← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Kurt
Thread ID: 12935 | Posts: 25 | Started: 2004-03-30
2004-03-30 09:09 | User Profile
More Euro-bashing from a jew (I know, whatta shock). Thanks to those wonderful jews, the United States is so superior to decadent amoral, Europe. I will agree with Prager on one thing: that Amerikwa was a jewish co-production from the get-go.
What does 'Judeo-Christian' mean?
by Dennis Prager
(link: [url]http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040330.shtml[/url])
The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian. While the Western world has consisted of many Christian countries and consists today of many secular countries, only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values.
But what does "Judeo-Christian" mean? We need to know. Along with the belief in liberty -- as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity -- Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries. That is why American coins feature these two messages: "In God we trust" and "Liberty."
Yet, for all its importance and its repeated mention, the term is not widely understood. It urgently needs to be because it is under ferocious assault, and if we do not understand it, we will be unable to defend it. And if we cannot defend it, America will become as amoral as France, Germany, Russia, et al.
First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, as much as to the New. And even more importantly, they strongly identified with the Jews.
For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt. Just as the Hebrews left Egypt and its values, Americans left Europe and its values (if only those who admire Jefferson would continue to take his advice).
Founders and other early Americans probably studied Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, at least as much as Greek, the language of the New. Yale, founded in 1701, adopted a Hebrew insignia, and Hebrew was compulsory at Harvard until 1787. The words on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land...," are from the Torah. Vast numbers of Americans took Hebrew names -- like Benjamin Franklin and Cotton Mather (kattan in Hebrew means "little one" or "younger").
The consequences included a strong Old Testament view of the world -- meaning, in part, a strong sense of fighting for earthly justice, an emphasis on laws, a belief in a judging, as well as a loving and forgiving, God, and a belief in the chosenness of the Jews which America identified with.
The significance of this belief in American chosenness cannot be overstated. It accounts for the mission that Americans have uniquely felt called to -- to spread liberty in the world.
This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation's soldiers.
It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate countries -- not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction, Israel and Taiwan. That is why conservative Americans are more likely to believe in American exceptionalism -- in not seeking, as President Bush put it, a "permission slip" from the United Nations, let alone from Europe.
The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical God of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world.
That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values lead the fight against redefining marriage. We believe that a pillar of Judeo-Christian values is to encourage the man-woman sexual and marital ideal, and to provide children with the opportunity to benefit from the unique gifts that a man and a woman give a child, gifts that are never replicable by two men alone or two women.
That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values are unmoved by the idea that the war in Iraq is moral if Germany, France, China and Russia say so, but immoral if they oppose it. We ask first what God and the Bible would say about liberating Iraq, not what Syria and other members of the U.N. Security Council say.
That is why those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values believe that war, while always tragic, is on more than a few occasions a moral duty. Nothing "Judeo" ever sanctioned pacifism. Of course, the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah yearned for the day that nations will beat their swords into plowshares. But another Hebrew Prophet, Joel, who is never cited by those who wish to read the secular value of pacifism into the Bible, said precisely the opposite: "Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears. Let the weakling say, 'I am strong!'"
And that is why those who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism, seek to remove mention of God from all public life, and make Christmas a private, not a national, holiday.
The battle over whether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes secular like Europe is what this, the Second American Civil War, is about.
é2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
2004-03-30 18:28 | User Profile
'Anti-Semitism' is a non phrase. Its only value is to Jewish and Jewish-allied propagandists who wish to reinforce the central dogma of their new religion, Holocaustianity, in which the mythical Six Million take the place of Jesus as a sole, complete, and adequate substitutionary sacrifice for mankind's hitherto estrangement from the Deity. It should be replaced by the more literal and less anachronistic term, "anti-Judaism". Remember, 'Secular Judaism' is also a Judaism; all organised Jewish life is necessarily based on a Judaism of one sort or another, in the sense of an ideology of Jewish identity.
2004-03-30 20:35 | User Profile
First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, as much as to the New. And even more importantly, they strongly identified with the Jews.
Well, Protestant American colonists certainly weren't dispensionalists, either. Whether Puritans, Calvinists, Anglicans, Anabaptists, or Lutherans they all believed that the Church was God's sole agent on earth. Dispensationalism and its separate roles for the Church and national Israel hadn't even been conceived yet.
