← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Valley Forge

Jew Professor Demands Christians Give Up Belief in Jesus

Thread ID: 17158 | Posts: 148 | Started: 2005-03-07

Valley Forge [OP]

2005-03-07 02:50 | User Profile

And Jews wonder why they are "hated."

[CENTER][IMG]http://www.comeandhear.com/supplement/ajn-hayman/hayman.jpg[/IMG] [/CENTER]

[COLOR=Blue] [B][SIZE=4]Christians and Jews By Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

CHRISTIANS have to make a choice - "either retain their present belief system and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people."

This is the view of Bar-Ilan University's Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman, who is active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and in encouraging modern Christianity to return to its Jewish roots by observing the Seven Noahide Laws.

"As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be antisemitic because that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God," he told the Australian Jewish News.

"That's how the process of satanising the Jews began. That belief is the root cause of 1500 years of the Christian idolatrous antisemitism which led to the Holocaust."

Proficient in New Testament Studies and Classical Greek, Dr. Hayman noted that at least five American churches have given up belief in Jesus.

[url]http://www.comeandhear.com/supplement/ajn-hayman/ajn-page.html[/url]

Valley Forge

2005-03-07 02:55 | User Profile

With Jews, as far I'm concerned, enough is enough.

The world desperately needs a Hitler or a Torquemada to step forward.

Okiereddust

2005-03-07 03:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]And Jews wonder why they are "hated."

"As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be [COLOR=Red]~~antisemitic~~ [/COLOR][COLOR=Blue]bad[/COLOR] because that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God," he told the Australian Jewish News. [/QUOTE]I don't know. With just the change of one word, it could be Alex Linder talking to VNN. And really in common english today the two words are synonomous.

Alex Linder and VNN sure bear testimony the Jews are not unique.

Valley Forge

2005-03-07 05:38 | User Profile

Alex Linder is not terribly relevant. He's one guy with a web site. He has no power, no authority, and no influence on anyone important.

Jews, on the other hand, have all of those things. Jews have power and influence and authority. This Jew professor is a good example. Unlike Alex Linder, he holds a position in a university and is also a Rabbi.

I don't know about you, but I think it's unfortunate that Christians have lost the will to stand up to enemies that are actually relevant. I don't know if the problem is cowardice, ignorance of the true nature of Jews, paralysis of the will, or some kind of intrinsic susceptibility to brainwashing that makes them ineffective, but whatever the problem is, it needs to be confronted.

Christians have become quite adept in recent years at distancing themselves from "racists." If they stood up to enemies that are actually relevant half as effectively as they oppose "racists," Christian civilization probably wouldn't be in such steep decline.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I don't know. With just the change of one word, it could be Alex Linder talking to VNN. And really in common english today the two words are synonomous.

Alex Linder and VNN sure bear testimony the Jews are not unique.[/QUOTE]

Okiereddust

2005-03-07 06:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Alex Linder is not terribly relevant. He's one guy with a web site. He has no power, no authority, and no influence on anyone important. Maybe. You and I certainly don't have any. But this one man certainly wields a lot of clout in cyberspace, WN section. Remember when Spiderman heaped praise on hm as the greatest thing that ever hit the internet, or something like that. Now people seem to be getting a little tired of him. Whatever.

My point is if you're wish that another "Hitler or a Torquemada step forward" ever came true, it sounds these days like its going to be someone like Linder, doesn't it. Right now he's [I]numero uno[/I] of the Hitler backers. He's a minnow in a tiny pond, but people look to these tiny ecosystems to see what sort of fish we'd be breeding if they ever started to spread.

And a Linder in power, over a Rabbi Hayman, by all apearances wouldn't change things one iota for Christians. At least for the better.

Have a plan that works. Before you split the roost and slam the door behind you, at least for God's sake make sure you've got the keys in your pocket. And that your car's tires have air in them. e door [QUOTE]Jews, on the other hand, have all of those things. Jews have power and influence and authority. This Jew professor is a good example. Unlike Alex Linder, he holds a position in a university and is also a Rabbi. [/QUOTE]Looking at a Linder, did it ever cross your mind there might be reasons for this, over than Jewish perfidy. Such as gentile stupidity?

[QUOTE]I don't know about you, but I think it's unfortunate that Christians have lost the will to stand up to enemies that are actually relevant. I don't know if the problem is cowardice, ignorance of the true nature of Jews, paralysis of the will, or some kind of intrinsic susceptibility to brainwashing that makes them ineffective, but whatever the problem is, it needs to be confronted. [/QUOTE]I'll confront it. No matter how bad the disease is, when you point to Linder as the logical direction any cure such as you have in mind wil take, people think, not without reason, that any cure, if there is one, will be much worse than the disease.

Christians have become quite adept in recent years at distancing themselves from "racists." If they stood up to enemies that are actually relevant half as effectively as they oppose "racists," Christian civilization probably wouldn't be in such steep decline.[/QUOTE] This makes equal sense

Racists" have become quite adept in recent years at distancing themselves from Christians. If they stood up to enemies that are actually relevant half as effectively as they oppose Christians, White civilization probably wouldn't be in such steep decline.

I say before we WN go around telling the world we know how to run things, we need to go back to our domicile and do a little house cleaning.

madrussian

2005-03-07 06:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge] CHRISTIANS have to make a choice - "either retain their present belief system and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people." [/QUOTE] The choice must be obvious to anyone. There's no merit in being a partner with the children of Satan, while it's righteous to oppose them.

Okiereddust

2005-03-07 06:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]The choice must be obvious to anyone. There's no merit in being a partner with the children of Satan, while it's righteous to oppose them.[/QUOTE]The key thing is, who are the real children of Satan, and what is true rightousness? And are the people who throw out these terms being sincere, or are they just bandying about terms they don't believe for people they ultimately don't really care for.

A lot of German Christians did initially support, the Nazi's remember. And the real Christians (those that went to Church more than once a year) were used and betrayed by the regime, maybe not as bad as they were in some countries, but badly nevertheless.

Mainline denominations never cease to bring this up. And Christians listen. And if nationalism ever got started in this country and gained serious suport among Christians, the first thing preachers would do would bring up these words of Linder.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-07 07:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]This is the view of Bar-Ilan University's Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman, who is active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and in encouraging modern Christianity to return to its Jewish roots by observing the Seven Noahide Laws.[/QUOTE]

For those more conspiratorial minded:

[url=http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/noahide_laws.htm]NOAHIDE LAWS AND DECAPITATION FOR CONFESSING JESUS IS LORD[/url] - "IT IS IN FACT, THE LUBAVITCH JEWISH MOVEMENT OF WHICH THE NWO IS BASED"

weisbrot

2005-03-07 10:37 | User Profile

[url]http://foundation1.org/index.php?p=116[/url]

[I]...Remarkably, Jewish legal experts in the United States have created a new institute that will educate jurists and others about Jewish law and promote the application of its teachings to contemporary legal disputes and other modern-day problems. [B]The institute was applauded by President George W. Bush as an important means of promoting Ã¢â¬Ågood character and strong values.Ã¢â¬Â Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a letter to the institute, acknowledged that Jewish law is one of the Ã¢â¬Åmost highly developed systems.Ã¢â¬Â One lawyer recently filed a brief to the Supreme Court based on the TalmudÃ¢â¬â¢s view of capital punishment.[/B][7]

Here is a marvelous example of how Judaism has served the best interests of mankind. But this is implied in the name and deeds of the first Jew, Avraham, of whom the Torah says: Ã¢â¬Åyou shall be the father of a multitude of nations,Ã¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬Åall the nations of the world shall be blessed through your descendants (Genesis 16:17; 22:18).

Contrary to the god of Islam, who commands Muslims to destroy nationhood by placing all nations under the Sharia, the God of Israel is infinitely more liberal. He creates unique nations as well as unique individuals; and He wants each to pursue its own perfection in peace. This the nations can do only if they abide by the Ã¢â¬Ågenial orthodoxyÃ¢â¬Â of the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality. But God, in His infinite wisdom, saw that mankind would need something more. And so He created an exemplary nation, Israel, and endowed this nation with a unique system of laws which has enabled the Jewish people to unite particularism and universalism. Only when this system of laws is creatively re-established will Israel achieve its Final Redemption and present to mankind the example of a nation in which Freedom dwells with Righteousness, Equality with Excellence, Wealth with Beauty, the here and now with love of the Eternal.

[/I]

Quantrill

2005-03-07 15:54 | User Profile

Okie, The Rabbi's comments in the original post are clearly quite outrageous, and Valley Forge didn't mention Linder at all until you did. Why are you fixated on Linder? I agree with you that the Christian West has a lot of introspection and house-cleaning to do, but that should not be done instead of facing external threats. Rather, the two projects can only be successful if undertaken together. This Rabbi is saying that Christians qua Christians are evil, and that they can only be good by becoming wannabe Jews. This is outrageous.

Okiereddust

2005-03-07 16:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Okie, The Rabbi's comments in the original post are clearly quite outrageous, and Valley Forge didn't mention Linder at all until you did. Why are you fixated on Linder? Sometimes you still seem to act a bit like a newbie around here. We've gone over Linder time and again in the past, and his significance, not the least of which is the frequency with which those who whine about me harping on him do seem to sympathize with him.

I'm not harping on it, but do think its a history and entity now which one cannot ignore except by hiding his head in the sand.

I agree with you that the Christian West has a lot of introspection and house-cleaning to do, but that should not be done instead of facing external threats. Rather, the two projects can only be successful if undertaken together. And that means coordinating them to some extent. This Rabbi is saying that Christians qua Christians are evil, and that they can only be good by becoming wannabe Jews. This is outrageous.[/QUOTE]I tend to agree with you of course but there's nothing new in what the Rabbi says really. Jewish groups have been making this claim at least since the sixties.

Ponce

2005-03-07 16:47 | User Profile

You guys know how I "feel" about the Jews but even then I admire them for the way that they are taking over the world and the same way that I don't blame the black man for dating a white girl (I blame the girl) I don't blame the Jews but the "Goys" for allowing the Jews to do it.

Quantrill

2005-03-07 17:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sometimes you still seem to act a bit like a newbie around here. We've gone over Linder time and again in the past, and his significance, not the least of which is the frequency with which those who whine about me harping on him do seem to sympathize with him. I don't sympathize with Linder at all. To the contrary, in fact. I just didn't (and still don't) see what the original post had to do with Linder, and I didn't see the point of you turning this into (yet) another Linder thread.

mwdallas

2005-03-07 17:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE]"As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be antisemitic because that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God[/QUOTE] Funny how the obvious alternative is never considered:

[I]As long as Jews reject Jesus as God, they will be anti-Christian because that belief must lead them to believe that those who accept Jesus reject the Jews.[/I]

It's always a one-way street with the Jews. All take, and no give.

Jack Cassidy

2005-03-07 17:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=mwdallas]Funny how the obvious alternative is never considered:

As long as Jews reject Jesus as God, they will be anti-Christian because that belief must lead them to believe that those who accept Jesus reject the Jews.

It's always a one-way street with the Jews. All take, and no give.[/QUOTE] Man, you have a good mind if you could make this translation in your head. I had to write it out in predicate logic terms to get the great point you made.

vytis

2005-03-07 17:49 | User Profile

Please Valley Forge: not another Torquemada (Post #2). He was a Jew also. :evil:

'I regard the Jewish race as the born enemy of pure humanity and everything that is noble in it.'....Richard Wagner

weisbrot

2005-03-07 18:16 | User Profile

I'm not harping on it, but do think its a history and entity now which one cannot ignore except by hiding his head in the sand.

Uninvited comment: My thoughts upon reading the Linder tie-in were similar to Quantrill's, in that bringing Linder into this subject is quite tangential. He's not relevant to the topic at all, especially in the way you introduced him; Linder, being an atheist, could care less how anyone arrives at their belief in God. It's a stretch to mention Linder and VNN here any way we turn the subject, and their mention does indicate some sort of fixation.

Additionally, the "gentile stupidity" comment is off base, as Linder is far from representative of any significant grouping of gentile populations. Finally, the comments above concerning assumed suspicious sympathies have a definite GW "friends of our enemies" ring about them.

I do agree with what I assume is the intent of your comments, which is to refute the statement that a Hitler is needed. I've read Alex Linder, and he's no Hitler anyway; the only authentic influence he generates is in response to criticisms such as this.

I tend to agree with you of course but there's nothing new in what the Rabbi says really. Jewish groups have been making this claim at least since the sixties.[/QUOTE]

Have they? I don't have any information to the contrary, but it does seem that this statement- openly "condemning" Christians as antisemitic for believing in Christ- is a fairly recent development in Western culture. I don't doubt that its been said for generations in private, but to my knowledge there has been nothing of this sort of anti-Christ chutzpah until very recently- say, in the last five-ten years, and ramping up after 9/11 signaled the pile-on. I would welcome seeing examples of this in mainstream media from Jews in positions of responsibility from any time period, and especially from the enlightened sixties. Anything to contradict the general knowledge that the societal and cultural changes wrought in the sixties were accomplished by simple, well-meaning white peace 'n' love hippies blasted on weed. I'm not talking about fairly obscure references like Sontag's "white man is cancer" statements, I mean when the code was dropped and the gloves were off.

mwdallas

2005-03-07 18:40 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Have they? I don't have any information to the contrary, but it does seem that this statement- openly "condemning" Christians as antisemitic for believing in Christ- is a fairly recent development in Western culture. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure when this was brought out into the open, but the Sixties saw Jewish activism that succeeded in changing Roman Catholic doctrine. For instance, How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking, "Look" magazine, 1/25/66:

[url]http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/jewsvaticanii.html[/url]

And Revilo P. Oliver's commentary:

How They Stole the Church:

[url]http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/church.htm[/url]

Okiereddust

2005-03-07 20:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Uninvited comment: My thoughts upon reading the Linder tie-in were similar to Quantrill's, in that bringing Linder into this subject is quite tangential. He's not relevant to the topic at all, especially in the way you introduced him; Linder, being an atheist, could care less how anyone arrives at their belief in God. It's a stretch to mention Linder and VNN here any way we turn the subject, and their mention does indicate some sort of fixation.

Fixation eh? Just because when someone brings up Hitler, I end referring to what the and really the only open advocates of Hitler and NS, (and for that matter any explicit WN, i.e, VNN and the NA. say?

I think you need to re-examine vat your thinking is Dr. Weisbrot, is it my fixation on them or your fixation on ignoring them? Ve must confront ze problem, ve must not pretend it doesn't exist, before I can help you.

Have they? I don't have any information to the contrary, but it does seem that this statement- openly "condemning" Christians as antisemitic for believing in Christ- is a fairly recent development in Western culture. I don't doubt that its been said for generations in private, but to my knowledge there has been nothing of this sort of anti-Christ chutzpah until very recently- say, in the last five-ten years, and ramping up after 9/11 signaled the pile-on. Well for starters you could go to Adorno and the Frankfurt School, check Culture of Critique. I haven't followed this as closely in the past as I have now, but I do have an old copy of the World Book "YearBook" for 1966, where high ranking denominational leaders complained that a Jewish report on antisemitism seemed to imply Christians could only shed it by changing basic doctrinal beliefs. And the idea is now common among Christianity of course that Christians must change basic beliefs to avoid anti-semitism in Christianity too now, as we've discussed [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6444]Dispenasationalism, Anti-Semitism. and Zionism[/URL]. So it at any rate is seems by no means unique especially. I really see nothing much fundamentally different in what Hayman is saying from what's been said before, although he may be dotting a few more "i's" and crossing a few more "t's". Even here though, he is talking to a Jewish newspaper apparently - again Jews have always been pretty open among themselvs in believing this anyway.

weisbrot

2005-03-07 20:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Fixation eh? Just because when someone brings up Hitler, I end referring to what the and really the only open advocates of Hitler and NS, (and for that matter any explicit WN, i.e, VNN and the NA. say?

I'm finding it difficult to figure out what you're trying to say here.

I think you need to re-examine vat your thinking is Dr. Weisbrot, is it my fixation on them or your fixation on ignoring them? Ve must confront ze problem, ve must not pretend it doesn't exist, before I can help you.

This seems pretty clear, though: Anyone who disagrees with you must have some sort of psychological problem. I have a sneaking suspicion that you're actually being serious here, as opposed to trying for some humorous irony alongside the mentions of Adorno and the Frankfurt School.

Well for starters you could go to Adorno and the Frankfurt School, check Culture of Critique.

An excellent recommendation; I've read C of C and second the endorsement. As for Adorno and the Frankfurt School, I would consider them a somewhat non-mainstream reference, and would think that their work would not qualify as open condemnation of faith in Christ as being equivalent to or causing antisemitism. Certainly Adorno et al were enemies of Christ; however, the texts and summaries of the Franfurt School I've read are seemingly careful to avoid direct mentions of Christ and Christianity as explicit enemies of the kind of society they hoped to create. As I recall, they questioned any sort of religious faith, caricatured people of faith as fanatics, and attempted to place in doubt the psychological health of anyone who would disagree with their rhetoric.

I haven't followed this as closely in the past as I have now, but I do have an old copy of the World Book "YearBook" for 1966, where high ranking denominational leaders complained that a Jewish report on antisemitism seemed to imply Christians could only shed it by changing basic doctrinal beliefs. And the idea is now common among Christianity of course that Christians must change basic beliefs to avoid anti-semitism in Christianity too now, as we've discussed [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6444]Dispenasationalism, Anti-Semitism. and Zionism[/URL]. So it at any rate is seems by no means unique especially. I really see nothing much fundamentally different in what Hayman is saying from what's been said before, although he may be dotting a few more "i's" and crossing a few more "t's". Even here though, he is talking to a Jewish newspaper apparently - again Jews have always been pretty open among themselvs in believing this anyway.[/QUOTE]

Um, let me restate, in case you're still addressing my invitation to provide further information:

[I]...to my knowledge there has been nothing of this sort of anti-Christ chutzpah until very recently- say, in the last five-ten years, and ramping up after 9/11 signaled the pile-on. I would welcome seeing examples of this in mainstream media from Jews in positions of responsibility from any time period, and especially from the enlightened sixties..I'm not talking about fairly obscure references like Sontag's "white man is cancer" statements, I mean when the code was dropped and the gloves were off..[/I]

Sertorius

2005-03-07 22:09 | User Profile

Weisbrot,

This rabbi would probably be a big hit at that convention described in your post "Evangelical Air Force vs. Purim Army." I know that idiot woman would approve.

AntiYuppie

2005-03-07 22:10 | User Profile

"As long as Christians keep Jesus as God, they will be antisemitic because that belief must lead them to believe that those who reject Jesus reject God," he told the Australian Jewish News.

"That's how the process of satanising the Jews began. That belief is the root cause of 1500 years of the Christian idolatrous antisemitism which led to the Holocaust."

[quote=mwdallas]It's always a one-way street with the Jews. All take, and no give.

Rather ironic, considering the fact that the Talmud has far worse things to say about Gentiles than the New Testament has to say about Jews and Judaism. The Talmud often compares Gentiles to beasts of burden or to wild animals fit for extermination, there are no comparable passages about Jews in the New Testament. Maybe the Rabbi can set an example by asking that Jews reject the Talmud and its anti-Gentile teachings?

Oh, wait, that's right...Jewish behavior and their deep-seated Talmudic bigotry can't possibly have anything to do with the "idolatrous antisemitism" and "satanising" of Jews that the Rabbi whines about.

All take, no give is right.

Valley Forge

2005-03-07 23:42 | User Profile

This thread has nothing to do with Linder. When I said a Hitler or a Torquemada needs to step forward, all I meant was "a prominent individual who unequivocally opposes Jews" needs to step forward. And during their own times, Hitler and Torquemada fit that definition.

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I don't sympathize with Linder at all. To the contrary, in fact. I just didn't (and still don't) see what the original post had to do with Linder, and I didn't see the point of you turning this into (yet) another Linder thread.[/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2005-03-07 23:54 | User Profile

Exactly. And what I find ironic is that contemporary Christians seem to have forgotten their roots. The quote from Martin Luther in my signature line in my view represents the proper attitude of all Christians toward all unconverted Jews.

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]All take, no give is right.[/QUOTE]

Hugh Lincoln

2005-03-08 02:11 | User Profile

For a guy who's irrelevant and has no influence, Linder sure is a huge obsession here at OD.

Valley Forge

2005-03-08 03:45 | User Profile

One of the many reasons Linder is irrelevant is that his main idea -- "naming the Jew" -- is entirely unoriginal.

Christians were "naming the Jew," boldly and without apology, centuries before the man was born (as my signature line shows).

In other words, it seems to me you have to be damn ignorant to regard "naming the Jew" as some kind of bold insight, as many of Linder's admirers do.

Okiereddust

2005-03-08 07:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]I'm finding it difficult to figure out what you're trying to say here.

[quote=weisbrot]An excellent recommendation; I've read C of C and second the endorsement. As for Adorno and the Frankfurt School, I would consider them a somewhat non-mainstream reference, and would think that their work would not qualify as open condemnation of faith in Christ as being equivalent to or causing antisemitism. Certainly Adorno et al were enemies of Christ; however, the texts and summaries of the Franfurt School I've read are seemingly careful to avoid direct mentions of Christ and Christianity as explicit enemies of the kind of society they hoped to create. As I recall, they questioned any sort of religious faith, caricatured people of faith as fanatics, and attempted to place in doubt the psychological health of anyone who would disagree with their rhetoric.

You are basically right, but the origin of their argument from Freud is specifically anti-Christian

Horkheimer and Adorno propose that fascism is basically the same as traditional Christianity because both involve opposition to and subjugation of nature. ........In an argument reminescent of Freud's [I]Moses and Monotheism/I religious antisemitism then arises because of hatred of those "who did not make the dull sacrifice of reason....The adherents of the religion of the Father are Hated by those who support the religion of the Son - hated as those who know better" (p.179)

[I]Culture of Critique[/I]

Um, let me restate, in case you're still addressing my invitation to provide further information: [/QUOTE]I will have to dig that up that reference, although it seems to me completely ununique.

Okiereddust

2005-03-08 07:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]One of the many reasons Linder is irrelevant is that his main idea -- "naming the Jew" -- is entirely unoriginal. [/QUOTE]He, VNN and the NA are certainly wrong and unoriginal. Unfortunately that [I]per se[/I] does not make them or anybody else irrelevent in a political or cultural sense, although if it did we'd certainly be a lot better off.

Franco

2005-03-08 07:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]He, VNN and the NA are certainly wrong and unoriginal. Unfortunately that [I]per se[/I] does not make them or anybody else irrelevent in a political or cultural sense, although if it did we'd certainly be a lot better off.[/QUOTE]

Wrong? How?

Okiereddust

2005-03-08 09:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Wrong? How?

--[/QUOTE]One of the things is, as we were talking about on this thread, is that they're militant antichristian atheists.

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=104817&postcount=3[/url]

Brooke

2005-03-08 09:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Exactly. And what I find ironic is that [B]contemporary Christians seem to have forgotten their roots.[/B] The quote from Martin Luther in my signature line in my view represents the proper attitude of all Christians toward all unconverted Jews.[/QUOTE]They've fallen away.

[I]2Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], [U]except there come a falling away first[/U], and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;[/I]

AntiYuppie

2005-03-08 19:48 | User Profile

I would love to see some Christian cleric or theologian of any denomination reply to creatures like the Rabbi who complain about how the NT inspires "bigotry" by pointing to the far more hateful language towards non-Jews in the Talmud. The best person to do so in our political climate would probably be some liberal clergyman, for the same reason that Leftism provides good cover for attacking Zionism. If Lefties can attack Israeli apartheid, then surely some liberal clergymen could speak out against the xenophobic bigotry in the Talmud (and point out the irony and hypocrisy of rabbis complaining about "hateful beliefs" in Christianity or even Islam).

The planting of this meme in the public discourse by liberal clergy would make discussion of Talmudic Jewish supremacism as "mainstream" as anti-Zionism is today, eventually paving the way for rightist groups to speak on the subject in visible venues.

mwdallas

2005-03-08 21:01 | User Profile

Excellent point, AY.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-08 21:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]I would love to see some Christian cleric or theologian of any denomination reply to creatures like the Rabbi who complain about how the NT inspires "bigotry" by pointing to the far more hateful language towards non-Jews in the Talmud. The best person to do so in our political climate would probably be some liberal clergyman,[/QUOTE]

I could very well imagine a D. James Kennedy, R.C.Sproul or James Dobson making that kind of reply if push came to shove, and they are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination. I personally heard Dobson come very close to doing so back when the controversy over The Passion film was raging. These are men that will not back down from proclaiming Christ. I just think we haven't yet reached that kind of cultural critical mass.

weisbrot

2005-03-09 02:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Weissy if I didn't know better I would say you can dish it out but you can't take it.

[I][SIZE=1]Gabby Hayes voice[/SIZE]:[/I] [FONT=Verdana]Durn persnickety female...[/FONT]

Well, you got me again. That Judaical psychoanalysis wins yet again, and I am nothing short of slain.

Thanks for the quotes from CofC, but in this context using them as a reply is a non sequitur. I'll restate:

Franco

2005-03-09 03:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I could very well imagine a D. James Kennedy, R.C.Sproul or James Dobson making that kind of reply if push came to shove, and they are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination. I personally heard Dobson come very close to doing so back when the controversy over The Passion film was raging. These are men that will not back down from proclaiming Christ. I just think we haven't yet reached that kind of cultural critical mass.[/QUOTE]

Well, let's face it, Tex: when will our culture ever reach the point where mainstream clergy will criticize the Jews to any significant degree? They have had[I] years [/I] to do so. In fact, even as our culture has eroded to an amazing degree, mainstream clergy have said nothing about the Jews.

[edited]

Blond Knight

2005-03-09 04:00 | User Profile

A Christian Ministry on the right track.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[url]http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/050308Wh2.htm[/url]

Part 2 Why Some Christians Enable the Neo-Crusade and Others Oppose:

By Charles E. Carlson

Every follower of Christ must protest the callousness of celebrity Judaized Christian leaders toward the Arab people and Islam in general; we must object to the policy of the gradual liquidation of the Palestinians, which is justified by Israel, supported by our dollars from Washington, and enabled by the support of churchmen popularly called the Ã¢â¬ÅChristian Right.Ã¢â¬Â If your church is one that is silent, we ask you to learn and protest its enabling silence.

There is no Christian basis for racism in church. Jesus Christ spoke not one word that can in any way be interpreted to support the killing and taking of one peopleÃ¢â¬â¢s land by another. Judaized Christian laymen need to follow Jesus and not their celebrity leaders. We must first object from inside the church, knowing we may be heard. We must then leave the church without hesitation and without a look back, as Christ told his disciples to do when they were rejected. Our churches support Ã¢â¬Åpublic policyÃ¢â¬Â toward Israel, which can be summarized as the gradual liquidation of the Palestinian people, and serial wars against other tribes. It is impossible to be both a follower of Christ to be a party to this.

We must also recognize that Ã¢â¬ÅwarÃ¢â¬Â is and has been an economic policy of our country for two generations. War is whispered to be good business, and indeed it is for a few, including politicians, but is a sin for those who call themselves by ChristÃ¢â¬â¢s name. GodÃ¢â¬â¢s people are expected to place a higher standard on life than we can expect from politicians. Mr. Bush is exposing, by his example, Judaized Christianity and its selfishness and callousness toward life.

Judaized Christian churches have adopted de facto, a racist theology that endorses a favored, or Ã¢â¬Åchosen people.Ã¢â¬Â So-called Christian leaders have and are willing and ready to condemn a not-favored tribe to death. The unfavored tribe is any tribe that is at odds with political Israel, including the tribes of Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Judaized Christianity is an American spawning. If those who are committing the sin of supporting genocidal Ã¢â¬ÅwarsÃ¢â¬Â understand that they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, they will stop. Judaized Christians are numerous and are part of a huge communication network. It is part of the media and partly entertainment business. It may influence fully half of the American population. Anyone who doubts this need only to watch TBN television for a few hours of Benny Hinn and John Hagee, and count the evangelical churches in your phone book.

The Abuse of Scripture

Israel bases its claim to Arab lands on the Christian version of the Old Testament. Genesis, Chapter 12:1-3, is its argument and is supposedly similar to the Torah. God makes a promise to a man named Abram, whose grandson was called Ã¢â¬ÅIsrael." Here, to quote from the King James Version, is the verse that is the subject of which may be the most monstrous distortion of Scripture in the modern history of Christianity:

Ã¢â¬Å(1) Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy fatherÃ¢â¬â¢s house, unto a land that I will show thee;

[2] And I will make of thee a great nation,"...Ã¢â¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â

The passage seems plain enough; God orders Abram go out and break new ground, promising that He, God, will lead him, protect him, give him a big family, and in the next verse, God promises Abram that he will have an undisclosed place in history that men will find to be a universal blessing.

"(3) And in thee all the nations of the earth will be blessed" (King James Version).

This blessing is not explained, but the one and only traditional view of this bit of Old Testament history is that from AbrahamÃ¢â¬â¢s family will come the Messiah, Christ the Lord. This is the significance of Abraham in Christian history.

Similarly, composer Frederick Handel found the words for his lyrics of the wonderful oratorio, Messiah, in the Old Testament book of Isaiah, of interest to followers of Christ because it is a prophesy of Christ, the MessiahÃ¢â¬â¢s coming. .

The present-day state of IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s political leaders plucked the land argument, not from the footnotes of the Judaized Christians' contrived study bible; this handy but faulted land deed was planted there a generation earlier by those who paid or otherwise influenced a convicted, professional forger named Cyrus I Scofield.

TodayÃ¢â¬â¢s Zionists interpret these few words to Abram as a promise of a land grant to the state of Israel, which did not exist until 3000 years after the Ã¢â¬Åpromise.Ã¢â¬Â To them, it is a sort of last will-and-testament for perpetual ownership of what amounts to be most of the Middle East. This blood-related gift assumes all Israelis are AbrahamÃ¢â¬â¢s physical heirs. There is no proof of this, but Oxford Press actually wrote this in the Scofield Bible footnotes after ScofieldÃ¢â¬â¢s death. There is not a strand of AbrahamÃ¢â¬â¢s DNA connecting Prime Minister Sharon, or any other Israeli, to anyone in the Bible.

But even if Ariel Sharon could prove his DNA matches Abraham's to the nub, so what? Land is not conferred by lineage without a deed. Arab lands, those that have value, have land titles and records of occupancy. Arabs have deeds. Most Israelis IÃ¢â¬â¢ve met said, as Ariel Sharon says, Ã¢â¬ÅGod gave it to us,Ã¢â¬Â not caring in the least if one believes them, because they do not believe it themselves.

Judaized Christians in the US also proudly support Israeli racist hate groups operating both in the US and Israel. Some of these organizations are too radical even for the Israelis, who consider them a threat to peace. One anti-Arab hate group that calls itself Christians for IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s Biblical Land Right (CIBLR)* is touring the US with a movie aimed at Christian audiences, Judaizing them into an unconditional support of IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s brutal efforts in holding possession of what is left of the Palestinians' land. The movie does the fanatical C. I. Scofield one better by interpreting Genesis 12 as follows:

Ã¢â¬ÅGod unconditionally promised all the land to Israel foreverÃ¢â¬Â (2) Ã¢â¬ÅIsrael (the present state) will be a blessing to all the other nations of the world.Ã¢â¬Â

How brazen. This Israeli organization, masquerading as followers of Christ, tells us God's promise did not mean a Savior named Jesus, but instead means that God's promise of a blessing to the world is through a corrupted, agnostic warring state with one of the highest abortion rates in the world, that conveniently named itself Ã¢â¬ÅIsrael.Ã¢â¬Â What an insult to Jesus, what blight on the name of Christ, and those who follow Him! Amazingly, CIBLR raises its funds from Judaized Christians.

Are we expected to believe, contrary to all traditional teachings, that this politically criminal and remarkably immoral oligarchy is God's blessing to all nations? Judaized arguments for Israeli land rights fall apart like termite-infected wood when you pick them up to look at them. The only truly honest way to characterize the Judaized Christian position is Ã¢â¬ÅBalderdash!" which means, pompous nonsense.

It is still OK to be a traditional Christian

Traditional thinking is not extinct. Mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christianity lost membership to the evangelicals over the last 125 years after the then neo-evangelical movement was dumped on our shores, another gift from England, where it never flourished.

In contrast to the Judaized Christians and the Israelis, American mainline churches clearly state the traditional Christian interpretation of Genesis 12. For instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA), uses a reference book called The Accent Bible (I found in the pews of one church) which provides a single definitive footnote explaining Genesis 12:1-3. It clearly states that the blessing was the Messiah called Jesus who would come to bring salvation to all men.

The overwhelming majority of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, and Orthodox leaders, regardless of what other faults they may have, teach that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies. They also do not teach the Judaized idea of a new temple in Jerusalem, mystical wars, a red heifer sacrifice, Armageddon, and imminent end times, or a convenient "rapture" for the few. Most mainline Reverends, Pastors, and Priests would at least admit that their faith does not support the idea of a political state of Israel as a God icon, nor that Israel should be appeased by throwing one Arab country after another upon its burning altars.

But we find that few Catholics, Orthodox Priests, or Muslim Clerics, or mainline Pastors would be able to explain the powerful political forces that have supported Judaized Christianity since it snowballed beginning in the late 19th Century. They will privately acknowledge the apostasy of Judaized Christianity, but have no explanation as to its amazing growth.

Radical commentaries influence potential followers

The Judaized Christian movement is only 125 years old, at most. It won its early converts from the complacent mainline churches in the early 20th Century, offering a religion of selfishness and rapture watching, to one of that required but failed to demand service and dedication.. The old church lacked sincerity; the new one offered sincere and loving self-service. But now mainline laymen have also been Ã¢â¬ÅJudaizedÃ¢â¬Â with outside church bible studies, and by bible guides and reference books bought in Judaized bible bookstores written by Timothy LaHaye and thousands of other commentators.

Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, especially women, have been active in the popular Precepts Ministries, Bible Study Fellowship, and Community Bible Study, all of which are proudly Judaized. Mainline churches even loan their facilities for their studies. This, we think, can be likened to the hens renting the coup to the foxes for night school. Commentaries published by Judaized Christian authors commonly find their way into traditional church membersÃ¢â¬â¢ homes.

One of the most damaging and successful was by Henrietta C. Mears, who died in 1963, who wrote: What the Bible is All About. It has sold over 4 million copies in numerous editions since 1953, and is graced by a forward by Billy Graham. Mainline libraries and bookstores still sell reprint books of it. Mears says on page 40, _____.

Ã¢â¬ÅHe (God) called a man named Abram to Ã¢â¬Â¦go to an unknown land where God would make him the father of a mighty nation. This begins the story of God's chosen people, Israel.Ã¢â¬Â

In 1953, the traditional Christian view could have been, but was not, Ã¢â¬ÅThis is the first prophesy of the Messiah, Jesus Christ our Lord.Ã¢â¬Â The tribe of Israelites had no longer existed when Mears wrote her book in 1953, but Israel had just come into existence in 1948. She had to know she was ignoring what Christ said and imputing God's promise to a state that did not exist until 3000 odd years after Abraham. Obviously, Henrietta Mears, like the Ã¢â¬ÅLeft BehindÃ¢â¬Â rapture fiction of Tim LaHaye, and Hal Lindsay, believed the now political state was a prophecy fulfilled. This is what Judaized Christians believe as a cornerstone of their Ã¢â¬Åfaith.Ã¢â¬Â

Mears stretches the bible into preposterous fictions in her book, What the Bible is All About, such as

her chapter entitled, Ã¢â¬ÅUnderstanding Matthew,Ã¢â¬Â wherin on page 361 she wrote: Ã¢â¬Å He (Jesus) foretold the coming of the world after his ascension until He comes back in glory to judge the nations as to their treatment of His brethren, the Jews (Matthew 25).Ã¢â¬Â

Mears goes on to emphasize, lest anyone mistake her meaning, Ã¢â¬ÅIt is the judgment of the gentile people concerning their attitude toward GodÃ¢â¬â¢s people.Ã¢â¬Â

Thus, she makes Jesus to be a racist in total distortion of what He is reported to have said in this very chapter. ChristÃ¢â¬â¢s words, in fact, say nothing about the Ã¢â¬ÅJewsÃ¢â¬Â or any race, but refer to the necessity of each follower to do onto the least of his Ã¢â¬ÅbrethrenÃ¢â¬Â as if one is doing the act to, or for, Christ Himself. We are, as Christ says,. to be judged worthy of Ã¢â¬ÅheavenÃ¢â¬Â based upon these acts of kindness to the least of our brethren (all men, even including our enemies). This is also amplified in JesusÃ¢â¬â¢ story of the Good Samaritan. Our kindness is clearly not to be judged based upon what race the recipient belongs to.

MissMears uses almost the exact words found in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible on page 1037, placed there in 1967, by Oxford University Press. , Oxford exceeded Miss Mears in brazen cutzpa by declaring Ã¢â¬Åanti-SemitismÃ¢â¬Â to be a Ã¢â¬Å sinÃ¢â¬Â in its page 19 footnote of the same edition, and then stated that nations will be punished for sinning. Oxford University Press must not have know that nations do not sin, men do.

The blame for the Neo-Crusade and every bit of destruction in the Middle East should properly be placed on those leaders, be they the Christian Right or the mainline Pastors and Priests who are required by their own faith to demand peace, and yet instead, accept, if not openly campaign for, what they erroneously call Ã¢â¬Åwar.Ã¢â¬Â I am not the first one to notice this and write it down. F. Furman Kearney explained it in his classic 1986 book, Middle East Crisis in Biblical Perspective, in which he used the scholarsÃ¢â¬â¢ term Ã¢â¬Åpre-millennnialist,Ã¢â¬Â where we say Judaized Christian.

"Militant pre-millennialism and Zionism must bear the moral responsibility for recent bloodshed in the Middle East and for more extensive bloodshed in World War III, if it comes as predicted by militant pre-millennialism."

And,

"Had the state of Israel not been established in 1947, the history of the Middle East for the last 35 years would be entirely different. We cannot, of course, know what history would have been. We can know, however, that bloodshed during the last 35 years has been caused by pre-millennial and Zionistic agitation that resulted in the creation of the state of Israel."

Kearley, who was a professor at Abilene Christian University, and head of its graduate studies program, also opined that the blame lies in Christians who Ã¢â¬Åcannot pray for peace in the Mid-EastÃ¢â¬Â and who are blinded by the very prejudice that Jesus would denounce. Dr. Kearley understood and wrote this clearly, five years before the first bombing of Iraq in 1990. Judaized-Christians were already enabling what he called Ã¢â¬ÅWorld War IIIÃ¢â¬Â against Islam.

We agree with Dr. Kearley; it is the Judaized Christian churches in America who are primarily responsible for the systematic annihilation of the people of Iraq, Gaza, and a dozen other past and pending sites. They are also responsible for the 1500 American lives lost, which only scratches the surface of the lives destroyed and scarred by those who forced them to perform extermination of others.

The mainline denomination leaders, who understand the heresy and say nothing, share the guilt. However, it is with the latter group that reform may and can begin. This time they must reform the Judaized.

One could accurately reduce Judaized ChristianityÃ¢â¬â¢s dilemma to a bumper sticker slogan that every mainline church needs to proclaim: Ã¢â¬ÅJesus, Not Israel, is the Fulfillment of Bible Prophesy.Ã¢â¬Â

If the mainline churches would tell the truth about the corruption of Scriptures and were unafraid to discuss the baselessness of the Judaized Christianity, they would start to win back the lost multitudes from the Judaized ranks. Some show signs of doing this. The World Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church USA, and the American Episcopal Church are among groups condemning, sanctioning, or devesting of companies who do war business with Israel.*

Judaized Christian churches are led to believe serial wars are in their best interest but they, too, will find themselves to be victims. Some already are victims: How many of our dead military are no doubt from American Judaized churches, where not Ã¢â¬ÅservingÃ¢â¬Â is thought of as un-patriotic, especially against IsraelÃ¢â¬â¢s percieved enemies. But the Neo-Crusade is also destructive to members who are balancing their beliefs against their childrenÃ¢â¬â¢s lives. Judaized Christian laymen should be and can be persuaded to abandon their support of the Neo-Crusade. They need to embrace peace as Jesus did. They soon will do so because they will learn it is not in their best material interest, and they are the spiritual victims.

How to confront the Judaized Christian

The Strait Gate Project confronts Judaized Christian churches. We confront them through the media and we confront them on their very doorsteps, in front of their very members. Our vigilsÃ¢â¬â¢ purpose is to let members know that there is something very wrong in their organization. Project Strait Gate was begun in the street, our contest will be won over the Internet, where we can reach and have reached millions, and can reach many more. . To do this enormous task in the face of enormous resistance, we must have your help.

You can contribute to our mission.

You can forward this letter to others.

You can buy books and tapes from We Hold These Truths.

You can form a Project Strait Gate Vigil team in your community.

You can contribute to Strait Gate MinistriesÃ¢â¬â¢ church.

And,

You can do it!

Here is our address where you can assist us financially. You may also give over the Internet through our Bookstore and/or contribution site. Thank You

Strait Gate Ministries

P.O. Box 14491

Scottsdale, AZ 85267

USA

*Threat to peace Israel fears Jewish terror

*War business with Israel World Council of Churches calls for divestment from Israel

Part 1: Why Some Christians Enable the Neo-Crusade and Others Oppose Ten Letters: Q&A Why Some Christians Enable the Neo-Crusade

The Middle East Crisis in Biblical Perspective-Carlson

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 05:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot][I][SIZE=1]Gabby Hayes voice[/SIZE]:[/I] [FONT=Verdana]Durn persnickety female...[/FONT]

Thanks for the quotes from CofC, but in this context using them as a reply is a non sequitur.

You must think everything is a non sequitur

I'll restate:

Not trying to be difficult; I would welcome seeing evidence of these quotes in the not-so-recent past, especially in the sixties and before. Perhaps public airing of these quotes, now long forgotten, would awaken the beast Tex somehow sees in the likes of current religious figures like Dobson.[/QUOTE]Sontag's quote "an obscure reference"? I think your standard for finding evidence of Jewish Christophobia is much higher than even Franco's standard for finding prominent Christian anti-semitism.

Speaking of Christophobia, that May 2000 Gottfried [I]Chronicles [/I]piece laid the case out pretty well. I'd even try to repost it, but its been posted twice here in the past, and both times has disappeared. Maybe there's some rabbinical/Talmudic curse on it.

Just digging through the internet, quotes like these keep popping up

[QUOTE] ...Thus, there is not only a strong connection between Christian dogmatism and anti-Semitism, but a sequential, causal relationship, in which a high degree of orthodoxy and religious particularism tends to produce hostile beliefs, hostile feelings, and even a propensity toward hostile action...

[URL=http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Summaries/V42I6P98-1.htm]Commentary, Dec 66[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Which I think pretty much mean the same thing.

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 05:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Well, let's face it, Tex: when will our culture ever reach the point where mainstream clergy will criticize the Jews to any significant degree? They have had[I] years [/I] to do so. In fact, even as our culture has eroded to an amazing degree, mainstream clergy have said nothing about the Jews.

[edited]

----------[/QUOTE]That's because they've said nothing "in any significant degree" i.e. acceptable to the knuckledraggers.

Lazy NS atheists seem to expect Christians to do all the heavy lifting for them. Why should they, especially since NS by their own definition often seem as much a threat to Christian and Civilization as NS?

If White trash NS [I]untermenschen[/I] wish to hear statements like these, maybe they should just first learn to understand and speak english.

Franco

2005-03-09 06:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]That's because they've said nothing "in any significant degree" i.e. acceptable to the knuckledraggers.

If White trash NS [I]untermenschen[/I] wish to hear statements like these, maybe they should just first learn to understand and speak english.[/QUOTE]

"Heavy lifting"? I would be glad if mainstream Christian leaders did ANY heavy lifting, e.g., when was the last time a mainstream preacher said that Hollywood is run mostly by Jews? Have you ever seen that on a TV screen? I haven't. All the mainstream Christian leaders do is talk about "the liberals." They never say the word "Jew" unless to praise the Jews.

I would be happy if mainstream Christian leaders even MILDLY told the truth about the Jews in public. Think that's ever gonna happen, Okie?

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 07:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]I would be happy if mainstream Christian leaders even MILDLY told the truth about the Jews in public. Think that's ever gonna happen, Okie?

----------[/QUOTE]No you wouldn't.

Besides, you seem to suppose preachers preachers have some duty to take a stand against Judaism and for Nazism. At least that would make them sound like Nazi's. Why should the people of God favor one cohert of Satan over another? Can Satan be divided against himself?

Texas Dissident

2005-03-09 07:51 | User Profile

The Holy Spirit works through the Word and Sacraments. Remain faithful to those and God will work everything out.

Franco

2005-03-09 08:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No you wouldn't.

Fact: Father Coughlin and Gerald L. K. Smith both supported the Nazis to some degree. Ditto Henry Ford, Sr., who was very religious.

The idea that Nazism is, by default, evil is laughable. Surely you don't believe that? In fact, Europe would, culturally speaking, still be Europe if the Nazis had won WWII. Instead, Europe is a multicultural mess of leftism and Marxism run by Jews.

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 15:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Fact: Father Coughlin and Gerald L. K. Smith both supported the Nazis to some degree. Ditto Henry Ford, Sr., who was very religious. Their enemies claimed they did. They stoutly denied it. And so what. Some Christians have for various reasons at various times seemed to sympathize with Communism. That didn't make their Christianity Communist, or Communism Christianity.

And in any event, that thesis would certainly go against your main thesis.

[quote=Franco]I would be happy if mainstream Christian leaders even MILDLY told the truth about the Jews in public. Think that's ever gonna happen, Okie?

Your caught in your own duplitious lies Franco. Just like the rest of your seed. Gen 3:15

The idea that Nazism is, by default, evil is laughable. Surely you don't believe that? In fact, Europe would, culturally speaking, still be Europe if the Nazis had won WWII. Instead, Europe is a multicultural mess of leftism and Marxism run by Jews.-------[/QUOTE]Coulda woulda shoulda. The fact of the matter is Nazi's made Europe what it is today, by putting the Marxists in power.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Franco

2005-03-09 16:05 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Their enemies claimed they did. They stoutly denied it. And so what. Some Christians have for various reasons at various times seemed to sympathize with Communism. That didn't make their Christianity Communist, or Communism Christianity.

And in any event, that thesis would certainly go against your main thesis.

Your caught in your own duplitious lies Franco. Just like the rest of your seed. Gen 3:15

Coulda woulda shoulda. The fact of the matter is Nazi's made Europe what it is today, by putting the Marxists in power.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.[/QUOTE]

The Nazis, huh? Gee, I thought it was the...uhhh....noble "allies" who put the Marxists in power by kicking Hitler's ass [for the benefit of world Jewry, of course]. So now, if someone in Europe criticizes the Jews, he faces jail for doing so. Wow. Is that cultural progress or no!!??

Those wonderful....uhhh...."allies" paved the way for "modern" Europe [ya knows: negroes, mulattos, Asians, communists, homosexuals, crappy art, group sex...]

Franco

2005-03-09 16:06 | User Profile

And in any event, that thesis would certainly go against your main thesis.

Your caught in your own duplitious lies Franco. Just like the rest of your seed. Gen 3:15

Coulda woulda shoulda. The fact of the matter is Nazi's made Europe what it is today, by putting the Marxists in power.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.[/QUOTE]

Those wonderful....uhhh...."allies" paved the way for "modern" Europe [ya knows: negroes, mulattos, Asians, communists, homosexuals, crappy art, group sex...]

Quantrill

2005-03-09 16:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust] Coulda woulda shoulda. The fact of the matter is Nazi's made Europe what it is today, by putting the Marxists in power.[/QUOTE] I'm no fan of the Nazis, but it should be pointed out that national socialism, as well as fascism, were responses to existing, violent, and aggressive communist movements. To say that these the Nazis are responsible for putting the Marxists in power is a bit of a stretch, I think.

Franco

2005-03-09 16:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]I'm no fan of the Nazis, but it should be pointed out that national socialism, as well as fascism, were responses to existing, violent, and aggressive communist movements. To say that these the Nazis are responsible for putting the Marxists in power is a bit of a stretch, I think.[/QUOTE]

[sorry for the double post. Corrected now].

Thanks, Quantrill, I agree. Nazism was a response to Bolshevism in Europe, e.g. Germany, Hungary.

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 16:44 | User Profile

Oops its actually "talk is all that matters" Franco. Appriopriate, because although he rags on everyone else for not doing and accusses them of not talking loudly enough, his herd of whining hyenas epitimizes the "whine loudly and blame everyone else for not carrying a big stick for you" school of political impotency.

Franco

2005-03-09 17:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Well they were stupid responses weren't they? Especially like I'd think to "actions are all that matter" Franco.

Talk? No. And the Nazis did more than talk.

But mainstream Christians don't even do [I]that[/I], do they? [I refer to Judeo-Christians in the mainstream].

Okiereddust

2005-03-09 17:33 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Talk? No. And the Nazis did more than talk. When they talk, they drove more people away than if they'd just shut up. Heaven help us by their actions. If they'd stayed in power probably they would have made all the world go Communist. Which many of them knew and wanted.

But mainstream Christians don't even do [I]that[/I], do they? [I refer to Judeo-Christians in the mainstream]. ------[/QUOTE]No you mean all Christians, because by definition no mainstream Christian can attack Judaism.

SCRIPTURESEZ

2005-03-09 23:44 | User Profile

What is the real Judiasm?

It is found in the written words of the Old and New Testament, not in the tradtions of men.

Yeshua (Jesus) points this out in Matthew Chapter 15.

Remember people of Yeshua's day were not reading the New Testament, were they? But they were reading the Torah, the Phropets and the Writings. And non-canonized books like Enoch.

They did not have any idea of Christians and Jews as they appear in this day.

If Matthew were to walk around in any Christian city on a Saturday, and he would find the Churches closed, he would be very surprised!

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]When they talk, they drove more people away than if they'd just shut up. Heaven help us by their actions. If they'd stayed in power probably they would have made all the world go Communist. Which many of them knew and wanted.

No you mean all Christians, because by definition no mainstream Christian can attack Judaism.[/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2005-03-10 00:35 | User Profile

While Hitler and the Nazis were certainly flawed, it remains true that there is much to be admired in Nazism.

The Nazis hit the trifecta in a very real sense: they understood the importance of using RACE as an organizing social and political principle and were simultaneously anti-Communist and anti-Jew.

That is more than enough to earn respect from me and from many other people too who regard race and Jews as important issues today.

Petr

2005-03-10 00:36 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][I][B] - "The idea that Nazism is, by default, evil is laughable. Surely you don't believe that? In fact, Europe would, culturally speaking, still be Europe if the Nazis had won WWII. Instead, Europe is a multicultural mess of leftism and Marxism run by Jews."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

FadeTheButcher (whom I do [B]not[/B] support or agree with uncritically) wrote few months ago on Phora that Nazi victory in Europe, instead of Allies, would have simply meant [U]exchanging one nightmare to another[/U].

Slavic nations would have been first ones to suffer.

One of the most horrendous events in Europe during the 20th century was the mass expulsion of multiple millions of German minorities in Eastern Europe from their ancient homelands - and yet, if Germans had won, they would have done [I]the same thing [/I] to Slavs - still in October 1943, Heinrich Himmler declared:

[COLOR=Purple][B]"If the SS, together with the farmers, if we, together with out friend Backe, then colonize the East, [U]in bold strokes, without inhibition, not inquiring about traditional methods, with revolutionary drive and impetus[/U], then we'll be able to [U]extend the racial borders of the Reich by 500 kilometres to the East in 20 years[/U]." [/B] [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.cwporter.com/posen.htm[/url]

If you are capable to read through this Orwellian langauge, this program would have meant the ethnic cleansing of the entire Polish nation from their former living area.

The long-term Nazi plan of expansion - at the expense of Slavs - went all the way up to Ural mountains:

(from Hitler's Table Talk)

[COLOR=Blue][B]6th August 1942, midday

...

The foundation of St. Petersburg by Peter the Great was a fatal event in the history of Europe; and [U][B]St. Petersburg must therefore disappear utterly from the earth's surface. Moscow, too. Then the Russians will retire into Siberia[/B].[/U]

...

As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp![/B][/COLOR]

Then these "hundred million" Slavs would be eventually replaced with Germans:

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]From Martin Borman editor (transcriptions by Heinrich Heim and Dr. Henry Picker ), Hitler's Table Talk (translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens), Oxford University Press Paperback, 1988, p. 469

215 -- [B]12 May 1942 at dinner[/B]:[/I]

[I]"[B]My long-term policy aims at having eventually [U]a hundred million Germans [/U] settled in these territories[/B]. It is therefore essential to set up machinery which will ensure constant progression, and will see to it that million by million German penetration expands. [B]In ten years' time we must be in a position to announce that twenty million Germans have been settled in the territories already incorporated in the Reich and in those which our troops are at present occupying[/B]."[/I][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/revision-hitler.html[/url]

In Yugoslavia, the future of Serbian nation would have been very grim indeed - not only did Hitler look at the Ustasha massacres through his fingers, but he also armed Bosnian Muslims to wipe out the resistance of Orthodox Christian Serbs - some defender of Western culture!

Also in Asia, Hitler was willing to allow Japanese to overrun and colonize Australia and New Zealand (and Siberia).

Petr

Valley Forge

2005-03-10 00:44 | User Profile

It is unfortunate that contemporary Christians refuse to step up and oppose Jews. That is the real problem. Not "Nazis."

Contemporary Christians like to ostracize and marginalize "racists" and "anti-Semites," even when the individuals involved are neither racist nor anti-Semitic nor truly hateful (think Joe Sobran).

Jews, on the other hand, have no problem at all with giving their truly hateful fellow Jews prominent positions in government, the media, and the universities.

That is the real problem.

Valley Forge

2005-03-10 00:56 | User Profile

The issue is not the "Nazis."

The issue is this: Jews have power.

Jews have more power than any other group.

For the last 100 years, Jews have been and still are heavily involved in promoting destructive ideas, such as multiculturalism, feminism, immigration, war in the middle east, "hate" crimes, and the anti-Christian "separartion of church and state" agenda (to name just a few).

Jews also have a lock on Hollywood and the media and many other critical cultural and opinion shaping institutions.

Consequently, I believe that the complete unwillingness of comtemporary Christians to confront Jews and Jewish power is a disgrace and an issue that needs to be discussed on this web site.

So let's forget the Nazis, OK, and examine the really important issue here: what is it about contemporary Christians that makes them so unwilling to confront the obvious enemy?

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]No you mean all Christians, because by definition no mainstream Christian can attack Judaism.[/QUOTE]

Franco

2005-03-10 01:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE]In Yugoslavia, the future of Serbian nation would have been very grim indeed - not only did Hitler look at the Ustasha massacres through his fingers, but he also armed Bosnian Muslims to wipe out the resistance of Orthodox Christian Serbs - some defender of Western culture!

Also in Asia, Hitler was willing to allow Japanese to overrun and colonize Australia and New Zealand (and Siberia).

Petr[/QUOTE]

As far as Hitler arming Muslims, I've never heard of that.

As far as Australia, Japan didn't threatened them until after Australia joined in with the "allies" to alienate and sanction Japan.

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 01:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]As far as Hitler arming Muslims, I've never heard of that. Yeah, probably cause you just read VNN.

As far as Australia, Japan didn't threatened them until after Australia joined in with the "allies" to alienate and sanction Japan. ----------[/QUOTE]Odd you feel the need to defend Japan, isn't it? Your fond spot for Hitler's "Oriental Despostism"?

Edward Gibbon pointed out the Japs hardly acted like German allies at all.

Petr

2005-03-10 01:40 | User Profile

[B][I] - "As far as Hitler arming Muslims, I've never heard of that."[/I][/B]

Well, now you have.

[SIZE=3][B]"Himmler's Bosnian Division: Waffen SS Handschar Division 1943-1945" [/B] [/SIZE]

[url]http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764301349/militarianet-21/202-9357823-6289433[/url]

[COLOR=Blue][I]The Nazis asked the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, el Husseini, to lend his support to the project. He accepted, visited Bosnia, and convinced some important Muslim leaders that a Muslim S.S. division would be in the interest of Islam. In spite of these and other propaganda efforts, only half of the expected 20,000 to 25,000 Muslims volunteered. [B]The S.S. unit was nonetheless formed, named the "Handzar" (scimitar) division, and was brutal in the "cleansing" of Serbian regions in eastern Bosnia[/B]. [/I] [/COLOR]

[url]http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/husseini-amin-el/handzar-ss.html[/url]

Adolf Hitler greatly admired Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey and a butcher of countless Christian Armenians and Greeks:

[COLOR=Purple][I]"Turkey was our ally in the World War. The unfortunate outcome of that struggle weighed upon that country just as heavily as it did upon us.

"[B]The great genius who created the new Turkey was the first to set a wonderful example of recovery [/B] to our allies whom fortune had at that time deserted and whom fate had dealt so terrible a blow."[/I][/COLOR]

(Hitler's speech to Reichstag in May 4, 1941)

[url]http://www.hitler.org/speeches/05-04-41.html[/url]

Many pagan Nazis also admired martial Islam more than Christianity, and this made their treason of West all the more easier. In the similar manner, many neo-Nazis today despise Christianity, but still possess some respect for Jihadists.

[B][I]- "As far as Australia, Japan didn't threatened them until after Australia joined in with the "allies" to alienate and sanction Japan."[/I][/B]

Oh, pity the poor Japan and its precious feelings. Australians had [I]always[/I] been nervous about being a lonely White nation in Asia, and once the Great Britain was no longer strong enough to protect them from an Asian onslaught they [I]knew[/I] was on its way, they started to look to America for help.

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 01:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]The issue is not the "Nazis."

Consequently, I believe that the complete unwillingness of comtemporary Christians to confront Jews and Jewish power is a disgrace and an issue that needs to be discussed on this web site.

So let's forget the Nazis, OK, Hey you were the one that brought Hitler in in the first place.[quote=Valley Forge]and examine the really important issue here: what is it about contemporary Christians that makes them so unwilling to confront the obvious enemy?[/QUOTE]Simple. The fear of being confused with the Nazi's, which as always see, are

among the most laughable jackasses in existance
Do their best to remind Christians that if they were to be in power, it would be just as bad with the Jews.

Valley Forge

2005-03-10 02:01 | User Profile

Not really. I made a passing reference to Hitler and another opponent of Jews, and you proceeded to pop off, as usual.

I could just as easily have referenced Martin Luther, Henry Ford, etc.

As for the Nazis being the most "laughable asses in existence," I would disagree. Unlike contemporary, mainstream Christians, at least contemporary NS-types are willing to talk about the problem.

Contemporary Christians, on the other hand, either don't know that Jews are a problem -- in which case they are among the most ignorant and stupid asses in existence. Or, they know that Jews are a problem but are afraid to talk about it -- in which case they are among the most cowardly asses in existence.

It's pretty pathetic either way.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Hey you were the one that brought Hitler in in the first place.Simple. The fear of being confused with the Nazi's, which as always see, are

among the most laughable jackasses in existance
Do their best to remind Christians that if they were to be in power, it would be just as bad with the Jews.[/QUOTE]

Franco

2005-03-10 02:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Simple. The fear of being confused with the Nazi's, which as always see, are

among the most laughable jackasses in existance
Do their best to remind Christians that if they were to be in power, it would be just as bad with the Jews.[/QUOTE]

At least the Nazis tried, Okie. They tried to stop the greatest threat to Western culture [the Jews]. Show me any Christians who tried as hard as the Nazis to stop the Jews.

[edited]

Bardamu

2005-03-10 02:30 | User Profile

Good to hear from you again Franco, where ya been?

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 02:50 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]Not really. I made a passing reference to Hitler and another opponent of Jews, and you proceeded to pop off, as usual.

I could just as easily have referenced Martin Luther, Henry Ford, etc. But you didn't.

Contemporary Christians, on the other hand, either don't know that Jews are a problem -- in which case they are among the most ignorant and stupid asses in existence. Or, they know that Jews are a problem but are afraid to talk about it -- in which case they are among the most cowardly asses in existence.

It's pretty pathetic either way.[/QUOTE]Give me a break. How many people in our country are seriously aware of the jewish problem? I'd say about 0.01%

There are those that are educated that are aware. However, these are also aware that jewish propoganda specifically targets religious Christians as especially prone to being anti-semitic, and therefore especially nervous about talking about it. That's why most negative talk about jews is from the left, including disproportionately the jewish left, such as Chomsky.

I'd have disagree the most cowardly asses in existance. I'd have to include Nazi types who always whine at Christian and other public figures for not being direct enough, while they cower from the anonymous safety of the internet.

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 03:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I'd have disagree the most cowardly asses in existance. I'd have to include Nazi types who always whine at Christian and other public figures for not being direct enough, while they cower from the anonymous safety of the internet.[/QUOTE] Let me clarify this. I wasn't specifically thinking of anyone really on this thread when I wrote this statement, rathre some past threads. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But the more I think about it, the more it does seem to fit. We whine about people not being direct enough, while almost everyone here can't really personally hold a finger personally to any of the people we're naming. I'd except of course people like Martin Lindstedt, who whatever faults he has certainly has the courage of his convictions)

I don't mean to denigrate the internet even. But I think its easy to bluster sometimes, instead of comong up with real solutions to real life problems.

Franco

2005-03-10 05:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Let me clarify this. I wasn't specifically thinking of anyone really on this thread when I wrote this statement, rathre some past threads. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But the more I think about it, the more it does seem to fit. We whine about people not being direct enough, while almost everyone here can't really personally hold a finger personally to any of the people we're naming. I'd except of course people like Martin Lindstedt, who whatever faults he has certainly has the courage of his convictions)

I don't mean to denigrate the internet even. But I think its easy to bluster sometimes, instead of comong up with real solutions to real life problems.[/QUOTE]

The real solution is for at least 60% of ALL Whites in America to start naming-the-Jew as the cause of most of America's problems. Education comes first.

But since that isn't going to happen anytime soon, I wonder why I even bother to stress that point sometimes.

I guess that the [mainstream] Christian fear-of-being-labeled-a-Nazi-if-they-mention-Jews trumps saving the West. Whatever is more important, eh?

[edited]

Texas Dissident

2005-03-10 06:21 | User Profile

Some of y'all just don't get it, I'm afraid. I hesitate to even draw this comparison, but if anti-semitism is your goal over two thousand years of Western Christendom points to the fact that taking the Word and Sacraments via the apostolic, Christian church to every corner of the globe is overwhelmingly the singular most collective anti-semitic act ever committed by European man. Pagan nazis are a mere blip on the radar.

Franco

2005-03-10 06:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Some of y'all just don't get it, I'm afraid. I hesitate to even draw this comparison, but if anti-semitism is your goal over two thousand years of Western Christendom points to the fact that taking the Word and Sacraments via the apostolic, Christian church to every corner of the globe is overwhelmingly the singular most collective anti-semitic act ever committed by European man. Pagan nazis are a mere blip on the radar.[/QUOTE]

Once the Jews are in power, citing John 3:21:56 doesn't cut it. And I think the mainstream Christians know that, but attack the "Nazis" anyway. Because it hides the fact that they sat on their butts all during the 1960s and 1970s while the Jews assumed power all over America.

Sorry, Tex, but until people like Okie admit that the mainstream Christians failed America, I'm not going to apologize for supporting Nazism. I am not going to wear the bad-guy hat for decades of Christian silence about the Jews. Top Chrisitian leaders had YEARS to warn their flock about Jews. They didn't. Now the Jews virtually OWN America. And that's our ["Nazis"] fault?? Nope. It's not our fault, and for Okie to try to put the bad-guy hat on us, well, that's just plain wrong.

It was Pastor Steve's job to warn America about the Jews. It wasn't Joe White Leftist's job because obviously he wasn't in our camp in any way. It was the job of the clergy, and of the paleo writers, to warn America about the Tribe, and they didn't. Okie should deal with that fact instead of picking on us "Nazis" who are at least trying to warn America about the Tribe.

By the way, I agree with Yannis when he says that there is a gap between WNs and religious paleos that can never be bridged. And that's one of the main reasons why: Christians will not admit that Jews came to power on their watch.

If that sounds harsh, Tex, then look to Okie since in my opinion he started it with his above post.

[edited]

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 07:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]As far as Hitler arming Muslims, I've never heard of that.

As far as Australia, Japan didn't threatened them until after Australia joined in with the "allies" to alienate and sanction Japan.

----------[/QUOTE]

You never heard of [URL=http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/alija.html]Alija Izetbegovic[/URL]?

Texas Dissident

2005-03-10 07:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Now the Jews virtually OWN America. And that's our ["Nazis"] fault?? Nope. It's not our fault...[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand my greater point, Frank. I'm not saying anything is the nazis fault. I'm saying that right now nazis, neo or otherwise, are completely and utterly inconsequential.

il ragno

2005-03-10 08:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Give me a break. How many people in our country are seriously aware of the jewish problem? I'd say about 0.01%[/QUOTE]

Give [I]me [/I] a break. How many people in our country are seriously aware of the Negro problem, no matter how careful they are to deny it if they think the neighbors are listening? I'd say about 90%. How many are aware of the immigrant problem - and here they don't even need to measure their words about it? Again, 90%. What has it accomplished?

Well, thank goodness it isn't [B]99%[/B], or the Prezziment of New Zimbabwe would be a guy named "Cornbread". (Just kidding. If the blacks and Mexicans ever [I]did [/I] seize control of the country, the Red Chinese would invade/conquer us faster than you can say "beef and broccoli".)

Hey, maybe it's a good thing there's not more Jew-awareness. Like we need one more self-imposed burden of impotence and failure of will in confronting an attacking enemy. At least, as white men are led to the abattoir of history, we'll be able to credibly fake a look of surprise when the door slams shut behind us.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 10:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]By the way, I agree with Yannis when he says that there is a gap between WNs and religious paleos that can never be bridged. And that's one of the main reasons why: Christians will not admit that Jews came to power on their watch. --[/QUOTE]

First, it's pushing it pretty far to say that Christians control America. Our country has been controlled by neo-Pagan Masons from the very beginning. Look at our money - it's filled with Masonic symbols. Le Enfant designed Washington DC as a Masonic temple. America's ruling elites have traditionally tolerated orthodox Christianity when it served their purposes only.

Second, Neo-Paganism in its many forms is the enemy. There's no doubt that the Renaissance with its neo-Paganism came to power on the Church's watch. This was certainly a great historical failure of the Church that was a major setback to the cause of Christ on Earth. But that doesn't change the fact that the Nazis are neo-Pagans, and so are the enemies of our people on par with Masons, Feminists, Communists, Jews or whatever ideological what-have-you is the flavor of the day on campus. I guess it can be said that the Jews came to power on the Church's watch, but by the same token then so did the French Jacobins, the German Nazis and the Jewish Bolsheviks. The difference between the Church and the Nazis is that the Church endures and fights on, while the Nazis are but bits of bone and handfuls of dust mouldering under the streets of Berlin.

Third, the Nazis did more to bring the Jews to dominance than any other group in the history of mankind. They talked real big about Germans being the master race and all, but when it came down to it they just didn't have it. They choked like Linda Lovelace. The German Nazis lost, which makes them [U]LOSERS,[/U] especially by their own pagan Darwinian lights. And, worse even than being directly responsible for the millions of white lives lost in WWII, their beastial conduct of the war caused an understandable but very unfortunate feeling of revulsion for even healthy nationalism. The Jews played that one like a harp.

Thanks, morons!

Thus, it makes absolutely no sense that you would call down orthodox Christianity - which is admittedly on the ropes but still in the fight - for failure to resist Jewish power or for anything else for that matter, especially when Nazism is itself an equally mortal enemy of Christ and His Church.

You're expressing childish sour-grapes sentiment here, Franco. Your Team Schickelgruber's Sh*teaters was knocked out of the tournament in the early rounds, and you're sitting around doing a little armchair quaterbacking while wallowing in resentment at the success of your betters who made it into the final rounds, Kosher Krew and Team Church.

I think that's Tex's point. The Nazis lost and so are [U]LOSERS[/U] (and particularly contemptible ones at that) and thus are of no consequence whatever, except perhaps as a convenient bogeyman Jews can use to scare whites away from true nationalism.

You rightly discern that there is an insuperable gap between us. You are an enemy of Christ just as are the propagators of the evil of the Talmud, the Jews.

But that merely begs the question, why in the world are you here? Why do you continue to pose as a friend when you yourself admit that you are an enemy?

Warmest regards,

Walter

grep14w

2005-03-10 10:52 | User Profile

Reading this thread I can see why no one wants to be "saved" by a bunch of religious fanatics who think all the evil of the West can be traced to "neo-pagans", the Rennaissance, and the Enlightenment.

God, save us from our "saviours", who, when they had the chance, stabbed their natural allies in the back in service to the Jews, and are now blaming these "losers" for the very problems that they themselves created!

Blaming the "losers" who opposed that which they - very belatedly - also claim to oppose, is a losing argument.

Being a "loser" is better than being a tool. Ask the "losers" at the Alamo, or Thermapolae. Most "losers" don't get vindicated later on, but that doesn't make them somehow morally inferior on principle.

Calling someone a "loser" (as though this were a rational arugment of some kind) is typical Judeo-American mentality.

Petr

2005-03-10 10:56 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Reading this thread I can see why no one wants to be "saved" by a bunch of religious fanatics who think all the evil of the West can be traced to "neo-pagans", the Rennaissance, and the Enlightenment."[/I][/B]

Who is this "[I]no one[/I]" that you are talking about? How do you know?

Anti-religious "enlightenment" philosophers made hardly any scientific breakthroughs themselves, they merely leeched off the achievements of religious 17th-century scientists like Descartes, Pascal and Leibniz.

Petr

2005-03-10 10:58 | User Profile

[B][I] - "America's ruling elites have traditionally tolerated orthodox Christianity when it served their purposes only."[/I][/B]

"Ceremonial deism", anyone?

Petr

Franco

2005-03-10 10:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]First, it's pushing it pretty far to say that Christians control America. Our country has been controlled by neo-Pagan Masons from the very beginning. Look at our money - it's filled with Masonic symbols. Le Enfant designed Washington DC as a Masonic temple. America's ruling elites have traditionally tolerated orthodox Christianity when it served their purposes only.

Thanks, morons!

You rightly discern that there is an insuperable gap between us. You are an enemy of Christ just as are the propagators of the evil of the Talmud, the Jews.

But that merely begs the question, why in the world are you here? Why do you continue to pose as a friend when you yourself admit that you are an enemy?

Warmest regards,

Walter[/QUOTE]

And why did the Nazis lose? Because the "allies" made them lose.

And who built up the USSR? Who caused the USSR to grow to the point where they could kick serious ass? FDR and his sheenie crew. FDR, by recognizing the USSR, opened it up to credit from abroad. And then there was Lend-Lease. And even before Lend-Lease, there was lots of aid going to the Soviets.

No, the Nazis weren't losers. Had the "allies" not joined together in a pro-Soviet orgy-o'-fun, the Nazis would have ruled Europe at some point.

Put the blame where it needs to be. The Nazis lost WWII with[I] big [/I]help from FDR and others.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 11:12 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]And why did the Nazis lose? Because the "allies" made them lose. [/QUOTE]

:crybaby:

Ooo, poor wittw Adowf!

You operate under the erroneous assumption that:

Result = (No Result) + (Excuse)

Heck, a real Nazi wouldn't indulge in that sort of self-serving nonsense. A real Nazi would step up to the plate and admit that losing is the beginning and the end of any Darwinian discussion. A real Nazi would admit he's a dinosaur.

I hate losers because they lose, and not for any other reason.

Petr

2005-03-10 11:18 | User Profile

[B][I] - "And who built up the USSR? Who caused the USSR to grow to the point where they could kick serious ass?"[/I][/B]

Well, Germans.

