← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Blond Knight
Thread ID: 15847 | Posts: 52 | Started: 2004-12-01
2004-12-01 02:51 | User Profile
[url]http://www.etherzone.com/2004/mako112904.shtml[/url]
"LUTHER" MOVIE... IS INSPIRATION IN OUR TROUBLE
By: Henry Makow
A movie about Martin Luther to be released this week on DVD speaks to us in our current peril.
It describes how one man had the courage to defy the Power Elite of his day and actually succeeded.
Starring Joseph Fiennes, "Luther" was a box office hit in Germany in 2003. It had a limited release in the US where it went largely unnoticed, thanks to our ever vigilant mass media.
Intelligent, tasteful and truthful, "Luther" is a reminder of what movies can be when Hollywood is not involved.
"Thrivent," a German-based non-profit Lutheran financial services corporation financed the lavish $25 million production. It is directed by Eric Till and also stars Alfred Molina and Sir Peter Ustinov.
The movie vividly recreates the story of how Martin Luther (1483-1546) spearheaded long overdue reform that led to the Protestant Reformation and the growth of national independence.
Specifically Luther challenged the Catholic practice of selling "indulgences" or forgiveness for sins. This included onerous payments so that deceased loved ones would not go to hell. The money was used to finance wars.
The parallels with our own times are striking. A satanic criminal NWO cabal controls the government which, thanks to the mass media, masquerades as the arbiter of reality and defender of God.
To protect us from "hell" i.e. the "terrorists," we have to forfeit our civil rights and money to this new world state religion. Our sons and daughters are shipped off to Iraq to slaughter people who are opposed to NWO occupation. Thousands of them are killed and maimed. We are all implicated morally because we pay taxes.
The head of Turkey's parliamentary human rights group recently accused Washington of genocide in Iraq and behaving worse than Adolph Hitler.
"The occupation has turned into barbarism," Reuters quoted Mehmet Elkatmis, head of parliament's human rights commission, as saying in Friday's Yeni Safak newspaper.
"The U.S. administration is committing genocide...in Iraq. Never in human history have such genocide and cruelty been witnessed...This occupation has entirely imperialist aims," he told the human rights commission on Thursday.
We are in the position of Germans during the Hitler era. One day we could be asked, "What did you do to prevent this?"
We are taught that we have entered an enlightened era, that the world no longer needs principled acts of defiance and self-sacrifice.
Our minds are trivialized we can't even conceive issues of this magnitude. Morally we are being prepared for our own destruction because morally we are complicit in cultural and physical genocide.
At the very least, we are facing enslavement. But like sheep grazing in the shade of a rising abattoir, we remain in denial.
How can we declare that we are vehemently against the Iraq War and the NWO?
Our first impulse is to keep out heads down. To remain silent. To hide. To find individual solutions. To play along.
Why are we so cowardly?
Marin Luther was summoned before the Diet of Worms in 1521. He was told to renounce his writings on pain of heresy and death. He did not flinch.
"Is it not manifest that the Popes...entangle, vex and distress the consciences of the faithful? The endless extortions of Rome engulf the property and wealth of Christendom..."
If he were to recant, he would "strengthen this tyranny and open a wider door to so many and flagrant impieties."
Luckily Luther had powerful friends among the German Princes who wished to rebel against the Roman yoke.
Powerful friends or not, we must take a principled stand. We must speak out publicly, organize and act.
At the very least, we must do what is within our power to oppose the NWO.
For example I found out this week that my bank the CIBC here in Canada funds the homosexual lobby group "Egale." It is a bother but I must change banks and let them know why. We must demand to know the political activities of all the companies we deal with.
The Canadian Broadcasting Commission, the publicly funded propaganda outlet of the New World Order has been championing the pro-NATO elements in Ukraine. It is a bother but I must let the CBC know I am disgusted by their bias.
The Canadian government is integrating our security forces with that of the US. It is a bother but I must help organize Canadians to oppose this step.
Wherever we live, we need to speak up. It is time to stop giving Satanists a free ride.
Send me your ideas. Or join a new forum [url]www.clubconspiracy.com[/url] and meet likeminded people.
Ultimately the New World Order is a cosmic conspiracy against God. Satan and God have a wager. Satan believes that man is not made in the image of God but is a selfish perverse animal.
Cattle are bred or slaughtered.
On a moral level, we need to act to prove we are men. This is not only about saving our butts. It's about saving our souls.
"Luther" is available Nov. 30 at amazon.com, Blockbuster, Hollywood and Best Buy.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Mail this article to a friend(s) in two clicks!
Henry Makow, Ph.D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." His articles on feminism and the New World Order are archived at his web site. Henry is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.
Henry Makow can be reached at: [email]Henry@savethemales.ca[/email]
Published in the November 29, 2004 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright é 1997 - 2004 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
2004-12-01 03:12 | User Profile
Thanks, BK. I've been looking and waiting for this one and I rented it to start watching tonight. I've heard nothing but good things about it, the best of which is that no other movie in recent memory presents the pure Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in so plain and straight forward a manner.
2004-12-01 13:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight] Specifically Luther challenged the Catholic practice of selling "indulgences" or forgiveness for sins. This included onerous payments so that deceased loved ones would not go to hell. The money was used to finance wars.
Perhaps this is off-topic but I cannot resist pointing out this is not actually what an indulgence is. Contrary to popular misconception, an indulgence is NOT a 'get out of hell free card.' Indulgences are relief against [I]temporal[/I] penalties of sin, not [I]eternal[/I] penalties. Temporal penalties are basically penance, which Catholics require, but which Protestants do not believe in. Therefore, an indulgence merely claims to put a Catholic in the same position that Protestants believe everyone is already in, namely 'if you're sorry, then everything's cool; no need to worry about that penace crap.' Next, indulgences were never actually sold; but they were given in exchange for alms. This did lead to some abuses, which the Vatican condemned on three separate occasions before banning the granting of indulgences for alms completely at the Council of Trent.
[QUOTE=Blond Knight] The parallels with our own times are striking. A satanic criminal NWO cabal controls the government which, thanks to the mass media, masquerades as the arbiter of reality and defender of God.
To protect us from "hell" i.e. the "terrorists," we have to forfeit our civil rights and money to this new world state religion. Our sons and daughters are shipped off to Iraq to slaughter people who are opposed to NWO occupation. Thousands of them are killed and maimed. We are all implicated morally because we pay taxes.[/QUOTE] If this guy really claiming that the Catholic Church is a 'satanic criminal NGO cabal' that 'controls the government' and which owes its moral authority to 'the mass media'? This is so obviously wrong, and so completely nutty, that it makes it very difficult for me to take anything else in the article seriously. I am not a Catholic, but, like it or not, the West was, to a very large degree, built on Catholicism. When you pointlessly bash the Catholic Church, you are pointlessly bashing Western Civilization.
