none or at most two. Then they ceaselessly worry about money and whether they are maintaining their socioeconomic position. Result: fewer and smaller, yet more well-off families, but our race is doomed.

Now tell me about the worthlessness of Christian self-sacrifice.[/QUOTE]

In the wise words of the well-spoken Wintermute:

[QUOTE=Wintermute] Another example: rampant Christian natalism. Walter often tells us that Christianity is about birth and so forth, and that all WNs must marry and produce offspring. Good advice mostly - but NOT BIBLICAL.

What does the Bible say? Specifically what does the Christian Testament say, because this is one of those occasions that sends Xtians packing for the OT, where commandments to be fruitful abound.

But the Christian Testament is very firm on the matter: it is better to marry than to burn (i.e. in lust), BUT IT IS BETTER NOT TO MARRY.[/QUOTE]

And what, again, was the number of the offspring of our self-sacrificial exemplar?

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-24 20:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I'm reminded of the Diane Keaton character in Woody Allen's "Love and Death" stating with portentous meaning "I fear Napole[o]n, but I'm not afraid of him."

I fail to see any difference here. Please distinguish between "noble" and "worthy."

Kindly illustrate your point with examples.

Walter[/QUOTE]

Beyond Good And Evil

Part Nine : What Is Noble?

257.

Every elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the pathos of distance, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance--that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type "man"): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilisation hitherto has originated! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilisations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more complete men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

258.

Corruption--as the indication that anarchy threatens to break out among the instincts, and that the foundation of the emotions, called "life," is convulsed--is something radically different according to the organisation in which it manifests itself. When, for instance, an aristocracy like that of France at the beginning of the Revolution, flung away its privileges with sublime disgust and sacrificed itself to an excess of its moral sentiments, it was corruption:-- it was really only the closing act of the corruption which had existed for centuries, by virtue of which that aristocracy had abdicated step by step its lordly prerogatives and lowered itself to a function of royalty (in the end even to its decoration and parade-dress). The essential thing, however, in a good and healthy aristocracy is that it should not regard itself as a function either of the kingship or the commonwealth, but as the significance and highest justification thereof--that it should therefore accept with a good conscience the sacrifice of a legion of individuals, who, for its sake, must be suppressed and reduced to imperfect men, to slaves and instruments. Its fundamental belief must be precisely that society is not allowed to exist for its own sake, but only as a foundation and scaffolding, by means of which a select class of beings may be able to elevate themselves to their higher duties, and in general to a higher existence: like those sun-seeking climbing plants in Java--they are called Sipo Matador, --which encircle an oak so long and so often with their arms, until at last, high above it, but supported by it, they can unfold their tops in the open light, and exhibit their happiness.

259.

To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organisation). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the fundamental principle of society, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the denial of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;--but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organisation within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal--it takes place in every healthy aristocracy--must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organisation, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other: it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendency--not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it lives, and because life is precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter; people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which "the exploiting character" is to be absent:-- that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. "Exploitation" does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function; it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life.--Granting that as a theory this is a novelty--as a reality it is the fundamental fact of all history: let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

260.

In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is master-morality and slave-morality; --I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilisations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities; but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition--even in the same man, within one soul. The distinctions of moral values have either originated in a ruling caste, pleasantly conscious of being different from the ruled--or among the ruled class, the slaves and dependents of all sorts. In the first case, when it is the rulers who determine the conception "good," it is the exalted, proud disposition which is regarded as the distinguishing feature, and that which determines the order of rank The noble type of man separates from himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud disposition displays itself: he despises them. Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis "good" and "bad" means practically the same as "noble" and "despicable";--the antithesis "good" and "evil" is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self-abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:--it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. "We truthful ones"--the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to men; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to actions; it is a gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with questions like, "Why have sympathetic actions been praised?" The noble type of man regards himself as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself"; he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a creator of values. He honours whatever he recognises in himself: such morality equals self-glorification. In the foreground there is the feeling of plenitude, of power, which seeks to overflow, the happiness of high tension, the consciousness of a wealth which would fain give and bestow:--the noble man also helps the unfortunate, but not--or scarcely--out of pity, but rather from an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power. The noble man honours in himself the powerful one, him also who has power over himself, who knows how to speak and how to keep silence, who takes pleasure in subjecting himself to severity and hardness, and has reverence for all that is severe and hard. "Wotan placed a hard heart in my breast," says an old Scandinavian Saga: it is thus rightly expressed from the soul of a proud Viking. Such a type of man is even proud of not being made for sympathy; the hero of the Saga therefore adds warningly: "He who has not a hard heart when young, will never have one." The noble and brave who think thus are the furthest removed from the morality which sees, precisely in sympathy, or in acting for the good of others, or in desinteressement, the characteristic of the moral; faith in oneself, pride in oneself, a radical enmity and irony towards "selflessness," belong as definitely to noble morality, as do a careless scorn and precaution in presence of sympathy and the "warm heart."--It is the powerful who know how to honour, it is their art, their domain for invention. The profound reverence for age and for tradition--all law rests on this double reverence,--the belief and prejudice in favour of ancestors and unfavourable to newcomers, is typical in the morality of the powerful; and if, reversely, men of "modern ideas" believe almost instinctively in progress and the "future," and are more and more lacking in respect for old age, the ignoble origin of these "ideas" has complacently betrayed itself thereby. A morality of the ruling class, however, is more especially foreign and irritating to present-day taste in the sternness of its principle that one has duties only to one's equals; that one may act towards beings of a lower rank, towards all that is foreign, just as seems good to one, or "as the heart desires," and in any case "beyond good and evil": it is here that sympathy and similar sentiments can have a place. The ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge both only within the circle of equals,--artfulness in retaliation, raffinement of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions of envy, quarrelsomeness, arrogance--in fact, in order to be a good friend)a: all these are typical characteristics of the noble morality, which, as has been pointed out, is not the morality of "modern ideas," and is therefore at present difficult to realise, and also to unearth and disclose.--It is otherwise with the second type of morality, slave-morality. Supposing that the abused, the oppressed, the suffering, the unemancipated, the weary, and those uncertain of themselves should moralise, what will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man, together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful; he has a scepticism and distrust, a refinement of distrust of everything "good" that is there honoured--he would fain persuade himself that the very happiness there is not genuine. On the other hand, those qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence and flooded with light; it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence, humility, and friendliness attain to honour; for here these are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence. Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility. Here is the seat of the origin of the famous antithesis "good" and "evil": --power and dangerousness are assumed to reside in the evil, a certain dreadfulness, subtlety, and strength, which do not admit of being despised. According to slave-morality, therefore, the "evil" man arouses fear; according to master-morality, it is precisely the "good" man who arouses fear and seeks to arouse it, while the bad man is regarded as the despicable being. The contrast attains its maximum when, in accordance with the logical consequences of slave- morality, a shade of depreciation--it may be slight and well-intentioned--at last attaches itself to the "good" man of this morality; because, according to the servile mode of thought, the good man must in any case be the safe man: he is good-natured, easily deceived, perhaps a little stupid, un bonhomme. Everywhere that slave-morality gains the ascendency, language shows a tendency to approximate the significations of the words "good" and "stupid."--A last fundamental difference: the desire for freedom, the instinct for happiness and the refinements of the feeling of liberty belong as necessarily to slave-morals and morality, as artifice and enthusiasm in reverence and devotion are the regular symptoms of an aristocratic mode of thinking and estimating.--Hence we can understand without further detail why love as a passion--it is our European specialty--must absolutely be of noble origin; as is well known, its invention is due to the Provencal poet-cavaliers, those brilliant, ingenious men of the "gai saber," to whom Europe owes so much, and almost owes itself.

Texas Dissident

2004-02-24 23:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]As far as Tex's 'pray for my wisdom' business....well, I'm starting to think that this whole forum-hosting business is getting to be more bother thanit's worth to him. Certainly a huge number of posts (and posters) are articulating creeds and beliefs he either rejects or feels flat-out uncomfortable with. I don't think he's ever been crazy about the race stuff, the Jew stuff, the NS stuff, etc, though he's certainly allowed it; but I think he's edging closer and closer to the day when he realizes that what much of OD is about has little to do with what he personally believes or enjoys being associated with. Hey, he could shut 'er down tomorrow and I'll always be grateful for having had the podium and the opportunity to rant from it. But I don't really get the feeling he's all that gung-ho for an all-Xian forum, either. (Naturally, I could be wrong.)[/QUOTE]

You're an insightful man, IR.

So much drama on the board. Amazing.

My three babies were just baptized this last Sunday, so I hope you can forgive my silence in the effort to savor one of the greatest moments in my life for a couple of days before having to come deal with this crap.

I don't have the time or the inclination to compose some long winded treatise on all this, but I will say a few things. For better or worse depending on one's perspective, I'm an American. More specifically, a Texan, a white man, a son of Dixie, a Protestant Christian, a husband and a father. I'll not apologize to anyone for being what the good Lord made me. As such, I believe in the free, responsible exchange of ideas and that is the bedrock principle I founded this board on.

Now believe it or not, despite the overwhelming number of vicious and slanderous attacks on the faith and ideals I personally hold dear and true here on this board, those things aren't what really, truly upset me. I don't expect anything else from unbelievers.

No, what bothers me the most is my southern, protestant Christian brothers not stepping up and arguing their position. If every Christian believer here earnestly contended for the true Faith then the mutterings of the various anti-Christ atheists, agnostics and heathens would be drowned out in short order and there would be no talk of censure and bannings. O brothers, where art thou??? This is your board!!

So far the most vocal defenders of the Apostle's Creed have been a Catholic (Walter) and an Orthodox Christian (wild bill). Despite what either of those two men think about my position in eternity as a protestant, I thank and commend both of them.

So IR in the quote above pretty much gets it right. I believe in the rightness of my beliefs and responsible free speech. I think I've bent over backwards to accomodate those that disagree with me on all kinds of things. I'm not the censoring sort and overall I think the record shows that. But, at the same time I don't want to run a board where nobody but vicious anti-Christians and hard-core nihilistic nazis post.

I am not going to start banning people because of their beliefs as that would totally discredit my convictions as to the rightness of what I believe in. If I decide to close up shop, which would sadden me more than anybody, please be assured that I'll give plenty of notice before turning off the lights.

weisbrot

2004-02-24 23:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] No, what bothers me the most is my southern, protestant Christian brothers not stepping up and arguing their position. If every Christian believer here earnestly contended for the true Faith then the mutterings of the various anti-Christ atheists, agnostics and heathens would be drowned out in short order and there would be no talk of censure and bannings. O brothers, where art thou??? This is your board!! [/QUOTE]

All good points. But you have to consider the fact that those assorted anti-Christ atheists and heathens are by and large making debate unnecessary.

Congratulations on your children's baptism. Consider that your priorities were in order, and that your actions in support of your three children refute any claims that Christianity is passive or weak. I would suggest that your critics would be hard-pressed to match your accomplishments in support of your family; all the heroically self-aggrandizing rhetoric on this space since Sunday has a hollow ring when viewed in that light.

The artistic success of Gibson's Passion movie- and even it's spiritual impact- is unimportant when compared to the importance of what has been revealed in the near-psychotic rantings against it. Likewise, these variously weepy and outraged epistles striking out at reptilian pod people and other imagined enemies reveal the baseless nature of the arguments and the empty natures of the souls making them.

There hasn't been much of substance to debate. Mostly what I've seen has been childish name-calling and ad hominem tactics worthy of a Free Republic reunion. What's the point?

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 00:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] But, at the same time I don't want to run a board where nobody but vicious anti-Christians and hard-core nihilistic nazis post.[/QUOTE]

Why the concern in this regard, Tex?

How many members qualify as what you would call a "hard-core nihilistic nazi" other than myself? Even our harmless puppy-dog, Franco, is no nihilist. Linder might fit, but he rarely contributes - and doesn't really debate when he does.

And who's a "vicious anti-Christian" besides me? The lovely and charming Wintermute? I'm at a loss to imagine whom you otherwise have in mind.

Please place the matter in proportion for us.

Neo

Okiereddust

2004-02-25 00:27 | User Profile

[quote=Texas Dissident]No, what bothers me the most is my southern, protestant Christian brothers not stepping up and arguing their position. If every Christian believer here earnestly contended for the true Faith then the mutterings of the various anti-Christ atheists, agnostics and heathens would be drowned out in short order and there would be no talk of censure and bannings. O brothers, where art thou??? This is your board![QUOTE=weisbrot]All good points. But you have to consider the fact that those assorted anti-Christ atheists and heathens are by and large making debate unnecessary.

Congratulations on your children's baptism. Consider that your priorities were in order, and that your actions in support of your three children refute any claims that Christianity is passive or weak. I would suggest that your critics would be hard-pressed to match your accomplishments in support of your family; all the heroically self-aggrandizing rhetoric on this space since Sunday has a hollow ring when viewed in that light.

The artistic success of Gibson's Passion movie- and even it's spiritual impact- is unimportant when compared to the importance of what has been revealed in the near-psychotic rantings against it. Likewise, these variously weepy and outraged epistles striking out at reptilian pod people and other imagined enemies reveal the baseless nature of the arguments and the empty natures of the souls making them.

There hasn't been much of substance to debate. Mostly what I've seen has been childish name-calling and ad hominem tactics worthy of a Free Republic reunion. What's the point?[/QUOTE]

A hearty "here here".

Tex may have overestimated the number of strongly conservative, politically active, anti-neo, anti-Zionist conservative Protestants there are in this country, or elsewhere for that matter. The answer is - not that many. Especially those so dogmatic that they forsake the mainstream belonging available at Free Republic et. al.. It's just a fact of life.

There are a lot of people who need to blow off steam against organized Christianity today, and with the likes of Falwell, Robertson and Reed who can blame them. Hopefully their rantings serve some value for catharthis.

Angler

2004-02-25 06:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Oh, puh-Leeze.

You're saying that modernity has improved on Aquinas in philosophy and theology?

The Cathedral of Notre Dame in achitecture?

Perhaps it's modernity's romance with usury, abortion on demand, and gay marriage that you like so much?

How about the assault on private property and the sanctity of marriage and family by both capitalism and socialism?

Maybe the real progress is to be found in the liberating effects of modern televitzion and reality shows? Perhaps you think that MTV is a major improvement over the comedia del arte of the old merchant towns of Northern Italy? Is "Jackass" and improvement on "Punch and Judy?" You tell me.

Because, frankly speaking, I'm not seeing a lot of genuine moral progress. What was that you said, "and the ignorance of the Dark Ages has been utterly supplanted by the light of reason?!"

Do you really mean that? Does the light of reason include Jewish rule of the minds of our own people?

Again, you tell me.

It was the modern age and its resurgent paganism that gave us carpet bombing of civilians and nuclear war. It was the modern age that gave us the GULAG and the Collectivization of Agriculture.

The modern age gave us Michael Eisner.

Where is this light of reason you're talking about? I'd really like to see some of that light illuminating the modern world.

Again, you're giving me here the received version of history. Not that I blame you, but the Middle Ages weren't so terribly dark, it turns out.

At least not in comparison to our modern American "Democwacy."

Walter[/QUOTE] You misunderstand me entirely, Walter. (So much for my cheesy attempt to wax poetic.) My reference to the "light of reason" had nothing to do with morality (although the Inquisition was certainly immoral). I was making the point that religious tyranny is the enemy of reason because it hinders the progress of science and objective thought.

The medieval Church believed in witchcraft and sorcerery, thought the sun was smaller than the earth and revolved around it, thought the moon emitted its own light, thought epileptics were possessed by demons, and all manner of similar nonsense. To deny these "truths" was to risk torture and a one-way ticket to an auto-da-fe. Is that the kind of world you're pining away for, Walter? We'd probably have a cure for cancer by now if the Inquisition had never existed.

As to the question of morality, it's clear that the US is in the midst of a steep decline. Is it as bad as the Inquisition was? Not even close. Few activities are as immoral as the brutal persecution and murder of people on the basis of their beliefs. The US is indeed deteriorating rapidly, but to embrace religious tyranny would be to make the cure worse than the illness.

You're saying that modernity has improved on Aquinas in philosophy and theology? My answer to this question is an unqualified "yes".

Walter Yannis

2004-02-25 07:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler][QUOTE]You misunderstand me entirely, Walter. (So much for my cheesy attempt to wax poetic.) My reference to the "light of reason" had nothing to do with morality (although the Inquisition was certainly immoral). I was making the point that religious tyranny is the enemy of reason because it hinders the progress of science and objective thought. [/QUOTE]

The light of reason never shown so brightly as it did among the Schoolmen.

Was Duns Scotus a dimwit? Was Aquinas a drooling idiot?

Angler my friend, Aquinas was the one who did more than perhaps any man in history to lay the foundations for modern science.

Again, you're spouting here the court history of the thing. It simply isn't so.

[QUOTE]The medieval Church believed in witchcraft and sorcerery, thought the sun was smaller than the earth and revolved around it, thought the moon emitted its own light, thought epileptics were possessed by demons, and all manner of similar nonsense. To deny these "truths" was to risk torture and a one-way ticket to an auto-da-fe. Is that the kind of world you're pining away for, Walter? We'd probably have a cure for cancer by now if the Inquisition had never existed.[/QUOTE]

The medieval Church was part of its day and assumed the science that was generally accepted at the time.

Since the Church was at the time co-extensive with society, everything that happened - for good or for ill - took place in the Church. You thus fall into the understandable trap of equating then and now. If you wish to condemn the bad things the Church did then as the de facto society of Medieval Europe, you must also celebrate the good things, no?

[QUOTE]As to the question of morality, it's clear that the US is in the midst of a steep decline. Is it as bad as the Inquisition was? Not even close. Few activities are as immoral as the brutal persecution and murder of people on the basis of their beliefs. The US is indeed deteriorating rapidly, but to embrace religious tyranny would be to make the cure worse than the illness.

My answer to this question is an unqualified "yes".[/QUOTE]

I guess it's a judgment call. I'd say that the United States today has committed far worse crimes than any Medieval monarch. I mean, who other than, say, Genghis Khan killed as many people as Imperial America slaughtered through the bombing of cities in Vietnam?

Did the Inquisition do anything approaching the 35 million or so murders through legalized abortion in the United States since 1973?

Did the Inquisition's "tyranny" over the minds of men even come close to the influence of Hollywood?

You tell me.

As for me, I say that Khomeini was right about one thing - the America of today really is the Great Satan. And it is the great Satan precisely because it's been taken over by the more kosher among us. To fight that - to save our civilization - we have to take action.

The questions then arise what we can do and what we're willing to do.

The Inquisition is the "can" part. At least, I hope we have it in us to do that, although I guess I have to admit this isn't at all clear. We'll all have to answer the question as what we're willing to do for ourselves.

I hope and pray that I will have the moral courage to win by all means necessary.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-02-25 08:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]Why the concern in this regard, Tex?

How many members qualify as what you would call a "hard-core nihilistic nazi" other than myself? Even our harmless puppy-dog, Franco, is no nihilist. Linder might fit, but he rarely contributes - and doesn't really debate when he does.

And who's a "vicious anti-Christian" besides me? The lovely and charming Wintermute? I'm at a loss to imagine whom you otherwise have in mind.

Please place the matter in proportion for us.

Neo[/QUOTE]

Neo: I didn't understand your reply above. You simply quote Nietzsche, and frankly I'm not making the connnection with the issue of "noble" versus "worthy" in regard to our NVA solider.

Could you please explain this in your own words, illustrating your points with examples?

As to the above, do you consider yourself a "nihilist" indeed, or was that just rhetoric (not that I mind, I'm prone to it myself).

If you are a nihilist, please explain how that comports with your professed belief in the natural law (if I understood you correctly) on the C.S. Lewis thread.

Walter

il ragno

2004-02-25 08:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE]My three babies were just baptized this last Sunday, so I hope you can forgive my silence in the effort to savor one of the greatest moments in my life for a couple of days before having to come deal with this crap.[/QUOTE]

I'm unsure of what the proper felicitous address is for this sort of occasion ("congratulations" doesn't feel right somehow, and "mazel tov" is [B]right out[/B]) but allow me a clumsily-phrased "I'm happy for [I]your[/I] happiness", TD. Better you honor the rituals [I]you choose [/I] to hold sacrosanct than to reflexively comply with those forced upon you by our Semitized elites.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-25 08:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]I'm unsure of what the proper felicitous address is for this sort of occasion ("congratulations" doesn't feel right somehow, and "mazel tov" is [B]right out[/B]) but allow me a clumsily-phrased "I'm happy for [I]your[/I] happiness", TD. Better you honor the rituals [I]you choose [/I] to hold sacrosanct than to reflexively comply with those forced upon you by our Semitized elites.[/QUOTE]

I join Ragman in wishing extending to you and your lovely family my heartiest congratulations.

My youngest daughter makes her First Communion in a few months. That's always a big day.

Walter

Texas Dissident

2004-02-25 09:09 | User Profile

Thanks, IR and WY. Words fail to describe that kind of joy. You know what I mean, Walter.

Here's a pic of the crew with my in-laws from that day.

Ragnar

2004-02-25 10:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wintermute]We're still waiting for a decision, but let's not sugar coat and say that you and Walter are calling for 'guidelines for discussion'. You're calling for the removal of Gentiles.

In fact, in respose to another post of mine on another thread, you said that "of course, non Christians will leave this board", and that I shouldn't think anything of it. Do you deny that?

How do you square all this with your new, reasonable sounding spin, R? The two stories don't . . . quite . . . square, now do they?

I eagerly await your reply.

Wintermute[/QUOTE]

To which?

First, I can't call for the removal of Gentiles -- your definition makes me one. I said the rules could, at some point still might, make more sense if it becomes a WN + Christian forum. Second, that was what I meant when I said "Of course..." we'll go. If it's Christian Reconstructionism (which is what any type of Christian nationalism is called) that of course should be implicit. And I for one wouldn't think anything of it because CRs give me the freakin' hives.

Dunno. I thought I was being reasonable both times. :unsure:

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 15:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Neo: I didn't understand your reply above. You simply quote Nietzsche, and frankly I'm not making the connnection with the issue of "noble" versus "worthy" in regard to our NVA solider.[/QUOTE]

The acts of the servant and the soldier were merely "worthy," because persons of all classes perform them. In fact, self-sacrifice is far more often expected of the slave, the commoner, the ranks, than of the master, the nobleman, the officer. A "noble" act is one distinctively characteristic of the nobleman, and the terminological abuse of the term is an aspect of the "inversion" of which I wrote, which has produced, for example, our personal titles of Mr./Mister/Monsieur/MonSeigneur, where none of us are, in fact, anything approaching an actual "Lord".

[QUOTE]As to the above, do you consider yourself a "nihilist" indeed, or was that just rhetoric (not that I mind, I'm prone to it myself).[/QUOTE]

Rhetoric, since Tex knows nothing of the "natural law" of the aristocrat.

[QUOTE]If you are a nihilist, please explain how that comports with your professed belief in the natural law (if I understood you correctly) on the C.S. Lewis thread.[/QUOTE]

I am nihilistic as regards the universal "natural law" which Lewis believes exists in some consistent form. I acknowledge the natural martial law that arises and evolves amongst warriors/noblemen/aristocrats which permits the maintenance of order as against the anarchic instincts of the common.

MadScienceType

2004-02-25 16:20 | User Profile

Well, I can see I went off half-cocked, for which I apologize. WM's not in any danger of being banned, he's just busy ferreting out "enemies" where there are none.

Are you OK?

Tex,

I join the others in offering you a big congratulations. Don't let all the ooze here take away from that satisfaction one iota, please.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-25 16:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche][QUOTE]The acts of the servant and the soldier were merely "worthy," because persons of all classes perform them. In fact, self-sacrifice is far more often expected of the slave, the commoner, the ranks, than of the master, the nobleman, the officer. A "noble" act is one distinctively characteristic of the nobleman, and the terminological abuse of the term is an aspect of the "inversion" of which I wrote, which has produced, for example, our personal titles of Mr./Mister/Monsieur/MonSeigneur, where none of us are, in fact, anything approaching an actual "Lord".[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.

Was the NVA's soldier's actions merely "worthy" because of who he was - i.e. the presumably very common circumstances of this birth - such that nothing he could have done could be deemed "noble" in your value system? Alternatively, could our common NVA soldier have acted in that situation in a way that would be "noble" in your estimation?

If so, what could he have done such that you would have considered his actions "noble?"

I see that you include "warriors" in your list of favoured classes below. Was our NVA soldier a "warrior"?

[QUOTE]Rhetoric, since Tex knows nothing of the "natural law" of the aristocrat. I am nihilistic as regards the universal "natural law" which Lewis believes exists in some consistent form. I acknowledge the natural martial law that arises and evolves amongst warriors/noblemen/aristocrats which permits the maintenance of order as against the anarchic instincts of the common. [/QUOTE]

Please expound further on this. In what does the aristocrat's noble "natural law" consist?

Would it be fair to say that you believe in a natural aristocracy to which one is born only, or is it possible to attain to it through action?

If so, what actions must be taken to qualify for the title "noble" in your estimation?

I thank you in advance, this is truly most interesting.

friedrich braun

2004-02-25 17:04 | User Profile

TD:

Congratulations on the baptism of your three babies.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 17:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.

Was the NVA's soldier's actions merely "worthy" because of who he was - i.e. the presumably very common circumstances of this birth - such that nothing he could have done could be deemed "noble" in your value system?[/QUOTE]

Again, his action was merely "worthy" because it is characteristically performed by persons of all classes, and so is not properly referred to as "noble". I suppose a commoner could be said to have acted "nobly" by favorably distinguishing himself while participating in an affair of honor, were he so permitted.

[QUOTE]Alternatively, could our common NVA soldier have acted in that situation in a way that would be "noble" in your estimation?[/QUOTE]

Not that I can imagine at the moment.

[QUOTE]I see that you include "warriors" in your list of favoured classes below. Was our NVA soldier a "warrior"? [/QUOTE]

Properly speaking, he was not.

[QUOTE]In what does the aristocrat's noble "natural law" consist?[/QUOTE]

Please review the quoted material. Basically, the community of the aristocrats is governed by considerations of honor amongst themselves, even in mutual combat, and they govern with the familiar impositions upon the commoners of respect for one another's small persons and property. I will quote some further material from N. in another post.

[QUOTE]Would it be fair to say that you believe in a natural aristocracy to which one is born only, or is it possible to attain to it through action?[/QUOTE]

My sense is that one is born with nobility of spirit, more such births arising amidst the martial aristocrats than amongst the commoners. Aristocrats may choose to recognize the spirit of nobility reflected in the actions of commoners and so elevate the latter in specific instances.

[QUOTE]I thank you in advance, this is truly most interesting.[/QUOTE]

At your service, m' Lord

Walter Yannis

2004-02-25 17:23 | User Profile

Thank you for your very thorough and thought provoking reply, which prompts additional questions, but for now I have only one.

Does there exist in the world now a group that you consider a proper noble/warrior/aristocratic group? If so, please identify that group.

Regards,

Walter

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 17:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Thank you for your very thorough and thought provoking reply, which prompts additional questions, but for now I have only one.

Does there exist in the world now a group that you consider a proper noble/warrior/aristocratic group? If so, please identify that group.

Regards,

Walter[/QUOTE]

I know of no such group. Nietzsche hoped for a resurrection of such amongst "good" Europeans. The Nazis attempted what little could be done in this regard.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 19:54 | User Profile

The Natural Law of Master Morality:

We see exactly the opposite with the noble man, who conceives the fundamental idea "good" in advance and spontaneously by himself and from there first creates a picture of "bad" for himself. This "bad" originating from the noble man and that "evil" arising out of the stew pot of insatiable hatred—of these the first is a later creation, an afterthought, a complementary colour; whereas the second is the original, the beginning, the essential act of conception in slave morality.

Although the two words "bad" and "evil" both seem opposite to the same idea of "good", how different they are. But it is not the same idea of the "good"; it is much rather a question of who the "evil man" really is, in the sense of the morality of resentment. The strict answer to that is this: precisely the "good man" of the other morality, the noble man himself, the powerful, the ruling man, only coloured over, reinterpreted, and seen through the poisonous eyes of resentment.

Here there is one thing we will be the last to deny: the man who knows these "good men" only as enemies, knows them as nothing but evil enemies, and the same men who are so strongly held bound by custom, honour, habit, thankfulness, even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy inter pares and who, by contrast, demonstrate in relation to each other such resourceful consideration, self-control, refinement, loyalty, pride, and friendship—these men, once outside where the strange world, the foreign, begins, are not much better than beasts of prey turned loose. There they enjoy freedom from all social constraints. In the wilderness they make up for the tension which a long fenced-in confinement within the peace of the community brings about. They go back to the innocent consciousness of a wild beast of prey, as joyful monsters, who perhaps walk away from a dreadful sequence of murder, arson, rape, and torture with exhilaration and spiritual equilibrium, as if they had merely pulled off a student prank, convinced that the poets now have something more to sing about and praise for a long time.

At the bottom of all these noble races we cannot fail to recognize the beast of prey, the blond beast splendidly roaming around in its lust for loot and victory. This hidden basis from time to time needs to be discharged: the animal must come out again, must go back into the wilderness,—Roman, Arab, German, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings—in this need they are all alike.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 20:01 | User Profile

Natural Law as the Imposition of the Masters:

But in connection with Dühring's single principle that we must seek the homeland of justice in the land of the reactive feeling, we must, for love of the truth, rudely turn this around by setting out a different principle: the last territory to be conquered by the spirit of justice is the land of the reactive emotions! If it is truly the case that the just man remains just even towards someone who has injured him (and not just cold, moderate, strange, indifferent: being just is always a positive attitude), if under the sudden attack of personal injury, ridicule, and suspicion, the gaze of the lofty, clear, deep, and benevolent objectivity of the just and judging eye does not grow dark, well, that's a piece of perfection and the highest mastery on earth, even something that it would be wise for people not to expect and certainly not to believe in too easily.

It's certainly true that, on average, even among the most just people even a small dose of hostility, malice, insinuation is enough to make them see red and chase fairness out of their eyes. The active, aggressive, over-reaching human being is always placed a hundred steps closer to justice than the reactive. For him it is not even necessary in the slightest to estimate an object falsely and with bias, the way the reactive man does and must do. Thus, as a matter of fact, at all times the aggressive human being—the stronger, braver, more noble man—has always had on his side a better conscience as well as a more independent eye. And by contrast, we can already guess who generally has the invention of "bad conscience" on his conscience—the man of resentment!

Finally, let's look around in history: up to now in what area has the whole implementation of law in general as well as the essential need for law been at home? Could it be in the area of the reactive human beings? That is entirely wrong. It is much more the case that it's been at home with the active, strong, spontaneous, and aggressive men. Historically considered, the law on earth—let me say this to the annoyance of the above-mentioned agitator (who himself once made the confession "The doctrine of revenge runs through all my work and efforts as the red thread of justice")—represents that very struggle against the reactive feelings, the war with them on the part of active and aggressive powers, which have partly used up their strength to put a halt to or restrain reactive pathos and to compel some settlement with it.

Everywhere where justice is practised, where justice is upheld, we see a power stronger in relation to a weaker power standing beneath it (whether with groups or individuals) seeking a means to bring an end among the latter to the senseless rage of resentment, partly by dragging the object of resentment out of the hands of revenge, partly by setting in the place of revenge a battle against the enemies of peace and order, partly by coming up with compensation, proposing it, under certain circumstances making it compulsory, sometimes establishing certain equivalents for injuries as a norm, which from now on resentment has to deal with once and for all.

The most decisive factor, however, which the highest power carries out and sets in place against the superior power of the feelings of hostility and animosity—something that power always does as soon as it feels itself strong enough—is to set up laws, the imperative explanation of those things which, in its own eyes, are considered allowed and legal and which are considered forbidden and illegal. In the process, after the establishment of the law, the authorities treat attacks and arbitrary acts of individuals or entire groups as an outrage against the law, as rebellion against the highest power itself, and they steer the feelings of those beneath them away from the immediate damage done by such outrages and thus, in the long run, achieve the reverse of what all revenge desires, which sees only the viewpoint of the injured party and considers only that valid. From now on, the eye becomes trained to evaluate actions always impersonally, even the eye of the harmed party itself (although this would be the very last thing to occur, as I have remarked earlier).

Consequently, only with the setting up of the law is there a "just" and "unjust" (and not, as Dühring will have it, from the time of the injurious action). To talk of just and unjust in themselves has no sense whatsoever—it's obvious that in themselves harming, oppressing, exploiting, destroying cannot be "unjust," insofar as life essentially works that way, that is, in its basic functions it harms, oppresses, exploits, and destroys—and cannot be conceived at all without these characteristics. We must acknowledge something even more alarming—the fact that from the highest biological standpoint, conditions of law must always be exceptional conditions, partial restrictions on the basic will to live, which is set on power—they are subordinate to the total purpose of this will as its individual means, that is, as means to create a larger unit of power. A legal system conceived of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle of power complexes, but as a means against all struggles in general, something along the lines of Dühring's communist cliché in which each will must be considered as equal to every will, that would be a principle hostile to life, a destroyer and dissolver of human beings, an assassination attempt on the future of human beings, a sign of exhaustion, a secret path to nothingness.

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-25 20:05 | User Profile

The Natural Origins of Law and Order in Mastery:

Inherent in this hypothesis about the origin of bad conscience is, firstly, the assumption that this change was not gradual or voluntary and did not manifest an organic growth into new conditions, but was a break, a leap, something forced, an irrefutable disaster, against which there was no struggle nor any resentment. Secondly, it assumes that the adaptation of a populace which had hitherto been unchecked and shapeless into a fixed form was initiated by an act of violence and was carried to its conclusion by nothing but sheer acts of violence, that consequently the very oldest "State" emerged as a terrible tyranny, as an oppressive and inconsiderate machinery and continued working until such a raw materials of people and half-animals finally was not only thoroughly kneaded and submissive but also given a shape.

I used the word "State"—it is self-evident who is meant by that term—some pack of blond predatory animals, a race of conquerors and masters, which, organized for war and with the power to organize, without thinking about it sets its terrifying paws on a subordinate population which may perhaps be vast in numbers but is still without any shape, is still wandering about. That's surely the way the "State" begins on earth. I believe that that fantasy has been done away with which sees the beginning of the state in some "contract." The man who can command, who is naturally a "master," who comes forward with violence in his actions and gestures—what has a man like that to do with making contracts! We cannot negotiate with such beings. They come like fate, without cause, reason, consideration, or pretext. They are present as lightning is present, too fearsome, too sudden, too convincing, too "different" even to become hated. Their work is the instinctive creation of forms, the imposition of forms. They are the most involuntary and unconscious artists in existence. Where they appear something new is soon present, a living power structure, something in which the parts and functions are demarcated and coordinated, in which there is, in general, no place for anything which does not first derive its "meaning" from its relationship to the totality .

These men, these born organizers, have no idea what guilt, responsibility, and consideration are. In them that fearsome egotism of the artist is in charge, which stares out like bronze and knows how to justify itself for all time in the "work," just like mother with her child. They are not the ones in whom "bad conscience" grew—that point is obvious. But this hateful plant would not have grown without them. It would have failed if an immense amount of freedom had not been driven from the world under the pressure of their hammer blows—or at least driven from sight and, as it were, had become latent. This powerful instinct for freedom, once made latent (we already understand how), this instinct driven back, repressed, imprisoned inside, and finally able to discharge and direct itself only against itself—that and that alone is what bad conscience is in its beginnings.

Walter Yannis

2004-02-26 06:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=NeoNietzsche]I know of no such group. Nietzsche hoped for a resurrection of such amongst "good" Europeans. The Nazis attempted what little could be done in this regard.[/QUOTE]

I will read everything you posted, as your kind attentions certainly warrant reciprocal regard. I'll try to get to it this week.

In the meantime, in view of your response above, please allow me to ask two more questions.

1. Do you consider yourself to be of this noble aristocratic/warrior class? Please forgive the presumption of the question, but it does seem to follow from the prior discussion.

2. Since no noble aristocratic/warrior group exists, what is your practical plan of action? How do you propose to create such a group, or otherwise entertain the hope that it will appear?

3. Short of the appearance of such a warrior nobility, do you believe that there are any other practical applications of you ideas in terms of our collective liberation? If so, please specify them.

I thank you again for your kind attention to my questions.

Walter

NeoNietzsche

2004-02-28 14:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I will read everything you posted, as your kind attentions certainly warrant reciprocal regard. I'll try to get to it this week.

In the meantime, in view of your response above, please allow me to ask two more questions.

1. Do you consider yourself to be of this noble aristocratic/warrior class? Please forgive the presumption of the question, but it does seem to follow from the prior discussion.[/QUOTE]

In material terms I am petty bourgeois. But I do, as you see, have an affinity for the esprit and perspectives of our historic betters, which I advance in the course of our discussions here. And I have adopted the practice, in what I see as the exemplary promotion of reactionary personal demeanor, of openly wearing a weapon suitable for personal combat.

[QUOTE]2. Since no noble aristocratic/warrior group exists, what is your practical plan of action? How do you propose to create such a group, or otherwise entertain the hope that it will appear?[/QUOTE]

I am perpetuating Nietzsche's "fishing" expedition.

[QUOTE]3. Short of the appearance of such a warrior nobility, do you believe that there are any other practical applications of you[r] ideas in terms of our collective liberation? If so, please specify them.[/QUOTE]

Do as warriors do and be prepared.