← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Mr.Wilson
Thread ID: 4222 | Posts: 32 | Started: 2002-12-28
2002-12-28 18:55 | User Profile
Nationalist commentary on Christianity by Yggdrasil. [url=http://www.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm]http://www.ddc.net/ygg/rj/rj-18.htm[/url]
2002-12-29 03:16 | User Profile
Yes, Christians need to look at Early Christianity rather than Judeo-Christianity. As Yggdrasil's article states, Jesus was anti-ZOG. A Christian's walk is always weaker when he takes his eye off God and trusts in something else, like the present UN-created state of Israel or Red Heilfers. Christ preached hate as well as love, and the love that he preached was not the God loves everybody nonsense that is preached today but the love that he has for his own , those that he has chosen to save. WN's are turning away a stanch ally when they turn away Christians. why do Jews fear Christians? Because it is a spiritual war that the Jews have lost because God has rejected them. They are not God's chosen people anymore.
2002-12-29 04:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Dec 28 2002, 20:16 ** Yes, Christians need to look at Early Christianity rather than Judeo-Christianity. **
Not early but the traditional one. Judeo-Christianity is strictly relatively recent American phenomenon. You won't find a trace of philosemitism in Orthodox Christianity, or more traditional Catholic churches in, say, Poland.
2002-12-29 17:53 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Dec 29 2002, 03:16 ...WN's are turning away a stanch ally when they turn away Christians...
skemper, The problem with your argument is that for an athiest or agnostic, Christianity is as Christianity does, and today, what it does on the whole isn't in a patriots interest. For you, promoting what you regard as theologically true is worthwhile because your belief is worth fighting for in itself, but for others it just entails aligning themselves to some extent with organisations whose leaders at least are overwhelmingly hostile to them. They are better off rejecting it. You might say there are two Christianities, and your one isn't ascendent. Not in most of Christendom anyway.
2002-12-29 18:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Dec 29 2002, 04:30 ** Judeo-Christianity is strictly relatively recent American phenomenon. You won't find a trace of philosemitism in Orthodox Christianity, or more traditional Catholic churches in, say, Poland. **
This is a great point. American Christians need to be "Re-Europeanized" pronto. But it's all going the wrong way. American evangelicals of the zionist variety have lots of $$$ and they're spreading the good news to Europe. Needs to go in the other direction.
2002-12-29 19:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 29 2002, 18:28 ** > Originally posted by madrussian@Dec 29 2002, 04:30 ** Judeo-Christianity is strictly relatively recent American phenomenon. You won't find a trace of philosemitism in Orthodox Christianity, or more traditional Catholic churches in, say, Poland. **
This is a great point. American Christians need to be "Re-Europeanized" pronto. But it's all going the wrong way. American evangelicals of the zionist variety have lots of $$$ and they're spreading the good news to Europe. Needs to go in the other direction. **
What about the great fighting priest Fr Coughlin of the 1930s?
2002-12-30 03:01 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Dec 29 2002, 11:53 ** > Originally posted by skemper@Dec 29 2002, 03:16 ...WN's are turning away a stanch ally when they turn away Christians...
skemper, The problem with your argument is that for an athiest or agnostic, Christianity is as Christianity does, and today, what it does on the whole isn't in a patriots interest. For you, promoting what you regard as theologically true is worthwhile because your belief is worth fighting for in itself, but for others it just entails aligning themselves to some extent with organisations whose leaders at least are overwhelmingly hostile to them. They are better off rejecting it. You might say there are two Christianities, and your one isn't ascendent. Not in most of Christendom anyway. **
Most of the Judeo-Christians would not go into WN, of course. I am talking about Christians like myself who have studied the Bible and History deeply. This Judeo-Christianity arose other trends from the 19th century onward such as socialism, and the dumbing down of the school system to make obedient slaves rather than thinkers, along with the rise of the ZOGS. One of my mission fields is to bring Judeo-Christians back into Christianity by pointing out the inconsistencies of dispensational theology and the true nature of present day Israeli state. The foundations of the theocratic Israeli state were destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman armies by a judgment of God. The only way any Jewish person can be saved today is to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have not been successful for I find that this dispensational theology is so ingrained into these people that they know no other ways of doctrine and have not learned to think and examine evidence.
Every Christian here should be teaching their children as commanded in Deut. 6 the teachings of the Chrisitian faith by word and example.
2002-12-30 03:10 | User Profile
Originally posted by Leveller@Dec 29 2002, 11:53 ** > Originally posted by skemper@Dec 29 2002, 03:16 ...WN's are turning away a stanch ally when they turn away Christians...
skemper, The problem with your argument is that for an athiest or agnostic, Christianity is as Christianity does, and today, what it does on the whole isn't in a patriots interest. For you, promoting what you regard as theologically true is worthwhile because your belief is worth fighting for in itself, but for others it just entails aligning themselves to some extent with organisations whose leaders at least are overwhelmingly hostile to them. They are better off rejecting it. You might say there are two Christianities, and your one isn't ascendent. Not in most of Christendom anyway. **
Leveller, if you have studied the Consitution, the Declaration, and other founding documents you will find them based on biblical principles and written as a covenent. The signers of the Consitution were for the most part Protestant, many of whom were elders and in positions of leadership in their churches, and the others, if I remember correctly, were a Catholic, and one or two atheists. The atheists had no problems with standing with Christians because although they did not believe in God they did support the moral foundations that the Bible espoused. This is where atheists and Christians can meet and form a pluralistic society. Most atheists do not want a heathenistic society either, but one with law and order. The Federalist papers do mention that the fathers studied classical governments such as the Roman Republic and the Greek City-state, but they did not use the moral and religious systems of these peoples and make it part of the state. Also there were no Jews in the making of the Constitution or Declaration, and some fathers, like Franklin, were hostile toward them and wrote warnings about letting them into power in the country.
It was Christians and unbelievers under Christiandom in an Anglo-Germanic culture that built this country, not the animistic beliefs of the native peoples, nor believers in the Norse and Celtic, or Greek mythic religions.
Christ is still a tiger. Chrisitanity is weak because the the majority of Chrisitians have turned away from the Bible. Yes, Leveller, I and others like me are in a minority.
2002-12-30 03:25 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Dec 28 2002, 22:30 ** > Originally posted by skemper@Dec 28 2002, 20:16 ** Yes, Christians need to look at Early Christianity rather than Judeo-Christianity. **
Not early but the traditional one. Judeo-Christianity is strictly relatively recent American phenomenon. You won't find a trace of philosemitism in Orthodox Christianity, or more traditional Catholic churches in, say, Poland. **
MadRussian, the majority of Protestants were anti-Jew, including Luther, until starting in the mid 19th century, when the roots of Judeo-Christianity started to gain hold.
2002-12-30 04:39 | User Profile
The foundations of the theocratic Israeli state were destroyed in 70 AD by the Roman armies by a judgment of God. The only way any Jewish person can be saved today is to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I have not been successful for I find that this dispensational theology is so ingrained into these people that they know no other ways of doctrine and have not learned to think and examine evidence.
Don't worry, history is on our side. I am sure the homeschooling movement will raise up many great leaders who will bring our people back to the truth.
2002-12-30 05:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Malachi@Dec 29 2002, 19:56 ** What about the great fighting priest Fr Coughlin of the 1930s? **
The trouble is he was censored by his own superiors 70 years ago. An occasional maverick seems not to help matters much, whether in politics or religion.
Interesting you should mention "Father Cog" though. He was remembered in my neighborhood long after his fall. Regular people are a great untapped resource in this regard.
2002-12-31 00:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by skemper@Dec 30 2002, 03:01 ...I have not been successful for I find that this dispensational theology is so ingrained into these people that they know no other ways of doctrine and have not learned to think and examine evidence...
Maybe the course of events will teach them to do so.
2002-12-31 03:40 | User Profile
Wintermute,
Actually there are several quotes from the founding fathers which state that the American Republic, not the American Democracy, were founded on Biblical Principles and a Christian worldview, which I will quote later. Also Solon created a democracy, not a Republic. The Republic came with the establishment and development of Roman law, and was not a Greek institution. The Founding Fathers abhorred the idea of a Democracy, which they called a "mobcracy", for obvious reasons. I did not say that the Bible was the exclusive document that the fathers examined. In the Federalist Papers Hamilton, et al., examined several governments from Classical times to their present day as models to develop the Constitutional Republic that we are supposed to have today. Interestingly they did not mention Solon, but they did examine later deveolpments of the Greek city states. Not every aspect of the structure of our government was found in Moses' law, for Israel was constructed as a Monarchic theocracy, not a republic or a democracy.
Now to the other point, where did Moses get the idea for the Ten Commandments? Not from Solon. God codified them for him according to the book of Exodus, but if one does a study of Genesis, on would see the 10 Commandments already being practiced by the people of God. The Ten Commandments were already known. Solon's time was 638-594 BC, as you say. Moses' time is less certain, depending on whom one thinks was the Pharoah of the Exodus, from about 1400- 1230 BC. So Moses predates Solon by at least 600 years. A better case could be made for the Code of Hammerabi, circa 1800 BC, in Mesopotania, where Abraham was from. But where is Hammerabi's source? Why do we assume that the earliest extant document is the first? I prefer to follow the Bible, which states that all knowledge comes from Christ, Col. 1:16-17--
"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
Now why do many cultures and philosophies have simular moral codes that one finds in the Bible? The Bible has a verse in Romans 2:14-15 to explain this:
"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. "
The fact that Moses, Solon, Hammerabi, Confusius, M. Aurilius, Solomon, Aesop, etc., have simular laws and morals bears witness to the one source of all Laws, the God who created them all.
Here are the various quotes from the founding fathers regarding government and the Bible. It will show that the fathers for the most part had a Christian worldview, not a pagan one.
[url=http://eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/student/course/class/view.cfm?int_course_id=16&classID=52]http://eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/student...d=16&classID=52[/url]
Republic vs. Democracy
United States Constitution
Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1
ââ¬ÅThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.ââ¬Â [Not a democracy.]
Pledge of Allegiance ââ¬â ââ¬ÅI pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â
As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government the convention had created. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied; ââ¬ÅA Republic, maââ¬â¢am if you can keep it.ââ¬Â (Websterââ¬â¢s dictionary definition: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.)
Democracy: Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as ââ¬Åmobocracyââ¬Â). Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.
Republic: Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation ââ¬Â¦ a republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.
WARNINGS John Witherspoon, signer - ââ¬ÅPure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ââ¬â it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.ââ¬Â
Zephaniah Swift, author of Americaââ¬â¢s first legal text - ââ¬ÅIt may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion.ââ¬Â
Benjamin Rush, signer - ââ¬Å a simple democracy ââ¬Â¦ is one of the greatest of evils.ââ¬Â
John Quincy Adams - ââ¬ÅThe experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.ââ¬Â
Noah Webster - ââ¬ÅIn democracy ââ¬Â¦ there are commonly tumults and disorders ââ¬Â¦ Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.ââ¬Â
James Madison - ââ¬ÅDemocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.ââ¬Â
John Adams - ââ¬ÅRemember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.ââ¬Â
Fisher Ames, author of the House language for the First Amendment - ââ¬ÅA democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and the ignorant believe to be liberty !! NOTE ââ¬Â¦ look at todayââ¬â¢s sexual freedoms.
Gouverneur Morris, signer and penman of the Constitution - ââ¬ÅWe have seen the tumult of democracy terminate ââ¬Â¦ as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism ââ¬Â¦ Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt.ââ¬Â
Samuel Adams ââ¬â ââ¬Åââ¬Â¦ it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate tireless minority keen to set brush fires in peopleââ¬â¢s minds ââ¬Â¦Ã¢â¬Â
What is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster: ââ¬ÅOur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.ââ¬Â
In our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. In the American republic, principles that do not change and which are certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community of man were the principles of Biblical natural law ââ¬Â¦ the basis of our Declaration, Constitution and legal system.
Professor Montesquieu, a French professor, author and legal philosopher who wrote the highly influential book, The Spirit Of The Laws, (which was read and studied intently in America) was the source of our division of power in our government. Baron Charles Montesquieu was the second most frequently quoted source, next to the Holy Bible, out of all the references used by our Founding Fathers. He was the source of our division of power in government; (i.e.. legislative, administrative, judicial) claiming Isaiah 33:22 as the source; the Lord is our King, the Lord is our Judge and the Lord is our Lawgiver. Montesquieu identified the rule of law as ââ¬Ånatural lawââ¬Â which is based on the Holy Bible. He identified the rule of law as ââ¬Åprinciples that do not changeââ¬Â. Natural Law is the law God gave His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
In 1748, Montesquieu wrote; ââ¬ÅNor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it [the power of judging] were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislature if it were joined to the executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same ââ¬Â¦ body of principal men ââ¬Â¦ exercised these three powers.
Our Founding Fathers gave us an Electoral College because we are a Republic ââ¬Â¦ not a democracy. The Electoral College follows the principle of elected representation. It was designed to further promote the ideals of balance, and of separation of powers. It gives the smaller States true representation in a fair and just manner by allowing their voices (as well as rural America) to be heard. It prevents the control of the Nation by highly populated urban centers, thus reducing the risk of elections being bought or won by fraud where power could be consolidated.
Noah Webster - ââ¬ÅWhen you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a Republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a Republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.ââ¬Â
Jedediah Moore, Founding educator - ââ¬ÅTo the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. In proportion as the genuine effects of Christianity are diminished in any nation ââ¬Â¦ in the same proportion will the people of that nation recede from the blessings of genuine freedom ââ¬Â¦All efforts to destroy the foundations of our Holy religion, ultimately tend to the subversion also of our political freedom and happiness. Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown our present Republican forms of government, and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.ââ¬Â
George Mason, father of Bill of Rights - ââ¬ÅWe are now to rank among the nations of the world; but whether our independence shall prove a blessing or a curse must depend upon our own wisdom or folly, virtue or wickedness ââ¬Â¦Justice and virtue are the vital principles of a republican government.ââ¬Â
GODââ¬â¢S LAW All our laws are arranged into two different classes.
Devine ââ¬â coming from Godââ¬â¢s natural laws and His ten commandments.
Human -Matters that are not commanded or forbidden by God's natural law.
U.S. Supreme Court, 1892 ââ¬â ââ¬ÅOur laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.ââ¬Â
Benjamin Franklin ââ¬â ââ¬ÅWe have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ââ¬Ëexcept the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.ââ¬â¢ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.ââ¬Â
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution - ââ¬ÅWe have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.ââ¬Â
George Washington, father of our country ââ¬â ââ¬ÅIt is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.ââ¬Â
AT THE CONVENTION
On the fourth of July 1787, the entire convention was assembled in the Reformed Calvinistic Church, assembled there by the direction of Edmond Randolph of Virginia. The sermon and prayer was conducted by Rev. William Rogers ââ¬â a portion of his prayer; ââ¬ÅWe fervently recommend to the Fatherly notice ââ¬Â¦ our Federal Convention ââ¬Â¦ Favor them, from day to day, with Thy inspiring presence; be their wisdom and strength; enable them to devise such measures as may prove happy instruments in healing all divisions and prove the good of the whole; ââ¬Â¦ that the United States of America may form one example of a free and virtuous governmentââ¬Â¦
May we ââ¬Â¦ continue, under the influence of Republican virtue, to partake of all the blessings of cultivated and Christian society.ââ¬Â
John Witherspoon, signer, member of the Continental Congress, served on over 100 committees, a teacher who influenced students who included; a President -James Madison, a Vice President, three Supreme Court Justices, 10 Cabinet members, 12 Governors, 21 Senators, 39 Representatives as well as numerous delegates to the Constitutional Convention and state conventions. He served as President of Princeton University.
His quotes:
1.ââ¬ÅCursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.ââ¬Â
2.ââ¬ÅWhoever is an avowed enemy of God; I scruple not [do not hesitate] to call him an enemy of his country.ââ¬Â
John Hancock, signer ââ¬âââ¬ÅThe very existence of the Republic ââ¬Â¦ depends much upon the public institutions of religion.ââ¬Â
Alexis deTocqueville, the Principle of Sovereignty of the People in America - ââ¬Å It dominates the whole of American society. The Americans applied this principle even before their Revolution. Its growth was a result of the Revolution ââ¬Â¦ in America the sovereignty of the people is neither hidden nor sterile as with most other nations; mores recognize it, and the laws proclaim it; it spreads with freedom and attains unimpeded its ultimate consequences.ââ¬Â
Instructor's comment: Our Founding Fathers chose a Republic over a Democracy for many reasons; primarily because they remembered the most infamous ââ¬Ëdemocraticââ¬â¢ vote in all history. [i.e.] The lesson of a bureaucrat some 2000 years ago who turned to a crowd and asked which prisoner should be released ââ¬â the crowd yelled - ââ¬Ågive us Barabbasââ¬Â. The ââ¬Ëwill of the peopleââ¬â¢ spoke that day. When the bureaucrat asked the people what should be done with this innocent, this Jesus, the crowd responded with a loud ââ¬âââ¬Å CRUCIFY HIMââ¬Â.
Jesus was crucified by a majority vote exercising pure democracy which was the emotional, changing rule of the mob or as we call it today mobocracy. This is the reason our Founding Fathers wanted a Republic, a government based on the rule of law which could not be changed by the whims of the people.
Samuel Huntington, signer and Governor of Connecticut - ââ¬ÅWhile the great body of freeholders are acquainted with the duties which they owe to their God, to themselves, and to men, they will remain free. But if ignorance and depravity should prevail they will inevitably lead to slavery and ruin.ââ¬Â
James Madison, Father of the Constitution -" If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people."
2002-12-31 05:33 | User Profile
Ethics and morality predated the appearance of any revealed religion which then made fools of men.
2002-12-31 05:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by solutrian@Dec 31 2002, 05:33 ** Ethics and morality predated the appearance of any revealed religion which then made fools of men. **
Codes of honor do tend to be group-specific. The oldest come from Sumer, the Indus Valley, and the Nile Valley. Each one had a moral code and Law One was protect the pack and bloodlines.
I'd say we're just re-learning them. :lol:
2002-12-31 14:47 | User Profile
**Ethics and morality predated the appearance of any revealed religion which then made fools of men. **
So, the question of whether the chicken or the egg was first is answered after all these millennia by a pompous one-liner.
2002-12-31 17:02 | User Profile
**Ethics and morality predated the appearance of any revealed religion which then made fools of men. **
As much as the popularity of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel infuriates me -- as Diamond is a racial-egalitarian obscurantist a la Stephen Gould -- I found his review of D.S. Wilson's new book fascinating in its discussion of this point.
[url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15798]http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15798[/url]
*[A] third attribute of religion that we take for granted is to justify or reinforce moral precepts. All major world religions teach what is right, what is wrong, and how one should behave. Hence it will surprise most Jews, Christians, and Muslims to learn that this link between religion and morality is entirely absent in the New Guinean societies of which I have experience. It is not that New Guinean societies are amoral: most of them have stricter codes of social obligations than do European and American societies. Yet in all my years in traditional New Guinean societies, I have never heard any invocation of a god or spirit to justify how people should behave toward others. Instead, social obligations depend on relationship. Because a band or tribe contains only a few dozen or a few hundred individuals respectively, everyone in the band or tribe knows everyone else and their relationships. One owes different obligations to different blood relatives, to relatives by marriage, to members of one's own clan, and to fellow villagers belonging to a different clan.
Those relationships determine, for instance, whether you may refer to people by their names, marry them, or demand that they share their food and house with you. If you get into a fight with another tribe member, everyone else in the tribe is related to or knows both of you and pulls you apart. The problem of behaving peacefully toward unfamiliar individuals never arises, because the only unfamiliar individuals are members of enemy tribes. Should you happen to meet an unfamiliar person in the forest, of course you try to kill him or else to run away; our modern custom of just saying hello and starting a friendly chat would be suicidal.
Thus a new problem arose around 7,500 years ago, when some tribal societies evolved into chiefdoms comprising thousands of individualsââ¬âa far greater number than any single person can know by name and relationship. Emerging chiefdoms and states faced big problems of potential instability, because the old tribal rules of behavior no longer sufficed. If you encountered an unfamiliar member of your chiefdom and fought with him according to tribal rules of behavior, a brawl would result as your relatives jumped in on your side and his relatives jumped in on his side. A death in such a brawl would spark efforts by the victim's relatives to kill one of the murderer's relatives in revenge. What's to save the society from collapsing in an incessant orgy of brawls and revenge murders?
The solution to this dilemma of large societies is the one used in our own society, and documented in all chiefdoms and early states for which we have information. Rules of peaceful behavior apply between all members of the society and are enforced by the political leaders (chiefs or kings) and their agents, who justify the rules by a new function of religion. The gods or supernatural agents are presumed to be the authors of the rules. People are taught from childhood onward to obey the rules, and to expect severe punishment for breaking them (because now an attack on another person is also an offense against the gods). Prime examples familiar to Jews and Christians are the Ten Commandments.*
2002-12-31 18:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Dec 30 2002, 20:19 **As for the "moral" positions of the Bible, I cannot imagine a single aspect of early ideals of American governance that have a Biblical root. The First Amendment is a direct antithesis of the First Commandment. Shall we examine more closely? One says, 'no other gods but me' - the other 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion'.
**
I think there is too much emphasis put on the Federal Constitution. Remember, the US was a confederacy. Congress had no power to establish religion but the States did and they used that power. Furthermore, this was a Protestant nation. Protestants were quite concerned about the ties between the Church and State. Not wanting to establish a federal religion in no way suggests that the signers or people were not Christians, rather it shows they were concerned with limiting the power of the federal government.
The Second Amendment is a direct antithesis to 'turn the other cheek'.
You have grossly simplified the notion of turning the other cheek. The idea is to look to avoid conflict not to look for it. Turning the other cheek tells us to look for peaceful reconciliation to problems. In Christianity we still have a right to defend ourselves against attack.
The Second Commandment (prohibiting images of any kind) - a good example of a Biblical 'moral' - has had no influence on Amercian government in the post colonial period. Indeed statues of the Roman Goddess Justitia adorn courthouses across the nation even today. And don't get me started on Lady Liberty! **
I dont know that these images were worshiped or placed before God, but you might be right that the better thing to do is to not use Roman gods and godesses at all.
Turning to the intricate web of tafiff, trade and property laws designed to undergird a prosperous free market economy - are we to take these to mean that Jesus' injunction to 'sell all one has and give it to the poor' was tossed out the window while the Republic was being born?
Christianity is a religion of freewill. Anything less than freedom does not let one chose to act Christian, rather it forces them too. The socialism of today has not made our people more Christian, it has made them less.
2002-12-31 18:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by solutrian@Dec 30 2002, 23:33 ** Ethics and morality predated the appearance of any revealed religion which then made fools of men. **
My question for you is how do matter and energy create ethnics and morality? It is the denial of God that makes fools out of man.
2002-12-31 18:52 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 31 2002, 17:02 ** Yet in all my years in traditional New Guinean societies, I have never heard any invocation of a god or spirit to justify how people should behave toward others. **
Yes. But till recently this held true for non-savage societies as well.
The Greek word "barbarian" comes from their word for non-Greek. They were advanced by any measure, but an Hellene treated his own kind different from the way he treated an outsider, even an advanced outsider (Persian?)
Likewise the Roman Church and Muslims, during the Crusades, each had a code of conduct which demanded one sort of treatment for Fellow Believers and another sort entirely for Infidels. I think the story of the crossbow is well known. It was originally against Canon Law for a Christian to use this weapon against other Christians, but they could let fly at Muslims.
Religion, or lack of it, is neutral on this issue. All premodern societies had group-specific codes of behavior and thought nothing of them. Why this broke down in the West is a subject that cannot be reduced to religious cliches, because it's one of history's real puzzlers.
2002-12-31 19:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 31 2002, 11:02 ** The solution to this dilemma of large societies is the one used in our own society, and documented in all chiefdoms and early states for which we have information. Rules of peaceful behavior apply between all members of the society and are enforced by the political leaders (chiefs or kings) and their agents, who justify the rules by a new function of religion. The gods or supernatural agents are presumed to be the authors of the rules. People are taught from childhood onward to obey the rules, and to expect severe punishment for breaking them (because now an attack on another person is also an offense against the gods). Prime examples familiar to Jews and Christians are the Ten Commandments.* **
Utterly amazing! 2000 years of the finest minds in the history of our planet grappling with the fundamental issues of man and God - Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Bacon, Hume, Kierkegaard and Barth to name a few - and Diamond figures it all out in just one paragraph!
Unbelievable.
2002-12-31 20:26 | User Profile
**Yet in all my years in traditional New Guinean societies, I have never heard any invocation of a god or spirit to justify how people should behave toward others. **
Well, I spent 6 months in the Highlands of PNG in 1984, and I think you are either
a) A Liar B) Stupid
or that c) I do not understand what you are saying.
Didn't you learn at least Pidgin? What about the spirit of the ancestors? Why do you think kids wear amulets of the bones of their ancestors? Why do you think old ladies bit off their finger joints after a relative's death? Why do you think Kuru was practiced by the Fori?
I frankly doubt that you were ever in PNG.
2002-12-31 21:17 | User Profile
Mr. Wilson - This is a great thread - Thanks.
2002-12-31 22:05 | User Profile
In my opinion, religions were nothing but the first forms of government, deemed necessary for people who were either confused by or distrustful of their instincts. They're not called mindless masses for nothing.
2002-12-31 22:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Dec 31 2002, 22:05 ** In my opinion, religions were nothing but the first forms of government, deemed necessary for people who were either confused by or distrustful of their instincts. They're not called mindless masses for nothing. **
Wrong. They were the first attempt by man to understand his universe. Ancient priests spent their time observing and collecting data from the skies, under the misapprehension of divinity, so as to predict the solar cycle. This gave rise to mass farming cultures and civilization. Of course, power and politics played their part, as with anything human, but religion was not invented as some crude device for controlling the masses. If anything, it wound up giving the masses some control over their lives: they knew when to plant, and abuses could be deterred, though not prevented, by appeals to the ultimate judgement of the gods.
Best, P
2002-12-31 22:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Dec 31 2002, 16:15 ** > Originally posted by Ruffin@Dec 31 2002, 22:05 ** In my opinion, religions were nothing but the first forms of government, deemed necessary for people who were either confused by or distrustful of their instincts. They're not called mindless masses for nothing. **
Wrong. They were the first attempt by man to understand his universe. Ancient priests spent their time observing and collecting data from the skies, under the misapprehension of divinity, so as to predict the solar cycle. This gave rise to mass farming cultures and civilization. Of course, power and politics played their part, as with anything human, but religion was not invented as some crude device for controlling the masses. If anything, it wound up giving the masses some control over their lives: they knew when to plant, and abuses could be deterred, though not prevented, by appeals to the ultimate judgement of the gods.
Best, P **
Have they not, at most every opportunity, barred the door to rational understanding?
2002-12-31 23:56 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Dec 31 2002, 22:36 ** Have they not, at most every opportunity, barred the door to rational understanding? **
No more than any other scientist or politician who holds onto his precious theories a bit too long.
Best, P
2003-01-01 00:27 | User Profile
Wintermute - Forgive me for adding an unwanted hydra-head to your thread. I should have specified in my original reply that I was addressing the thread starter, Ygg's article, as to whether it matters if Christ was a tiger.
2003-01-01 00:39 | User Profile
(I will make an unhappy exceptions for the Church of the Dark Ages and its twisted progeny in Calvin's Geneva. Those things are quite definitely non-Western.)
Boy, aren't we the pathetic little ignoramus! Who do you think came over on the Mayflower? Hindus :lol: :lol: :lol:
Where'd you go to school? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Stonewall Jackson wasn't Western; no, he was Tibetan Buddhist :lol: :lol:
Just stay drunk, you will be happier :lol: :lol: :lol:
2003-01-01 03:59 | User Profile
As a little appetizer, I will begin by acknowledging skemper's uncredited reposting of some Xian mass mailing ("instructor's note"?) and general avoidance of my points. The few responses she does make deal with the democracy/ republic issue - which is not relevant to my argument. I use the terms 'constitution', 'American governance', 'Republic', and 'Greco-Roman'. I make no claim for direct, unaltered, from Solon's-lips-to-Jefferson's-ears transmission, therefore to argue against that is to shout at the four winds. Which, by the way, you are free to do in your spare time.
Wintermute,
This is an immature reply of a little boy who is afraid of being outdone. I answered your points very throughly and did not post anything uncredited. My quotes were from Eagle Forum and I posted a link. I don't think you read my post at all. I showed the Christian worldview thinking of the founding fathers and their thoughts on Christianity and the Law as well as the origins of the 10 Commandments, which you were emphasizing in your post.
2003-01-01 16:30 | User Profile
"The signers, but not the authors, of the Constitution were for the most part Protestant. They were also, for the most part, Masons. The authors, and the ideational current that they instantiated in the Constitution are Greco-Roman."
Yep you got this part right. It is a Protestant-Masonic country in origin, no question.
Thats why they called it "liberty" -- the bell, the statue, the way of life. It got rid of old world old ways old wars old psychotic outlooks, starting in with laws that prevented those from the old countries who had them from owning property or voting, unless they were Protestant, and/or had some idea what it was to think about anything ultimate for yourself, and self up self-government. Sort of a rare thing on earth, up to that point. Or later.
The spirit called "God" the US Constitution was signed under was understood to have been represented by their forefathers -- first and foremost, the Church of England. The father-feeling the revolutionaries had to break down in order to have a country free from the permanent cess pools of Europe's interior slums, was the tie to British crown. Its hard for men to do that. Not many made it through.
Your religion threads, as long as I am on this board, will always come down to this. This is not Cath - O - Jew country. They shoved and wheedled, lied and spied, and now expect to explain to us who our fathers were and what they meant by what they said. Just like they do their own children, if they can get any to listen anymore and kill for them. They want to make ours listen to that multicultural Scorese neocon crap. Neocons just love the God of the Cath-O-Jews. Hell, theirs IS the god of the Cathojews.
Pathological liars and psychotic killers are always of the same stripe, whereever they turn up, so it only took the Vietnam war to bring out the tiger jeezes in me. jeezoos is just the body that had the blood in it -- didn't do a damn thing unless you understod it was the spirit in it, not the blood itself, that carried God. Skip over the next 1500 years, and you start to get that idea coming in, sweeping over all of enlightenment Europe, forever. Catholics and Jews don't understand this "F-" word very well -- get it confused with daddy's or mommy's blood. (the daddy's make the mommies pay for that -- not spiritual, dontchaknow). Its that spirit thing that keeps coming back. Always has, always will. Hard to kill. Best load up your gun, there. Maybe you can pick off a few, they will be the ones looking normal, running hospitals and things like that. BANG! BANG! GITCHEE SOME PROTESTANT ATHEISTS?
2003-01-02 19:42 | User Profile
posted in error.