2004-12-01 14:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Quantirll]Perhaps this is off-topic but I cannot resist pointing out this is not actually what an indulgence is. Contrary to popular misconception, an indulgence is NOT a 'get out of hell free card.' Indulgences are relief against [I]temporal[/I] penalties of sin, not [I]eternal[/I] penalties. Temporal penalties are basically penance, which Catholics require, but which Protestants do not believe in. Therefore, an indulgence merely claims to put a Catholic in the same position that Protestants believe everyone is already in, namely 'if you're sorry, then everything's cool; no need to worry about that penace crap.'[/QUOTE]
Bravo, that's exactly right.
[QUOTE]Next, indulgences were never actually sold; but they were given in exchange for alms. This did lead to some abuses, which the Vatican condemned on three separate occasions before banning the granting of indulgences for alms completely at the Council of Trent.[/QUOTE]
Bravo again. The Council of Trent really addressed all the issues Luther originally raised, but by then the cat was out of the bag.
[QUOTE]If this guy really claiming that the Catholic Church is a 'satanic criminal NGO cabal' that 'controls the government' and which owes its moral authority to 'the mass media'? This is so obviously wrong, and so completely nutty, that it makes it very difficult for me to take anything else in the article seriously.[/QUOTE]
Yes, he is. Makow is a Jew, 'nuff said.
[QUOTE]I am not a Catholic, but, like it or not, the West was, to a very large degree, built on Catholicism. When you pointlessly bash the Catholic Church, you are pointlessly bashing Western Civilization.[/QUOTE]
Triple bravo. One cannot hate the Catholic Church and simultaneously claim love for Western Civilization.
I thought you were a Catholic, Q. I must have missed something.
Anyway, you sure talk like a Catholic, maybe you've missed your calling? :alucard:
2004-12-01 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] I thought you were a Catholic, Q. I must have missed something.
Anyway, you sure talk like a Catholic, maybe you've missed your calling? :alucard:[/QUOTE] Walter, Thanks for the kind words. Since I left Presbyterianism a couple years ago, I have been investigating both Catholicism and Orthodoxy very seriously. I have been attending a Greek Orthodox church for a year and a half, and I find Orthodox theology to be extremely satisfying and right. I find a true sense of the mystical and of true worship in Orthodoxy, whereas I often felt as if I were attending a lecture on Christianity at my old Presbyterian church. It is very likely that I would have already converted to Orthodoxy, but my Southern roots (steeped in Protestantism as they are) have gotten in the way. It is like there is something in my blood that won't quite let me do it, yet. So, no, I am not Catholic, but I am tremendously sympathetic to Catholicism. Catholic and Orthodox dogma are very similar in most respects, Catholicism has the apostolic succession, and converts from Catholicism to Orthodoxy don't even have to be re-baptized. Orthodoxy has spent much of its history persecuted and oppressed, so I think it has kept the faith pure and burning white-hot. Catholicism had a different challenge -- that of building a Christian civilization, which it met in fine fashion. Because of this, I think Catholicism has produced much of the world's best thinking about how to apply Christian dogma to a civil society, eg. Distributism. Anyway, to me it seems a non-sequitur to love Christendom and to claim to wish to uphold it, while wanting to wipe out everything that happened between 381 AD and 1517 AD. That amounts to ignoring over 40% of the entire Christian era.
2004-12-01 15:58 | User Profile
It appears that Martin Luther is still making some folks uncomfortable. :thumbsup: That's a tremendous testament in my opinion, but not to Luther. Rather it is a testament to the Gospel of Christ that God used Luther to again bring to light amidst it almost being quelched by the great and horrible abuses of the Roman Catholic Church of his day.
A great movie by the way and one that I would definitely say is a must-see. There are so many misconceptions about Luther, probably due to a 500 year smear campaign by Rome, that the movie does a good job of setting the record straight, even if not in tremendous depth.
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Therefore, an indulgence merely claims to put a Catholic in the same position that Protestants believe everyone is already in, namely 'if you're sorry, then everything's cool; no need to worry about that penace crap.'
Merely, Q? Alot of blood has been shed because of a 'merely.'
Next, indulgences were never actually sold; but they were given in exchange for alms. This did lead to some abuses, which the Vatican condemned on three separate occasions before banning the granting of indulgences for alms completely at the Council of Trent.
As the movie presents, only wanting reform Luther never wanted to go against or tear down the Church and gave that Pope every benefit of the doubt. Alas, like the Pharisees of Christ's day Rome was too stiff-necked and the rest as they say is history. Popes and princes cannot extinguish the living Gospel.
If this guy really claiming that the Catholic Church is a 'satanic criminal NGO cabal' that 'controls the government' and which owes its moral authority to 'the mass media'? This is so obviously wrong, and so completely nutty, that it makes it very difficult for me to take anything else in the article seriously.
No, he's saying that the satanic criminal NGO cabal of our day can be compared to the Roman Catholic Church of Luther's day, especially in influence and effect.
I am not a Catholic, but, like it or not, the West was, to a very large degree, built on Catholicism. When you pointlessly bash the Catholic Church, you are pointlessly bashing Western Civilization.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone is bashing the Roman Catholic Church here. Rome has no one to blame but herself for the history of Western Christendom since the 1500s, but no bashing is taking place. It's just history.
2004-12-01 16:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I find a true sense of the mystical and of true worship in Orthodoxy, whereas I often felt as if I were attending a lecture on Christianity at my old Presbyterian church.
I hear this same type comment from the praise-chorus/megachurch/word of faith-type worship service attendees. You know, the ones with the endless chorus of praise songs and everybody is swaying with their hands in the air and closed eyes a la promise keepers. I wonder if our own subjective 'experience' in the worship service or communion should be any kind of factor in our belief, doctrine or choice of confession.
It is very likely that I would have already converted to Orthodoxy, but my Southern roots (steeped in Protestantism as they are) have gotten in the way. It is like there is something in my blood that won't quite let me do it, yet.
Maybe that's not just your blood Quantrill, but rather the Holy Spirit working on your conscience.
Anyway, to me it seems a non-sequitur to love Christendom and to claim to wish to uphold it, while wanting to wipe out everything that happened between 381 AD and 1517 AD. That amounts to ignoring over 40% of the entire Christian era.[/QUOTE]
Who wants to do this?
2004-12-01 18:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]It appears that Martin Luther is still making some folks uncomfortable. :thumbsup: That's a tremendous testament in my opinion, but not to Luther. Rather it is a testament to the Gospel of Christ that God used Luther to again bring to light amidst it almost being quelched by the great and horrible abuses of the Roman Catholic Church of his day. The memory of a rash of poison ivy or a swift kick in the groin also makes me uncomfortable, but I hardly think that is a testament to their worthiness.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]...There are so many misconceptions about Luther, probably due to a 500 year smear campaign by Rome, that the movie does a good job of setting the record straight, even if not in tremendous depth. Seeing as how our country (plus England and Germany, from whence most of us come) has been Protestant for hundreds of years, how exactly has this powerful 'smear campaign' orchestrated from Rome come to pass? Don't you find it at least as likely that the real smear campaign in Protestant countries has been against Rome? [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]As the movie presents, only wanting reform Luther never wanted to go against or tear down the Church and gave that Pope every benefit of the doubt. Luther wanted to ditch 5 of the 7 sacraments. He wanted to throw out whole books of the Bible. He wanted to change the doctrines surrounding the Real Presence, and Mary, and the Saints. He wanted to elevate each individual's personal interpretation over beliefs that had prevailed for 1100 years. That is not 'reform' of 'excesses.' That is revolution. How can you believe that Rome should not have defended traditional dogma? Should it have just acquiesed to a fundamental corruption of its theology?
2004-12-01 18:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]The memory of a rash of poison ivy or a swift kick in the groin also makes me uncomfortable, but I hardly think that is a testament to their worthiness.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know you felt that way about the Gospel of Christ, Quantrill.
Seeing as how our country (plus England and Germany, from whence most of us come) has been Protestant for hundreds of years, how exactly has this powerful 'smear campaign' orchestrated from Rome come to pass? Don't you find it at least as likely that the real smear campaign in Protestant countries has been against Rome?
Not in the least. Protestant sentiments toward Rome are a reaction or better yet, a necessary correction, if you will.
Luther wanted to ditch 5 of the 7 sacraments. He wanted to throw out whole books of the Bible. He wanted to change the doctrines surrounding the Real Presence, and Mary, and the Saints. He wanted to elevate each individual's personal interpretation over beliefs that had prevailed for 1100 years. That is not 'reform' of 'excesses.' That is revolution. How can you believe that Rome should not have defended traditional dogma? Should it have just acquiesed to a fundamental corruption of its theology?[/QUOTE]
No, it simply should have proved him wrong from the Holy Scriptures.
It wouldn't, couldn't and still can't.
2004-12-01 18:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I hear this same type comment from the praise-chorus/megachurch/word of faith-type worship service attendees. You know, the ones with the endless chorus of praise songs and everybody is swaying with their hands in the air and closed eyes a la promise keepers. I wonder if our own subjective 'experience' in the worship service or communion should be any kind of factor in our belief, doctrine or choice of confession. Yes, it should, unless you accept completely the rationalism of the so-called Enlightenment. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Maybe that's not just your blood Quantrill, but rather the Holy Spirit working on your conscience. Respectfully, I don't think so. The Holy Spirit has led me to where I am now. I am merely having a bit of natural difficulty merging my traditionally Protestant Southern culture (which I love) with Orthodoxy. Greek Orthodoxy has some parts that are Tradition, and some parts that are merely tradition, so there is a process of sifting that must be done. It can, however, be done, as Father Aleister Anderson, a Greek Orthodox priest affiliated with the League of the South, demonstrates.
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Who wants to do this?[/QUOTE] Those are the dates of the Council of Constantinople (at which the final version of the Nicene Creed was accepted) and the beginning of the Reformation. No Protestant Church or individual I have ever associated with had any interest to speak of in events falling between these dates.
2004-12-01 18:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I didn't know you felt that way about the Gospel of Christ, Quantrill. I don't. I was merely demonstrating that just because a thing makes people uncomfortable, it does not follow that the thing is of God. You are also explicitly equating the person of Luther with the Gospel of Christ, which comes close to idolatry, in my humble opinion. [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]No, it simply should have proved him wrong from the Holy Scriptures.
It wouldn't, couldn't and still can't.[/QUOTE] You cannot 'prove' the error of Protestantism from the Scriptures, since one of its very tenets is the right of each individual to interpret Scripture however he wishes. Any thing that contradicts it will simply be dismissed. It is akin to trying to use evidence to prove the fallacy of the opinion that evidence is worthless.
2004-12-01 18:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Yes, it should, unless you accept completely the rationalism of the so-called Enlightenment. The Holy Spirit will guide you to the truth.
I disagree, but perhaps that is a subject better left for another thread.
Respectfully, I don't think so. The Holy Spirit has led me to where I am now. I am merely having a bit of natural difficulty merging my traditionally Protestant Southern culture (which I love) with Orthodoxy. ...No Protestant Church or individual I have ever associated with had any interest to speak of in events falling between these dates.[/QUOTE]
Like yourself, I also see the difficulty in merging Orthodoxy with our beloved South. But it seems to me that you are also guilty of what you accuse Protestants of doing, that is you don't have any interest in the centuries of history that led to you being born into the place and culture you were born into and are living in today.
2004-12-01 18:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I don't. I was merely demonstrating that just because a thing makes people uncomfortable, it does not follow that the thing is of God. You are also explicitly equating the person of Luther with the Gospel of Christ, which comes close to idolatry, in my humble opinion.
Yeah right.
You cannot 'prove' the error of Protestantism from the Scriptures, since one of its very tenets is the right of each individual to interpret Scripture however he wishes.
Bull corn. That's the standard, Papist smear easily dismissed by any half honest look at Luther, Calvin, the Reformation and the Lutheran and Protestant Churches today.
2004-12-01 18:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Like yourself, I also see the difficulty in merging Orthodoxy with our beloved South. But it seems to me that you are also guilty of what you accuse Protestants of doing, that is you don't have any interest in the centuries of history that led to you being born into the place and culture you were born into and are living in today.[/QUOTE] I suppose by this same rationale, you would discourage a Greek or a Russian from embracing any form of Protestanism, since Protestantism has cultural accretions which would be foreign to them?
2004-12-01 19:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Yeah right. You stated, quite matter-of-factly, when I cast aspersions on Luther, that you didn't know I felt that way 'about the Gospel of Christ.' Making him off-limits to criticism, because it equates to criticising the 'Gospel of Christ' is misguided, at best. Perhaps my idolatry comment was uncharitable, and for that I apologize. [QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Bull corn. That's the standard, Papist smear easily dismissed by any half honest look at Luther, Calvin, the Reformation and the Lutheran and Protestant Churches today.[/QUOTE] Excellent. Then it should be no trouble for you to easily dismiss it.
2004-12-01 19:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I suppose by this same rationale, you would discourage a Greek or a Russian from embracing any form of Protestanism, since Protestantism has cultural accretions which would be foreign to them?[/QUOTE]
Maybe, I don't know. Depends on what one means by 'discourage' I guess. I would definitely try and show them the theological errors in the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox doctrine from the Holy Scriptures, as I would a Pentecostal or Roman Catholic for that matter. But sure, one would have to be blind not to see that there are strong correlations between one's ethnicity, culture and religious persuasion. I am a Lutheran, but I still have a high regard for my Reformed Presbyterian brothers in Christ. It's only natural that I would consider myself as having a much closer kinship with them than say, a Syrian Orthodox Christian, though we all may well still be part of the greater body of Christ. That's all I was trying to say.
2004-12-01 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]You stated, quite matter-of-factly, when I cast aspersions on Luther, that you didn't know I felt that way 'about the Gospel of Christ.' Making him off-limits to criticism, because it equates to criticising the 'Gospel of Christ' is misguided, at best. Perhaps my idolatry comment was uncharitable, and for that I apologize.
No need to apologize, Q. Nothing wrong with having differences. I was not equating the Gospel with Luther. However, I do believe that our Good Lord used Luther to again bring forth and preserve His pure Gospel in a time where it was in the dark due to the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church.
Excellent. Then it should be no trouble for you to easily dismiss it.[/QUOTE]
You're the one making the accusation here, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Show me where Luther or Calvin argue where anyone can just interpret Scripture in any manner that may or may not suit them, willy nilly. You can't because they never did and that point is just not true.
2004-12-01 20:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] You're the one making the accusation here, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Show me where Luther or Calvin argue where anyone can just interpret Scripture in any manner that may or may not suit them, willy nilly. You can't because they never did and that point is just not true.[/QUOTE] Firstly, neither of them had to argue for personal interpretation of Scripture, because they both were, in fact, personally interpreting Scripture. Actions speak louder than words. Secondly, here are some quotes from Luther regarding this subject. These are taken from [font=Verdana][size=-1]Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6. pp. 363 ff., tr. C.M. Jacobs Here is Luther discussing the book of James in[/size][/font][font=Verdana][size=-1] his Preface to Revelation, from 1522 -- from the time period in which he was translating the Bible:[/size][/font]
[list] [*]
[font=Verdana][size=-1]I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=-1]It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=-1]. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, -- Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, 'Ye shall be my witnesses.' Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.[/size][/font]
[font=Verdana]size=-1
[/size][/font] [/list]Luther denied the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, as well. In using his own subjectivity to interpret the Canon, Luther teaches by example that each individual can use his own subjectivity to interpret dogma.
2004-12-02 15:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Firstly, neither of them had to argue for personal interpretation of Scripture, because they both were, in fact, personally interpreting Scripture. Actions speak louder than words.
Maybe you're missing the point, Quantrill. Rome was in grave and serious error. Like Luther says in the movie, yes the pope interprets Scripture, but he is not above it.
Secondly, here are some quotes from Luther regarding this subject.
With everything he wrote, I don't put much weight on this and it is commonly known that Luther struggled with the book of James.
But realize first, Luther is not infallible or beyond questioning and Lutherans have never taken this view. Indeed, Luther himself would have been the first to say not to put any kind of extraordinary faith in him as mere "snow covered dung" or something like that.
Anyway, it is ironic that given your own tendencies that you would be on this thread challenging Luther, when in the movie Luther first begins to come at odds with Rome over the issue of whether or not Greek Orthodox were Christians while studying for his doctorate at Wittenburg. Luther contended that there was salvation for the Greek Orthodox outside of the Roman Catholic Church basing his argument on Holy Scripture, while Rome was teaching that there was not based on canon law or some old papal pronouncement or other. Ironic. :)
2004-12-02 16:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] Anyway, it is ironic that given your own tendencies that you would be on this thread challenging Luther, when in the movie Luther first begins to come at odds with Rome over the issue of whether or not Greek Orthodox were Christians while studying for his doctorate at Wittenburg. Luther contended that there was salvation for the Greek Orthodox outside of the Roman Catholic Church basing his argument on Holy Scripture, while Rome was teaching that there was not based on canon law or some old papal pronouncement or other. Ironic. :)[/QUOTE] Well, the Orthodox have a saying -- 'The Pope was the first Protestant.' I certainly think the Pope has been in error on a number of occasions, as he is only human. I am not so much defending Catholicism, as I am voicing disapproval of the underlying assumptions of the Reformation. I dislike the destructive appeal to personal interpretation that results in unending fracturing of the Church. Rome split off from the Church, then Luther split off from Rome, then Calvin, then Wesley, then Joe Smith, and then Mary Baker Eddy. Protestants often say that the Church can be 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' while being simultaneously split into thousands of pieces, because 'the Church' is really just some invisible, mystical tie that is all around us, like the Force in a Star Wars movie. I think that 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' means what it says.
2004-12-02 16:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill] Protestants often say that the Church can be 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' while being simultaneously split into thousands of pieces, because 'the Church' is really just some invisible, mystical tie that is all around us, like the Force in a Star Wars movie. I think that 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' means what it says.[/QUOTE]
I do too. And there is salvation outside of the Roman Church, but not outside Christ. The latter is the true Church.
2004-12-02 17:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I am not so much defending Catholicism, as I am voicing disapproval of the underlying assumptions of the Reformation. I dislike the destructive appeal to personal interpretation that results in unending fracturing of the Church. Rome split off from the Church, then Luther split off from Rome, then Calvin, then Wesley, then Joe Smith, and then Mary Baker Eddy.[/QUOTE]
While I think you have a misunderstanding of 'sola scriptura', let us not pretend that either Roman Catholicism, or the Orthodox Church for that matter, are some kind of monolithically united entities. There are hundreds if not thousands of different flavors of both, so any charge of Protestant disunity from either of those camps rings rather hollow in my opinion.
2004-12-02 20:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]While I think you have a misunderstanding of 'sola scriptura', let us not pretend that either Roman Catholicism, or the Orthodox Church for that matter, are some kind of monolithically united entities. There are hundreds if not thousands of different flavors of both, so any charge of Protestant disunity from either of those camps rings rather hollow in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Hundreds, if not thousands, of 'flavors' of Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite some? (And it's no good citing the Coptic Church or other splinter groups, since they are not a part of the Church) There are differing opinions about certain matters within Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but that is allowed and respected, as long as those opinions do not contradict dogma. One can have a individual conception of verses or traditions pertaining to the Virgin Birth and still be Orthodox. One cannot deny the Virgin Birth and still be Orthodox. Neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox demand lockstep uniformity. They do, however, demand adherence to dogma. Orthodox hold that when one rejects dogma, then he ceases to be a Christian; the Protestant view often seems to be when one rejects dogma, then the dogma ceases to be Christian.
2004-12-02 21:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Hundreds, if not thousands, of 'flavors' of Catholicism and Orthodoxy? Perhaps you'd be so good as to cite some? (And it's no good citing the Coptic Church or other splinter groups, since they are not a part of the Church)
Well, perhaps thousands was a bit of hyperbole, but definitely alot.
Catholic: Ultratraditionalists like LeFebvre, Traditionalists, Liberals i.e. Liberation Theology, Eastern Mysticals, New-Age Catholics, Charismatic Catholics, Santaria or Folk Catholics and even Post-Modern Catholics, etc., etc.
Orthodox: Ancient Eastern Orthodox (Patriarchies of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem), Armenian, Coptic and Syrian, Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox, Holy Order of Mans, etc., etc.
There are differing opinions about certain matters within Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but that is allowed and respected, as long as those opinions do not contradict dogma. One can have a individual conception of verses or traditions pertaining to the Virgin Birth and still be Orthodox. One cannot deny the Virgin Birth and still be Orthodox. Neither the Catholics nor the Orthodox demand lockstep uniformity. They do, however, demand adherence to dogma. Orthodox hold that when one rejects dogma, then he ceases to be a Christian; the Protestant view often seems to be when one rejects dogma, then the dogma ceases to be Christian.[/QUOTE]
It's my understanding that for example, the Byzantine Orthodox have significant theological, cutural and ecclesiastical differences with the Ancient Eastern Orthodox, even on such 'dogma' as whether or not Christ has one or two natures (Monophysite controversy)! Not to mention disagreement over liturgies and religious dates, so much so that there are separate Orthodox churches in the same city!
Now I don't know about you, but to me that transcends mere differences of 'opinion'.
2004-12-02 21:55 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] It's my understanding that for example, the Byzantine Orthodox have significant theological, cutural and ecclesiastical differences with the Ancient Eastern Orthodox, even on such 'dogma' as whether or not Christ has one or two natures (Monophysite controversy)! Not to mention disagreement over liturgies and religious dates, so much so that there are separate Orthodox churches in the same city! To be considered Eastern Orthodox, as opposed to Ancient Near Orthodox, for example, you have to accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils. One of these settled the Monophysite heresy, so any church advocating Monophysism, no matter what it names itself, is not Orthodox. In some cities, particularly in North America, missionary efforts were mounted by different Patriarchates at different times in history. Later immigrants also brought traditional ethnic loyalties to certain Patriarchates, which has led to overlapping jurisdictions. This is something that needs to be straightened out, but it is hardly the same as the approximately 27,000 existing Protestant groups, advocating everything from Lutheranism to Christian Science.
[quote=Texas Dissident]Now I don't know about you, but to me that transcends mere differences of 'opinion'.[/QUOTE] If they are in communion with each other, then they are part of the same Church. If they have split off (like the Coptic Church, and the Catholic Traditionalists) then they are in schism. I fail to see how your citing the existence of other schismatic groups refutes my thesis that there is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church from which all these groups are splintering themselves.
2004-12-02 22:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]This is something that needs to be straightened out, but it is hardly the same as the approximately 27,000 existing Protestant groups, advocating everything from Lutheranism to Christian Science.
I would hardly consider Christian Science Christian or Protestant. They are simply a cult.
I base a good bit of my information on the 'Orthodox' Church from Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, who while promoting 'Orthodoxy', still labeled it a "social-ethnic club infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments".
To each his own I guess.
2004-12-03 01:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I would hardly consider Christian Science Christian or Protestant. They are simply a cult. I agree, although they consider themselves Christians (as do Jehovah's Witnesses) and claim to base this view upon Scripture. The proliferation of cults like theirs is a product of the mindset that each individual should be his own final arbiter of scriptural interpretation. You base your rejection of them upon the Bible, but they base their rejection of yours upon the Bible, as well. Upon what criteria is the question decided?
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident] I base a good bit of my information on the 'Orthodox' Church from Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis Schaeffer, who while promoting 'Orthodoxy', still labeled it a "social-ethnic club infected with nominalism, materialism, ethnic pride, exclusivism, and indifference to the sacraments".
To each his own I guess.[/QUOTE] That criticism is probably quite true, although I must say it would hold true of every Christian denomination I can think of. The Church is composed of fallen men, after all. Surely, you aren't suggesting that Lutheranism is immune to these maladies?
2004-12-03 02:35 | User Profile
Now you guys see why I don't have a "religion", here you guys are fighting about "my religon is the real one and yours is not" come on guys,,,religion was invented by man for man in order to control man and to bring hate and not love.
AMEN,,,,,,,,,,
2004-12-03 03:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I agree, although they consider themselves Christians (as do Jehovah's Witnesses) and claim to base this view upon Scripture. The proliferation of cults like theirs is a product of the mindset that each individual should be his own final arbiter of scriptural interpretation.
Maybe, but your position of 'Holy Tradition', papal infallibility or whatever, is no safeguard either. If it were, then why was there a Reformation in the first place? It was because the folks who supposedly had the ultimate, final say-so as to what was right and wrong had things wrong themselves. Dreadfully wrong. I say thank God for reformation and the doctrine of sola scriptura. Christianity would likely have been long dead in the West without it. No man is above the Holy Scripture and it is the final and sole authority for individual belief and Church doctrine. 2Tim3:16
You base your rejection of them upon the Bible, but they base their rejection of yours upon the Bible, as well. Upon what criteria is the question decided?
Let us sit down together and reason from the Scriptures.
The Church is composed of fallen men, after all. Surely, you aren't suggesting that Lutheranism is immune to these maladies?[/QUOTE]
Oh no. We are burdened with the ELCA. :dry:
2004-12-03 15:38 | User Profile
Why was there a reformation? It was inspired by desire for money, desire for power, and in Henry's case, lust.
2004-12-06 21:40 | User Profile
[QUOTE]No man is above the Holy Scripture and it is the final and sole authority for individual belief and Church doctrine. 2Tim3:16[/QUOTE]
Okay, but who decides precisely what are the Scriptures?
Who finally decides whether Maccabbees or James or Revelation is scripture or not?
Luther?
Calvin?
Each Christian for himself/herself?
I say the Coucils of the Church in union with the Roman Pontiff.
What say you?
2004-12-07 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Since I left Presbyterianism a couple years ago, I have been investigating both Catholicism and Orthodoxy very seriously. I have been attending a Greek Orthodox church for a year and a half, and I find Orthodox theology to be extremely satisfying and right. I find a true sense of the mystical and of true worship in Orthodoxy, whereas I often felt as if I were attending a lecture on Christianity at my old Presbyterian church.
For you Quantrill, if you haven't already come across them in your study:
[url=http://www.christiantruth.com/orthodoxycominghome.html]Coming Home? Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox[/url]
[url=http://www.christiantruth.com/orthodoxyapophaticism.html]Just Say No: An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern Apophaticism[/url]
2004-12-07 20:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]For you Quantrill, if you haven't already come across them in your study:
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/orthodoxycominghome.html"]Coming Home? Evangelical Issues for the Eastern Orthodox[/url]
[url="http://www.christiantruth.com/orthodoxyapophaticism.html"]Just Say No: An Evangelical Assessment of Eastern Apophaticism[/url][/QUOTE] Apophaticism, like anything else, can be taken to extremes, but it is a healthy recognition of the fact that we, as created beings, can never fully understand the nature of God. It is, in my opinion, a more sober and realistic view than the 'Me and my buddy Jesus' approach of many Protestants.
2004-12-07 20:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Apophaticism, like anything else, can be taken to extremes, but it is a healthy recognition of the fact that we, as created beings, can never fully understand the nature of God. It is, in my opinion, a more sober and realistic view than the 'Me and my buddy Jesus' approach of many Protestants.[/QUOTE]
Well, ultimately what counts is not our own view, but what Scripture says.
But I'm just putting the information out there for you. There's alot more information presented in the first article than just apophaticism and I hope you take the time to read and consider it. Best regards to you, Q.
2004-12-08 06:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, ultimately what counts is not our own view, but what Scripture says.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but there's a threshold question here that must be addressed.
Before we can discuss what the Scirptures say, we must first define what they are.
Who has the right to decide that question, Tex?
Walter
2004-12-08 07:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Before we can discuss what the Scirptures say, we must first define what they are. Who has the right to decide that question, Tex?[/QUOTE]
Hey Walter. Hope all is well. As you well know, what is and what is not Canon is an enormous topic worthy of lengthy responses and there are literally pages and pages of scholarly arguments for all points of view found here on the net. Almost all are studied on and written by men much, much smarter than I, so there's not much I can do to say it better than they.
So, for a short answer and let there be no mistake on the matter...God decided that question, He inspired the Holy Scripture. Like every orthodox Christian on this planet, I am completely indebted to the early ecumenical councils and early church fathers. I will even go as far as saying papal interpretations and such through history are worthy of study and contemplation because of the spiritual insight and/or historical significance they may or may not offer a Christian believer. But at the end of the day, popes and bishops and church fathers are mere men just like you and me and as such are fallible human beings subject to errors, even heretical ones (Pope Honorius I, for one example).
But the good news is that Holy Scripture is not. It is God-breathed and infallible and therefore the sole, normative and completely sufficient and clear final authority for all sound doctrine and faith. 2 Tim.3:15-17 It makes this claim for itself and I would not want to be one who would contradict the plain teaching of Holy Scripture. God bless.
"And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?...You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition" (Jesus Christ to the Pharisees - Matt. 15:3, 6)
2004-12-08 08:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Hey Walter. Hope all is well. As you well know, what is and what is not Canon is an enormous topic worthy of lengthy responses and there are literally pages and pages of scholarly arguments for all points of view found here on the net. Almost all are studied on and written by men much, much smarter than I, so there's not much I can do to say it better than they.
So, for a short answer and let there be no mistake on the matter...God decided that question, He inspired the Holy Scripture. Like every orthodox Christian on this planet, I am completely indebted to the early ecumenical councils and early church fathers. I will even go as far as saying papal interpretations and such through history are worthy of study and contemplation because of the spiritual insight and/or historical significance they may or may not offer a Christian believer. But at the end of the day, popes and bishops and church fathers are mere men just like you and me and as such are fallible human beings subject to errors, even heretical ones (Pope Honorius I, for one example).
But the good news is that Holy Scripture is not. It is God-breathed and infallible and therefore the sole, normative and completely sufficient and clear final authority for all sound doctrine and faith. 2 Tim.3:15-17 It makes this claim for itself and I would not want to be one who would contradict the plain teaching of Holy Scripture. God bless.
"And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?...You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition" (Jesus Christ to the Pharisees - Matt. 15:3, 6)[/QUOTE]
Tex, thanks I'm fully recovered (it was a real drag, though, I'm still home).
You say that Scripture "makes this claim (of Devine inspiration) for itself." And that's true enough. But there were, and are, lots of writings out there that made the same claim and were NOT included in the canon. These writings were assorted and compiled by the early Councils and declared Scripture.
The conclusion is inescapable: we accept the Scriptures based on the word of the Councils. The Councils in turn were made up of men who strove with might and main to adhere to the Tradition.
Holy Tradition thus precedes the Scriptures. We simply cannot accept the authority of Scripture while denying the authority of the Councils (and the Tradition) that preserved them, assorted and compiled them, marked them with their imprimatur and passed them to us as authoritative, and binding in all respects even unto themselves.
Jesus Himself condemned this very inability to accept the ultimate authority always implied by primary things.
[QUOTE]Matthew 23 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.[/QUOTE]
Not that I'm accusing you or any of my Protestant brothers of Pharisaism, but the Catholic (and Orthodox) response to sola scriptura is precisely the same as that of our Lord to the Pharisees quoted above.
If we accept the Scriptures as authentic and authoritative based on the word of the Councils (and that's just the historical fact) then obviously we cannot argue from the authority of Scripture without first acknowledging the authority of the Councils and the Holy Tradition that gave them birth.
Do you see this point?
Walter
2004-12-08 15:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Tex, thanks I'm fully recovered (it was a real drag, though, I'm still home).
Good to hear. My prayers were with you, brother.
You say that Scripture "makes this claim (of Devine inspiration) for itself." And that's true enough. But there were, and are, lots of writings out there that made the same claim and were NOT included in the canon. These writings were assorted and compiled by the early Councils and declared Scripture.
That's a rather concise and glossy portrait of the process, Walter. I believe your official Catholic canon you use today was not formally dictated until Trent, right? There were many other issues from the Apocrypha to the later books like Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation that had more than a bit of back and forth over the years. Many of the early church fathers had varying opinions of these things that were hammered out over time.
The conclusion is inescapable: we accept the Scriptures based on the word of the Councils.
Absolutely not. We accept the Scripture based on the Word of the Holy Ghost.
The Councils in turn were made up of men who strove with might and main to adhere to the Tradition.
Depends on what one means by "tradition", but again, all of Christendom is indebted to the early councils and church fathers.
Holy Tradition thus precedes the Scriptures.
No, speaking of the New Testament canon. We had the Apostles themselves teaching while they were alive. Once they started dying off, their teachings and writings were collected, recorded and preserved for posterity's sake. All this was inspired and directed by the Holy Spirit.
We simply cannot accept the authority of Scripture while denying the authority of the Councils (and the Tradition) that preserved them, assorted and compiled them, marked them with their imprimatur and passed them to us as authoritative, and binding in all respects even unto themselves.
Again, there were and continue to be disputes over what Scriptures have divine authority and/or are Holy Ghost inspired. If "Holy Tradition" had the authority you and Rome give it, I think there would never have been any disputes among the councils and church Fathers.
Jesus Himself condemned this very inability to accept the ultimate authority always implied by primary things.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for putting their "traditions" before the living, breathing Gospel. Matt. 15
Not that I'm accusing you or any of my Protestant brothers of Pharisaism, but the Catholic (and Orthodox) response to sola scriptura is precisely the same as that of our Lord to the Pharisees quoted above.
No it isn't. Christ was divine authority in person. Once he ascended his Holy Ghose inspired the Scriptures for us as the final authority for spiritual matters and the Church until Christ returns. Praise God. As an aside, how did Christ resist the Devil during his temptation in the wilderness. He didn't appeal to any Holy Traditions. He quoted Scripture.
If we accept the Scriptures as authentic and authoritative based on the word of the Councils (and that's just the historical fact) then obviously we cannot argue from the authority of Scripture without first acknowledging the authority of the Councils and the Holy Tradition that gave them birth.
Do you see this point?
Of course I see your point Walter, I just disagree with it. I accept the Scriptures as authentic and authoritative because they are the Word of God, not because some group of men proclaimed them to be so 1500 years ago. Further, it is the Holy Spirit that leads me to believe that working through those same Scriptures. 1 Thess. 2:13 In short, it's all about God and not men. Not to discount the early ecumenical councils and church fathers, not at all. But they simply are not above the Scriptures and it does not follow that because the ecumenical councils were used by God to develop the Canon we use today that supports a belief that the Roman papacy is to this day a final authority on par with or even preceding the Holy Scriptures themselves! Nowhere is this found in Scripture except by maybe some hermeneutical gymnastics performed by Rome itself. And Scripture would not contradict itself. Again, 2 Tim. 3. All Scripture is God-breathed and able to give us the answer to the most important question and that is, what must happen for us to be saved? Now if you or anyone else tries to couple that with any man-made institution or directive or anything, then what you are really saying is that the Scriptures are not sufficient, don't mean what they say and thereby not the infallible Word of God which I believe your own Vatican Councils proclaim them to be.
2004-12-08 16:12 | User Profile
Let me add that you and Quantrill need to go at it with each other some and give the Lutheran a rest! :) Y'all can't even let me have a thread celebrating an excellent movie that just came out on DVD.
One can make a good argument that y'all have more to fight about than just about anybody else.
2004-12-08 16:35 | User Profile
[center]"Why call you me good? God only is good."[/center]
[center]"We have been taught that Christ is the First-begotten of God, the Logos of which every race of man partakes. Those who lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even though they were called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus.... Those who lived by the Logos, and those who so live now, are Christians, fearless and unperturbed".[/center] [center]- St. Justin (First Apology)[/center]
[center]"There exist diverse forms of the Word under which It reveals Itself to Its disciples, conforming Itself to the degree of light of each one, according to the degree of their progress in holiness."[/center] [center]-Origen (Contra Cels.)[/center]
[center]"That which today is called the Christian religion existed among the Ancients and has never ceased to exist from the origin of the human race until the time when Christ Himself came and men began to call Christian the true religion which already existed beforehand".[/center] [center]-Saint Augustine (Retract.)[/center]
[center]What shall I do, Muslims? I do not recognize myself ... [/center] [center]I am neither Christian nor Jew, nor Magian, nor Muslim. [/center] [center]I am not of the East, nor the West, not of the land, nor the sea. [/center] [center]I am not from nature's mine, nor from the circling stars. [/center] [center]I am neither of earth nor water, neither of wind nor fire [/center] [center]I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust on this carpet.[/center] [center]I am not of the deep, nor from behind.[/center] [center]I am not of India or China, not of Bulgaria, nor Saqsin; [/center] [center]I am not of the kingdom of Iraqain, nor of the land of Khorsan.[/center]
[center]I am not of this world nor the next, not of heaven, nor of purgatory.[/center] [center]My place is the placeless, my trace is the traceless.[/center] [center]It is not the body nor is it the soul, for I belong to the soul of my love.[/center] [center]I have put duality away and seen the two worlds as one.[/center] [center]One I seek, One I know. One I see, One I call.[/center] [center]He is the First, He is the Last. He is the Outward, He is the Inward.[/center] [center]I know of nothing but Hu, none but Him.[/center] [center]-Rumi[/center]
[center]Oh marvel! A garden amidst the flames![/center] [center]My heart has become capable of all forms:[/center] [center]For gazelles, a meadow, for monks, a monastery,[/center] [center]A temple for idols, the pilgrimââ¬â¢s Kaââ¬Ëba,[/center] [center]The Tablets of the Torah, the Book of the Koran.[/center] [center]I profess the religion of Love, and whatever the diction[/center] [center]Taken by its mount, Love is my religion and my faith.[/center]
[center]-Ibn ââ¬ËArabi[/center]
[center]ââ¬ÅIââ¬Â and ââ¬Åyouââ¬Â are but the lattices,[/center] [center]in the niches of a lamp,[/center] [center]through which the One Light shines.[/center] [center]ââ¬ÅIââ¬Â and ââ¬Åyouââ¬Â are the veil[/center] [center]between heaven and earth;[/center] [center]lift this veil and you will see[/center] [center]no longer the bonds of sects and creeds.[/center] [center]When ââ¬ÅIââ¬Â and ââ¬Åyouââ¬Â do not exist,[/center] [center]what is mosque, what is synagogue?[/center] [center]What is the Temple of Fire?[/center]
[center]-Shabistari[/center]
[center]"If you would have the Kernel, you must break the husk."[/center] [center]-Meister Eckhart[/center]
2004-12-08 17:02 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]"If you would have the Kernel, you must break the husk." - Meister Eckhart[/QUOTE]
"We are the world, we are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving." - Michael Jackson
2004-12-08 17:28 | User Profile
Ponce <----- don't konw what is going on so he is going back into his cave.
2004-12-08 17:42 | User Profile
According to Apocalypse 20:7-8, "....when the thousand years are expired [the millennium during which the devil is bound, identified by Orthodox theologians as the church age], Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." According to The Apocalypse of St. John: An Orthodox Commentary by Archbishop Averky of Jordanville, the meaning of Gog in Hebrew is 'a gathering' or 'one who gathers', and of Magog 'an exaltation' or 'one who exalts'. 'Exaltation' suggests to me the idea of transcendence as opposed to unity, 'gathering' the idea of unity as opposed to transcendence. The implication, here, is that one of the deepest deceptions of Antichrist in the last days of the cycle will be to set these two integral aspects of the Absolute in opposition to each other in the collective mind, and on a global scale, in "the four quarters of the earth". As for the economic and political expression of this barren satanic polarity, the false cohesion of left-wing tyranny, as well as today's global capitalism, would fall under Gog, while both the false hierarchicalism of right-wing tyranny and the violent absolutism of the various 'tribal' separatist movements opposed to globalism, both ethnic and religious, would come under Magog. In terms of religion, those liberal, historicist, evolutionist, quasi-materialist and crypto-Pagan theologies which emphasize God's immanence as opposed to His transcendence are part of Gog, while those reactionary theologies which exalt transcendence over immanence, look on the material world as a vale of tears, denigrate the human body, and view the destruction of nature with indifference if not secret approval, since the best we can hope for is to get it all over with, are part of Magog. The conflict between the two is precisely the satanic counterfeit of the true eschatological conflict described in Apocalypse 19:11-20, between the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and the Beast with his false prophet. Those who can be lured to fight in a counterfeit war between elements which ought to be reconciled, because they are essentially parts of the same reality as seen in a distorting mirror, will miss their call to fight in the true war between forces which neither should nor can be reconciled: those of the Truth and those of the Lie. (NOTE: Globalism, insofar as it sets the stage for the emergence of Guenon's "inverted hierarchy," also contains the seed of Magog, while tribalism, as the common inheritance of all who are excluded from the global elite, holds the seed of Gog: in the latter days, no party or class or sector can long retain its ideological stability; the 'rate of contradiction' approaches the speed of light.)
In a world profoundly polarized between the Gog of syncretist globalism and the Magog of exclusivist 'tribalism', a word which is beginning to denote what used to be called 'nationalism' or 'patriotism' or 'loyalty to one's religion', the Transcendent Unity of Religions clearly represents a middle path, or third force, at least in the religious field. It is equally opposed to the universalism of the global elites and the violent self-assertion of the fundamentalist 'tribes' oppressed and marginalised by these elites.... It is reasonable to conjecture that Antichrist would like nothing better than to subvert and discredit [upholders of the Sophia Perennis], since the Transcendent Unity of Religions is one of the few worldviews that could possibly stand in the way of the barren and terminal conflict between globalism and tribalism which is the keynote of his 'system' in the social arena.
If all possible alternatives to the struggle between globalism and tribalism disappear from the collective mind, then Antichrist has won. He can use economic and political globalism and the universalism of a 'world fusion spirituality' to subvert and oppress all integral religions and religious cultures, forcing them to narrow their focus and violate the fullness of their own traditions in reaction against it. He can drive them to bigoted and terroristic excesses which will make them seem barbaric and outdated in the eyes of those wavering between a global and a tribal identification, and set them at each other's throats at the same time. Unite to oppress; divide and conquer.
In this light, we can see that the exclusivism of conservative and/or traditional Christianity is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness; the same could be said, with certain reservations, of Judaism and Islam. The exclusivism of these Abrahamic religions allows them to consciously fortify themselves against the System of Antichrist -- Christianity by its 'catacomb spirit,' its ability, ultimately derived from monasticism, to build spiritual fortresses against the world, and Islam by the fact that dar al-Islam remains the largest bloc of humanity which, in part, is still socially and politically organized around a Divine Revelation, although to greatly varying degrees, as were Medieval Europe and the Byzantine Empire. On the other hand, their very exclusivism has prevented these religions, in all but a few instances, from making common cause against globalist universalism and secularism. They remain vulnerable to the 'divide and conquer' tactics of the system of Antichrist, a phase which could well be the prelude, if traditional eschatological speculations such as those found in Dennis E. Engleman's Ultimate Things are to be believed, to a later 'unite to oppress' phase, a capitulation by the exhausted exclusivists, longing for the end of endless conflict, to the satanic universalism of Antichrist himself.
2004-12-08 19:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus] In a world profoundly polarized between the Gog of syncretist globalism and the Magog of exclusivist 'tribalism', a word which is beginning to denote what used to be called 'nationalism' or 'patriotism' or 'loyalty to one's religion', the Transcendent Unity of Religions clearly represents a middle path, or third force, at least in the religious field. It is equally opposed to the universalism of the global elites and the violent self-assertion of the fundamentalist 'tribes' oppressed and marginalised by these elites.... It is reasonable to conjecture that Antichrist would like nothing better than to subvert and discredit [upholders of the Sophia Perennis], since the Transcendent Unity of Religions is one of the few worldviews that could possibly stand in the way of the barren and terminal conflict between globalism and tribalism which is the keynote of his 'system' in the social arena.[/QUOTE] The 'Transcendent Unity of Religions' is simply the result of applying the 'universalism of the elites' to theology. It is a symptom of the underlying disease, not some kind of enlightened third way. Relativism and egalitarianism are not the solution to the spiritual crisis of the West.
2004-12-08 19:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]On the other hand, their very exclusivism has prevented these religions, in all but a few instances, from making common cause against globalist universalism and secularism.[/QUOTE]
Raina,
What does it matter to me whether the threat is 'globalist universalism', secularism, Islam or judaism? They're all enemies of Christianity. I say fight in both directions and let the chips fall where they may. We know who wins in the end and it aint Marx, Soros, Muhamad or Buddha.
2004-12-08 21:28 | User Profile
Texas Dissident,
Please disabuse yourself of all paranoiac errors. I am not "Raina".
Sectarians clinging piteously and druggedly to a coagulated dogmatism are precisely what the West needs least at this point in history. There is nothing that distinguishes such pathetic creeplings from Osama bin Laden and his brand of puerility, bigotry, megalomania, and nihilism. Ignorant and neurotic pseudo-religious fanaticism is the wrecker of Civilization, a murderous vice of untellable proportions. Why should you proclaim so proudly that you are of the same spiritual race as Osama bin Laden?? The bloodthirsty disregard of human civilization in your words truly astounds me. It is obvious to me you are a dangerous person. To you and Osama bin Laden, this planet of exquisite, ancient, fragile, and diverse culture-worlds, a planet in which each little world reflects some finite aspects of its infinite Maker, is merely a stage to enact your primitivistic dreams of a levelling and blood-bought pseudo-unity. The malodorous inner leftism of your mentality is appalling beyond words.
Quantrill,
In no way is the doctrine of the Transcendent Unity of Religions 'egalitarian'. Perhaps I should reemphasize Saint Augustine's words:
[left]"That which today is called the Christian religion existed among the Ancients and has never ceased to exist from the origin of the human race until the time when Christ Himself came and men began to call Christian the true religion which already existed beforehand".[/left]
[left]In other words, any man who orders his life by the light of the Logos inherent in the very fabric of the Universe is Christian. Most Muslims are Christians, as most Christians are Muslims. Are you of the same race as Osama bin Laden too?[/left]
2004-12-08 21:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]Please disabuse yourself of all paranoiac errors. I am not "Raina".
Sectarians clinging piteously and druggedly to a coagulated dogmatism are precisely what the West needs least at this point in history. There is nothing that distinguishes such pathetic creeplings from Osama bin Laden and his brand of puerility, bigotry, megalomania, and nihilism. Ignorant and neurotic pseudo-religious fanaticism is the wrecker of Civilization, a murderous vice of untellable proportions. Why should you proclaim so proudly that you are of the same spiritual race as Osama bin Laden?? The bloodthirsty disregard of human civilization in your words truly astounds me. It is obvious to me you are a dangerous person. To you and Osama bin Laden, this planet of exquisite, ancient, fragile, and diverse culture-worlds, a planet in which each little world reflects some finite aspects of its infinite Maker, is merely a stage to enact your primitivistic dreams of a levelling and blood-bought pseudo-unity. The malodorous inner leftism of your mentality is appalling beyond words.[/QUOTE]
Boo!
:lol:
2004-12-09 13:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus] Quantrill,
In no way is the doctrine of the Transcendent Unity of Religions 'egalitarian'.
Universalism is inherently egalitarian. [QUOTE=HrodbertAntoninus]Perhaps I should reemphasize Saint Augustine's words:
[left]"That which today is called the Christian religion existed among the Ancients and has never ceased to exist from the origin of the human race until the time when Christ Himself came and men began to call Christian the true religion which already existed beforehand".[/left]
[left]In other words, any man who orders his life by the light of the Logos inherent in the very fabric of the Universe is Christian. Most Muslims are Christians, as most Christians are Muslims. Are you of the same race as Osama bin Laden too?[/left][/QUOTE] I think you have misinterpreted this. He was saying that the beliefs of ancient Israel, specifically, were Christian. The difference is that they were anticipating the Incarnation of Christ, while we are anticipating His Second Coming.
2004-12-09 22:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]I think you have misinterpreted this. He was saying that the beliefs of ancient Israel, specifically, were Christian. The difference is that they were anticipating the Incarnation of Christ, while we are anticipating His Second Coming.[/QUOTE]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. - Gospel of John 1:1-5
2004-12-11 17:50 | User Profile
Just a quick tip of the hat to Tex and Quantrill for the level of decorum on this long discussion they have had on what is a very emotional subject.
Usually these types of debate turn into rancorous screeching in short order.
The high regard that I hold for both of you gentlemen has been raised a few more notches. :thumbsup:
2004-12-11 21:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Just a quick tip of the hat to Tex and Quantrill for the level of decorum on this long discussion they have had on what is a very emotional subject.
Usually these types of debate turn into rancorous screeching in short order.
The high regard that I hold for both of you gentlemen has been raised a few more notches. :thumbsup:[/QUOTE] Thank you, sir, for the kind words. Tex and I agree on probably 95% of what matters, and I think we both try to keep that in mind.
2004-12-12 01:52 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]"We are the world, we are the children. We are the ones who make a brighter day, so let's start giving." - Michael Jackson[/QUOTE]
Tilt!!!
:punk: