← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stigmata

"White Christian" an Oxymoron

Thread ID: 17921 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2005-04-23

Wayback Archive

Stigmata [OP]

2005-04-23 12:15 | User Profile

[size=4][color=#0000ff]2.5. Global Distribution of Christianity by 2050[/color][/size]

[font=Arial][size=2]By 2050, only about one-fifth of Christians will be non-Hispanic whites. [/size][/font][size=2][color=#000080][url="http://www.stjohnadulted.org/worldchrist1.htm#Primary References"][color=#000000]Philip Jenkins[/color][/url][/color][/size][font=Arial][size=2] suggests that by then, the phrase “a White Christian” may sound like a curious oxymoron, as mildly surprising as “a Swedish Buddhist.”’[/size][/font]

[size=4][color=#0000ff]2.6. The Growth of Christianity in Africa[/color][/size]

[size=2]The growth of Christianity in Africa deserves special note: Christianity's growth there has been explosive over past half century, (since the end of the colonial period), and it will continue to be explosive into the new century:[/size]

[font=Arial]

[font=Arial][size=2]Some notes on the growth of Christianity in Africa:[/size][/font]

[/font]

[url="http://www.stjohnadulted.org/worldchrist1.htm#The%20Growth%20of%20Christianity%20in%20Africa"]http://www.stjohnadulted.org/worldchrist1.htm#The%20Growth%20of%20Christianity%20in%20Africa[/url]

Petr

2005-04-23 12:51 | User Profile

So what's the logic here? Why couldn't White Christians continue being proud of their own culture and racial family even if the whole planet would turn Christian?

Petr

Angler

2005-04-23 13:09 | User Profile

It's actually a good thing if Christianity spreads among the Third World. Since Christianity teaches pacifism and love of enemies, Christian non-Whites should be less dangerous than other non-Whites. Christianity encourages contentment with one's lot in life even if one's life sucks, since its adherents expect to be rewarded after death. Thus, it's a useful tool for keeping the rabble in their place. I'm not saying that non-White Christians should be actively manipulated or taken advantage of (though there are those who do such things, e.g., televangelists); I'm merely pointing out that their conversion to Christianity can only benefit Whites.

Of course, as history and the present both show, just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn't mean he'll actually follow the teachings of Christ and be a pacifist. Look at the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials, or even the "nuke them Arabs" Christian Zionists of today. But all in all, it's better for Whites that Negroes and others be Christian than something else.

jay

2005-04-23 15:04 | User Profile

Agreed, Angler.

SteamshipTime

2005-04-23 15:14 | User Profile

The spread of Christianity worldwide needs to be encouraged. It inculcates Western values and displaces the culture of violence that is the norm outside the West. Which means less Third World immigration and less hostile immigrants.

jay

2005-04-23 15:16 | User Profile

Maybe it can stave off the Islamic invasion going on in the other half of the Turd World.

Peaceful half vs. the violent half. Should make for an interesting century.

Happy Hacker

2005-04-23 15:25 | User Profile

It use to be thought that Christianity was only the white man's religion. All the evangelical effort to spread Christianity to Asians and Africans had amounted to practically nothing.

Christianity is all but dead in the west. In the shrinking world, the primative African religions offer no resistance against Christianity and Islam. But, I think in the long run, Islam will win in Africa because Islam is militant.

Petr

2005-04-23 15:50 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Christianity encourages contentment with one's lot in life even if one's life sucks, since its adherents expect to be rewarded after death. Thus, it's a useful tool for keeping the rabble in their place."[/I][/B]

Yes, Angler happily agrees with Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Strauss: Christianity is the religion of the rabble, unworthy of freethinking overmen.

Petr

Texas Dissident

2005-04-23 18:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]Yes, Angler happily agrees with Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Strauss: Christianity is the religion of the rabble, unworthy of freethinking overmen.[/QUOTE]

And don't forget Freud, brother Petr:

"Religion is the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity."

Karl Marx:

*Religion . . . is the self-consciousness and the self-feeling of the man who has either not yet found himself, or else (having found himself) has lost himself once more. But man is not an abstract being . . . Man is the world of men, the State, society. This State, this society, produce religion, produce a perverted world consciousness, because they are a perverted world . . . Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feelings of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The people cannot be really happy until it has been deprived of illusory happiness by the abolition of religion. The demand that the people should shake itself free of illusion as to its own condition is the demand that it should abandon a condition which needs illusion.*

Fine company to be in there.

grep14w

2005-04-23 18:37 | User Profile

Most of the non-white Christians I know are quite racist and anti-white, either openly or at least tacitly (ie, they won't be impolite to my face, but I can figure out where they are coming from).

Whites are being murdered, discriminated against, and slowly ethnically cleansed and genocided out of southern Africa, by, for the most part, their "fellow" Christians, the blacks.

Commonality of religion means absolutely nothing if racial and other differences are too great.

We extrapolate too much based on our historical experience with blacks in the USA prior to the "civil rights" revolution. Undoubtably the inculcation of Christianity, in particular a Protestant form of Christianity that had no room for accomodating African tribal gods, prevented the kind of slave uprising that we saw in French Catholic Haiti where blacks not only did not lose their old religion (or hid it under the cloak of Catholic saints) but also kept most of their other cultural practices intact when arriving in Haiti.

But the point should be made that once blacks were no longer held down by White Supremacy in the USA, their Christianity did not serve to hold them back, and they acted in their own racial and group self interests and expressed their own inate racial tendencies and pursued their own evolutionary group strategy, in opposition to whites and without regard for the commonality of religion.

Maybe Christianity for non-whites is better than the alternative, but the fact remains that Christianity no longer serves as a rallying flag and point of unity and commonality between whites and in opposition to non-whites, as was the case in the middle ages.

"White Christian" is not an oxymoron. Increasingly, however, speaking of some unitary thing called "Christendom" is an oxymoron, because there is no longer any such thing. We have various races, tribes, ethnicities, etc. that happen to be Christian; we have no such thing as Christendom that thinks of itself as a single entity, as was the case in the middle ages when in fact Western Christendom was a single entity due to the large and overwhelming commonality of race and culture and religion.

The middle ages are well and truly over now, in case anyone hasn't noticed yet. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.

madrussian

2005-04-23 20:00 | User Profile

Good point. It's either "White Christian" and Christendom, or neither.

jay

2005-04-23 21:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=grep14w]But the point should be made that once blacks were no longer held down by White Supremacy in the USA, their Christianity did not serve to hold them back, and they acted in their own racial and group self interests and expressed their own inate racial tendencies and pursued their own evolutionary group strategy, in opposition to whites and without regard for the commonality of religion.[/QUOTE]

GREAT POINT!!! One of the best I've seen on OD.

I'd like Tex or Yannis to take a crack at this one: does the religion really work in the black community, when it's obvious that the past 50 years, these people have lived lives anything BUT Christian and noble?

Okiereddust

2005-04-24 00:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]It use to be thought that Christianity was only the white man's religion. All the evangelical effort to spread Christianity to Asians and Africans had amounted to practically nothing. .... But, I think in the long run, Islam will win in Africa because Islam is militant. .[/QUOTE]Yup, first Christianity ineffectual cause it was getting pasted in the 3rd world, now its ineffectual from the NS viewpoint 'cause its supposedly too successful.

Odd how that goes.

Angler

2005-04-24 00:35 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Christianity encourages contentment with one's lot in life even if one's life sucks, since its adherents expect to be rewarded after death. Thus, it's a useful tool for keeping the rabble in their place."[/I][/B]

Yes, Angler happily agrees with Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Strauss: Christianity is the religion of the rabble, unworthy of freethinking overmen.[/QUOTE] Yes, I do agree with them on that point. I abhor communism, but Marx was 100% correct when he said that religion is the opiate of the masses. If Marx said that 2+2=4, should I contradict him? His political views are largely irrelevant here. Thinking people question everything, including hoary religious "truths."

Also, you forgot to mention Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many others like them. I'm sure that was unintentional.

Getting back to the main point of what I said: Do you disagree that Christianity teaches that one should be content with his lot in life -- for example, that slaves should be obedient to their masters? What part of what I said do you disagree with? Shall I quote Bible verses for you?

Petr

2005-04-24 01:04 | User Profile

[B][I] - "Thinking people question everything..."[/I][/B]

...except their [U]own[/U] thinking and the possibility that their own conclusions might be less than 100 % certain and unbiased.

Petr

Angler

2005-04-24 01:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][B][I] - "Thinking people question everything..."[/I][/B]

...except their [U]own[/U] thinking and the possibility that their own conclusions might be less than 100 % certain and unbiased.

Petr[/QUOTE]Um, I used to be a Christian, you know. If I didn't question my own thinking, then I wouldn't have deconverted from Christianity.

Still, I don't claim to be perfect, and I could be wrong in my skepticism of Christianity. Maybe reason and evidence aren't all they're cracked up to be, y'know? Maybe these people have thought the issue through much more deeply than I have:

[img]http://www.hope.edu/admin/ministries/gospel/images/allchoirs.jpg[/img]

6KILLER

2005-04-24 01:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Getting back to the main point of what I said: Do you disagree that Christianity teaches that one should be content with his lot in life -- for example, that slaves should be obedient to their masters? What part of what I said do you disagree with? Shall I quote Bible verses for you?[/QUOTE]You make the false assumption that all Christians are not violent, when in actual fact Christianity has a very violent past. Ask the participants of the thirty year war. It was the basis for our so called rules of land warfare and rules regarding the treatment of civilians and POWs. We in America have never had such a war brought to our shores. Some tenets of Christianity don't interpret the Bible the same way as you do. i.e the turn the other cheek bullshit. Christian Identity isn't exactly non-violent, they don't interpret said Bible passage the same as you.

Blond Knight

2005-04-24 04:49 | User Profile

Before dismissing all of Christendom as a bunch of pink tutu wearing milqetoasts, at least check out Little Geneva and Badlands.

Badlands:[url]http://littlegeneva.com/badlands[/url]

Little Geneva: [url]http://www.littlegeneva.com/[/url]

Also some of the Identity folks:

[url]http://www.sonsoflibertybooks.com/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?pg=cat&ref=identity_christian[/url]

[url]http://richardhoskins.com/bklist.htm[/url]

[URL]http://www.scripturesforamerica.org[/URL]

Walter Yannis

2005-04-24 06:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]GREAT POINT!!! One of the best I've seen on OD.

I'd like Tex or Yannis to take a crack at this one: does the religion really work in the black community, when it's obvious that the past 50 years, these people have lived lives anything BUT Christian and noble?[/QUOTE]

I think that we need to get the standard straight first. That is, you have to compare their actual behaviour with that which might have been sans Christianity.

I think that we err when we assume that things couldn't get worse for our American Nogs. Places like Haiti, Northern Brazil, and parts of West Africa where VooDoo rules make Southeast D.C., with its storefront Christian churches preaching look-good-at-all-costs hedonism, look like paradise on Earth.

As ignoble as our own beloved American Negroes with their undemanding Christianity may be, they clearly represent the moral apex of Africans worldwide.

The awful truth is that the moral level of American blacks may be as good as it gets for them. At least left to their own devices.

I don't doubt that blacks who lived under the firm guidance of benevolent Christian masters on small southern farms achieved a moral level that would put most of whites to shame nowadays.

Texas Dissident

2005-04-24 07:51 | User Profile

Whether or not the term White Christian is an oxymoron can be debated. What isn't up for debate is the undeniable fact that a White Anti-Christian is a moron. Especially amongst a discussion board community that has as one of its main aims the political empowerment of nominally Christian whites in America.

Can someone say troll? :caiphas:

Walter Yannis

2005-04-24 08:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]What isn't up for debate is the undeniable fact that a White Anti-Christian is a moron. [/QUOTE] :thumbsup:

jay

2005-04-24 16:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I think that we need to get the standard straight first. That is, you have to compare their actual behaviour with that which might have been sans Christianity.

I think that we err when we assume that things couldn't get worse for our American Nogs. Places like Haiti, Northern Brazil, and parts of West Africa where VooDoo rules make Southeast D.C., with its storefront Christian churches preaching look-good-at-all-costs hedonism, look like paradise on Earth.

As ignoble as our own beloved American Negroes with their undemanding Christianity may be, they clearly represent the moral apex of Africans worldwide.

The awful truth is that the moral level of American blacks may be as good as it gets for them. At least left to their own devices.

I don't doubt that blacks who lived under the firm guidance of benevolent Christian masters on small southern farms achieved a moral level that would put most of whites to shame nowadays.[/QUOTE]

I can generally agree with that. You're theorizing that Christian blacks aren't great, but the alternative is simply unthinkable.

Fair enough. But looking into the "looking glass", what does it mean for us and ours? I would assume that Reverends like Jesse JackASS are going to continue to shake whitey down, hiding behind the cloth - as it were. I think many blacks use the faith as a way to advance their own group interests, to disarm whiteys in a way.

All a black has to say these days is, "Thank you Sweet Jesus", and white America is ready to annoint him as a saint. I wonder if this has seeped into their collective conscience, or if it's merely coincidental.

Angler

2005-04-24 16:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]You make the false assumption that all Christians are not violent, when in actual fact Christianity has a very violent past. No sir, I don't make that assumption. Recall my first post on this thread:

Of course, as history and the present both show, just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn't mean he'll actually follow the teachings of Christ and be a pacifist. Look at the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials, or even the "nuke them Arabs" Christian Zionists of today. But all in all, it's better for Whites that Negroes and others be Christian than something else.

[quote=6KILLER]Some tenets of Christianity don't interpret the Bible the same way as you do. i.e the turn the other cheek bullshit. Christian Identity isn't exactly non-violent, they don't interpret said Bible passage the same as you.[/QUOTE]I don't see much elbow room for differing interpretations in these words:

Matthew 5:43-48

"You have heard that it was said, 'you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." (God also causes earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes to destroy both the righteous and unrighteous, but that's a different issue....)

Luke 6:27-30

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back." These words are perfectly clear: Jesus is telling his followers to be pacifists, at least with respect to personal injury and conflict. There is no alternative interpretation. I realize that many or even most Christians want nothing to do with the above words, but there they are.

wild_bill

2005-04-24 19:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Whether or not the term White Christian is an oxymoron can be debated. What isn't up for debate is the undeniable fact that a White Anti-Christian is a moron. Especially amongst a discussion board community that has as one of its main aims the political empowerment of nominally Christian whites in America. [/QUOTE]

You're right, Tex. And one practical fact that is conspicuously avoided by the antagonists of Christianity is that if white people were following the basic teachings common to what's commonly referred to as "traditional Christianity", we wouldn't be having major problems with race, Jews, feminism, divorce, homosexuality, immigration, crime, degeneracy, etc., etc. I have yet to find anyone who can disprove that simple truth.

6KILLER

2005-04-24 22:17 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]You're right, Tex. And one practical fact that is conspicuously avoided by the antagonists of Christianity is that if white people were following the basic teachings common to what's commonly referred to as "traditional Christianity", we wouldn't be having major problems with race, Jews, feminism, divorce, homosexuality, immigration, crime, degeneracy, etc., etc. I have yet to find anyone who can disprove that simple truth.[/QUOTE]Are you referring to 'Divine Law', Bill? The Constitution & The Bill of Rights followed 'Divine Law' but left out a few important precepts. These have gave the jew an entry point to put us in the position in which we are today. Pastor Sheldon Emry wrote a little booklet on the subject that hit the nail squarely on the head. Western civilization owes it's development to the fact that the builders closely followed 'Divine Law'.

6KILLER

2005-04-24 22:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]I don't see much elbow room for differing interpretations in these words:

(God also causes earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes to destroy both the righteous and unrighteous, but that's a different issue....)

These words are perfectly clear: Jesus is telling his followers to be pacifists, at least with respect to personal injury and conflict. There is no alternative interpretation. I realize that many or even most Christians want nothing to do with the above words, but there they are.[/QUOTE]You're interpretation assumes, that the Bible was addressing everything with a human form. Whereas it was written to and for the Israelites and the lost sheep of Israel only. I'll be damned if I'll turn the other cheek to a jew or a mamzer of any shape or form, but I will bust his head open with an iron fist.

wild_bill

2005-04-24 22:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=6KILLER]Are you referring to 'Divine Law', Bill? The Constitution & The Bill of Rights followed 'Divine Law' but left out a few important precepts. These have gave the jew an entry point to put us in the position in which we are today. Pastor Sheldon Emry wrote a little booklet on the subject that hit the nail squarely on the head. Western civilization owes it's development to the fact that the builders closely followed 'Divine Law'.[/QUOTE]

No, I'm talking about things even more basic than that. For example, if men behaved as responsible fathers and husbands and women as wives and mothers who produced many children. If we were just doing that, families would be in much better shape and our people would be pushing into Mexico, not the other way around.

If people took seriously just the traditional teachings on personal responsibility and family, we'd be fifty times better off.

Walter Yannis

2005-04-25 06:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=jay]I can generally agree with that. You're theorizing that Christian blacks aren't great, but the alternative is simply unthinkable.

Fair enough. But looking into the "looking glass", what does it mean for us and ours? I would assume that Reverends like Jesse JackASS are going to continue to shake whitey down, hiding behind the cloth - as it were. I think many blacks use the faith as a way to advance their own group interests, to disarm whiteys in a way.

All a black has to say these days is, "Thank you Sweet Jesus", and white America is ready to annoint him as a saint. I wonder if this has seeped into their collective conscience, or if it's merely coincidental.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. The only way forward for us is mass black emigration to Liberia (with their persons and property zealously safeguarded, and with the US financing their new country).

In the long run it will be bad for them, because they obviously can't run a technological society on their own. But the point is that we have to do what's best for us an our children, and that means putting an ocean between us and blacks.

madrussian

2005-04-25 06:47 | User Profile

Yeah, Christianity is going to pacify blacks. And what about pro-immigration argument about those browns and blacks being co-religionists and thus acceptable?

Texas Dissident

2005-04-25 07:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]And what about pro-immigration argument about those browns and blacks being co-religionists and thus acceptable?[/QUOTE]

It's beside the point. Immigration is its own issue. Only if immigration is a given would factors like religion and ethnicity of the immigrant come into play. I would doggedly focus my argument against said given by advocating a policy of total restriction on any and all immigration, both legal and illegal.

From a Christian standpoint the proper position on immigration is really very simple. Christ's great commission plainly states to "go ye therefore to all the nations", not "bring the nations to your own homeland by any means necessary." One could draw a comparison to the old adage about giving a hungry man a fish to eat versus teaching him how to fish.

Franco

2005-04-25 07:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=wild_bill]You're right, Tex. And one practical fact that is conspicuously avoided by the antagonists of Christianity is that if white people were following the basic teachings common to what's commonly referred to as "traditional Christianity", we wouldn't be having major problems with race, Jews, feminism, divorce, homosexuality, immigration, crime, degeneracy, etc., etc. I have yet to find anyone who can disprove that simple truth.[/QUOTE]

That's an important point, especially for new posters at OD. When I criticize Christians, I don't refer to Gerald L. K. Smith-type Christians. I refer instead to today's Judeo-Christians and their 'we love Jews, negroes and Mexicans' dogma, which sounds like something a sandal-wearing Marxist would say.

Texas Dissident

2005-04-25 08:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Franco]I refer instead to today's Judeo-Christians and their 'we love Jews, negroes and Mexicans' dogma, which sounds like something a sandal-wearing Marxist would say.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, Franco. Right there by your statement we can see that the PC/multiculturalist/"diversity is our strength" problem is one that transcends any one cultural institution like the Christian Church. When considering the greater problem of 'multiculturalism', to focus solely on the Church is akin to exclusively worrying about a small toenail infection in a severe diabetic. If one wants to isolate the Church for criticism, I think the main problem that is easily observed is that the Church no longer informs the surrounding culture, but rather the surrounding culture now dictates the forms, standards and doctrines of the Church. As we see in this present age, that is a toxic recipe for Western nations across the board.

Liberal cultural marxism has wreaked havoc throughout every major institution in Western societies and we are witnesses to the final fruits of that conquering onslaught. When, where and how we can hold the line, dig-in and begin our counter attack remains to be seen and each of us has plenty of work to do in our own respective areas of interest and positions.

Quantrill

2005-04-25 15:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler] These words are perfectly clear: Jesus is telling his followers to be pacifists, at least with respect to personal injury and conflict. There is no alternative interpretation. I realize that many or even most Christians want nothing to do with the above words, but there they are.[/QUOTE] 'Personal injury' is the operative phrase. Violence is not forbidden when it is required to right a wrong, to defend the defenseless, or to protect the Faith. He also said -- 'I have come to bring not peace, but the sword.' There was also that whole non-pacifist moneychangers incident.

Angler

2005-04-25 15:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]'Personal injury' is the operative phrase. Violence is not forbidden when it is required to right a wrong, to defend the defenseless, or to protect the Faith. I think defending the defenseless is certainly allowed by Christianity. I'm not so sure about righting wrongs or protecting the faith, though. I'd expect Christians to believe that God will eventually right all wrongs on Judgment Day, thus obviating any earthly retribution by men. Also, there should be no need for Christians to protect their religion by force; if it's true, then it will survive no matter what. Christians' views on these matters seem to be divided, which is understandable because the Bible doesn't get into the issue too much.

He also said -- 'I have come to bring not peace, but the sword.' True, but I don't think he meant that in a literal sense. Jesus also said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

There was also that whole non-pacifist moneychangers incident.[/QUOTE]Right, but if Jesus was divine, then his command to be pacifistic wouldn't apply to himself anyway.

All in all, this is a complex question (and, incidentally, one that has little or nothing to do with the truth or falsity of Christianity). I think you're correct in saying that the prohibition against violence in Christianity refers primarily to personal injury. That's why I felt I had to include that qualification in my last post. It seems highly unlikely, though, that Jesus would have approved of his followers using any unnecessary violence. If you compare the passive (and courageous) manner in which the early martyrs allowed themselves to be persecuted with, say, the inhuman brutality of the Inquisition, I think the former were much more representative of genuine Christianity as exemplified by the Beatitudes.

Quantrill

2005-04-25 16:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]If you compare the passive (and courageous) manner in which the early martyrs allowed themselves to be persecuted with, say, the inhuman brutality of the Inquisition, I think the former were much more representative of genuine Christianity as exemplified by the Beatitudes.[/QUOTE] The original motivation of the Crusades was to defend the Christians living under Muslim domination (in formerly Christian lands), and was, therefore, an eminently Christian undertaking. The subsequent political machinations and sacking of Constantinople were most certainly not.