← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 3429 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2002-11-06
2002-11-06 08:30 | User Profile
[url=http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/november02/index582.htm]In Defense of Christianity[/url]
by Marc Moran
November 5, 2002
It has been said repeatedly with regard to White Nationalism that Christianity is a liability to our purpose and our goals. That the belief in a God made flesh who died upon a cross in a backwater of the Roman Empire is without merit in a 21st-century world.
While such positions are surely reinforced by the actions of organized religion, particularly the efforts of Lutherans who are bound and determined to flood our Nation with young men from darkest Africa, and a Catholic Church orthodoxy that refuses to control homosexuality and pedophilia within the ranks of its clergy, there are valid arguments that should be made in defense of Christianity.
The Bible is one of the greatest written works of man. It encompasses not only the history of the early tribal peoples of the Mediterranean and North African sphere, but the rise and the fall of dynasties, kingdoms, and empires. It contains poetry whose beauty has never been surpassed, as well as the framework for legal systems and moral codes that exist to this day. Within the pages of the Gospels, the greatest story ever told, there are dire warnings and portents for those who fail to keep an eye out for the greatest enemy of our people, the Jew.
While organized religion has focused on sanitizing the life story of the Savior by repeatedly deleting and excising textual references to the threat of the Jew, nothing short of the removal of the Bible from the public realm can alter passages like this:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.'
Or this:
John 20:19
Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, 'Peace be unto you.'
And this:
Matthew 23:33-34
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Wherefore behold, I send unto you prophets and wise men and scribes and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them ye shall scourge in your synagogues and persecute them from city to city.
You'd have to do one hell of a lot of spinning to change the tone of the preceding passages and divert someone's attention away from the guilty party. The warnings within the gospels are made directly to the Jews based upon their failed relationship with God. What is often overlooked, if not intentionally covered up, is the fact that it was the Jews who abrogated their end of the covenant with God, not the other way around. The recent pronouncement by the Vatican that Jews no longer need to believe in Christ in order to be saved is merely a dodge by yet another group of disciples hiding behind locked doors, albeit gold-plated ones, for fear of the Jews.
Most people who believe in a Christian God do not necessarily study the Bible.
They may be familiar with certain passages, may find comfort in the reading of the 23rd Psalm for example, but they fail to read the entire work analytically. The Bible is not the story of the Jews, as some have suggested, it is the story of God and His relationship with man. It would be naive to attempt to clarify further just who God is, but it is certainly something that nearly all humans have an experience with; a deep-seated need, a hunger or desire as strong as any other we possess, to understand our relationship with the Creator. Something set the process we think of as Nature or Life into motion, and failing to acknowledge the very human need to relate to, worship or otherwise communicate with this force, denies our natural inclination as living beings. When we crave food, or drink or affection, we do not laughingly deny that such things exist because those desires cannot be weighed or measured. We acknowledge the needs of our bodies, and our minds, why not our souls?
Christ-centered faith resonates with Western man because it is based upon a dynamic God who is, like the earlier Gods of the Norsemen, the Greeks and the Romans, human in form rather than an inanimate god, like the Sun or an appetite god, like greed or lust. The form of Christ is also a powerful reminder that man is not only locked in a struggle with Nature, but with the body politic, fellow man, and his governing bodies. Christ stood up to not only the Church of his time, but to an Empire as well. There are lessons to be learned from a God made flesh who, lacking not only an army and a means of self-defense, was able to defeat and eventually transcend both His enemies and His era, as well.
The figure of Jesus upon the cross has been ridiculed before, first by the Jews who condemned Him* and since then by the enemies of morality and accountability. That image however is one not of a weak and defeated man, but a courageous and self-sacrificing God who would lay down his own life in order to save His people, a lesson that should resonate with White Nationalists everywhere.
The Bible contains not only a foundation for a well-ordered and civil society; it does so in as few words as possible. Unlike the volumes it takes to cover something as simple as our domestic tax laws, a single book has managed to encompass the schematics for a successful life, family, community and Nation. At the same time it does not shirk the inhuman or sinful behavior of man, covering everything from slavery and slaughter to incest and fratricide and the results of those acts of free will. If there is a human emotion, action or crime not covered within the pages of that single volume, it is likely one of no consequence.
Religion, Marx said, is the opiate of the masses. While it would be foolish to take the word of a Jew bent on the destruction of Western Man, his point is one worth making. Religion in and of itself serves the singular function of establishing as a class people who derive their livelihood from those who adhere to the message they proclaim.
Faith is another matter entirely. It requires no middleman, no explanation or interpretation. It merely requires that the believer believe, with all his heart, all his mind, and all his soul.
As Christ Himself explained, "Behold, the kingdom of God is within you." Religion is no more than the coming together of those who share the same belief, and in that gathering, the opportunity for corruption arises. Just as politics attracts those who are the most likely to become politically corrupt, religion attracts those who are prone to spiritual corruption. This is not to say, of course, that there aren't those whose motives are pure and whose intentions are noble. Those who do enter religious orders to improve the spiritual lot have added immeasurably to the lives of their fellow man. It is worthy of note that their numbers have dwindled, as the revisionist, or Judeo-Christianity, of the past fifty years has consumed the true message of Christianity.
There are further advantages to the White Nationalist in remaining firm in his or her faith. The community of those who share similar values, the support of the ever-eroding family and the mutually beneficial encouragement of one to another, not for profit or gain, but simply as an expression of our inherent altruism, an undeniably racial trait of Whites.
Christianity, like so many of our formerly noble and revered institutions and beliefs, has been seized by an enemy who cares little if we survive -- indeed, who appears to be bent upon our very destruction, while thriving in the climate of morality and decency that is our birthright.
Jesus may have been born in Nazareth, but He was the embodiment of a God who defies time and place. His message of Love and forbearance echoes the very soul of our own people. This, more than anything was what set Him apart from the Jews of His day. It was this expression of human ideals that signed His death warrant twenty centuries ago, and keeps His message alive, for those who believe, even today.
As a consolation and a charge I look to the words of Jesus Himself whenever someone quotes to me, out of context, without the slightest inkling of the broader meaning in Christ's message, "Judge not lest ye be judged?"
As Christ himself said,
"Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye discern not this time?
Yea and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"
Amen.
Pilate saith unto Him, 'What is truth?' and when he had said this he went again unto the Jews and saith unto them, 'I find in Him no fault at all.'
This passage clearly places the burden of Jesus' punishment not upon a Roman Prelate, but upon the members of Christ's own Nation, the Jews. How this has been successfully covered up is beyond comprehension, but is telling nonetheless.
MARC MORAN
2002-11-06 17:57 | User Profile
Richard Carrier makes some interesting points but he frames it all wrong.
This business of "Pagan versus Jehovah" just distracts us from the true message of the ancient world. I take it as a given that the high civilizations, from Sumer to Akkad to Babylon to Mycenae to Egypt (...etc...) had to have strong moral codes, a well-developed sense of civic cooperation, deep and wide-ranging inter-group trust or they never would have gotten built. Very logically, if they did not have these things they could not have sustained great civilizations, QED.
Carrier also forgets that Solon travelled widely in his day and borrowed from other cultures, notably Sait Egypt and Phoenicia. Again, both cultures had strong moral codes which allowed for individual creativity and group cohesion. Solon brought the best back to Athens and built from there.
Carrier also forgets that Christianity/Yahwism comes in too many varieties for such cavalier judgements. The decentralized and literate Christianity of our pioneer forebears stands as a pillar of Western progress in my mind -- and stands as a stern rebuke to the more recent Rapture Cult and consumerist Christianity that has replaced it. If we can see such differences in only a handful of generations, how many other sorts of Christianity might there be?
Besides which it is not either/or. One can use with profit Solon and Moses, Pythagoras and Aquinas, Hamurabi and Jefferson, Ptahotep and Paul of Tarsus. The wisdom of the ancients is an incredible feast. During that strong and confident period of history that produced the United States, men reached back to the whole smorgasborg for the vittles of the mind. They were right to do so, and we should too. Take from the whole table: It's our heritage.
2002-11-06 21:45 | User Profile
Mithras anyone?
2002-11-06 22:18 | User Profile
This is the history of the beginning Christianity as I see it.
Jesus is born
At young age (approx 12) Jesus impresses priests with his knowledge of scripture.
During late teens or early twenties Jesus begins to see himself as an old testament variety prophet. The temple priests will have none of it and Jesus is ostracised.
Jesus leaves for Egypt.
Jesus returns to Israel claiming to have miraculous power. Jesus attracts many followers. Priests consider him to be a blasphemer.
Priests ask Pilate, who regards his Jewish subjects with a mixture of contempt and fear, to crucify Jesus for treason against Rome (for pretending to be king of the Jews). Pilate asks Jesus, who Pilate regards as a clown, what Jesus means by claiming to be King of the Jews. Jesus answers that his kingdom is heavenly. Pilate thinks that the notion of Jesus as "King of the Jews" is extremely funny, and taunts the Jewish priests by asking them "Why do you want me to kill your king?" Eventually Pilate gives in and has Jesus crucified*. He still thinks that the notion of Jesus as "king of the Jews" is hysterically funny and has a sign put on the cross with those same words.
*Note: Pilate may have feared that he himself would be accused of treason (before Caesar) for failing to punish a traitor. This easily explains why he relented.
Jesus is crucifed. Followers are heartbroken. Eventually there are "sightings" (like Elvis sightings). His followers determine that Jesus is alive! Because of rejection by mainstream Judaism, the early Christians decide to compensate by starting an alternate Judaism of which gentile converts would be a part.
Paul/Saul is charged by the temple priests to persecute the early Christians, which he does with much zeal. Gradually feelings of remorse arise within him. While on the road he has some sort of seizure with accompanying visions. This in, conjunction with his remorseful feelings causes him to switch sides. His great zeal remains fixed, however.
Paul, in his zeal, wants to save the souls of the whole world, but realises that it's easier to convert gentiles if they aren't required to obey Jewish law. A process of rationalisation begins, with accompanying events that he considers to be divine inspirations. The result is a new belief that strict observance of Jewish law is no longer required and that it is sufficient to be Jewish at heart ("circumcised in the heart").
The original disciples are displeased with Paul's new ideas, but Paul has now converted many gentiles. Paul's faction grows. The disciples' faction does not.
The early converts were generally women and the ignorant (or so said celcus). Later on, however, Christianity was championed by the aristocracy, who imposed it on everyone else. In this sense Christianity became like modern day political correctness. After its early days Christianity was almost always spread by royal decree.
I don't have much love for Christianity myself. Nothing can change the fact that it started out as an attempt by a Jewish faction to Judaise gentiles. Even Paul who decided that Jewish law was no longer in effect said so explicitly, which his talk of circumcision of the heart. Judaism is a chauvinistic religion in which the Jews are considered to be at the centre of the universe (the chosen ones). The early Christians, rather then rejecting the idea, embraced it, with themselves as the new chosen ones. I regard fighting between Christians and Jews about who the true chosen ones are, to be a fight beteen two naked would-be emperors over a non-existant crown.
2002-11-06 23:25 | User Profile
**It has been said repeatedly with regard to White Nationalism that Christianity is a liability to our purpose and our goals. **
If those goals include genetic exclusions, then, yes, it most certainly is. You can try wiggling out a contorted reading to back your position, but it will be utterly alien to the spirit of the New Testament, which is premised upon a basic recognition of all humanity having equal spiritual potential and an ethic of compassion for the weak. Man cannot serve two masters, you have to choose between NT or VNN.
You'd have to do one hell of a lot of spinning to change the tone of the preceding passages and divert someone's attention away from the guilty party.
The quotes Mr. Moran gives are a bit out of context and ignore some other critical passages. What they refer to is the Jewish leadership. John's Gospel makes a point of singling out Caiaphus. As to the Jews writ large, there are positive passages:
John 4:22: ââ¬ÅYou worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.ââ¬Â
Nor are they singled out by the acts of a group:
Jn 8:31: ââ¬ÅSo Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciplesââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â
In other words, guilt is something to be determined by the actions of individuals, not what other Jews do. Those who profess belief in the NT ideal are to be treated as brothers. Period.
And as a group, they are not necessarily to be looked down on, nor forsaken. From Paul:
Rom 11:1: ââ¬ÅI ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.ââ¬Â
Rom 11:13-5: ââ¬ÅNow I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?ââ¬Â
Rom 11:28-32: ââ¬ÅAs regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.ââ¬Â
This passage clearly places the burden of Jesus' punishment not upon a Roman Prelate, but upon the members of Christ's own Nation, the Jews. How this has been successfully covered up is beyond comprehension, but is telling nonetheless.
So in other words, Pilate knew he was innocent, but killed him anyhow, and even had a ha-ha at his expense. Yeah, Pilate looks real good here.
Actually, the guilty party is not necessarily identified as the Nation, but that nation's leaders:
Jn 12:10-1: ââ¬ÅSo the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well [as Jesus], because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus.ââ¬Â
The other verses that inveigh against the "Jews" use that context. People who rejected Jesus' message, not people who happened to be of Jewish ancestry.
If Moran wants his Christianity, fine. There are a lot of good things about it. I agree that it built the West. But you cannot hold to Christianity, and particularly the sola scriptura interpretation Moran is using, and at the same hold to the line put out by the likes of Linder, who advocates snuffing every Jew he can. Nor can you accept even a lesser version that deprives Jews, Blacks or anyone else of property and rights because of their genetic heritage. This doesn't necessarily mean one has to support shipping in immigrants or handing out welfare, as that's a matter of imposing your charity on others, but it does mean that you can't take from others what's already been given them legitimately.
Best, P
2002-11-07 00:56 | User Profile
But you cannot hold to Christianity, and particularly the sola scriptura interpretation Moran is using, and at the same hold to the line put out by the likes of Linder, who advocates snuffing every Jew he can.
This passage seems to classify unconventional political commentary and ideas with criminal action, a maneuver that is also common to corporate and campus "politically correct" speech codes.
Nor can you accept even a lesser version that deprives Jews, Blacks or anyone else of property and rights because of their genetic heritage.
The interesting thing about this claim is that it is based on a modern interpretation of Christianity and social mores. Most Americans and Europeans, stretching back centuries, adhered to Christianity with a passion much stronger and deeper than usually found today while simultaneously engaging in racially exclusive practices. It would seem Polichinello is suggesting that the vast majority of Christians down through the centuries were all "bad" Christians.
At the heart of this, though, I suspect that both the "egalitarian" and "racialist" camps (to make a rough distinction as to the parties in this debate) are trying to claim that Christianity is exclusively their "turf" when it comes to questions of politics and race. I don't think this has to be the case. Christianity was able to accomodate justifications for slavery in days past, just as its more liberal/"humanistically-inclined" adherents now use their religion to condemn slavery. This situation suggests to me that Christianity has no bearing on these issues either way, and it's just cheap emotionalism and a transparent debating/distraction tactic for either camp to whip out the Christianity card to advance their racial and political [read: non-religious] agenda.
2002-11-07 15:19 | User Profile
> But you cannot hold to Christianity, and particularly the sola scriptura interpretation Moran is using, and at the same hold to the line put out by the likes of Linder, who advocates snuffing every Jew he can.**
This passage seems to classify unconventional political commentary and ideas with criminal action, a maneuver that is also common to corporate and campus "politically correct" speech codes.**
No, it's pointing to an inconsistency. You have to choose between one or the other here. The New Testament does not admit the views of Linder. The only way you can reconcile the two is through some severe editing. If you disagree, I'd certainly be interested in seeing how you reconcile these two messages, particularly in light of the passages I quoted.
And, please, try to do better than yanking out that cheap verbal club of "political correctness."
> Nor can you accept even a lesser version that deprives Jews, Blacks or anyone else of property and rights because of their genetic heritage.**
The interesting thing about this claim is that it is based on a modern interpretation of Christianity and social mores. Most Americans and Europeans, stretching back centuries, adhered to Christianity with a passion much stronger and deeper than usually found today while simultaneously engaging in racially exclusive practices.It would seem Polichinello is suggesting that the vast majority of Christians down through the centuries were all "bad" Christians.**
Early christians were not racially exclusive. Augustine was half-Berber and Athanasius was referred to as the "black dwarf." St. Thomas was reputed to have gone to India, and St. Matthew to Africa. Let us not forget the Ethiopian who was converted. Even into the Middle Ages, if any converted they were treated under law the same as those born to Christianity.
The idea of racial exclusion popped up during the modern era, and it was hotly debated. The Catholic Church took a looked down it. The Protestants were divided. Usually the most extreme views on race were put forward by men like Hume, who was not a Christian.
At the heart of this, though, I suspect that both the "egalitarian" and "racialist" camps (to make a rough distinction as to the parties in this debate) are trying to claim that Christianity is exclusively their "turf" when it comes to questions of politics and race.
There are extreme interpretations on both sides. The egalitarian claim certainly does not apply when it comes to ability. Yet in matters of heritage, one's prior geneology was not to be considered.
Christianity was able to accomodate justifications for slavery in days past, just as its more liberal/"humanistically-inclined" adherents now use their religion to condemn slavery.
You might want read Paul's letter to Philemon. Slavery was tolerated in the early days by Christianity because it was economic necessity. (Also, it was not race based.) The general attitude was that, while it was permissible to hold slaves, it was better to manumit them. As an institution slavery was effectively eliminated by the Church in the Middle Ages (Serfs were NOT slaves). It reappeared after the voyages of discovery, and it mightily displeased the Catholic Churches.
This situation suggests to me that Christianity has no bearing on these issues either way, and it's just cheap emotionalism and a transparent debating/distraction tactic for either camp to whip out the Christianity card to advance their racial and political [read: non-religious] agenda.
Hey, I'm just responding to the original post and putting up words from the NT. If you have a way to reason around them, be my guest.
Best, P
2002-11-07 15:32 | User Profile
The NT argues for an equality of souls. It has nothing to say about racial equality or inequality.
2002-11-07 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Feric Jaggar@Nov 7 2002, 15:32 The NT argues for an equality of souls. It has nothing to say about racial equality or inequality.
And souls are all that matters according to the NT. Thus you judge people by their souls, not their genetic heritage.
Best, P
2002-11-07 21:56 | User Profile
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 shows that Jews as a nation are blamed for killing Jesus. See also Luke 21:20-24 where Jesus explains God will be angry at Jews as a nation (for rejecting Jesus).
When Jesus is attacking Jewish leaders, he's not attacking them because they are leaders but because they are rejecting Him.
A preacher might preach how God used the lowest of all, the Jews, to bring the Messiah.
Anyway, it is correct that all Christians are brothers in Christ. But, that doesn't translate into open boarders or failing your responsibility to take care of your kin before others. It sure as H3ll doesn't translate into supporting Israel, a nation of anti-christs.
2002-11-07 22:53 | User Profile
"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 shows that Jews as a nation are blamed for killing Jesus. See also Luke 21:20-24 where Jesus explains God will be angry at Jews as a nation (for rejecting Jesus).
And who was it in "those churches"? Other Jews. It's a religious standard, not a racial one. And this doesn't contradict the passages in Romans that says Jews still serve God's plan, nor does it say they are utterly beyond redemption, nor does it say that you are to take an arrogant attitude of self-satisfaction in relation to them. St. Paul was pretty clear on that point in Romans 11.
When Jesus is attacking Jewish leaders, he's not attacking them because they are leaders but because they are rejecting Him.
I agree. Individual decisions.
Anyway, it is correct that all Christians are brothers in Christ. But, that doesn't translate into open boarders or failing your responsibility to take care of your kin before others. It sure as H3ll doesn't translate into supporting Israel, a nation of anti-christs.
Again, I agree with your basics here, though I'd use more polite wording. You do, however, have responsibilites for those people already here within the country under the duly constituted laws. That is, you don't have to go out of your way to do good--opening borders, forcing taxpayers to support welfare, etc.--but you aren't to go out of your way to deliberately do harm. This is utterly inconsistent with VNN's program, which I do not want to identify you with, but which is where this "defense" Christianity was posted.
Best, P
2002-11-07 23:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Nov 7 2002, 21:56 **"You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 shows that Jews as a nation are blamed for killing Jesus. See also Luke 21:20-24 where Jesus explains God will be angry at Jews as a nation (for rejecting Jesus). **
Alright, let's look at your passage from Thessalonians in its full context.
"For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last."
Now who exactly would be trying to keep St. Paul and the other Christians from speaking to Gentiles? The dirt poor Jew in the backalleys of Jerusalem or the guy scratching a living on some nowhere farm? Hardly. It's the religious leaders he's talking about here.
So now let's look at your Lucan passage:
Luke 21:20-24" When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
This is an obvious reference to the 70 AD sack, which is long over. And, gee, no Gentiles are "trampling" on Jerusalem today like the Romans did in 70 AD. The Jews have it. I guess God's let them out of the penalty box for now.
Best, P
2002-11-08 04:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 7 2002, 22:53 **And who was it in "those churches"? Other Jews. It's a religious standard, not a racial one. And this doesn't contradict the passages in Romans that says Jews still serve God's plan, nor does it say they are utterly beyond redemption, nor does it say that you are to take an arrogant attitude of self-satisfaction in relation to them. St. Paul was pretty clear on that point in Romans 11. **
The reference to "countrymen" seems to imply something other than a religous standard (some Bible version don't say "Jews" but "Judeans". Besides, race and religion is not distinct when talking about Jews.
As for Roman's 11, yeah, Jews are not totally rejected -- those who accept Christ are still God's children.
Being brothers in Christ does not relieve us of our responsibilities. It's a dad's resonsibility to take care of his own children, not the neighbor's children (assuming that the neighbor's dad hasn't relinquished his responsibility). Likewise, it's the responsibility, the obligation, of the US government to "take care" of Americans, not Mexicans. (I don't mean to compare the government to daddy nor do I mean to imply any responsibility for the feds that isn't spelled out in the Constitution). I don't know how to put this more politely. The government by failing to control immigration is failing to live up to its responsibility.
2002-11-08 05:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 7 2002, 23:11 **This is an obvious reference to the 70 AD sack, which is long over. And, gee, no Gentiles are "trampling" on Jerusalem today like the Romans did in 70 AD. The Jews have it. I guess God's let them out of the penalty box for now. **
I don't think Jews are out of the penalty box, I think they're just being defiant and God is not happy with that.
As for the Thessalonian's verse, the KJV and NASB appear to present "They displease God and are hostile to all men" as an independant clause, contrary to the NIV. And, I think any Jew that rejects Christ is in the same boat with those other judean countrymen who displease God. That includes the dirt poor Jew in the backalleys of Jerusalem (who also was not spared in 70AD).
2002-11-08 14:35 | User Profile
> Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 7 2002, 22:53 And who was it in "those churches"? Other Jews. It's a religious standard, not a racial one. And this doesn't contradict the passages in Romans that says Jews still serve God's plan, nor does it say they are utterly beyond redemption, nor does it say that you are to take an arrogant attitude of self-satisfaction in relation to them. St. Paul was pretty clear on that point in Romans 11. **
The reference to "countrymen" seems to imply something other than a religous standard (some Bible version don't say "Jews" but "Judeans".**
Countrymen implies individuals. Otherwise you'd have to say the Greeks would be condemned with Jews.
Besides, race and religion is not distinct when talking about Jews.
It is when you're talking about Christianity, and that's what we're discussing.
Again, I agree with your points about responsibility.
Best, P
2002-11-08 14:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Nov 8 2002, 05:01 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 7 2002, 23:11 This is an obvious reference to the 70 AD sack, which is long over. And, gee, no Gentiles are "trampling" on Jerusalem today like the Romans did in 70 AD. The Jews have it. I guess God's let them out of the penalty box for now. **
I don't think Jews are out of the penalty box, I think they're just being defiant and God is not happy with that.
As for the Thessalonian's verse, the KJV and NASB appear to present "They displease God and are hostile to all men" as an independant clause, contrary to the NIV. And, I think any Jew that rejects Christ is in the same boat with those other judean countrymen who displease God. That includes the dirt poor Jew in the backalleys of Jerusalem (who also was not spared in 70AD).**
Well, I'm not going to presume to judge whether God's happy or not. However, the plain text of the verse you yourself invoked seems to indicate, if you take it literally, that there's no more hex. How else would you explain it.
As to the clause, My argument doesn't depend on whether there's a comma or not preceding that clause (I tend to use RSV). It's point relies on the following sentences, the verses afterwards, which further describe the group Paul's talking about: religious leaders.
Best, P
2002-11-09 17:04 | User Profile
I'll chirp in here for one brief point. As to Pilate's guilt, yes he was obviously guilty, but equally obviously only a guilty instrument of the Jews. I think P made that point elsewhere in this thread.
2002-11-10 19:29 | User Profile
Race is rather obviously and frankly discussed here, in effect the PC loonies of today would say that Paul and Jesus were racialists for speaking in this manner:
Titus 1:12
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Matthew 15:
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
Mark 7:
26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. 27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. 28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
2002-11-10 20:49 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Nov 9 2002, 20:55 However, this does not translate into equality in worldly affairs. The argument you are using to justify racial egalitarianism and "diversity" is basically the same argument that "Christian" social and economic egalitarians use to advance Marxism. If to you equality of souls before God implies that we must all become racial and ethnic egalitarians, then by the same reasoning you should accept economic egalitarianism among individuals.
No it does not imply any such thing. Treating a man as individual, with all due reverence to his existence as an equal before God, does not command you take from others to give to him, which is exactly what Marxism in all its forms demands.
The Ceasar quote is oft abused, and this is another instance. Clearly, Christians had obligations to stand up to the state when it committed a wrong. Why else would they have found themselves in so much trouble with Ceasar? If fellow human beings, souls, being mistreated without any kind of due process doesn't count as a reason to involve oneself in worldly affairs, then nothing does, and we might as well completely exclude Christianity from the discussion altogether.
Best, P
2002-11-10 21:00 | User Profile
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
Cretans are not a race. Paul's writing to a Greek about other Greeks. It's like saying to an American that people from the north tend to be more ill-mannered than those from the south.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
We've already discussed this topic on the Thread about "James, the Brother of Jesus. It's actually a rather counter-racialist message. The Syro-Phonecians had a low habit of sacrificing humans, and Jesus acceptance, at last, of the woman, showed that even someone from a group as disdained as the SP's could be saved.
Best, P
2002-11-11 02:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 6 2002, 18:25 **If those goals include genetic exclusions, then, yes, it most certainly is. You can try wiggling out a contorted reading to back your position, but it will be utterly alien to the spirit of the New Testament, which is premised upon a basic recognition of all humanity having equal spiritual potential and an ethic of compassion for the weak. **
Spiritual equality is nothing more than that. There is no prohibition on legal inequality to be found in the NT. Some of the principles expressed in the New Testament are that a man must understand his place in life, he must respect his superiors, and do his duty to both his superiors and inferiors. The duty owed to an inferior is wholly different from that owed to a superior. It is the duty of a Christian to put such constraints on the inferior as is necessary to constrain him from moral outrage. Justification for unequal status is found in admonitions to servants to obey their masters, and masters to treat their servants justly. Just treatment of a being with a particularly degraded nature is not to let him free to endulge his impulses. Rather, it is to constrain that behavior so that it does not rot his soul, or those around him. It is a modern fallacy to assume that all men are equally capable of equal freedom. This idea everywhere it has been imposed has greatly degraded man.
Man cannot serve two masters, you have to choose between NT or VNN.
The problem with VNN is that it does not proceed out of love for all men. One can conclude that out of love for their brother they must create special systems for different groups. Since those before us have abandoned their duty, and unleashed people unfit for equality upon society, many have developed particularly hateful attitudes against these people. When society elevates inferiors it tends to breed hatred as everyone sees the injustice of this relationship. The tendency is to blame the inferior, when the blame lies with the superiors who abondened their duty to all. The hatred of women, minorities, and Jews will only grow so long as the unnatural order of the day remains. Out of love we are obliged to turn society back to the natural order.
2002-11-12 03:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by amundsen@Nov 11 2002, 02:14 The problem with VNN is that it does not proceed out of love for all men.
Nor does anyone.
VNN is honest, like Ariel Sharon. Unlike Sharon, VNN has no population base that will back it up. Which makes VNN a very noisy strawman and not much else. It's not enough to know that universal love is twaddle; you must also have troops.
2002-11-13 15:33 | User Profile
On the subject of VNN, I quote myself from another forum:
"I ask white nationalists what the Jews have that they don't have. I suggest: 1) organization on an international level; 2) moral commitment; 3) most importantly, an apparatus for continuous propaganda, especially via the Jewish death grip on the mass media. As a result, we are like helpless Palestinians throwing rocks at Israeli fighter jets.
I have recommended the site Holywar.org because I think the keys to effective counter-action lie in obtaining the weapons that the Jews have against us. The only institution that has those weapons is the Church. It is international, vastly organized, morally based, and has access to the masses on a regular basis.
Without leadership, friends, weââ¬â¢re nothing. Problem is we need is a tough Pope. Alas, weââ¬â¢ve gone 44 years without one. Indeed, the current Pope often seems to be on the enemy's side. With him and his current consiglieri, I'm not optimistic. "
2002-11-13 19:12 | User Profile
Buster:
I agree.