After the 1922 Rapallo treaty, there was a thorough-going co-operation between the Red Army and German Reichswehr.

(also not forgetting the support that Kaiser's Germany gave to the Bolshevik revolution and the Hitler-Stalin pact which gave Uncle Joe time to arrange his troops)

Petr

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 11:26 | User Profile

[QUOTE=grep14w]God, save us from our "saviours", who, when they had the chance, stabbed their natural allies in the back in service to the Jews, and are now blaming these "losers" for the very problems that they themselves created! .[/QUOTE]

The German Nazis could never be a "natural ally" of the Christians any more than the Jewish Bolsheviks can be.

They're equally enemies.

Both need to be crushed.

Petr

2005-03-10 11:32 | User Profile

[COLOR=Indigo][B][I] - "A real Nazi would step up to the plate and admit that losing is the beginning and the end of any Darwinian discussion." [/I] [/B] [/COLOR]

From Brigitte Hamann's book "[I][B]Hitler's Vienna - a Dictator's Apprenticeship[/B][/I]" (1999), p. 235:

[COLOR=Purple]"Hitler said in 1923: [I]All of nature is a permanent battle between strength and weakness, a permanent victory of the strong over the weak[/I]. (139) It is in this context that we also have to read remarks such as those Hitler made to Goebbels in the winter of Stalingrad, in February 1943:

[I]"[B]If, however, the German people were to become weak one day, it wouldn't deserve anything but to be eradicated by a stronger people; in that case, Hitler said, one wouldn't be able to pity it either[/B]." [/I] (140)

(140) Goebbels, [I]Tagebucher[/I], pt 2, vol. 7 (Munich 1993), pp. 295ff, 8 February 1943.[/COLOR]

Perhaps one can now understand how even many conservative Germans do not today remember Hitler with an all-embracing fondness?

Petr

il ragno

2005-03-10 11:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I hate losers because they lose, and not for any other reason.[/QUOTE]

Then by your own standard of measurement hardcore Xians like yourself are the biggest losers going at the moment.

After all, the vast majority of American & European Christians would overwhelmingly reject your "Christian Taliban". You guys are the Linders of the True Faith; so over-the-top you make it easy for your own to back away in horror, and your enemies to point to you as the inevitable result of fanatic Christianity.

At least the Nazis had enough human materiel to make a [I]stand[/I], even if they lost. Christian Talibannies simply go to bed at night praying that the sky falls tomorrow, as lethally as possible.

Come to think of it, you've got some Lindstedt in you as well. Except he doesn't high-five other CI lunatics because Mel Gibson made a friggin' [I]movie[/I].

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 11:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]"If, however, the German people were to become weak one day, it wouldn't deserve anything but to be eradicated by a stronger people; in that case, Hitler said, one wouldn't be able to pity it either." (140)

(140) Goebbels, Tagebucher, pt 2, vol. 7 (Munich 1993), pp. 295ff, 8 February 1943. [/QUOTE]

Well quoth!!

This is exactly the logical dilemma neo-Nazis face.

By their own lights, they proclaim Vince Lombardi's aphorism "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." (I'm a Packer fan and totally subscribe to this). And boy can they ever play rough, especially when we're talking about starving and enslaving civilians. Real tough guys!

But then when they lose, they pi$$ and moan like a bunch of little school girls about how bloody unfair it is.

Oh dear oh dear. After they kill millions of Slavs while proclaiming their unfitness even to shine German jackboots, they come crawling on their bellies like the reptiles they are crying their big crocoldile tears over just how tewwibwy unfaiw it is.

But neo-Nazis are just ersatz Nazis. The real Nazis were unspeakably cruel men who conscously played for keeps but who were nevertheless honorable enough to admit they were utterly defeated and chose to fight to the death (or to off themselves) instead of facing humiliation at the hands of their betters. That's not a Christian response, but it is a solid Pagan position that is worthy of some respect under the Natural Law. Franco and his ilk are in contrast unworthy pikers, wearing shoplifted Swastika-emblazoned varsity jackets while trying to hitch a ride on the Team Church bus.

I'll have no part of it.

Off the bus, waterboys.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 11:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Then by your own standard of measurement hardcore Xians like yourself are the biggest losers going at the moment.].[/QUOTE]

Nonsense.

We win in the end. Christ comes back as a lion and sends all enemies to eternal torment. (I cheated - I skipped ahead and read the ending).

We win big time. And our victory will not be limited to the penny ante Earthly stakes the Nazis played for. We're playing Eternal Damnation Poker for keeps.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-10 11:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Christian Talibannies simply go to bed at night praying that the sky falls tomorrow, as lethally as possible.[/QUOTE]

That's [I]Talibunnies.[/I]

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 17:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis][SIZE=3]The German Nazis could never be a "natural ally" of the Christians any more than the Jewish Bolsheviks can be.

[B]They're equally enemies.

[SIZE=4]Both need to be crushed[/SIZE].[/B]

And we are beset by enemies. While I have no problem making a tactical alliance with one enemy against the other (as many Christians did in WWII, choosing the Communists over the Nazis for immediate destruction), we must always keep in mind that it's just a temporary arrangement and that the knives will come out (on both sides) sooner or later. In WWII the historical cookie crumbled the way it did and, while perhaps it may have been better first to side with the Nazis and then turn on them after the Communists were dead for aesthetic reasons, I understand that the Christians of that day had precious little room to maneuvre, and I'm loath to second guess them[/SIZE].[/QUOTE]True enough, And of course exactly the reason most Christians today are reluctant to speak out against jewry, lest they be seen as siding with the Nazi's. As we can see from WWII, those Christians who sides with the jews obviously came out much better than those who sided with the Nazi's anyway.

Nazi's today must deal with the incontestable fact that those people that would side with them are either 1. brainless jackasses or 2. government informers and agents

Not of course that the two are entirely exclusive

Nazi's seem eternally determined to justify the feelings of people like the French farmer who never said the word "German" without spitting.

Franco

2005-03-10 17:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]True enough, And of course exactly the reason most Christians today are reluctant to speak out against jewry, lest they be seen as siding with the Nazi's. As we can see from WWII, those Christians who sides with the jews obviously came out much better than those who sided with the Nazi's anyway.

Nazi's today must deal witrh the incontestable fact that those people that would side with them are either 1. brainless jackasses or 2. government informers and agents

Not of course that the two are entirely exclusive

Nazi's seem eternally determined to justify the feelings of people like the French farmer who never said the word "German" without spitting.[/QUOTE]

I have heard about enough from you about this. Your Christian leaders sat on their asses and said nothing about the kikes for 50 years, and this is OUR fault??????

:angry:

Okiereddust

2005-03-10 17:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Your Christian leaders sat on their asses and said nothing about the kikes for 50 years, and this is OUR fault?????? ----------[/QUOTE]Duh.

Valley Forge

2005-03-11 02:38 | User Profile

A fatally flawed argument.

Christians quit speaking out against Jews [B]years before the Nazis existed.[/B]

Probably as early as the late 1800s, and for sure by circa 1920, it was impossible to criticize Jews in print in the United States -- and who was it, pray tell, that was running things back then?

Christians, that's who.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]of course exactly the reason most Christians today are reluctant to speak out against jewry, lest they be seen as siding with the Nazi's. [/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2005-03-11 02:42 | User Profile

I don't understand why some of you have such a hard time admitting that Franco has a point.

It seems to me to be a fact beyond all rational dispute that mainstream, contemporary Christians do not speak out against Jews, despite the fact that Jews are (and always have been) at the vanguard of pratically every anti-Christian and anti-White political movement and ideology for the last hundred years.

And railing against "Nazis" won't change that reality.

il ragno

2005-03-11 03:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Nonsense.

We win in the end. Christ comes back as a lion and sends all enemies to eternal torment. (I cheated - I skipped ahead and read the ending).

We win big time. And our victory will not be limited to the penny ante Earthly stakes the Nazis played for. We're playing Eternal Damnation Poker for keeps.[/QUOTE]

Substitute "Germany" for "Christ" and "democracies" for "Nazis" and this is the exact type of rah-rah speech Goebbels made in the bunker as the Red Army rolled through Germany.

madrussian

2005-03-11 04:00 | User Profile

With the exception, that the worst case scenario for (righteous) Christians is them talking to Jesus in heaven, if things don't work out on Earth.

By the way, is there at least one pagan on this board? I mean, an idol-worshipping animal-sacrificing kind that exists in the imagination of the most devout.

Okiereddust

2005-03-11 04:34 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]A fatally flawed argument.

Christians quit speaking out against Jews [B]years before the Nazis existed.[/B]

Probably as early as the late 1800s, and for sure by circa 1920, it was impossible to criticize Jews in print in the United States -- and who was it, pray tell, that was running things back then?

Christians, that's who.[/QUOTE]Your historical knowledge sense seems completely absent. See for instance [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17047]The International Jew[/URL]. Although the Jews did raise a ruckus (they by then were at their present numerical strength) they had no effect on the publishing of it, and only after several years even grudgingly got an apology from Henry Ford. Who of course remained at the helm of his company, one of the largest in America, for many years after that with what everyone knew were the same views. That's just one example. In college they told me in fact anti-semitism was more prevalent in 20's America than in (Weimar) Germany.

As the Nazi's gradually morphed into Bolshevics and adopted their ideological attitude on Christianity "attack them mercilessly - by all means don't befriend them" of course things have changed quite a bit. Most thoughtful fairly well educated Christians now view Nazism as an intransient, demonic anti-religion, as hostile to Christianity as Communism, and are of no mind to support it or entertain anything remotely associated with it. People like Linder and VNN supporters [I]a la [/I]Franco are the best verification of that viewpoint.

Okiereddust

2005-03-11 04:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]By the way, is there at least one pagan on this board? I mean, an idol-worshipping animal-sacrificing kind that exists in the imagination of the most devout.[/QUOTE]I don't think odinists are really like that these days. I don't think anyone really believes in the old pagan dieties. Shute, the Romans didn't believe in them, and that was almost 2000 years ago.

il ragno

2005-03-11 07:02 | User Profile

Well, I buy my cat that expensive IAMS food - does that count?

[QUOTE]Oh dear oh dear. After they kill millions of Slavs while proclaiming their unfitness even to shine German jackboots, they come crawling on their bellies like the reptiles they are crying their big crocoldile tears over just how tewwibwy unfaiw it is. [/QUOTE]

Remember these words - as well as [I]I hate losers because they lose, and not for any other reason[/I] - the next time some Southerner, still mired in the fantasy ideology of the Confederacy, starts "crawling on their bellies like the reptiles they are crying their big crocoldile tears over just how tewwibwy unfaiw it is" that Eeee-vull Abe Winkun crushed the fair flower of Dixie underfoot with an iron boot, ok, Walter? Lord knows this place is rife with 'em, and you buddy up to them constantly.

Fair's fair, right? One standard of judgment?

We have come to a pretty pass when purported Christians can do nothing but sneer conempt at lost causes - generally the only causes worth fighting for...

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 07:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Fair's fair, right? One standard of judgment?[/QUOTE]

Why would it even occur to you that I'm out to be fair?

You still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm out to win, not to comply with some faux bourgeois-universalist standard of morality.

Haven't you read Sir Arthur Kieth??

One standard applies to friends, and quite another applies to enemies.

All Christians, especially American Christians, are my friends and get from me Kieth's "code of amity." Nazis are my enemies, and so they get Keith's "code of enmity" treatment.

"One standard of judgement?" Ha!

Are we on the same page?

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 07:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Substitute "Germany" for "Christ" and "democracies" for "Nazis" and this is the exact type of rah-rah speech Goebbels made in the bunker as the Red Army rolled through Germany.[/QUOTE]

Now you're getting it!

Please answer yes or now: have you read Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics?"

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 07:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]With the exception, that the worst case scenario for (righteous) Christians is them talking to Jesus in heaven, if things don't work out on Earth.

By the way, is there at least one pagan on this board? I mean, an idol-worshipping animal-sacrificing kind that exists in the imagination of the most devout.[/QUOTE]

That's not the kind I imagine.

When I hear the word "pagan" I tend to picture Gloria Steinem or, say, Hugh Hefner.

Petr

2005-03-11 09:21 | User Profile

[B][I] - "When I hear the word "pagan" I tend to picture Gloria Steinem or, say, Hugh Hefner."[/I][/B]

I have thought that one of the most purely pagan popular culture characters in recent times has been [B]James Bond[/B] (the poster boy of "Playboy Philosophy") ... like many escapading Greek demigods, an utterly amoral type under this thin veneer of "save the world"-plot.

In the realm of "real people", [B]Leo Strauss [/B] (once you get to know his esoteric doctrines) is so consistently devoid of anything resembling a Christian worldview that it gives you creeps, a veritable "Thrasymachus in a Marrano mode".

Petr

Okiereddust

2005-03-11 10:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Why would it even occur to you that I'm out to be fair?

You still don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm out to win, not to comply with some faux bourgeois-universalist standard of morality.

Haven't you read Sir Arthur Kieth??

One standard applies to friends, and quite another applies to enemies.

All Christians, especially American Christians, are my friends and get from me Kieth's "code of amity." Nazis are my enemies, and so they get Keith's "code of enmity" treatment.

"One standard of judgement?" Ha!

Are we on the same page?[/QUOTE]I think you meant to say something poetic, like "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Seriously, I'm not sure what Sir Arthur Keith says, but I am wondering how it figures in to your religious thinking. Are you asserting dualism? Saying you won't "I'm out to win, not to comply with some faux bourgeois-universalist standard of morality." is exactly something a moral relativist would say, Nazi or Communist (Nietszchien or Marxist as the case may be). Moral absolutes certainly aren't something a Christian can abandon when they seem inconvenient to him or his cause.

Maybe this confusion is what still leads you to praise the Inquisition. In any event, religiously, you're talking nonsense.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 11:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]I think you meant to say something poetic, like "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Maybe this confusion is what still leads you to praise the Inquisition. In any event, religiously, you're talking nonsense.[/QUOTE] The point is that we do not apply the same moral standard to all. This is the Natural Law, but it is also borne out by Scripture.

For example, we love our own children more than we love our neighbor's children. While I really do love my neighbor's kids, I love my own more, and that is natural and normal. Likewise, I owe a much higher duty to people who are related to me by blood and faith than I do to people who are not. The OT is filled with rules detailing how one treats one's family, then fellow Israelite, then friendly foreigners, and then enemies. Scripture and the Natural Law speak with one voice on this.

Imagine concentric circles of loyalty, with loyalty decreasing with distance.

Our families are at the first circle, and they are owed the most. Our fellow Christian Americans are next, followed by other white Christians, and so on down the line. There is also the rule of reciprocity, whereby we owe a warm and generous open hand to all men who wish us the same, regardless of nation, race or religion. Certainly I owe an Irish Catholic a higher duty than I owe a Thai Buddhist, even though I will do what I can for the Thai Buddhist so long as he wishes me well.

But for our enemies - for those sworn to destroy us - we owe none of those good things. In fact, our duty to our fellows then requires that we advance the common cause by being prepared to lie, cheat, rob and even kill our enemies, to the extent that such advances the cause of our own security.

There is a time for war, and a time for peace.

The Nazis are our enemies. We are at war with them. The rest follows from that.

My personal slogan is "Nothing is too good for my family and fellows, a warm hand to all other men of good will, and slow death to my enemies."

il ragno

2005-03-11 11:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Please answer yes or now: have you read Sir Arthur Keith's "Evolution and Ethics?"[/QUOTE]

Nope. I take it I should, eh?

[QUOTE]I have thought that one of the most purely pagan popular culture characters in recent times has been James Bond (the poster boy of "Playboy Philosophy") ... like many escapading Greek demigods, an utterly amoral type under this thin veneer of "save the world"-plot.[/QUOTE]

You ought to read a few of the Ian Fleming originals then. Helluva lot more amoral than Roger Moore in a rented tux!

Texas Dissident

2005-03-11 11:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]It seems to me to be a fact beyond all rational dispute that mainstream, contemporary Christians do not speak out against Jews, despite the fact that Jews are (and always have been) at the vanguard of pratically every anti-Christian and anti-White political movement and ideology for the last hundred years.[/QUOTE]

The latter point is certainly true VF, but combine every anti-jewish sentiment expressed by nazis, self-professed or otherwise, in all media for the last 20 years and it registers as a mere mouse fart in comparison to the cacophony of hand-wringing, distress and consternation of organized jewry over the release of one little orthodox Christian film by Mel Gibson called 'The Passion of the Christ'.

If mainstream, contemporary Christianity is failing to challenge and counter the demonic cultural distorting agents of our present age it is the direct result of its failure to boldly proclaim and present the true Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ via the divinely instituted means of Word and Sacrament into every nook and corner of our nation and globe. Instead what we get is neo-evangelical pop psychology in Christian garb like "purpose driven lives", Osteenish "paths to prosperity and successful living" and "church growth" marketing campaigns, as if God himself is no longer capable of working His divine will through His instituted means. And then we scratch our heads and wonder why the Church is losing ground in the culture wars.

In short, mainstream, contemporary Christianity doesn't seem to have much faith in the God it professes to believe in. But let there be no mistake, whenever the true Gospel is proclaimed there is no more effective and devastating counter to jewish lies as evidenced by over two thousand years of history and modern day examples like Gibson's film.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 11:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Nope. I take it I should, eh?[/QUOTE] Nah, forget it.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 11:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]In short, mainstream, contemporary Christianity doesn't seem to have much faith in the God it professes to believe in. But let there be no mistake, whenever the true Gospel is proclaimed there is no more effective and devastating counter to jewish lies as evidenced by over two thousand years of history and modern day examples like Gibson's film.[/QUOTE] Well put.

Christ was the turning point for them. I believe that in the spiritual plane, upon their collective rejection of Christ, the Jews went from being the agents of God to being the agents of Satan on Earth.

We can't see the spiritual reality now since we see but through a glass darkly, but truly the Jews are, in their mass, the children of the Devil.

[URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=105589#post105589]The evidence is all around us[/URL]. They have wreaked more destruction on the healthy forces in human society than any other group in history, and by far. Jews are the authors of Marxism, Feminism, Freudianism, and all the other destructive "isms" that plague our world. As Rabbi Lapin recently admitted, all of the sick social movements - against innocence, love, beauty - were instigated and exectuted primarily by a tiny Jewish minority. The Jews, as a collective organism, are clearly - and I mean beyond any reasonable dispute - the main force for evil in the world today.

And against all of that evil is the simple message of Christ, that God loves the world, and wants all men - regardless of race or nation - to come to Him as a child does to his loving father. This is the message they hate and are committed to stopping at all costs. All other competing "isms" - such as Nazism - are mere sideshows in comparison to their hatred of Christ and His Church.

Therefore, if we really want to fight the Jews, we need to preach (and first to practice) Christ, and Him Alone.

Let me hear an Amen from the Amen corner!

mwdallas

2005-03-11 16:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE]There is a time for war, and a time for peace.

All Christians, especially American Christians, are my friends and get from me Kieth's "code of amity." Nazis are my enemies, and so they get Keith's "code of enmity" treatment. [/QUOTE] That is a mistake. You and "the Nazis" share a common oppressor, and the way to defeat the oppressor is to co-operate with "the Nazis". Once you have freed yourself, you can deal with the "Nazi" enemy as you see fit.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-11 17:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=mwdallas]That is a mistake. You and "the Nazis" share a common oppressor, and the way to defeat the oppressor is to co-operate with "the Nazis". Once you have freed yourself, you can deal with the "Nazi" enemy as you see fit.[/QUOTE]

True enough in principle, but in practice association with them would do far more harm to our cause than good.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Exelsis_Deo

2005-03-12 03:54 | User Profile

that he is the son of his Father, the Father of Lies, Transgressions and Hate, and that for Rejecting the Blood of the Lamb his Soul is Condemned forever, and he needs to work in a rock quarry for life, after which his bodily entrails which will not even be fit for consumption by the insects. Forward my message to him, he thinks HE is God. He is the left dingleball of a baboon's ass and he better watch where his head turns.

madrussian

2005-03-12 06:18 | User Profile

Speaking of losers, Christian Talibaddies, all 1 1/2 of them, have shown how successful they are by the dark ages on this site, now hopefully over for good.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-12 07:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Speaking of losers, Christian Talibaddies, all 1 1/2 of them, have shown how successful they are by the dark ages on this site, now hopefully over for good.[/QUOTE]

That's [I]Talibunnies[/I].

Please.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-12 07:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]Speaking of losers, Christian Talibaddies, all 1 1/2 of them, have shown how successful they are by the dark ages on this site, now hopefully over for good.[/QUOTE]

That's [I]Talibunnies[/I].

Please.

Get your terminology right.

Franco

2005-03-12 08:16 | User Profile

Yes, MadRussian, there were some rather dark days at OD. But I'm confident that the Christians will see that we are not the enemy, and that we can co-exist here at OD. As I have noted to others already, "Nazis" have no problem with Christians who Tribe-name. In fact, I am an admirer of Henry Ford, Sr. and Gerald L. K. Smith, who were religious.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-12 08:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]Yes, MadRussian, there were some rather dark days at OD. But I'm confident that the Christians will see that we are not the enemy, and that we can co-exist here at OD. As I have noted to others already, "Nazis" have no problem with Christians who Tribe-name. In fact, I am an admirer of Henry Ford, Sr. and Gerald L. K. Smith, who were religious. ---------[/QUOTE] I can't have my good name sullied by association with you or any other Nazi for that matter, Franco.

I have nothing to do with you, and I suggest that the other Christians here join me in that.

I'm on record.

Okiereddust

2005-03-12 08:56 | User Profile

You say only when "they do not name the Jew" but it has always seemed to me Christians are the only white gentiles specifically and emphatically targeted I this way. And its not Christian nationalists duty to persuade their fellows to board the nationalist bus just to meekly sit at the back.

[QUOTE]As I have noted to others already, "Nazis" have no problem with Christians who Tribe-name. In fact, I am an admirer of Henry Ford, Sr. and Gerald L. K. Smith, who were religious[/QUOTE]You can't really compare the time they lived and ours. Jews have infinitely more power today. If they wer alive today I'd doubt you'd like them either. Everyone, even David Duke, who becomes prominent in America must make some concession to reality.

Franco

2005-03-12 09:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I can't have my good name sullied by association with you or any other Nazi for that matter, Franco.

I have nothing to do with you, and I suggest that the other Christians here join me in that.

I'm on record.[/QUOTE]

I love that famous Christian kindness! :smoke:

And for the record, I'm not a Nazi [I]per se.[/I] I don't describe myself as a "National Socialist."

Okiereddust

2005-03-12 09:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]And for the record, I'm not a Nazi [I]per se.[/I] I don't describe myself as a "National Socialist."

--------[/QUOTE]Reminds me of that famous quote by Marx " I am not a Marxist". :smoke::smoke:

il ragno

2005-03-12 09:37 | User Profile

Whoops! Looks like Walter's pulling that cassock out of mothballs again.

This drive-out-the-heathen business around here is like [I]moon-madness[/I], or [I]binge and purge[/I]. Every so often, heads get mounted on poles, until a few months later when Tex sews the heads back on and asks us to let bygones be bygones and please come back.

These periodic outbursts of Talibunnic fervor are actually beneficial, though, in that they only highlight, in bold, the dead end of Christian fanaticism. The Bush/Falwell Christians only differ from the Yannis or Petr variety in the way that Rocky Road fundamentally differs from Double Fudge Mint at an ice cream parlor. However, a steady diet of either will give you the exact same diabetes.

Walter Yannis

2005-03-12 11:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno]Talibunnic .[/QUOTE] Thank you for using the proper adjectival form. [QUOTE]Whoops! Looks like Walter's pulling that cassock out of mothballs again.[/QUOTE] I pull out my Cardinal's ring only because Franco won't give it a rest. Hey, I'm not the one who keeps bringing up the Schickelgruber schtick.

Since you adhere to a one-size-fits-all morality, shouldn't you also take Franco to task for harping on this?

madrussian

2005-03-12 17:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=il ragno] This drive-out-the-heathen business around here is like [I]moon-madness[/I], or [I]binge and purge[/I]. Every so often, heads get mounted on poles, until a few months later when Tex sews the heads back on and asks us to let bygones be bygones and please come back. [/QUOTE] Ultimately it's up to Tex to decide the tone on this site. Of course, Walter, who the_skunk on LF would have called a 'Yhid Poodle' a long time ago, is up to the old trick of raising the ante and forcing the issue to Tex. Okie is holding back, so far.

The remaining question is: if this continues, what will Tex do?

Sertorius

2005-03-12 18:59 | User Profile

People on this board have freedom of association. That means if you can't discuss Christianity or the Nazis with each other without these threads deteriorating into a first rate mess, then don't do it. On some things you are never going to agree. You have an "ignore" button. Use it. I'm not simply singling out this particular thread. All the ones I have read wind up this way which is why I rarely waste my time on them.

Bardamu

2005-03-12 19:29 | User Profile

I agree, lets put to rest the Christian and NS baiting. The board here is run by Christians so ... we shouldn't start it

Phantasm

2005-03-12 19:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge] [Dr. Pinchas Hayman]... CHRISTIANS have to make a choice - "either retain their present belief system and be antisemitic or form a partnership with the Jewish people." ...[/QUOTE] So that is the definition... all Christians are antisemitic by design? So be it! What chutzpah! The children of Satan reject God... and then demand a partnership!

:furious:

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]... Therefore, if we really want to fight the Jews, we need to preach (and first to practice) Christ, and Him Alone.

Let me hear an Amen from the Amen corner! [/QUOTE] Amen Brother!

Interesting how the Jews fear Christians... especially White Christians. :clap:

Blond Knight

2005-03-12 19:52 | User Profile

Franco, Sert, Madrussian & the other atheist/agnostic folks.

While I will disagree with you on matters of theology, I am more than proud to walk beside you in matters pertaining to the political mess that is Western Culture these days.

The old saying that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar seems appropriate here.

Lord knows, that in political matters, I would rather follow an Edgar Steele than any run of the mill JUDEO-[I]christian[/I] .

A quote from an article by Fred Reed; I once told my daughters, Ã¢â¬ÅWhatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised.Ã¢â¬Â

[url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17275[/url]

Bardamu

2005-03-12 19:53 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Phantasm]

Interesting how the Jews fear Christians... especially White Christians. :clap:[/QUOTE]

Jews are in perpetual fear of all organized outsiders because of their big thirst for money and power and their small numbers. Jews certainly feel confident enough to bitch slap Christians around on a regular basis, so I don't know if saying they fear Christians is accurate, but they certainly do hate them.

Phantasm

2005-03-12 21:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Bardamu]Jews are in perpetual fear of all organized outsiders because of their big thirst for money and power and their small numbers. Jews certainly feel confident enough to bitch slap Christians around on a regular basis, so I don't know if saying they fear Christians is accurate, but they certainly do hate them.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.petrafoundation.org/fellows/Leonard_Zeskind/[/URL]

"... They think that the white supremacists are uneducated people with tobacco juice dripping from their mouths," Leonard Zeskind explains. "Nothing could be farther from the truth."

Leonard Zeskind et al, are very interested in the resistance that Whites are putting-up to their multiculturalism and globalism in general. They describe White Nationalists as filling the void between Klansmen and Conservatives.

And on the religious front... this thread is evidence of where that part of their agenda is directed.

:wink:

askel5

2005-03-13 02:32 | User Profile

Anything to contradict the general knowledge that the societal and cultural changes wrought in the sixties were accomplished by simple, well-meaning white peace 'n' love hippies blasted on weed

Racism is the dynamo of revolution as Applied Biology. Easy to harness ... particularly given the Gramscian conditioning of the organic intellectual masses to respond with Pavlovian precision and pride when they see "GAY/LESBO" "WOMYN" and "AFRICAN-AMERICAN" sections neatly emblazoned over their history, their fiction, their little corner of personal reality at Barnes & Noble.

So it pays to look for those who were concentrating on biology.

Congressional Record -- 1967-1970 ... why were WASP Pubbies consumed with procreation during the Summer of Love, anyway?

Ponce

2005-03-13 03:31 | User Profile

"This board is being run by Christians" so? , I have no religion and as long as someone don't shove their religion down my throat I don't care what they say.

The one that I call "The Force" requires no churches, no prayers and no religion......man in their isecurity are the ones that created the same in order to blame someone, pray to someone or make war in the name of someone.

Man in itself is good and only outside forces makes him bad, in my case I blame the Jews (Zionists) for 80% of all wars and for the suffering that we are having now days.

While I was no saint neither was I the Devil and I was nothing more than the pproduct of my enviroment. Now days living in the middle of nowhere in the forest of Oregon I can clearly see what is going on and as to who I am, and you know what? even with my bad English and grammar I still love myself.....lol.

Valley Forge

2005-03-13 18:43 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Your historical knowledge sense seems completely absent. See for instance [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17047]The International Jew[/URL]. Although the Jews did raise a ruckus (they by then were at their present numerical strength) they had no effect on the publishing of it, and only after several years even grudgingly got an apology from Henry Ford. Who of course remained at the helm of his company, one of the largest in America, for many years after that with what everyone knew were the same views. That's just one example. In college they told me in fact anti-semitism was more prevalent in 20's America than in (Weimar) Germany.

That's your counter-argument to my point that Christians quit speaking out against Jews long before the Nazis existed? That Jews didn't have the power to stop the publication of The International Jew?

Why don't you tell us then, other than Ford's Dearborn Independent, how many major Christian newspapers, magazines, and/or publications examined the Jewish Question in print in the 1920s?

Specifically?

If your argument that Christians don't speak out against Jews today because they don't want to be "associated with Nazis" is correct, I would imagine you should be able to point to some examples of Christians speaking out against Jews [U][B]in print[/B][/U] prior to the Nazis coming to power.

Quantrill

2005-03-13 19:33 | User Profile

In my opinion, it is pretty obvious that mainstream Christianity has done a very poor job of recognizing and warning against the dangers to Christendom posed by Jews for over a century. It doesn't make one a Nazi or a pagan to recognize that fact.

Okiereddust

2005-03-13 20:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge]That's your counter-argument to my point that Christians quit speaking out against Jews long before the Nazis existed? That Jews didn't have the power to stop the publication of The International Jew?

Why don't you tell us then, other than Ford's Dearborn Independent, how many major Christian newspapers, magazines, and/or publications examined the Jewish Question in print in the 1920s?

Specifically? Why the 1920's? Why not the 1820's, or the 1720's?

You asked for an example and I gave it.Its not my job to convince every skeptic who doubts you can prove the earth is round, or that there's a difference between his a*** and a hole in the ground, otherwise. He may therefore claim your lack of evidence gives evidence of his correctness. And who knows, in the latter case he may be right, if for only the incorrect placement of his head.

Okiereddust

2005-03-13 20:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]In my opinion, it is pretty obvious that mainstream Christianity has done a very poor job of recognizing and warning against the dangers to Christendom posed by Jews for over a century. It doesn't make one a Nazi or a pagan to recognize that fact.[/QUOTE]So, you think they did a good job before then? Is that what you're implying? And don't use ignorance as in excuse. You won't hide out from Franco's monophrase robot Nazi-PC detector that easily.

Valley Forge

2005-03-13 20:26 | User Profile

Edit: deleted by VF.

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Why the 1920's? Why not the 1820's, or the 1720's?

You asked for an example and I gave it. Its not my job to convince every skeptic who doubts you can prove the earth is round, or that there's a difference between his a*** and a hole in the ground, otherwise. He may therefore claim your lack of evidence gives evidence of his correctness. And who knows, in the latter case he may be right, if for only the incorrect placement of his head.[/QUOTE]

Valley Forge

2005-03-13 20:27 | User Profile

Exactly. Well said.

Sertorius

2005-03-13 20:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Blond Knight]Franco, Sert, Madrussian & the other atheist/agnostic folks.

While I will disagree with you on matters of theology, I am more than proud to walk beside you in matters pertaining to the political mess that is Western Culture these days.

The old saying that you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar seems appropriate here.

Lord knows, that in political matters, I would rather follow an Edgar Steele than any run of the mill JUDEO-[I]christian[/I] .

BK,

I appreciate that. I think the same way as well towards you. If I may view this argument as between two different camps I would like to think that I get along with everyone here well except for those who are obvious trolls. Both sides of this argument have valid points to make. Both sides tend to be so convinced of the correctness of their cause that it leads to acrimonous arguments. I would like to see folks here emphasis the areas of agreement instead of the areas of disagreement. What happen last year I have no desire to see repeated. It is destructive and serves no useful purpose and only results in the loss of good, intelligent members.

Okiereddust

2005-03-14 04:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]In my opinion, it is pretty obvious that mainstream Christianity has done a very poor job of recognizing and warning against the dangers to Christendom posed by Jews for over a century. It doesn't make one a Nazi or a pagan to recognize that fact.[/QUOTE]Well few things are really obvious. Christianity has also been attacked as never before in the past century. And what is this "mainstream Christianity" anyway? It is just an abstraction, which you have not defined.Much less defined really than Judaism.

Using abstractions one can prove anything. The airplane industry and electricity industry have also done poorly in the past century. Does that we try the auto and electricity executives for treason?

Repeating stock phrases and catchwords without defining them or using thought, like a ScriptureSez, in the end makes a discussion utterly incoherent . It becomes like those discussions between two lunatics, which seems cohernt to them but is obviously crazy to anyone listening in.

askel5

2005-03-14 06:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Valley Forge] Exactly. And what I find ironic is that contemporary Christians seem to have forgotten their roots. The quote from Martin Luther in my signature line in my view represents the proper attitude of all Christians toward all unconverted Jews.[/QUOTE]

Luther was a Lutheran, not a Christian.

His writings on the Jews were every bit as obscene and diabolical as his writings on other human beings. Would you likewise believe the following is the proper attitude of all Christians toward women? > Ã¢â¬ÅThe word and work of God is quite clear, viz. That women were made either to be wives or prostitutesÃ¢â¬Â Toward marriage?> Ã¢â¬ÅIf you do not want, someone else does. If the wife does not want, take your servantÃ¢â¬Â ... Ã¢â¬ÅIt is not forbidden that a man should have more than one wifeÃ¢â¬Â Toward prayer?> Ã¢â¬ÅRage acts as a stimulant to my whole being. It sharpens my wits, puts a stop to the assaults of the Devil and drives out care. Never do I write or speak better than when I am in a rage. If I wish to compose, write, pray and preach well, I have to be in a rageÃ¢â¬Â (Ã¢â¬ÅTable Talk,Ã¢â¬Â 1210).

Ã¢â¬ÅIf I can no longer pray, I can at least curse. I will no longer say `Hallowed by Thy Name', but Ã¢â¬ÅCurse and blast and damn the name of Papist'. I will no longer say Ã¢â¬ÅThy Kingdom come', but will repeat Ã¢â¬ÅCurse and damn the Papacy and send it to perdition'. Yes, that is how I pray, and I do so every day of my life and from the bottom of my heartÃ¢â¬Â Toward truth? > Ã¢â¬ÅWhat harm could it do if aman told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?Ã¢â¬Â (Lenz: Briefwechsel, vol. 1, page 373).

Ã¢â¬ÅTo lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuseÃ¢â¬âsuch lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on HimselfÃ¢â¬Â

Ã¢â¬ÅLying is a virtue if it is indulged in for the purpose of preventing the fury of the Devil, or made to serve the honour, the life, and the welfare of one's fellow-men.Ã¢â¬Â

Ã¢â¬ÅThe lie of service is wrongly termed a lie . . . it may be called Christian and brotherly charity,Ã¢â¬Â

Valley Forge

2005-03-14 14:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=askel5]Luther was a Lutheran, not a Christian.

His writings on the Jews were every bit as obscene and diabolical as his writings on other human beings...

...He's not your best source for either Christian witness or reliable commentary ... however much his neurotic and hateful spew on Jews may appeal to those who, like Luther, find rage is a stimulant to their whole being.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you are unware that Luther was a philosemite for much of his life -- until he learned Hebrew, read the Jewish Talmud, and was horrified by what he found. The Talmud includes the charming Jewish tradition that the Virgin Mary was a whore, and also says, among other things, that Christ is boiling in excrement. If you want to regard Luther's response to the Jewish tradition that the Virgin Mary is a whore as "obscene and diabolical," that's your business.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-14 16:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=askel5]Luther was a Lutheran, not a Christian.

Therefore, no Lutherans are Christians.

:shocking: :blink: :unsure:

Are you sure that rather unique perspective jibes with the infallible John Paul and Vat.II?

Okiereddust

2005-03-14 16:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=askel5]Luther was a Lutheran, not a Christian.

He's not your best source for either Christian witness or reliable commentary ... however much his neurotic and hateful spew on Jews may appeal to those who, like Luther, find rage is a stimulant to their whole being.[/QUOTE]Tsk tsk, you aren't a Catholic like Quantrill and Walter who think Luther was what happens when the Inquisition doesn't do its job do you? :smoke:

askel5

2005-03-14 16:28 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Tsk tsk, you aren't a Catholic like Quantrill and Walter[/QUOTE]

From what I read of their posts, I can only hope to be a Catholic like Quantrill and Walter. =)

Regards, Okiereddust!

Okiereddust

2005-03-14 17:04 | User Profile

[QUOTE=askel5]From what I read of their posts, I can only hope to be a Catholic like Quantrill and Walter. =) I'm sure Walter has a good penance in mind for you. :biggrin:

Regards, Okiereddust![/QUOTE]Long time no see. Stick around for a while this time.

Robert

2005-03-25 16:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by askel5 Luther was a Lutheran, not a Christian.[/QUOTE] Your statement reaches the level of hubris. So you can stand in judgment on a Christian man and say with God-like authority, "He was not a Christian"?

It is one thing to say that a Jew or an atheist is not a Christian. They have declared themselves to be non-Christians. But for you to say that a man claiming to be a Christian, has not been saved by the Lord Christ and is not accepted by God is totally wrong. You are attempting to perch yourself on God's throne.

In the case of Luther, you have the right to say that you disagree with some of his positions. You can even say that some of his positions were not Christian. But to say that he was not saved because you happen to disagree with him ... oh, I tell you, I would not want to be defending such statements to God.

I would counsel some humility on your part.

Ponce

2005-03-25 16:51 | User Profile

A new word for Ponce "hubris".

lydia_the_faithful

2005-03-28 03:20 | User Profile

We have a new series on our website: [url="http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/messagesindex.htm"] "Why We Hate Jews"[/url]. We have Part 3 ready to upload, but have to work out some technical difficulties first with the server.

[left][size=3][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]> [size=2]There has never been a fulfillment of Genesis 12:3 (the Abrahamic Covenant) with jews. It seems the more they are blessed, the greater we are cursed. After 2000 years, this should be cause for a reevaluation of jews. Let us, therefore, examine the long line of offenses found in jewry that we hate. In other words, those things we are vehemently opposed to (and God is too!). I will first itemize these things with a word or a phrase and then follow up with explanatory briefs.[/size][/font][/size] [/left] [list=1] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Judaism and the Talmud (the first violation from which all others flow)[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Murder[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Lies[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Stealing[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Race mixing[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Espionage[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]The occult[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Sexual immorality[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Aborticide[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Terrorism[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Satanism / insanity[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Usury[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Slavery[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Drugs[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Political corruption[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Religious corruption[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Media monopoly[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Lawyers[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Doctors[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Corporations[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Agriculture[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Scientific exploitation[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Holocaust industry[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Organized crime[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Internationalism[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Kosher tax[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Disarmament / pacifism[/font][/size] [][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Conspiracies[/font][/size] [*][size=2][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif]Evil and wicked [/font][/size] [/list]

friedrich braun

2005-03-30 15:24 | User Profile

Quick comment:

A lot of nonsense is habitually said on OD on National Socialism's attitude towards Christianity. It would be nice if people who express such categorical opinions on this issue with a self-assurance and vehemence that would make a medieval Pope blush actually had an idea of what they're talking about.

If I can make one suggestion it would be for everyone who wants to say something on the matter in the future to read a short recent scholarly monograph:

[B]The Holy Reich : Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945[/B], by Richard Steigmann-Gall

[url]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521823714/102-2208594-1315348?v=glance[/url]

The book is fair and balanced and is only 270 pages in length, which means that it shouldn't take anyone longer than a short week to read.

National Socialists did all they could to accommodate all Christian denominations in the Third Reich. Hitler (a Catholic) wanted to make Protestantism the official state religion of the Third Reich on the English model; however, he was ultimately thwarted in his wish by the inability of German Protestant leaders to stop bickering among themselves and unite within a common structure. Another point I wish to bring to attention is the preponderance of high ranking National Socialists who were prominent Church members well before their seizure of power of 1933 and following their seizure of power. Hence, we cannot speak of political opportunism. These were all sincere Christians as the author notes.

Additionally, the presence and influence of so-called "pagans" such as Rosenberg is overstated. They were always a minority of a minority of a minority and regarded as peculiar eccentrics, when not openly ridiculed by other party members. They had no power and can point to no victories.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-30 15:56 | User Profile

[url=http://medg.lcs.mit.edu/doyle/personal/enters/hermann/declaration.html]The Barmen Declaration[/url]

The 1934 Barmen Declaration was a call to resistance against the theological claims of the Nazi state. Almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Protestant Christians faced pressure to "aryanize" the Church, expel Jewish Christians from the ordained ministry and adopt the Nazi "FÃÂ¼hrer Principle" as the organizing principle of church government. In general, the churches succumbed to these pressures, and many Christians embraced them willingly. The pro-Nazi "German Christian" movement became a force in the church. They glorified Adolf Hitler as a "German prophet" and preached that racial consciousness was a source of revelation alongside the Bible. But some Christians in Germany—including Lutheran and Reformed, liberal and neo-orthodox—opposed the encroachment of Nazi ideology on the Church's proclamation. At Barmen, this emerging "Confessing Church" adopted a declaration drafted by Reformed theologian Karl Barth and Lutheran theologian Hans Asmussen, which expressly repudiated the claim that other powers apart from Christ could be sources of God's revelation.

Quantrill

2005-03-30 16:11 | User Profile

[quote=Texas Dissident]Almost immediately after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, Protestant Christians faced pressure to "aryanize" the Church, expel Jewish Christians from the ordained ministry and adopt the Nazi "FÃÂ¼hrer Principle" as the organizing principle of church government. How is this different from the Anglican model, in which the King of England is recognized as the head of the Church of England? I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a serious question.

Texas Dissident

2005-03-30 16:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]How is this different from the Anglican model, in which the King of England is recognized as the head of the Church of England? I'm not trying to be argumentative; this is a serious question.[/QUOTE]

I would guess nothing, Q. But as far as I can tell the Barmen Declaration was not signed by any Anglicans, if there were indeed any Anglicans to speak of in that part of the world back then.

Quantrill

2005-03-30 20:58 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I would guess nothing, Q. But as far as I can tell the Barmen Declaration was not signed by any Anglicans, if there were indeed any Anglicans to speak of in that part of the world back then.[/QUOTE] I understand that it wasn't an Anglican document. The original quote seemed to imply that having the national leader as the head of the national church (caesaropapism) was distinctly Nazi, so I was seeking clarification.