For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt. Just as the Hebrews left Egypt and its values, Americans left Europe and its values (if only those who admire Jefferson would continue to take his advice).
Jefferson is an excellent example of statesmanship, but with his enlightenment/Masonic proclivities he's a piss-poor example of early American Christianity. In fact, one of Freemasonry's cardinal heresies is its elevation of all world religions to equal status and its denial of exclusive Christianity.
The consequences included a strong Old Testament view of the world -- meaning, in part, a strong sense of fighting for earthly justice, an emphasis on laws, a belief in a judging, as well as a loving and forgiving, God, and a belief in the chosenness of the Jews which America identified with.
Gee, and here I always thought Christian colonists were fleeing the state Church of Anglicanism. If they really idolized the ancient Israelites they would've embraced theocracy.
It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate countries -- not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
This is such a far reach to equate American interventionism with New Testament morality that it's beyond the pale.
The second meaning of Judeo-Christian is a belief in the biblical God of Israel, in His Ten Commandments and His biblical moral laws. It is a belief in universal, not relative, morality. It is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world.
Can Prager or any other figure on the Religious Right point to any evidence in the New Testament that nations will turn to God as nations? Will God punish nations in the New Testament for disobedience? Prager falls into the same trap that the Religious Right does: this notion that by making people behave in a more moral manner, it somehow makes America a Christian (or in his case Judeo-Christian) nation.
Nothing "Judeo" ever sanctioned pacifism.
Ain't that the truth.
2004-03-30 21:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE]America will become as amoral as France, Germany, Russia, et al[/QUOTE].
Does he mean that the US is morally superior to these countries? Is this Prager on drugs? Mmmmm, I've been to France and Germany.Try going shopping on Sunday. You won't get far. I know it's not a major deal but God's Angel, the United States, sells booze on Sundays which you can buy after your Lord's Day shopping spree, just in time for the Negro Football League game. Darn, even England has their football matches on Saturdays. Who's morally superior in the eyes of the Lord?
By the way, are they even [I]talking[/I] about gay marriage in France and Germany? Are they implementing gay [I]civil unions[/I]? Just asking.
The same "judeos" who brought "morals" to the US, also are the same ones destroying said morals today. That's the way they do it; play both sides of the issues. Anyone who says today's America is morally superior to other countries is demented. This article is pure neocon trash.
2004-03-30 21:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]I know it's not a major deal but God's Angel, the United States, sells booze on Sundays which you can buy after your Lord's Day shopping spree.
You ever try buying booze on a Sunday in the Bible Belt?
Darn, even England has their football matches on Saturdays. Who's morally superior in the eyes of the Lord?
Well, N. Ireland, which is part of the UK, recently allowed horse racing on Sundays. The Free Presbyterians had a fit over it, too.
2004-03-30 21:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]You ever try buying booze on a Sunday in the Bible Belt?[/QUOTE]
Well, if Florida counts as Bible Belt, then yes, I was able to easily buy booze on Sunday after 12 noon. The supermarket chain down there, Publix, sells booze (beer, wine, liquor) right outta there with your pot roast, salad, and Italian bread.
2004-03-30 23:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]What Dennis writes is half-true. Today's America is for all intents and purposes a Jewish nation and American Christianity is indeed "Judaeo-Christianity." However, we get the usual Jewish sleight of hand from Dennis - he would have the reader believe that America was "Judaeo-Christian" from its inception, when nothing could be further from the truth.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of that quote in Friedrich Braun's signature: "Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism" -- Werner Sombart
2004-03-31 03:34 | User Profile
xmetalhead, I love the picture. The rest of the world wants White women too! Probably one of the defining characteristics of Western Civilization was the value we placed on the 'Lady'--part and parcel of Chivalry!
But, the question is, what is a jew-day-o-christian...
ANSWER--> Some kind of unitarian heretic, at best!!! :angry:
2004-03-31 06:26 | User Profile
xmetalhead, I love the picture. The rest of the world wants White women too! Probably one of the defining characteristics of Western Civilization was the value we placed on the 'Lady'--part and parcel of Chivalry!
Yes, she's a fine example of White beauty.
2004-03-31 08:04 | User Profile
For example, Thomas Jefferson wanted the design of the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt. Just as the Hebrews left Egypt and its values, Americans left Europe and its values (if only those who admire Jefferson would continue to take his advice).
Founders and other early Americans probably studied Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, at least as much as Greek, the language of the New. Yale, founded in 1701, adopted a Hebrew insignia, and Hebrew was compulsory at Harvard until 1787. The words on the Liberty Bell, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land...," are from the Torah. Vast numbers of Americans took Hebrew names -- like Benjamin Franklin and Cotton Mather (kattan in Hebrew means "little one" or "younger").
Why any White person would want to learn Hebrew is beyond me (unless they think it will help them see what the jews are up to). The languages of Europe are far superior to that pathetic, Semitic "language."
When a White person embraces the Old Testament, he is basically saying to me: "My heritage means nothing to me. I prefer the history and mythology of the Jews, to that of my own people."
2004-03-31 12:18 | User Profile
This ââ¬Ëarticleââ¬â¢ is one of the worst crass, ââ¬Ëerrorââ¬â¢-ridden, generalising pieces of bullshit I have read in a long time. I donââ¬â¢t even know where to begin dissecting it, so I wonââ¬â¢t - canââ¬â¢t be bothered anymore, canââ¬â¢t type anymoreââ¬Â¦ lying vampiresââ¬Â¦ draining my energyââ¬Â¦ canââ¬â¢t feel my legsââ¬Â¦losing controlââ¬Â¦LETS ROLL!
But seriously, does this mean the US Jews donââ¬â¢t like us? The Jews in Europe donââ¬â¢t say these nasty things; theyââ¬â¢re not like those bad ââ¬â cough - ââ¬Ëright-wingââ¬â¢ American Jews. Theyââ¬â¢re our friends. We share a common Judeo-Jacobin heritage. Wait, why are you Americans laughing? Stop itââ¬Â¦
2004-03-31 16:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE]When a White person embraces the Old Testament, he is basically saying to me: [I]"My heritage means nothing to me. I prefer the history and mythology of the Jews, to that of my own people."[/I][/QUOTE]
The OT is every bit Christian as the NT. The foreshadowing of Jesus Christ is evident from Genesis throughout. The OT is the history of the Israelites NOT the Jews. Jesus Christ was NOT a Jew and neither was his earthly mother.
(snip) Most competent Bible historians will admit that at no time in the new Testament is Jesus ever called a Jew and that, during His sojourn on earth, He was called a "Judean" by His contemporaries. The great Hebrew historian, Josephus, wrote many times concerning Jesus, but never once called Him a Jew. The church historian, Theoplylact, writing in 1080 A.D. says:
"The city of the Judeans was taken, and the wrath of God was kindled against them: as also Josephus witnesses, that this came upon them on the account of the death of Jesus." When Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Judea, crucified Jesus, he had inscribed on the cross the Latin words: "lesus Nazarenous Rex ludeorum." He was expressing his sarcasm for the Judean religious leaders who had pressured him into executing a man he knew was innocent. Authorities on Latin will tell you this inscription means: "Jesus the Nazarene, ruler of the Judeans." By no stretch of the imagination does this read: "King of the Jews," and it was not so translated in the 1611 printing of the King James Version of the Bible.
During His lifetime, Christ was never known as the "King of the Jews." Pilate knew that Jesus had been denied by the religious leaders of these people we now call Jews and that they were responsible for the false testimony they had brought against Him. Christ was crucified because it was politically expedient for Pilate to do so, not because of any guilt on His part. With the exception of a few of His followers, most of the Judeans abhorred His teachings. There were only 120 faithful ones in the "upper room" on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 1:15).
The fact that Jesus was never called a Jew, or was known by this name, cannot be erased by the "wishful thinking" of our theologians, no matter how hard they try to back the Jews. There is no factual foundation in history or theology, which would allow the word used by Pilate to describe Jesus as a Jew. The Greek word is "budais;" the Latin "Iudaeus," and the English translation can be nothing but "Judean." There is no way you can come up with a religious connotation for this word. During the time of Christ, at no place in the world, was there a religion known as "Jewish." (end snip)
"...you will notice the great difference between the Jewish and Christian religions. But these are not all. We consider the two religions so different that one excludes the other...we emphasized that there is no such thing as a Judeo- Christian religionââ¬Â¦There is not any similarity between the two concepts." (Rabbi Maggal, (President, National Jewish Information Service) letter, 21 August, 1961)
"A Jew remains a Jew even though he changes his religion; a Christian which would adopt the Jewish religion would not become a Jew, because the quality of a Jew is not in the religion but in the race. A Free thinker and ATHEIST always remains a Jew." (Jewish World, London December 14, 1922)
[QUOTE]This ââ¬Ëarticleââ¬â¢ is one of the worst crass, ââ¬Ëerrorââ¬â¢-ridden, generalising pieces of bullshit I have read in a long time. I donââ¬â¢t even know where to begin dissecting it, so I wonââ¬â¢t - canââ¬â¢t be bothered anymore, canââ¬â¢t type anymoreââ¬Â¦ lying vampiresââ¬Â¦ draining my energyââ¬Â¦ canââ¬â¢t feel my legsââ¬Â¦losing controlââ¬Â¦LETS ROLL![/QUOTE]
AGREED!!!! :thumbsup:
2004-03-31 17:13 | User Profile
The Second Civil War -- Anti-JudeoChristian
Pragerââ¬â¢s article (correctly, IMHO) identifies a Second American Civil War existing, and his perspiscuity even suggests ââ¬Åthe JudeoChristian warââ¬Â as name -- though not in the way he takes it. His acceptation is a displacement.
The lines of the real inner war in America today are between us vrs. them (him); not, between them (Judeo-Christians, him and us) against everybody else.
He sees ââ¬Åthe battleââ¬Â as over ââ¬Åwhether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes secular like Europeââ¬Â. Just like that. Well, there is an element of that; to be sure. Old European nationalisms struggling with post-WWII multitudes of other ethnicities, dividing along traditional-religious vrs. secular lines over issues. But Pragerââ¬â¢s intent is to bring that conflict here, applied as Judeo-Christian = conservative Republican, politics-wise, vrs. non-Judeo-Christian = liberal Democrat. That is the reason he repeats the mantra: ââ¬ÅThose who most affirm Judeo-Christian values.ââ¬Â Thatââ¬â¢s where the numbers cluster, in their charts. He is a Townhall Republican operative. .
Friends of Bush will call themselves, and others will allow themselves to be called ââ¬ÅJudeo-Christiansââ¬Â in ââ¬Åvalue affirmations.ââ¬Â Who wouldnââ¬â¢t? Even secularists, apart from hard-core atheistic extremist, like the Dad who argued for his daughterââ¬â¢s right not to say ââ¬ÅGodââ¬Â (or be in a public classroom where it is said) could be crushed by weight of argument to assent to historical, if not Biblical basis for affirming Judeo-Christian values. These are surely the foundation of Western civilization. By extension, the common basis of civilized traditions.
Or is it something else?
The context for discussing ââ¬ÅWhat Judeo-Christian meansââ¬Â in todayââ¬â¢s communication includes:
the prominent display of ââ¬ÅENEMIESââ¬Â, as in Richard Clarkeââ¬â¢s book title ââ¬ÅAGAINST ALL ENEMIESââ¬Â. M. Savageââ¬â¢s book title ââ¬ÅENEMIES WITHINââ¬Â, plus other ââ¬Åcommon enemyââ¬Â talkers abounding. The first promises to go beyond even Bush in fighting the phantom enemy ââ¬Åal-Quedaââ¬Â. The second goes with Ann Coulturââ¬â¢s ââ¬Åtraitorsââ¬Â in branding ââ¬Åliberalsââ¬Â anti-American.
the prominent display of ââ¬ÅEVILââ¬Â, as in Bushââ¬â¢s ââ¬Ë02 State of the Union address, re-appearing in the book title An End To Evil: How to Win the War on Terrorââ¬Â, by D. Frum and R. Perle, as if the one called ââ¬ÅThe Prince of Darknessââ¬Â turned aside to give the gifted young speech-writer a hand up the ladder (or a hook out of the sharkââ¬â¢s tank). One agenda item explicitly called for common, unified US-Israel enemy: ââ¬Å(policy to) Cease criticizing Israel for taking actions against Hamas and Hezbollah (or similar groups) analogous to those the United States is taking against as-Queda. The distinction between Islamic terrorism against Israel, on the one hand, and Islamic terrorism against the United States and Europe, on the other, cannot be sustained.ââ¬Â. .
The wanton and depraved indifference to human life demonstrated here ââ¬â that he, or a spokesperson, not be given at least the right to speak what he was dying for ââ¬â utterly abominates the values of any and all civilized groups and nations. The public claim of government responsibility makes all who do not protest it complicitous in the deed itself. It is the mark of collective responsibility and guilt attributed by many to Germanââ¬â¢s who followed Hitler. Whoever does not repudiate Sharon are worse, by this act.
Use of the term ââ¬ÅJudeo-Christianââ¬Â in this context dumps onto the American majority 1. enemy-hood of 2. evil-defenders, 3. complicit in killing Yassin for ââ¬Åour Godââ¬Â.
That, however, is a reversal. It is not the Christian, but the Judeoââ¬â¢s ââ¬ÅG-dââ¬Â, as they sometimes write it, that has authorized state assassinations.
But it becomes the hyphenated Christian ââ¬â I call them ââ¬ÅChristââ¬â¢s Double-Cross dressers ââ¬â if not explicitly rejected. IF ALLOWED TO CONJOIN, ââ¬ÅJUDEO-ââ¬Å IMPORTS ITS OWN GUILT ââ¬â ITS ââ¬ËANTI-ââ¬Ë JUDAISM, INTO CHRISTIANITY, TURNING IT INTO SOMETHING IT IS OPPESED TO: ANTI-CHRISTIAN.
Therefore, the true Christian, preserving the difference the Cross makes in history between The World (represented by the Jewish mob yelling ââ¬ÅCrucify Him! Crucify Him!ââ¬Â) and The Word (represented by the crucified, in Spirit), is anti-Judeo: ANTI-JUDEO-CHRISTIAN = all who would excape the stigma of killing Yassin, Christââ¬â¢s substitute. It is not that he was as Christ, but that their intent in killing him was the same as their intent in crucifying Jesus.
The fantasy-merger manipulated by the little hyphen ââ¬Å-ââ¬Å in the phrase ââ¬ÅJudeo-Christianââ¬Â, then, in far from being the innocent little Biblical common-denominator values token it appears. By sealing together, and glossing over, the difference between Old Testament ââ¬ÅFatherââ¬Â God in Jehovah, vrs. New Testament ââ¬ÅSon of Godââ¬Â in Christ, this phrase accomplishes, in psychosemiotic fact, what anti-semites are supposed to be always accusing Jews of, in deed ââ¬â killing Christ. The aim of the phrase, in most uses, is to kill the Christ that marks the difference.
The call by Frum and Perle to eliminate the difference between enemies opposing the US and Israel, thus lumping them all together for Richard Clarkeââ¬â¢s minions to hunt down and kill, is the contrapositive, as it were, of Pragerââ¬â¢s synthesis of all good guys under ââ¬ÅJudeo-Christianââ¬Â. ââ¬ÅAll J-C are good guys; no non-good guy (enemy) is a non-J-C.ââ¬Â Thus, Prager, Frum & Perle and the killers of Yassin are together in manipulating complicity of true Christians in their depravity.
One thing further must be added, to round out the metaphysics of what Christ was about. The justification for assassinating Yassin was his alleged influence over suicide bombers. A suicide bomb boy was shown apprehended before he could explode himself to illustrate the danger -- dismissed by al Jazzera to be a fabrication, but repeated in several news venues. The point is what suicide bombers represent, psychologically: they objectify, or embody, death-wishes toward Jews. That is what is so anti-cathectic ââ¬â ââ¬ÅNo! No!ââ¬Â ââ¬â repugnant in the idea of them, for most persons ââ¬â even entertaining it, much less assenting. It is resistances to that in each one, their own repressed death wishes toward Jews, that is grated upon, like testing a reaction-formation (ââ¬ÅYou still love Daddy? Letââ¬â¢s hear you say it!ââ¬Â) when repugnance to suicide bombs is called upon. Like shoving what is repressed back in our (those who confess to having them) faces. As what the suicide bomb kids, they no doubt say thrust in theirs.
Yet, here is the difference. Christians have never had suicide bomb kids attack them, not is it conceivable that they might. They are, in fact, to the Jews, the returned of the repressed: the coming-back-to haunt them of the hard-neck, unable-to-compromise way of being apparently in their genes, split-off, projected, picked-up on and identified with, reality incompatible with that way of being. The Palestians are to Israel what in Jungian arche-typology are their ââ¬Ånemesisââ¬Â, ââ¬Åbete noireââ¬Â. What the Jews have brought to America, from its way of being bonded to its soul by Judeo-Christianizers is self-hatred. That is what the shooting of Sheik Yassin from a helicopter sniper lair amounted to. Attempting to kill the death wishes toward themselves.. Like trying to shoot down an idea. Philosophically, it is a category mistake. In religious terms, it is the antithesis of grace.
.
2004-03-31 17:15 | User Profile
[B]Hi na Gaeil is gile[/B]
Europe's Jewry do seem to have well established [exploitative] relations with both Arab and European groups.
When the English put down Irish revolts guess who lent them the money to do so. Maybe we should build a Irish Holocaust museum in Israel and extort hundreds of billions in respirations out of them. :jester:
Whilst Jews are Jews and they are all highly subversive. The European Jews apparently constitute something of a elite amongst the Jews in Israel. European Jewry are very influential. They appear to be more pragmatic in a religious sense and far more secular ideologically than America Jews.
It's fair to say that European Jews are generally much quieter and a lot less open that there vile, over zealoted America brethren even if they belive in the same things.
In the past are WASP brothers tried to regulate the Jews behaviour by penalizing there inability to control there cohesive impulses by alienating them commercially and ostracising them politically. They should of realized that if your get in to bed with the devil, your going to get burned.
The former European Catholic order knew far better than this and simply exiled Jews on mass who tried to transgress are codes. The Jews may of have despised Catholic Europe but at very least they always knew where they stood in relation to it. This 'Judeo-Christian' scam is a very dangerous play by Jews as they run the risk of diluting Judaism.
Gregz
virtue (areté): "virtue is knowledge." If one knows the good, one will always do the good. It follows, then, that anyone who does anything wrong doesn't really know what the good is.
2004-03-31 17:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]In religious terms, it is the antithesis of grace.
.[/QUOTE]
Hands down, the best post you've ever made here, TA. Absolutely dissected and destroyed Prager's argument.
Well done.
2004-03-31 18:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=TexasAnarch]But Prager's intent is to bring that conflict here, applied as Judeo-Christian = conservative Republican, politics-wise, vrs. non-Judeo-Christian = liberal Democrat. That is the reason he repeats the mantra: "Those who most affirm Judeo-Christian values." That's where the numbers cluster, in their charts. He is a Townhall Republican operative. .
Friends of Bush will call themselves, and others will allow themselves to be called "Judeo-Christians" in "value affirmations."[/QUOTE]
This is what it's all about, in a nutshell. Now admittedly, more and more each day I find how out of touch I am with the current political trends, but this intentional displacement or joining at the hip of social conservatism and explicit Zionism is something that greatly offends my sensibilities as a Christian, an American and a conservative. This same bait and switch tactic is why Townhall can run articles like little Benji Shapiro's recent call for genocide of the goyim and no one except us here seems to bat an eye. To me, it is just outrageous that social cons and Christians have allowed themselves to be co-opted by an alien philosphy with an alien value-system. The great question for us as I see it is how we divorce this unequal yoking of the American, Christian Right and the radical zionist jews that have redirected it towards their own ends, if indeed it can be done at all.
2004-03-31 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]The great question for us as I see it is how we divorce this unequal yoking of the American, Christian Right and the radical zionist jews that have redirected it towards their own ends, if indeed it can be done at all.[/QUOTE]
Convert all the Baptists and other dispensationalists to Lutherans and Presbyterians :thumbsup:
2004-03-31 19:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel]Convert all the Baptists and other dispensationalists to Lutherans and Presbyterians :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]
Ha! We're on the same page there, Centinel. Right now the traditional Reformation Churches are the only existing institutions that can truly effect positive changes in that regard and our best hope. I like a good bit of what I see coming from some of our reformed Calvinist brothers.
2004-03-31 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Centinel] Gee, and here I always thought Christian colonists were fleeing the state Church of Anglicanism. If they really idolized the ancient Israelites they would've embraced theocracy. Now, you're slipping a bit there and forgetting your history - or you were raised on the phony-baloney history taught in public schools, which claims/claimed that the Puritans were fleeing the official state church in England, to establish "religious freedom" in the New World.
They were not, and they never intended any such thing.
Massachusetts was a theocracy during the 17th century: only members of the official church had an influence over politics and non-church members were disenfranchised, and "heretics" were persecuted and sometimes executed.
In fact there is a strong tendency for Christian movements that emulate the Old Testament and Judaism to create theocracies - Calvin's Geneva, the Puritans in Massachusetts, the Mormons in Utah, etc. None of them, however, believed that the Jews still had a "special deal" with God and all of them believed that they alone had the exclusive "covenant". They weren't pro-Jewish or crypto-Zionist.
Be that as it may, there was no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity" in the USA prior to the establishment of the Zionist Entity, and I for one don't remember hearing the phrase "Judeo-Christian" when I was a kid, in the 1970's, when America was either referred to as a Christian nation, or an officially secular republic guided by Christian values and culture (which is the same thing, but deals with the Constitutional questions).
It was in the 80's and 90's that this pernicious concept was pushed by the media. For some it was a way to be inclusive and not to offend "the Jews" but in reality it was a cover for Zionism and "Christian"-Zionism. In fact this whole mess really took off in 1980 with the election of Reagan. That's when the neo-cons started taking over the GOP and infiltrating the Washington establishment, and the Churches. Everyone on the Right back then was so busy watching out for commies and lefties, that they completely failed to understand that they were being flanked "on the right" where they were not on their guard.
2004-03-31 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sojourner]The OT is every bit Christian as the NT. The foreshadowing of Jesus Christ is evident from Genesis throughout. It's very easy to make a text "confirm prophecy" when you are the one doing the writing after the fact.
The great Hebrew historian, Josephus, wrote many times concerning Jesus, but never once called Him a Jew. Josephus didn't write "many times" about Jesus; the paltry reference to Jesus in Josephus is an interpolation and merely reflects the much later view of the forger, and is not "evidence" one way or another as to the alleged racial/ethnic/religious identity of "IESus".
2004-03-31 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Massachusetts was a theocracy during the 17th century: only members of the official church had an influence over politics and non-church members were disenfranchised, and "heretics" were persecuted and sometimes executed.
I understand that the Puritans wanted religious freedom for themselves, but weren't too keen on granting it to others, like the few Baptists in the area.
2004-03-31 22:24 | User Profile
The term "Judeo-Christian" is good for Jews since 1945. It makes Jews seem less "different" as compared to Christians. It puts Christians and Jews under one big umbrella. After all, how can a Christian criticize Jews if'n "Jesus was a Jew?"
Uncle Franco finds it sort of odd that the term "Judeo-Christian" was hardly ever heard in the mainstream media before WWII, but now, top TV preachers use it daily. Jus' a co-in-see-dence?
:king:
2004-03-31 22:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Franco]Uncle Franco finds it sort of odd that the term "Judeo-Christian" was hardly ever heard in the mainstream media before WWII, but now, top TV preachers use it daily.
Probably because dispensationalist Christianity was confined to the backwoods of Appalachia until the postwar years. It got its big shots in the arm from the slide of mainline Protestantism into liberal apostasy in the 60's and the election of Jimmy Carter in the 70's.
2004-03-31 23:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] The great question for us as I see it is how we divorce this unequal yoking of the American, Christian Right and the radical zionist jews that have redirected it towards their own ends, if indeed it can be done at all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and thnx for the comment. I had seen Prager's yesterday a.m., pondered and resolved to put up something about his/their absolute insolence, and felt guided in getting the order down to what it should be. Then read all the good posts. I don't care what anybody says -- this board rules.
Now for your remarks. There are a lot of ways of saying what we are getting at, but the one most in favor in the circles I frequent is "knowing how to reverse the picture that has been projectively reversed onto you". Our aim is establish an entire new grammar of being, on the basis of what we are, without having to call attention to it, or make anyone else feel "put upon". Meanwhile, entirely new, original, but entirely apt metaphor-driven descriptive terms get developed by the assortment of wiseaces, crypto-geniuses, and pancake flippers we all are, and slipped into the vocabulary like plastique banana peels.
One thing I picked up on from Hitler's comments early on in Mein Kampf was that he [B]hated[/B] making things Geerman "objective", rather than leaving them tacit, in the streams of deep subjectivity, and holding the Chech clergy responsible, in their dunderheadedness. It was as if he said "They want to see objective German? Then, by God, objective German is what they will see." It is not good that the original American spirit is being called upon to objectify itself, but, by God, if it is, let it. (not quite the same as "bring it on"-- it's what, once started, cannot be stopped) That means, for one thing, freeing itself from this particuar self-contradiction ("Judeo-Christian").
(trying to stay ahead of the posses)
2004-04-01 01:05 | User Profile
Judeo-'Christian' = :dung: :dung: :dung: :dry: :disgust: