The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
The Place of Christianity in History
A View from Without
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In today’s irreligious and indeed anti-religious climate the fashion is to dismiss Christianity as crude superstition, and to babble wisely about the separation of church and state. This is unfortunate, and stupid, since Christianity was the heart and soul of as yet the greatest civilization the world has seen. Those who know nothing of it cannot understand the last two thousand years and how our world came to be.

Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control, lost all resemblance to Judaism, and eventually stretched across Europe, Russia, North and South America, Australia, and the Byzantine Empire. In all of these it shaped the culture, art, philosophy, literature, the very framework of mind. Much of this was superb and remains unsurpassed.

And what a magnificent thing it was! The traveler of today may have seen the gorgeous churches of Cuzco in the Peruvian Andes, Norman churches in Sicily, and Notre Dame, Salisbury, the wonderful cathedral of Barcelona, the Hagia Sophia, the ceremony of the Russian Orthodox. The artistry, the engineering needed to build many of them in times without structural steel are astonishing. Today in Mexico, in town after town one finds the churches on the central plaza, all different, many splendid, places of quiet and meditation. In any of these them, before Protestantism cast its drab cloak of half of the faith, a traveler could enter and understand everything he saw.

Barcelona Cathedral, built mostly in 1300s. Things of this caliber are no longer built.
Barcelona Cathedral, built mostly in 1300s. Things of this caliber are no longer built.

Architecture was just the first syllable of a long paragraph. From Christendom came classical music, much of it explicitly Christian: The Saint Matthew Passion, Handel’s Messiah, and the whole panoply of secular music in Christian forms. Jews came to the table late in recent centuries and for a while–it seems to be ending–were wildly disproportionate in their production in the arts and sciences but within the framework established by Christendom long before. Now the Koreans and Chinese begin to do the same. Muslims characteristically have done almost nothing.

The aesthetic element was pronounced, not just in music and architecture but in painting and literature and illuminated manuscripts, One may argue whether Defoe or Cervantes invented the novel, or France or America the airplane, but both came from Christendom. The genius of the faith appeared not only in sacred art but also in tolerance for, indeed encouragement of, works in other themes. For example, Cellini’s Perseus is hardly Christian but was greatly appreciated in the Italy of the 15oo’s. It would not have been in Damascus.

Perseus. If any other faith has produced the range and quality of Christendom’s art, I am unaware of it. The Italians no longer believed in the gods and myths of classical antiquity, but neither were they any longer threatened by them.
Perseus. If any other faith has produced the range and quality of Christendom’s art, I am unaware of it. The Italians no longer believed in the gods and myths of classical antiquity, but neither were they any longer threatened by them.

The list could go on for volumes. After the Greeks and the dry spell that was Rome, mathematics was a Christian enterprise as were physics, chemistry, pretty much everything. Others would work within these fields. They didn’t originate them.

The other major religion of the Mideast, Islam, appeared in the Seventh Century and conquered vast territories, but quickly fell into intellectual sloth and has since produced almost nothing other than splendid carpets and some lovely mosques. This darkness was not of genetic origin. Many of the peoples conquered by Islam were advanced and impressive, as for example the Persians. Rather it is resulted from a deliberate revulsion against thought and inquiry. (The Closing of the Moslem Mind is good on this.) The alleged centuries of convivencia of the three religions in Spain, koom bah yah, and scintillating Islamic intellect are largely academic agitprop. (The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise deals well with this.)

Catholicism in particular has combined spiritual concerns with a strong intellectual bent. The Christian interest in questions of origin and destiny and man’s purpose produced profound thought from the Church Fathers to C. S. Lewis. Today consideration of such matters as death and meaning are held to be in bad taste. Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.

Russian Orthodoxy. Whatever else it is, drab it isn’t.
Russian Orthodoxy. Whatever else it is, drab it isn’t.

And so I see attempts to dismiss Christianity as a mere add-on or style having nothing to do with the achievements of Christendom. This is historical illiteracy. Read any of the thinkers and authors from late Roman times on until recently and you find that they took their faith seriously, that it created their mental worlds. Augustine, Newton, Samuel Johnson, Sydney Smith more recently, and in the United States, the Puritans, Quakers, and so on. Many of these were men of high intellect. Their casual dismissal by professors of sociology is in the nature of monkeys throwing books from a window.

The Renaissance in its entirely was an expression of Christendom. Whether you are a Christian–I am not–isn’t the point. And no, Christians were no more moral than anyone else. Popes catted around like any man does who has the chance. Yet the civilization produced wonders.

The evidence is strong that Protestantism, far less ornate than Catholicism, led to capitalism, which led to the modern West (whatever one thinks of this). See, for example, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

In our material and not very thoughtful age the fashion is to point to the crimes committed by the church, to its venality, hypocrisy, and immorality. They existed. Christians behaved, and behave, as horribly as everybody else. But this is usual in human endeavor. As a moral preceptor Christianity was fraudulent. As a culture and civilization, it was of immense importance. One might note that the atheist dictators–Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot–hold the record for murderousness.

Then came in the Nineteenth Century the third great religion of Middle Eastern origin, or religion manque, Communism. Like Christianity directly, and Islam indirectly, it was a Jewish product. Never has so small a people had so great an influence on history.

ORDER IT NOW

Many wonder how a religion, Judaism, could bring about an avowedly atheist…what word do I want? Philosophy? The answer I think is that Judaism isn’t a religion but a matter of identity and ritual. At least, I don’t think I have ever met a Jew who believed in the six days of Genesis or that Lot’s wife became salt or that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and reappeared, undigested. Christians and Muslims actually believe things, though many of the former resort to mental athletics to reconcile faith and science.

Anyway, communism killed its tens of millions and died, leaving a foul stench and little else.

Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, by the Catalan Anatoni Gaukí, died 1926.  Whether you regard it as lovely or merely eccentric, it is among the last architectural gasps of a once-flourishing faith.
Sagrada Familia, Barcelona, by the Catalan Anatoni Gaukí, died 1926. Whether you regard it as lovely or merely eccentric, it is among the last architectural gasps of a once-flourishing faith.

The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world. The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

Islam, being fanatical and primitive, will presumably survive for a while in its own lands. The mental night that is Islam can be seen in virtually everything, from schooling to commerce and is attributable to a religious hostility to modernity. From The Closing, mentioned above: “In comparison the number of patents registered in the twenty-year period from 1980 to 2000, the report shows Korea with 16328 and nine countries in the Middle East, including Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with 370, with even many of these patents registered by foreigners.”

Judaism? Materialist in the philosophical sense and not requiring its adherents to believe things apparently impossible, it would seem better adapted to modernity. It imposes no restrictions on its adherents in science, culture, or commerce.

But Christendom was a hell of a show while it lasted.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: History, Ideology • Tags: Christianity, Religion, Western Religion 
Hide 444 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Monkeys throwing books out the window! Perfect description of contemporary Scholarship. Way to go, Mr. Reed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/the-place-of-christianity-in-history/#comment-1851703
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Veritatis says:

    A writer at Unz actually made the connection between religion and its fruit, culture?!? Amazing.

    I will object to no secondary argument, it would ruin the pleasant surprise.

    Read More
    • LOL: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Rurik says:

    The triumphs of European and Russian Christianity were a consequence of the blood and spirit (DNA) of the European / Russian people who embraced it (or had it imposed upon them), not of the religion per se. Isaac Newton or Wolfgang Mozart would have been remarkable geniuses under most any or no religion, I posit.

    We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.

    yep

    The Renaissance in its entirely was an expression of Christendom.

    nope, it was in fact a explosion of the creative spirit of these unique people finally unshackled by the tenets of a dogmatic religion. As was/is science, the offspring of the Renaissance.

    a religion for the future?

    well if you pick Judaism, what about the rest of the planet? Judaism is a tribal affair based on the bloodlines and exhortations/precepts of the Old Testament. If you want to emigrate to Israel, your mother has to be of Jewish blood.

    thought-provoking article in any case

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    This tribute to the claptrap of the basically judaizing anti-Church idolaters of the 'White DNA cum IQ superiority', puts the cart before the horses. The triumphs of European Christianity are a consequence of the 'marriage' of the multi-millenary Ancient civilizations (unified by the Hellenistic-Roman empire) with the Church which brought into it the feral barbarian Widukinds, Beowulfs and Rurikids from the fringes of Europe, slowly domesticating and educating them (admittedly the greatest success was with the Rurikids). All science and culture of 'White Europe' irradiated from the Schools and Universities created and patroned by the Church. Ditto for the Renaissance. The Widukinds took their revenge in the Reformation utopianism which waged a long war against the Church and Christian culture and civilization. The drab vision of the anti-human dead Universe of the iconoclasts Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Locke and the deadly tyranny of the materialistic science which they help to create (and whose most egregious successes consist in devising more and more destructive weapons) is the direct result of that 'Widukind' revolt against the Church.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I’m tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six …

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes, jimbojones
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    My agree button not working so AGREE and LOL
    , @Clark Westwood

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six …
     
    LOL. Actually, the posters here seem to be clever enough invoke the myth of Medieval Christian anti-science without actually naming Galileo.
    , @utu
    AGREE! My Agree button doesn't work.
    , @CanSpeccy
    "The church never insisted on strict biblical liberalism"

    Or as Bishop Desmond Tutu put it: "Whatever is not in the spirit of Christ, I reject it. I reject it absolutely."
    , @ThereisaGod
    Quite right and well said. Literalism and, more importantly, is existence as a straw man that can be easily (and publicly) mocked by those that hate Christianity in the first place and who have been working assiduously towards its demise, has much (if not everything) to do with the fading away of Christian presence and influence within our western cultures.

    The other great destroyer (apart from the money-power's covert war against Christianity) is the failure of the leadership of Christian Churches to stand up for Christian principles. The Catholic Church was taken over by Freemasons in 1958 and has been careering towards its own spiritual death (and a merging with globalist Luciferians) ever since.

    Swedenborg* wrote in the 1700's that all Churches (spiritual civilisations) die in the end as they become replaced by their own inversion. It happened with the Adamic God-filled religion of our earliest ancestors who knew no separation from the Creator and accepted that all good was from 'Him'. it happened to the benign religion of the original Hebrews and to other civilisations as well.
    This is what the Book of "Revelations/The Apocalypse" is all about. Christian scripture predicted its own demise 2000 years ago and told us clearly that a new and superior spirituality [the presence of the spirit of Christ in men and women, like to the Edenic religion] will rise from the ashes of Christian culture.

    *Read "Divine Providence" if interested.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Barraco says:

    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts??? Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    Read More
    • Replies: @JerseyJeffersonian
    And the Arabic texts were overwhelmingly themselves translations from Greek texts, some of which originated in Pre-Christian times, but had been cherished and preserved by, uh, Christians.

    And the mathematics, and the sciences were largely, again from Classical roots, along the way picking up Arabic words from translations from the original Classical sources. Also, much of astrological/astronomical knowledge came from the peoples of the Persian culture sphere subjugated by the incurious Muslim barbarians from Arabia. So, no thanks to Muslims again. Later on, still more mathematical knowledge entered the world stage from India, again, after its conquest by incurious Muslim barbarians, whose scholars at best served as transmitters of work done by Hindus and Buddhists.

    And the Renaissance? Largely inspired by Classical texts, literature, and mythology. And just as the Renaissance tendencies were becoming manifest, there was an influx of a great number of texts not already in circulation in the West with the arrival of refugees to the West from Constantinople after its conquest by the barbaric Turks. And many of these texts, particularly those concerned with philosophy, ethics, political thought and the like, were of no interest to the Muslims (they translated next to none of them from Greek or Syriac, despite their being available to them for centuries), the Muslims thinking that they had it all sowed up with the Koran, and therefore having no need to take notice of this literature. But when it hit the Christian culture, these works were closely studied and instrumental in fueling the explosion of newly energized intellectual thought. Whoops.

    Bluster much?
    , @James N. Kennett
    Many of those Arabic texts were themselves translations from the Greek.

    Arab science was indeed great, and surpassed that of Christendom for a couple of centuries. The question is, why did the Arab world fail to build on those accomplishments?

    The answer seems to be in the way it handled the conflict between faith and reason. Fred mentions the book "The Closing of the Muslim Mind", which describes how that conflict was won by those Muslims who rejected reason. Another negative influence is that Baghdad was conquered by the Mongols and by Turkic peoples.

    In contrast, Western Christianity benefited from the insights of St Thomas Aquinas, who embraced classical Greek learning and reconciled it with Christian belief; and while we fought among ourselves, we were never overrun by powerful armies of other powers.

    Western Christendom came out on top, not because it started with some kind of moral superiority, but through accidents of history and geography.
    , @TomSchmidt
    I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts???

    Do you have any actual numbers for this assertion? Almost all might be about 90%. So, 90% of "scientific" texts (whatever that means before Francis Bacon) are translations from Arabic? Gladly assert all you Like, but do read the book Fred recommended about The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise. I'd guess most scientific texts used today were originally in English, or perhaps German. Wouldn't you, or are we not post-dark ages (whenever those were.)?

    Tl;dr: the assertion that the Christians in Spain killed a paradise tracks back to the myth of the Black Spaniard, propaganda (look up the root of that word) from the English ruling caste so they could justify their seizure of Church lands and rally the populace against Spain, and its own interests.
    , @Seraphim
    And these 'Arabic' texts were translations from Greek! There is nothing in them that is an 'invention' of the Arabs. Eventually Islam managed to silence any Greek thought and science with their Allahu Akbar roars and muezzin's bleating. Arabs burned the Library of Alexandria. That was their real attitude toward science.
    , @Randall
    It wasn't bashing the Arabic world. Comprehension is vital in these matters. To wit: if I say that Islam is both backwards and misogynistic, and that Iran is currently a Moslem nation, it should not be inferred that Iran is backwards and misogynistic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. dearieme says:

    “The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind” – Fred.

    “God, isn’t God a shit!” – Randolph Churchill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Shit talking about his own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Flavius says:

    ” “God, isn’t God a shit!” – Randolph Churchill.”

    “Randy, big talk from a pampered Brit shitball. I’m not your problem. You are.” God

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    To be fair to him, Randolph at the time was mostly drunk, reading the Bible for the first time on a bet, and having to put up with air raids and Evelyn Waugh.
    , @dearieme
    Randolph had the advantage of existing, an advantage denied to God.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Barraco
    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts??? Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    And the Arabic texts were overwhelmingly themselves translations from Greek texts, some of which originated in Pre-Christian times, but had been cherished and preserved by, uh, Christians.

    And the mathematics, and the sciences were largely, again from Classical roots, along the way picking up Arabic words from translations from the original Classical sources. Also, much of astrological/astronomical knowledge came from the peoples of the Persian culture sphere subjugated by the incurious Muslim barbarians from Arabia. So, no thanks to Muslims again. Later on, still more mathematical knowledge entered the world stage from India, again, after its conquest by incurious Muslim barbarians, whose scholars at best served as transmitters of work done by Hindus and Buddhists.

    And the Renaissance? Largely inspired by Classical texts, literature, and mythology. And just as the Renaissance tendencies were becoming manifest, there was an influx of a great number of texts not already in circulation in the West with the arrival of refugees to the West from Constantinople after its conquest by the barbaric Turks. And many of these texts, particularly those concerned with philosophy, ethics, political thought and the like, were of no interest to the Muslims (they translated next to none of them from Greek or Syriac, despite their being available to them for centuries), the Muslims thinking that they had it all sowed up with the Koran, and therefore having no need to take notice of this literature. But when it hit the Christian culture, these works were closely studied and instrumental in fueling the explosion of newly energized intellectual thought. Whoops.

    Bluster much?

    Read More
    • Agree: Escher, Che Guava
    • Replies: @Escher
    Arabic numerals actually came from India, including the concept of zero.
    , @Vires
    You sure sound like you know what you are talking about.

    Islamic contributions to the West:

    https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT_vzyy8_TAhXJZVAKHYx1ChYQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lssu.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fjswedene%2FFULBRIGHT_FILES%2FIslamic%2520Contributions%2520to%2520the%2520West.doc&usg=AFQjCNEKV4vtAnB7yLruKW8H0gQztGC2_A

    Islamic Civilization's Contribution to Science:

    https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwi9h__L0M_TAhUHL1AKHV-nBZQQFghPMAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fprofile%2FAli_Tahri2%2Fpublication%2F269763511_Islamic_Civilization%2527s_Contribution_to_Science_and_Technology%2Flinks%2F5495c9e90cf20f487d2f57a2%2FIslamic-Civilizations-Contribution-to-Science-and-Technology.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHHE-0un-Su9J_x_0VceE-XHACVBg&cad=rja

    , @Logan
    "And the Arabic texts were overwhelmingly themselves translations from Greek texts, some of which originated in Pre-Christian times, but had been cherished and preserved by, uh, Christians. "

    The texts in question were all pre-Christian. They had not been cherished and preserved by Christians, which is why the Christians were so happy to get even translations of them from the Muslims.

    The Renaissance was also kicked off by Greek refugees from the fall of Constantinople.

    Part of the problem here is people conflating different eras. The Dark Ages in Europe were when Islam was at its height intellectually. Islam then, as some here have noted, pretty much rejected intellectual advancement at about the same time as Christendom largely embraced it.

    Not a wise move, geopolitically speaking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Louis says:

    Mr. Reed should read The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins and ponder what that is all about if not Christianity. There is much to be pessimistic about regarding Western Culture, but Christianity will survive.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Veritatis says:
    @The Plutonium Kid

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.
     
    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I'm tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

    My agree button not working so AGREE and LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Barraco
    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts??? Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    Many of those Arabic texts were themselves translations from the Greek.

    Arab science was indeed great, and surpassed that of Christendom for a couple of centuries. The question is, why did the Arab world fail to build on those accomplishments?

    The answer seems to be in the way it handled the conflict between faith and reason. Fred mentions the book “The Closing of the Muslim Mind”, which describes how that conflict was won by those Muslims who rejected reason. Another negative influence is that Baghdad was conquered by the Mongols and by Turkic peoples.

    In contrast, Western Christianity benefited from the insights of St Thomas Aquinas, who embraced classical Greek learning and reconciled it with Christian belief; and while we fought among ourselves, we were never overrun by powerful armies of other powers.

    Western Christendom came out on top, not because it started with some kind of moral superiority, but through accidents of history and geography.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppjg4Q-mCZg


    And the last books of the Hebrew Old Testament celebrate Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, the only verifiably historic figure in the entire OT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jnlzForRio
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Alex Weir says: • Website

    Decent article but I’m caffeinated so…

    If protestantism can be said to have set the ground for capitalism…

    Then Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be said to have set the ground for faschism and communism.

    Notice the countries effected by the respective systems.

    Tsarist Russia was collectivist and charmingly folksy with a simultaneous adoration for heroes Saints/Kings and high regard for longsuffering peasants. What better place to preach the protection of the virtue of the proleterait by wise Commisars?

    Nazism seems to come most easily to a mind shaped by the idealism and severity of Catholicism. The SS was modeled on the Jesuits if I am not mistaken.

    Between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism:

    Which devoloped the United States Constitution?

    I think the answer to that question as to any question about human advances is niether.

    People develop things inspite of ideology not because of it.

    The reason that the Christian influence is so great is because Christ pointed this out when he scorned the pharisees.

    His was a command to hold truth and justice in higher regard than power and honor even if the cost required the ultimate sacrifice.

    I was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church and I value it but I do not hold it or any other earthly realization of Christs teaching to be responsible for the achievements of great spirits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ram
    Czarist Russia was probably the worst of the feudal societies, with serfs serving a few masters. It was NOT collectivist. Collectivism became an attractive proposition to such a population held in bondage.
    However much the Pharisees were ridiculed, today it is Rabbinical Pharisaism which rules the wealth of the world, with the Puritan descendents becoming their tools.
    , @Patrick Harris
    Fascism in the strict sense did primarily afflict Catholic societies (Italy, Spain, Austria, France). But its hyper-radicalized variant, Nazisim, drew its strongest support from the Protestant areas of Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Dwright says:

    Good piece Fred, but it is far from over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Oldeguy says:

    The question is not whether Christianity can survive Western Secular Modernity, but rather whether that Modernity can survive without the common ethical framework and sense of purpose ( both individual and communal ) that Christianity previously provided.
    The jury is still very much out on that one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Flavius
    " “God, isn’t God a shit!” – Randolph Churchill."

    "Randy, big talk from a pampered Brit shitball. I'm not your problem. You are." God

    To be fair to him, Randolph at the time was mostly drunk, reading the Bible for the first time on a bet, and having to put up with air raids and Evelyn Waugh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flavius
    The air raids indeed were tough and a bit of the drink certainly a reasonable aid for carrying on. The comment in question does have the ring of 3 am before the head goes down on the table. Whoever carried it from the club on Randy's behalf did not serve him well. Waugh, it is said, could be difficult but what a gift he possessed: Scoop; Black Mischief (unpublishable today); The Loved One (they talk, but they don't mind if you don't listen); and all the others. Who hasn't got a favorite?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Veranon says:

    Islamic Contributions to the West – Lake Superior State University

    https://www.lssu.edu/faculty/…/Islamic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20West.doc

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    ⦁ Thorkild Schioler, ‘Roman and Islamic water lifting wheels’, Odense University Press 1973
    , @Vires
    Better make sure your links work before sharing them next time, if you really want to put Fred to shame, that is.

    Islamic contributions to the West, much to Fred's - the true voice of reason - and other brutes embarrassment:

    https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjT_vzyy8_TAhXJZVAKHYx1ChYQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lssu.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fjswedene%2FFULBRIGHT_FILES%2FIslamic%2520Contributions%2520to%2520the%2520West.doc&usg=AFQjCNEKV4vtAnB7yLruKW8H0gQztGC2_A&cad=rja

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. If anything, Fred’s praise doesn’t go far enough, and his diagnosis of Christianity’s health is too harsh.

    For one thing, Christians WERE more moral than others – the European Christian, unlike the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese, and the American Indians, successfully abolished slavery. Christendom invented and popularized the notions of Natural Law and Human Rights. What is true that Christians never were morally perfect – but that’s not saying much, especially with regard to a religion which holds Original Sin as a core doctrine.

    And regarding Christianity’s current health – well, the Europeans may be abandoning their faith, to their own vast detriment (as Hilaire Belloc wrote, Europe is the faith – and the faith is Europe); but Christianity is burgeoning in both Africa and Asia.

    Christianity has been around for 2000 years and has been spectacularly more successful than ANYTHING else. The Faith has gone through many crises in its long existence and will do just fine. The West – formerly known as Christendom – may abandon its own faith to its own detriment.

    Highly recommend Rodney Stark’s books, they offer great recent insights on the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    "For one thing, Christians WERE more moral than others – the European Christian, unlike the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese, and the American Indians, successfully abolished slavery. Christendom invented and popularized the notions of Natural Law and Human Rights. What is true that Christians never were morally perfect – but that’s not saying much, especially with regard to a religion which holds Original Sin as a core doctrine."


    So what you're saying is that Christianity is flaccid and sentimental?


    I was raised Catholic and that's my view.


    Read your book and then read mine, the New Testament slanders our creator and some sort of needy, lovey dovey, Lord of the Feels character. My book, whose authorship and history isn't shrouded in mystery (we know the most mundane facts of our Nabi and Sahaba's lives) shows God as he really is, an all powerful king of creation. Instead of the nonsensical Christian idea of humanity as God's cosmic lovers, my God created me because he is a king and a king needs subjects. My God doesn't give As for effort or love you for existing, He loves those who serve Him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Escher says:
    @JerseyJeffersonian
    And the Arabic texts were overwhelmingly themselves translations from Greek texts, some of which originated in Pre-Christian times, but had been cherished and preserved by, uh, Christians.

    And the mathematics, and the sciences were largely, again from Classical roots, along the way picking up Arabic words from translations from the original Classical sources. Also, much of astrological/astronomical knowledge came from the peoples of the Persian culture sphere subjugated by the incurious Muslim barbarians from Arabia. So, no thanks to Muslims again. Later on, still more mathematical knowledge entered the world stage from India, again, after its conquest by incurious Muslim barbarians, whose scholars at best served as transmitters of work done by Hindus and Buddhists.

    And the Renaissance? Largely inspired by Classical texts, literature, and mythology. And just as the Renaissance tendencies were becoming manifest, there was an influx of a great number of texts not already in circulation in the West with the arrival of refugees to the West from Constantinople after its conquest by the barbaric Turks. And many of these texts, particularly those concerned with philosophy, ethics, political thought and the like, were of no interest to the Muslims (they translated next to none of them from Greek or Syriac, despite their being available to them for centuries), the Muslims thinking that they had it all sowed up with the Koran, and therefore having no need to take notice of this literature. But when it hit the Christian culture, these works were closely studied and instrumental in fueling the explosion of newly energized intellectual thought. Whoops.

    Bluster much?

    Arabic numerals actually came from India, including the concept of zero.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    'Concept of zero':Rubbish. The concept was known and considered in many cultures, Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, just from memory.

    Chinese script has a character for it and Chinese arithmetic had a notation for zero as a placeholder (which is the role of 0).

    Sure, the Indian notation was a great convenience for arithmetic, but not the introduction of a previously unknown concept.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. epnngg says:

    Fred is at least honest in his appraisal of Christianity and the powerful influence it has had in the world for the last 2000 years. The influence of Christ’s teachings and His very claim to be the incarnate son of God come to save mankind from the darkness of sin and death is indeed unique in the history of all religions.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus, and we do have to make some decisions about who he truly was and is. He never claimed to be a great teacher. His clear declaration was that he had come to save mankind. That he alone had the power and authority to do so. His whole life was a declaration to this fact. He came to lay his life down as a sacrifice for all of mankind, and through his death, he claimed he had the power to give eternal life to all who came to him. So we decide. Either this man was a crazed egomaniac, or he was indeed who he said he was.

    No, Christianity is not dying out. The nihilist Nietzsche declared that “God was dead.”Many since then have claimed the same thing. But even through terrible times of persecution, from the Roman gladiators and wild beasts that shed rivers of blood from the first martyred Christians in the Collesium, to today’s Christians persecuted worldwide, a remnant is always rising who are certain that Christ is the true representative of the living God, the embodiment of all Truth, and that all things are continuing to be made new by his power.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You are passing off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth. :)

    In stark contrast, the ideology of true monotheism, that is Islam (what else?), is not at all dependent on hearsay, but simple logical reasoning. That is, if you are fundamentally a theist at heart.

    Do you spiritual losers actually have a counter to, "There is no God, but God," except for; but believers in Tawhid are such worldly losers, so their foundational belief must be false too, right?

    It is indeed hilarious to see the Christian faithful trying to spin the trinity, as monotheism, just like the Hindus do their faith (I mean, seriously!). When will you twits realise that your spiritual faith is mostly a concoction of Hindu and Greek mythology.

    If (and that is a huge if) and when you realise that, your worldly accomplishments, of which you gloat much, will begin to appear minuscule.

    The question is whether that will happen as you breathe your last, in which case you are basically screwed, or when you have enough time for making amends. *shrug*

    Now, gloat away!

    , @Wizard of Oz
    "We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus". Maybe, but we can certainly doubt just about everything about him that Christians have been encouraged to believe based on what was filtered through from 1st century (but not contemporaneous) texts that the Roman church treated as canonical. I saw an interesting dico recently that seemed to make quite a good case for
    1. Jesus being your Essene related or inspired standard reforming or revolutionary Jewish preacher who had picked up the reins when his cousin John the Baptist was killed;
    2. Jesus and disciples needed financial support and got it from the wife of Herod's chief minister;
    3. Herod who had only married in to the Judaean royal family was pretty happy with Jesus's anti-establushment movement as he would hsve been happy to replace Caiaphas and control the Temple
    4. Herod had some sort of deal with Sejanus when he seemed to be able to speak for Tiberius, and Pilate also was Sejanus's man. Herod was to keep the peace in Palestine for Sejanus when S took over from Tiberius, as emperor or as agent;
    5. The downfall of Sejanus in late 31 AD changed everything and meant that neitheŕ Herod nor Pilate would protect Jesus;
    6. The timing in the gospels doesn't make sense. The events of the last week were really spread over months starting with the 31 AD festival of Tabernacles when the palm fronds would have traditionally been available and Jesus's entry to Hosannas makes some sense. Initially he can turn over a money changer's table in the Temple without being arrested but eventually the news of Sejanus's fall undoes him and he can be crucified to please the local establishment. As to the crowds that had welcomed him turning into those who chose Barabas to be spared? At least it suggests a time frame of months rather than days.
    , @Mr. Hack
    Yours is a welcome reply within this grab bag of replies, mostly written in response to the question that nags at the soul of most every intelligent, inquiring human being: 'what is the meaning of life; for what purpose am I here?' The author of this piece makes a good point here when he states:

    'Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.'

    Having to admit mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime, not being able to find better metaphors for the existential existence of modern man during the last quarter of the 20th century, I can joyfully point to this tract to help lead others out of the conundrum of modern fatalistic oppression. It's an expression of the Good News that you, of course, allude to within your reply. Theosis or deification, the pursuit of union with God, although a part of Catholic and Protestant theology is most fully taught and explained within the Orthodox Church. I consider this tract to be a 'pearl of great value', I hope that you do to:
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx

    , @Sparkon

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus...
     
    Speak for thyself.

    But debating this issue with the faithful is not far removed from insisting to some young child that there really is no Santa Claus.

    'Rough work, and who wants to do it?

    Whether or not human civilization is more of less advanced because of Christianity is a tough call and impossible to know. We can only know what history tells us, for example the fine work of Innocent VIII, as exemplified by his Papal Bull of 1484 dealing with witchcraft:

    It has recently come to our ears...that many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover, they deny with sacrilegious lips the faith they received in holy baptism; and that, at the instigation of the enemy of mankind, they do not fear to commit and perpetrate many other abominable offences and crimes, at the risk of their own souls,
    [...]
    We therefore... do hereby decree, by virtue of our apostolic authority, that it shall be permitted to the said inquisitors in these regions to exercise their office of inquisition and to proceed to the correction, imprisonment, and punishment of the aforesaid persons for their said offences and crimes
    [...]
    Let no man, therefore, dare to infringe this page of our declaration, extension, grant, and mandate, or with rich hardihood to contradict it. If any presume this, let him know that he incurs the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes

    Just in case almighty God is not enough, throw in Peter and Paul for good measure. Burn some witches, and pray harder...that'll cure your impotence.

    Blaming scapegoats, dupes, and patsies is a well-established practice in our modern world, and it probably has ancient roots going back far beyond the Papal Bull of Innocent VIII to the very dawn of human civilization, when witch doctors gained their power by claiming to have contact with, and/or control over both natural and supernatural forces.

    But all is not lost. The open mind turns agnostic, neither accepting nor denying the possibility of a deity, or deities, but rejecting all the theological scribblings of man as fairy tales for adults.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I’m sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @another fred

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I’m sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.
     
    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the "lower orders" should be free to act unrestrained. A "fact" not in evidence, although a popular social/religious tenet in recent history.

    Please do not regard my point as an argument that the "ruling class" should rule unmolested. It is my position that we evolve, socially and biologically, as a result of the tension between the two and that the world would be a most unhappy, and not evolving, place if either class were to get the upper hand unrestrained by the other.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    Which is why officially atheist China is a beacon of democratic populism. Also, have you noticed how much freedom has expanded in increasingly secular Europe? You can say anything you want about any topic, right?
    , @AP
    I didn't realize you were an undergraduate who figured it all out.
    , @CanSpeccy

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders.
     
    Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.

    Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing.

    Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion. To the elites, a secular moral code, whether it be Communism, or multi-culti-globo-liberalism, is preferable to religion since it can be modified by legislation at any time without evidence of supernatural guidance.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite. In the West, globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive, not a unifying and civilizing influence, and hence something that all will come to agree should be abolished.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. bossel says:

    Renaissance! Enlightenment!
    They were successful despite Christianity, not because of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Secular humanism's ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD's will be quite ironic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control

    Factually false. To be Jewish is to follow the Talmud, and the Talmud didn’t exist yet in the first century.

    If anything, it’s the Jews who are a heresy of Christianity. (The Talmud can be viewed as a reaction to, or a rejection of, Christianity.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Yes, Christianity continues the traditions of Israel.

    The Talmud represents a rejection of that tradition and the founding of a new pagan religion.
    , @Mulegino1
    100 percent correct! There are, of course, followers of the "pure Torah" still in existence (the Karaites, the Falashas, etc.) but they have virtually nothing in common with the Talmudic Jews, who as you accurately point out, are the spiritual ancestors of dead end anti-Christ rejectionists. The former are patrilineal and consider only the Pentateuch as inspired (so far as I know); the latter have only a tenuous and cosmetic regard for the Torah- their authority is the Babylonian Talmud, and, in absolute contradiction to any Semitic or Middle Eastern tradition, are matrilineal.

    Neither Christ, nor the first Christians were "Jews" in the commonly understood contemporary sense- they were Judeans, i.e., those who believed that the authentic worship of the God of Abraham was conducted at the temple in Jerusalem of Judea, not in Samaria on Mt. Gerizim. The idea that Christ or the first Christians had any spiritual or even ethnic affinity with the "Brooklyn Deli" type Jew of today is absurd in the extreme. Those people in the fur hats have about as much historical affinity with Palestine and the Levant as did King Kamehameha.
    , @mcohen
    you come to unz,post some crap,take a crap,causes others to wisely nod like crap.whats the point......bored,lonely,toothache,back problems,to much curry.

    posted the link for you not to read.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

    i am working on the 14 principles that should be the foundation of an islamic state.care to contribute.so far i have completed principle number1

    1.the first principle for the basis for and islamic state must be the full acceptance of people of all relegions and cultures.it must have the ability to provide a safe space for all its inhabitants.survival must come first.both moslems and non moslems who want to live in an islamic state must accept this first principle.before anything else.

    2.the islamic state must first be a state in the mind before in the physical.those like minded people who wish to live in an islamic state must come together and agree to accept islam as the guiding principal governing daily life.the life based on sharia law.

    3.then only can the physical boundaries be chosen.they must be chosen in the path of peace and mutual consent.conflict must be rejected

    4........
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. dearieme says:
    @Flavius
    " “God, isn’t God a shit!” – Randolph Churchill."

    "Randy, big talk from a pampered Brit shitball. I'm not your problem. You are." God

    Randolph had the advantage of existing, an advantage denied to God.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Thanks christies for 500 years or more of ignorance and for very slow reason-ning of the world.

    To each beautiful curch we have a innocent who was killed by sanctified christy!!!

    It’s like autism and talent.

    It’s not exactly entire autism who may make someone very talented, but only or fundamentally the good points of autism. Indeed, some people would be even more talented without dark side of autism.

    To give credit christies as the whole responsible for the ”greatest civilization” it’s just despise a century of pure ignorance being pushed for millions of people.

    What christyanism has been for centuries it’s what neo-leftism is today. More historical memory and less poorly developed conclusion like that.

    It’s also like to despise every philosopher who taught to embrace reason rather than superstition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I'm sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I’m sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the “lower orders” should be free to act unrestrained. A “fact” not in evidence, although a popular social/religious tenet in recent history.

    Please do not regard my point as an argument that the “ruling class” should rule unmolested. It is my position that we evolve, socially and biologically, as a result of the tension between the two and that the world would be a most unhappy, and not evolving, place if either class were to get the upper hand unrestrained by the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the “lower orders” should be free to act unrestrained.
     
    It doesn't depend on any silly 'positions'. What I'm saying is that attributing subjectively defined 'achievements' of societies to minor details of their myths ("achievements of Christendom") is utterly idiotic. The author might want to read some materialistic account; there are popular publications, Guns, Germs, and Steel, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Barraco
    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts??? Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts???

    Do you have any actual numbers for this assertion? Almost all might be about 90%. So, 90% of “scientific” texts (whatever that means before Francis Bacon) are translations from Arabic? Gladly assert all you Like, but do read the book Fred recommended about The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise. I’d guess most scientific texts used today were originally in English, or perhaps German. Wouldn’t you, or are we not post-dark ages (whenever those were.)?

    Tl;dr: the assertion that the Christians in Spain killed a paradise tracks back to the myth of the Black Spaniard, propaganda (look up the root of that word) from the English ruling caste so they could justify their seizure of Church lands and rally the populace against Spain, and its own interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Modernity has no future Fred. Christendom will survive it. Thank you for this. Unexpected and refreshing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Old fogey
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. @Mao Cheng Ji
    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I'm sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    Which is why officially atheist China is a beacon of democratic populism. Also, have you noticed how much freedom has expanded in increasingly secular Europe? You can say anything you want about any topic, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Also, have you noticed how much freedom has expanded in increasingly secular Europe?
     
    The loss of freedom is no accident. Secular liberalism is a religion that has to be enforced. All secular religions have to be imposed and maintained by force. There's no other way to maintain a secular religion. Any secular religion will end in totalitarianism. You can maintain a religion by faith, or by force, and in the case of secular religions only one option is available.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @another fred

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I’m sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.
     
    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the "lower orders" should be free to act unrestrained. A "fact" not in evidence, although a popular social/religious tenet in recent history.

    Please do not regard my point as an argument that the "ruling class" should rule unmolested. It is my position that we evolve, socially and biologically, as a result of the tension between the two and that the world would be a most unhappy, and not evolving, place if either class were to get the upper hand unrestrained by the other.

    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the “lower orders” should be free to act unrestrained.

    It doesn’t depend on any silly ‘positions’. What I’m saying is that attributing subjectively defined ‘achievements’ of societies to minor details of their myths (“achievements of Christendom”) is utterly idiotic. The author might want to read some materialistic account; there are popular publications, Guns, Germs, and Steel, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You do sound a bit undergraduate in your confident espousal of oversimplification. So what if the developments of modern civilisation could only occur in Eurasia and not Africa, Australasia or the Americas for environmental reasons suggested by Jared Diamond? That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s). Cf. also Eric Jones "The European Miracle".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @bossel
    Renaissance! Enlightenment!
    They were successful despite Christianity, not because of it.

    Secular humanism’s ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD’s will be quite ironic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Secular humanism’s ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD’s will be quite ironic."

    Not quite. The blacks and browns are more than making up for whites and their apparent lack of interest in life creation. I'm sure you've been working hard to fill the void. I mean, your wife stays home and tends to your brood while you are off playing Ward Cleaver, right?

    Of course, your notion of secular humanism refers to those groups of people who are adherents to organized religion other than your own preferred brand of faith. In other words, unless people strictly believe in what you believe, they get dumped into this category. It's nice and neat and clean.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Christianity’s chief virtue and contribution was as the socio-cultural glue that bound the Christian (and even the non-Christian and non-believing) inhabitants of Europe and the United States (and, to other, less harmonious extent in Russia and the in rest of the Orthodox-majority lands) together in the least internally barbarous, most salubriously literate, most internally peaceful and harmonious, broadly cooperative, and continually advancing societies ever.

    Ever.

    Under constant hateful, so-called “secularist” attack predicated from the false gospel of temporal material envy, Christianity’s vital role as socio-cultural glue is today sorely missed, or am I the only Unz reader who has Noticed today’s division and atomization that are destroying Western Civilization from within as materialist “secularism” is monotonously inculcated in schools and via Enemedia-Pravda, Government, and Globali$t corporations to indoctrinate more and more followers into the anti-intellectual, anti-civilizing mobs of materialist/Globali$t liberalism’s useful idiots (e.g. , Black Bloc, “antifa,” By Any Means Necessary, La Raza, Wall Street & Deep State bureaucrats & factotums, &c.)?

    Today even Christian churches have themselves capitulated to and adopted the false gospel of temporal material envy embedded in the various materialism-based forms of “Liberation Theology.”

    “And a hard rain’s a-gonna fall . . . .”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Today even Christian churches have themselves capitulated to and adopted the false gospel of temporal material envy embedded in the various materialism-based forms of “Liberation Theology.”
     
    Today the majority of Christian churches are firmly in the camp of those who hope to destroy our civilisation. The craven surrender and the subsequent nauseating groveling to secularism of Christian churches has been the most horrifying event in our history.

    Perhaps it's inevitable. Christianity is an ideal religion for slaves, women and homosexuals. It appeals to white people who want to live as slaves.

    If Christianity is to revive and play a positive role it's going to have to get seriously medieval. Warrior monks and that sort of thing. Chivalry. Taking up the sword to fight for the faith. Medieval Christians weren't real big on the idea of turning the other cheek. That's why Christianity was thriving during the Middle Ages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. nickels says:

    Civilization and beauty are results of Logos = reason, harmony, peace = Christ.

    Logos made appearances before Christ (pre-figurations of Christ in the Old T, in Greece, etc…).

    The message of the resurrection is precisely that there is a reckoning beyond the material and the pleasures of this world. This leads people to sacrifice their own wills to a greater good. That suppression of immediate will is the building block of western civilization. The adoration of God is the source of beauty in the west and its art.

    As we lose the Logos, the bloodletting and degradation of beauty will only increase.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It was so simply and beautifully said from the beginning by the one who saw Him:

    In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:1-18).

    But indeed, we are too busy reading what luminaries like James Tabor or fraudsters like Simcha Jacobovici have to say about the Gospels to have time to read the Gospels.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. nickels says:
    @anonymous coward

    Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control
     
    Factually false. To be Jewish is to follow the Talmud, and the Talmud didn't exist yet in the first century.

    If anything, it's the Jews who are a heresy of Christianity. (The Talmud can be viewed as a reaction to, or a rejection of, Christianity.)

    Yes, Christianity continues the traditions of Israel.

    The Talmud represents a rejection of that tradition and the founding of a new pagan religion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. mad1 says:

    Read Joseph Atwill Christianity is the most successful false flag op of all time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Mulegino1 says:
    @anonymous coward

    Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control
     
    Factually false. To be Jewish is to follow the Talmud, and the Talmud didn't exist yet in the first century.

    If anything, it's the Jews who are a heresy of Christianity. (The Talmud can be viewed as a reaction to, or a rejection of, Christianity.)

    100 percent correct! There are, of course, followers of the “pure Torah” still in existence (the Karaites, the Falashas, etc.) but they have virtually nothing in common with the Talmudic Jews, who as you accurately point out, are the spiritual ancestors of dead end anti-Christ rejectionists. The former are patrilineal and consider only the Pentateuch as inspired (so far as I know); the latter have only a tenuous and cosmetic regard for the Torah- their authority is the Babylonian Talmud, and, in absolute contradiction to any Semitic or Middle Eastern tradition, are matrilineal.

    Neither Christ, nor the first Christians were “Jews” in the commonly understood contemporary sense- they were Judeans, i.e., those who believed that the authentic worship of the God of Abraham was conducted at the temple in Jerusalem of Judea, not in Samaria on Mt. Gerizim. The idea that Christ or the first Christians had any spiritual or even ethnic affinity with the “Brooklyn Deli” type Jew of today is absurd in the extreme. Those people in the fur hats have about as much historical affinity with Palestine and the Levant as did King Kamehameha.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    The idea that Christ or the first Christians had any spiritual or even ethnic affinity with the “Brooklyn Deli” type Jew of today is absurd in the extreme. Those people in the fur hats have about as much historical affinity with Palestine and the Levant as did King Kamehameha.
     
    Excellent point.
    , @ScizzaMan
    King Kamahameha?

    I always wondered what happened to that lost 13th tribe!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Muslims and their non-existent patents list? White racists, moral midgets, spiritual losers, pagan polytheists, love to rub that essential truth in, don’t you? Fair enough. :)

    But, we “losers” do have our very own most valuable “patent”;

    There is no God, but God.

    We truly understand this and live by it every single day?

    So go ahead, revel in your accomplishments. In fact, I would like to thank the non-Muslim world for all the glorious discoveries and inventions, which I too get to take advantage of.

    For me, best of both worlds. All praise is due to Allah(swt) alone!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    There is no God, but God.
     
    Correction: don't you mean "there is no God but God and his uncreated, co-eternal Koran"?

    Muslims are not pure monotheists, they believe in a ridiculous duality of Allah+Koran.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Sorry! "There is no God, but God." would be a trademark not a patent because the latter would demand familiarity with hard sciences (math, physics etc.) not soft ones like (jive, voodoo etc.)!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anarchyst says:

    The “beginning of the end” of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ which exists to this day. .
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its “universality”. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new “Modern Mass” and the New Church, in general…It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to “push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an “actor”, diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church “dogma” or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations–nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize celebration of pre-Vatican II principles.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Anon 2
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    The “beginning of the end” of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded . . .Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its “universality”. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new “Modern Mass” and the New Church, in general…It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to “push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an “actor”, diminishing his status and importance.

    All well put and true. Bravo to you for reminding everyone of how the Catholic Church turned its back on its glorious history. There is no hope for our civilization until people return to their Christian roots.
    , @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque
    The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy can correct your false assertion. The first identifiable Papal legislation dealing with continence/celibacy was promulgated by Pope Siricius, 384 A.D. and which legislation was dedicated to recalling his priests to the ancient praxis of continence/celibacy and was not novel legislation imposing a new discipline.

    Even the first new priests in the church, although married, had to be continent.

    The Catholic Church had good (traditional) reasons for adopting continence/chastity and it had aught to do with money or property. The practice was directly tied to the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood whose men had to be celibate during the time they served in the Temple - even though they were married.

    The idea - easily sloughed-off in this epoch of pornography and lust - was that to be completely committed to the ministry of sacrifice in the Temple meant one had to be liberated from any attachment to coitus or desire of same and
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    How do you feel about the same sex marriage for the clergy from the parish priest to the Bishop of Rome?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @epnngg
    Fred is at least honest in his appraisal of Christianity and the powerful influence it has had in the world for the last 2000 years. The influence of Christ's teachings and His very claim to be the incarnate son of God come to save mankind from the darkness of sin and death is indeed unique in the history of all religions.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus, and we do have to make some decisions about who he truly was and is. He never claimed to be a great teacher. His clear declaration was that he had come to save mankind. That he alone had the power and authority to do so. His whole life was a declaration to this fact. He came to lay his life down as a sacrifice for all of mankind, and through his death, he claimed he had the power to give eternal life to all who came to him. So we decide. Either this man was a crazed egomaniac, or he was indeed who he said he was.

    No, Christianity is not dying out. The nihilist Nietzsche declared that "God was dead."Many since then have claimed the same thing. But even through terrible times of persecution, from the Roman gladiators and wild beasts that shed rivers of blood from the first martyred Christians in the Collesium, to today's Christians persecuted worldwide, a remnant is always rising who are certain that Christ is the true representative of the living God, the embodiment of all Truth, and that all things are continuing to be made new by his power.

    You are passing off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth. :)

    In stark contrast, the ideology of true monotheism, that is Islam (what else?), is not at all dependent on hearsay, but simple logical reasoning. That is, if you are fundamentally a theist at heart.

    Do you spiritual losers actually have a counter to, “There is no God, but God,” except for; but believers in Tawhid are such worldly losers, so their foundational belief must be false too, right?

    It is indeed hilarious to see the Christian faithful trying to spin the trinity, as monotheism, just like the Hindus do their faith (I mean, seriously!). When will you twits realise that your spiritual faith is mostly a concoction of Hindu and Greek mythology.

    If (and that is a huge if) and when you realise that, your worldly accomplishments, of which you gloat much, will begin to appear minuscule.

    The question is whether that will happen as you breathe your last, in which case you are basically screwed, or when you have enough time for making amends. *shrug*

    Now, gloat away!

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    Anonymous,

    Can you be more concise when you say that a Christian "passes off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth"?

    How is Islam based on "simple, logical reasoning, and not on hearsay " in contrast to Christianity?

    You call those who claim Christianity to be the truth "losers." What is your understanding of life that makes you not a "loser?"

    Can you show me how Christianity has its roots in Hindu and Greek mythology? What have you read that would bring you to that conclusion?

    I don't believe I was gloating at all. I merely was pointing out that all of us have to make a decision about Christ. We can either reject who He said was, or we can accept Him as Truth.

    You have clearly rejected him, and that is certainly your choice. I think of you as neither a "twit" or a "loser" for believing so.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    After your sound first sentence you descend into nonsense. The only logic of theism is that theism is fundamentally illogical and rationally impossible because an omnipotent Creator deity that supposedly cares for his creation and creatures but doesn't intervene to make sure they understand Him and his will (if any) correctly and leaves billions of Buddhists and Hindus totally uninstructed about Him is an impossibility.
    , @Abdī
    And it will not be possible to be and not to be the same thing, except in virtue of an ambiguity, just as if one whom we call ‘man’, others were to call ‘not-man’; but the point in question is not this, whether the same thing can at the same time be and not be a man in name, but whether it can in fact. - Aristotle, Metaphysics

    Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

    1 Samuel 15:29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

    Job 9:32 “For He is not a man as I am that I may answer Him, that we may go to court together.”


    The concept of trinity disagrees with both the scripture of the Hebrews and the logic of the Greeks - the two very things Hellenist Jews wanted so desperately to combine when they contrived Christianity.

    The laws of the excluded middle and contradiction do not undermine monotheism, they demand it. They undermine the trinity which is rank paganism. Logic can be seen as negative theology (what God isn't) while revelation is positive theology (what God is). Monotheism can only be undermined when the imperfect reasoning abilities of men are placed above revelation - which is exactly what the trinity doctrine does.

    Divinity can be seen as "irrational" in the sense that the human mind alone cannot be expected to properly quantify it, hence the need for revelation from above. If we accept the premise of unrevealed divinity and its "irrationality" then monotheism is less irrational a priori than polytheism. In this same manner Unitarianism is less irrational than Trinitarianism. Then if we accept the premise of revealed divinity along with the veracity of Abrahamic scripture we find that monotheism is more veracious a posteriori than polytheism; similarly Unitarianism is more veracious than Trinitarianism. Trinity is subrational whereas Tawhid is suprarational; Trinity is extra-scriptural whereas Tawhid is scriptural.

    God is fully Beyond-Being because God is not limited in anyway like/by/or part of God's creation. An understanding of God based on observing the createdness of being (God's creation) would be by necessity induced rationally, however the Trinity is irrational. An understanding of God based on revealed scripture would be deduced from beyond being, yet Trinity theory is not revealed in scripture. While most though not all Christians accept the trinity theory axiomatically as a compelling paradox it is wholly artificial in the sense that neither scripture nor rationality can account for it; it is an equivocation.

    Catholics claim to be against continual revelation yet they endorse "internal locution" and believe the "holy spirit" has helped them do everything from write their own Bible to carry out the Second Vatican Council. They've signed the front and back of a theological blank check.

    Trinitarian Christianity holds that the Godhead is the ideal form of and over the "Three Persons" that share the same essence. This theory opens the door for "all potentialities" which is how it is disproved by the Third Man Argument. We can observe the infinite regress of divine powers in the Catholic Church in ways such as Mary being called "The Mother of God", calling Anne "The Grandmother of God", the Immaculate Conception not only of Jesus but of Mary along with her perpetual virginity, the neverending litany of new Saints, doctrinal infalibility. Protestants do not deny Jesus is God, nor do they deny that Mary was the mother of Jesus yet they deny she is Mother of God. So Catholics can be said to operate logically from an illogical premise whereas Protestants operate illogically from the same illogical premise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Antiwar7 says:

    Don’t judge all of Islam so harshly. Compare the Puritans in America in the 1600′s (capital punishment for religious crimes) to the Puritans’ descendants of the 1900′s (Congregationalists and Unitarians, amongst the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches).

    Plus, in the world of Islam, the West undermined the religiously tolerant, modern, nationalists of the 1950′s by opposing them or co-opting them, and defeating them. Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they’ve evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski! If we simply left the Muslim world alone, they would have evolved along their 1950′s trajectory, when a single Irish woman could bike from Europe to India, through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dervla Murphy, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163921.Full_Tilt ). And if we leave them alone enough, it would settle back to that again. (Ask the young people of Iran.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Don’t judge all of Islam so harshly."

    Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks and Muslims.

    I think, in a way, we have to give the barbarians of Europe some credit for the rise of the West. This may sound counter-intuitive since barbarians sacked Rome. But sometimes, a civilization grows decadent and degenerate. It has to be destroyed like a dead tree in order for a new tree to grow.

    So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great whereas Eastern Roman Empire survived but maintained a mummified civilization for too long. West got rid of dead tree and grew a new tree. The East kept with its aging tree that got bigger but weaker and then dead... until the Turks finally came along and kicked it down.

    So, the barbarians must be given their due. But thankfully, the barbarians were white folks with genetic traits capable of amazing things. They were high-IQ barbarians. Like the Exterminators in ZARDOZ.

    Over time, barbarianism mixed with spiritualism. Thus, Europe had both warrior virility and saintly virtue-ness. It combined the balls with the heart. And then, with rediscovery of Classical knowledge, there was also the brain. So, the formula was the balls + heart + brains.
    In a way, the sense of 'rediscovery' made things more exciting. Suppose you have a book collection and it's always there and you get tired of it cuz it's always there. You might not much care to read. But suppose the books are lost, and you feel you lost something so precious. But then, suppose you rediscover it. Now it's like a miracle and you're excited to read the books.

    In a way, the rise of America was a form of neo-barbarianism. Even though European civilizations were great, they were rigidly stratified, and the energies of many people were repressed. In order for Western Europe to become civilized, they had to increasingly put away barbarian things. This made for more order but it also led to stifling of creative energies.
    The danger of rise of civilization was the suppression of the creative barbarian spirit of adventure and freedom. For Europe to develop into orderly societies, people had to be turned into serfs. In a way, being a serf was worse than being a slave of a barbarian lord. It was certainly less fun. If you were a slave of a barbarian lord who was pillaging some place and if you saved your lord in a battle, he might free you and embrace you as a fellow warrior, and then, you are riding alongside your master and playing barbarian too. But if you were a serf of a landed aristocrat, you were just stuck to your plot and planting turnips all year around.
    In the US, Europeans who had bowed down to masters, lords, and other such highfalutin types could finally be free. Even though whites fought the savage Indians, they went half-barbarian as free farmers, pioneers, adventurers, mountain men, cowboys, ranchers, and etc. In Europe, it was mostly the nobility that had horses and guns. In America, even regular folks could have guns and ride horses like wild Indians and act semi-barbarian. So, the repressed creative barbarian energies were allowed to run free in the US in Hemingway-ish manner, and that made America. It's like in LAST OF MOHICANS, which is almost like the telling of Romans vs Germanics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzMx60ea_gI

    America was founded by landed aristocrats like Jefferson and Washington and such. But many who fought to gain independence were regular folks like in the Al Pacino movie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avCXb58GNRU

    Another great achievement of the barbarians was that they ended the Roman project of proto-globalism that was bringing all these Arabs and Africans to Rome. Romans became like current Europe, and they let in all these non-whites to do stuff that Romans were too lazy to do themselves. Romans got decadent like in Fellini Satyricon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrBUdUYL71s

    Indeed, what the EU needs is a barbarian revolt. The elites are rotten to the core. Their system is decadent. Their religion is worship of men who indulge in fecal penetration. And their holy icon is some guy who removed his balls and penis to get fake vagina. And their idea of evolutionary progress is to have as many white wombs be colonized by Negro seed.
    We need a barbarian revolt when the system becomes too rotten.
    , @Seraphim
    Right, there were the misguided Anglo-Americans who encouraged the 'revival' of a withering Islam as a spearhead against Russia and China, reviving their policies of 'containing' Russia which led to WWI. The Muslim Brotherhood was a creation of the British Intelligence Service specially designed to reverse the effects of the salutary dismantling of the Ottoman Empire (the Caliphate).
    , @utu

    Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they’ve evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski!
     
    One may wonder who was really behind the overthrowing of the Shah regime in Iran. Iran was trying to do everything right by being a super friend of America and Israel. Still it did not protect them from the regime change. So what did them in? Was it because they were too successful in economic development and becoming a modern secular state? So who really unleashed the ayatollahs on them? The same people who tried to unleash Muslim Brotherhood on Nasser?
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    We shall leave them alone 1) either when the oil is depleted or is replaced by something else, 2) and when Israel has achieved all it wants to as a destiny nation...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Anonymous
    Muslims and their non-existent patents list? White racists, moral midgets, spiritual losers, pagan polytheists, love to rub that essential truth in, don't you? Fair enough. :)

    But, we "losers" do have our very own most valuable "patent";

    There is no God, but God.

    We truly understand this and live by it every single day?

    So go ahead, revel in your accomplishments. In fact, I would like to thank the non-Muslim world for all the glorious discoveries and inventions, which I too get to take advantage of.

    For me, best of both worlds. All praise is due to Allah(swt) alone!!

    There is no God, but God.

    Correction: don’t you mean “there is no God but God and his uncreated, co-eternal Koran”?

    Muslims are not pure monotheists, they believe in a ridiculous duality of Allah+Koran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Actually it is:
    lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh
    There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God

    'Muslims' actually worship Muhammad. The Koran is just a collection of his ravings (and even that is not so sure). Muslims don't want to impose the belief in the 'unity of God' (in which actually everybody else was believing) but to 'submit' (this is the meaning of Islam) the world to the rants of Muhammad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Old fogey says:
    @anarchyst
    The "beginning of the end" of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church "Vatican II Ecumenical Council" of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ's crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ which exists to this day. .
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its "universality". Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new "Modern Mass" and the New Church, in general...It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to "push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an "actor", diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church "dogma" or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations--nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize celebration of pre-Vatican II principles.

    The “beginning of the end” of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded . . .Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its “universality”. Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new “Modern Mass” and the New Church, in general…It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to “push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an “actor”, diminishing his status and importance.

    All well put and true. Bravo to you for reminding everyone of how the Catholic Church turned its back on its glorious history. There is no hope for our civilization until people return to their Christian roots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @The Plutonium Kid

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.
     
    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I'm tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six …

    LOL. Actually, the posters here seem to be clever enough invoke the myth of Medieval Christian anti-science without actually naming Galileo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Flavius says:
    @Anon
    To be fair to him, Randolph at the time was mostly drunk, reading the Bible for the first time on a bet, and having to put up with air raids and Evelyn Waugh.

    The air raids indeed were tough and a bit of the drink certainly a reasonable aid for carrying on. The comment in question does have the ring of 3 am before the head goes down on the table. Whoever carried it from the club on Randy’s behalf did not serve him well. Waugh, it is said, could be difficult but what a gift he possessed: Scoop; Black Mischief (unpublishable today); The Loved One (they talk, but they don’t mind if you don’t listen); and all the others. Who hasn’t got a favorite?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Secular humanism's ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD's will be quite ironic.

    “Secular humanism’s ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD’s will be quite ironic.”

    Not quite. The blacks and browns are more than making up for whites and their apparent lack of interest in life creation. I’m sure you’ve been working hard to fill the void. I mean, your wife stays home and tends to your brood while you are off playing Ward Cleaver, right?

    Of course, your notion of secular humanism refers to those groups of people who are adherents to organized religion other than your own preferred brand of faith. In other words, unless people strictly believe in what you believe, they get dumped into this category. It’s nice and neat and clean.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why are you obsessed with and fixated on race?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. epnngg says:
    @Anonymous
    You are passing off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth. :)

    In stark contrast, the ideology of true monotheism, that is Islam (what else?), is not at all dependent on hearsay, but simple logical reasoning. That is, if you are fundamentally a theist at heart.

    Do you spiritual losers actually have a counter to, "There is no God, but God," except for; but believers in Tawhid are such worldly losers, so their foundational belief must be false too, right?

    It is indeed hilarious to see the Christian faithful trying to spin the trinity, as monotheism, just like the Hindus do their faith (I mean, seriously!). When will you twits realise that your spiritual faith is mostly a concoction of Hindu and Greek mythology.

    If (and that is a huge if) and when you realise that, your worldly accomplishments, of which you gloat much, will begin to appear minuscule.

    The question is whether that will happen as you breathe your last, in which case you are basically screwed, or when you have enough time for making amends. *shrug*

    Now, gloat away!

    Anonymous,

    Can you be more concise when you say that a Christian “passes off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth”?

    How is Islam based on “simple, logical reasoning, and not on hearsay ” in contrast to Christianity?

    You call those who claim Christianity to be the truth “losers.” What is your understanding of life that makes you not a “loser?”

    Can you show me how Christianity has its roots in Hindu and Greek mythology? What have you read that would bring you to that conclusion?

    I don’t believe I was gloating at all. I merely was pointing out that all of us have to make a decision about Christ. We can either reject who He said was, or we can accept Him as Truth.

    You have clearly rejected him, and that is certainly your choice. I think of you as neither a “twit” or a “loser” for believing so.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Seraphim says:
    @dearieme
    "The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind" - Fred.



    "God, isn’t God a shit!" - Randolph Churchill.

    Shit talking about his own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Seraphim says:
    @Barraco
    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts??? Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    And these ‘Arabic’ texts were translations from Greek! There is nothing in them that is an ‘invention’ of the Arabs. Eventually Islam managed to silence any Greek thought and science with their Allahu Akbar roars and muezzin’s bleating. Arabs burned the Library of Alexandria. That was their real attitude toward science.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    “The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind… Judaism? Materialist in the philosophical sense and not requiring its adherents to believe things apparently impossible, it would seem better adapted to modernity. It imposes no restrictions on its adherents in science, culture, or commerce.”

    Old Testament is the real thing. It has everything. Mythology, history, poetry, laws, philosophy, etc.
    New Testament is great too, but it only pursues a single idea. Old Testament has more contradictions, therefore it is more interesting. In a way, New Testament tried to resolve those contradictions. But crisis is always more interesting than resolution.

    The Old Testament doesn’t have a lot of magical events once the human realm is well-established. It is in the Genesis where most of the magical stuff is, but this makes sense since it’s about pre-history. This is true of any civilization. Their ‘remembrance’ of the dawn is the most magical and mythical. But as things become more established, there is less of that magical stuff. So, the Dark Ages of Greek ‘history’ is filled with stories of gods and mythic heroes. But later Greek history is more like real history.
    The later parts of the Old Testament become more like histories and chronicles than mythology. Also, the magical parts of Genesis have great poetic power and can be read as such instead of literally as magic.

    As for the Old Testament being ‘ugly’, life is ugly. People are ugly. History is ugly. Religion isn’t a fantasy or fairytale. Religion must grapple with the ugliness of life.
    And why is it ‘immoral’? Because of God’s laws about stoning people for a bunch of crimes? But is the heaven-hell theory of Christianity less cruel? In some ways, Christian cosmology is more cruel. If you get stoned to death for a sin, it’s gonna be horrible, but when you’re dead, the suffering is over. You’re dead and that’s that. In contrast, even though Christianity urges compassion and love in THIS WORLD, it says vengeance is God’s. And if God is angry with you, you will burn in hell forever. Now, what is more cruel? Getting stoned to death or being burned forever? I’ll take the stones.

    Some might say the Old Testament God is cruel in the way He killed people with floods and fires and such. But there were natural disasters that wiped out lots of people. So, people back then had to ask why such things happened. And they figured God was punishing people for doing bad stuff, like humping each other in the ass. I wouldn’t mind if God existed and hurled some fireballs at the San Fran homo parade.

    Anyway, floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Locusts happen. And people back then had to come up with some kind of answer.

    The possibilities were:

    1. God doesn’t make the bad things happen. They just happen, and God does nothing to stop them. But then, the problem with this argument is, ‘why did God create a universe in which bad stuff happens?’ Or, ‘If God can intervene and stop the bad stuff, why doesn’t he?’

    2. God wants to stop bad things from happening but He hasn’t the power to do so. He feels sorry for humanity, wants to help, and but can’t. Okay, now we have a nice god, but he’s not a very powerful god. What good is a god who is not powerful enough to control the world?

    3. God makes bad things happen because he loves to feeeel the power like Mr. T in ROCKY III. And he pities the fool who dare bitch and complain. Okay, now we have a powerful badass god, but he’s nihilistic and just loves to show off his power for the hell of it. He’s like some rapping negro punk thug of the universe.

    4. God is powerful and good. He wants good stuff for us, but we sin so much and disappoint Him big time. And so, as punishment, He whups our butt once in awhile because we seem to lose sight of what really matters when things get good. It’s like the Jews in TEN COMMANDMENTS while Moses was at Sinai getting the tablets. They had food and wine and began to boogie oogie.

    Out of the four possibilities, the fourth sounds most moral though not exactly perfect because God’s punishment sometime makes good sense — when He whupped the buggers of Sodom and Gomorrah — but other times seems a bit excessive.
    Only #4 shows God to be all-powerful and good. And it’s the only way to morally explain natural and historical phenomena of mayhem and stuff.

    As for the stuff about wiping out the entire enemy tribes when the Jews are seeking to establish their homeland, that is nasty business. But I suspect that kind of military butchery was common among ancient tribes. Also, are we any better? Mao killed millions. Stalin killed millions. Truman nukes entire cities. British blockade starved many Germans in WWI. Sanctions in Iraq killed 100,000s. Japanese went nuts in Nanking. America was built by wiping out Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dube
    Possibility #5: God takes the penalty for the evil. Isn't that the straight story?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You commit the fatal fallacy of allowing your deity to get annoyed with us and then behave in a way which we have long objected to as unjust and wrong in principal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward

    There is no God, but God.
     
    Correction: don't you mean "there is no God but God and his uncreated, co-eternal Koran"?

    Muslims are not pure monotheists, they believe in a ridiculous duality of Allah+Koran.

    Actually it is:
    lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh
    There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God

    ‘Muslims’ actually worship Muhammad. The Koran is just a collection of his ravings (and even that is not so sure). Muslims don’t want to impose the belief in the ‘unity of God’ (in which actually everybody else was believing) but to ‘submit’ (this is the meaning of Islam) the world to the rants of Muhammad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    The idea that the Koran is "co-eternal and uncreated" is official Muslim doctrine, and you'll get your head chopped if you disagree.

    How these people have the gall to rant about "pure monotheism" is beyond me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Antiwar7
    Don't judge all of Islam so harshly. Compare the Puritans in America in the 1600's (capital punishment for religious crimes) to the Puritans' descendants of the 1900's (Congregationalists and Unitarians, amongst the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches).

    Plus, in the world of Islam, the West undermined the religiously tolerant, modern, nationalists of the 1950's by opposing them or co-opting them, and defeating them. Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they've evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski! If we simply left the Muslim world alone, they would have evolved along their 1950's trajectory, when a single Irish woman could bike from Europe to India, through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dervla Murphy, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163921.Full_Tilt ). And if we leave them alone enough, it would settle back to that again. (Ask the young people of Iran.)

    “Don’t judge all of Islam so harshly.”

    Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks and Muslims.

    I think, in a way, we have to give the barbarians of Europe some credit for the rise of the West. This may sound counter-intuitive since barbarians sacked Rome. But sometimes, a civilization grows decadent and degenerate. It has to be destroyed like a dead tree in order for a new tree to grow.

    So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great whereas Eastern Roman Empire survived but maintained a mummified civilization for too long. West got rid of dead tree and grew a new tree. The East kept with its aging tree that got bigger but weaker and then dead… until the Turks finally came along and kicked it down.

    So, the barbarians must be given their due. But thankfully, the barbarians were white folks with genetic traits capable of amazing things. They were high-IQ barbarians. Like the Exterminators in ZARDOZ.

    Over time, barbarianism mixed with spiritualism. Thus, Europe had both warrior virility and saintly virtue-ness. It combined the balls with the heart. And then, with rediscovery of Classical knowledge, there was also the brain. So, the formula was the balls + heart + brains.
    In a way, the sense of ‘rediscovery’ made things more exciting. Suppose you have a book collection and it’s always there and you get tired of it cuz it’s always there. You might not much care to read. But suppose the books are lost, and you feel you lost something so precious. But then, suppose you rediscover it. Now it’s like a miracle and you’re excited to read the books.

    In a way, the rise of America was a form of neo-barbarianism. Even though European civilizations were great, they were rigidly stratified, and the energies of many people were repressed. In order for Western Europe to become civilized, they had to increasingly put away barbarian things. This made for more order but it also led to stifling of creative energies.
    The danger of rise of civilization was the suppression of the creative barbarian spirit of adventure and freedom. For Europe to develop into orderly societies, people had to be turned into serfs. In a way, being a serf was worse than being a slave of a barbarian lord. It was certainly less fun. If you were a slave of a barbarian lord who was pillaging some place and if you saved your lord in a battle, he might free you and embrace you as a fellow warrior, and then, you are riding alongside your master and playing barbarian too. But if you were a serf of a landed aristocrat, you were just stuck to your plot and planting turnips all year around.
    In the US, Europeans who had bowed down to masters, lords, and other such highfalutin types could finally be free. Even though whites fought the savage Indians, they went half-barbarian as free farmers, pioneers, adventurers, mountain men, cowboys, ranchers, and etc. In Europe, it was mostly the nobility that had horses and guns. In America, even regular folks could have guns and ride horses like wild Indians and act semi-barbarian. So, the repressed creative barbarian energies were allowed to run free in the US in Hemingway-ish manner, and that made America. It’s like in LAST OF MOHICANS, which is almost like the telling of Romans vs Germanics.

    America was founded by landed aristocrats like Jefferson and Washington and such. But many who fought to gain independence were regular folks like in the Al Pacino movie.

    Another great achievement of the barbarians was that they ended the Roman project of proto-globalism that was bringing all these Arabs and Africans to Rome. Romans became like current Europe, and they let in all these non-whites to do stuff that Romans were too lazy to do themselves. Romans got decadent like in Fellini Satyricon.

    Indeed, what the EU needs is a barbarian revolt. The elites are rotten to the core. Their system is decadent. Their religion is worship of men who indulge in fecal penetration. And their holy icon is some guy who removed his balls and penis to get fake vagina. And their idea of evolutionary progress is to have as many white wombs be colonized by Negro seed.
    We need a barbarian revolt when the system becomes too rotten.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks"

    Byzantium waxed and waned. It seems to have been the invasion by the western "Latin" crusaders that finally weakened it beyond recovery.
    , @jilles dykstra
    " So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great "
    I fear that the great police and slavery state Western Roman Empire was destroyed by what itself had created, christianity.
    This christianity then stopped all progress until around 1600 Galileo looked through a Dutch made telescope, and saw the moons of Jupiter.
    The end of church science.
    And of course, much later, 'tactical' hydrogen bombs.
    , @Alden
    Always the obsession with black and White sex. Are you a porn movie director?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Seraphim says:
    @Antiwar7
    Don't judge all of Islam so harshly. Compare the Puritans in America in the 1600's (capital punishment for religious crimes) to the Puritans' descendants of the 1900's (Congregationalists and Unitarians, amongst the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches).

    Plus, in the world of Islam, the West undermined the religiously tolerant, modern, nationalists of the 1950's by opposing them or co-opting them, and defeating them. Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they've evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski! If we simply left the Muslim world alone, they would have evolved along their 1950's trajectory, when a single Irish woman could bike from Europe to India, through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dervla Murphy, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163921.Full_Tilt ). And if we leave them alone enough, it would settle back to that again. (Ask the young people of Iran.)

    Right, there were the misguided Anglo-Americans who encouraged the ‘revival’ of a withering Islam as a spearhead against Russia and China, reviving their policies of ‘containing’ Russia which led to WWI. The Muslim Brotherhood was a creation of the British Intelligence Service specially designed to reverse the effects of the salutary dismantling of the Ottoman Empire (the Caliphate).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Seraphim says:
    @Rurik
    The triumphs of European and Russian Christianity were a consequence of the blood and spirit (DNA) of the European / Russian people who embraced it (or had it imposed upon them), not of the religion per se. Isaac Newton or Wolfgang Mozart would have been remarkable geniuses under most any or no religion, I posit.

    We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.
     
    yep

    The Renaissance in its entirely was an expression of Christendom.
     
    nope, it was in fact a explosion of the creative spirit of these unique people finally unshackled by the tenets of a dogmatic religion. As was/is science, the offspring of the Renaissance.

    a religion for the future?

    well if you pick Judaism, what about the rest of the planet? Judaism is a tribal affair based on the bloodlines and exhortations/precepts of the Old Testament. If you want to emigrate to Israel, your mother has to be of Jewish blood.

    thought-provoking article in any case

    This tribute to the claptrap of the basically judaizing anti-Church idolaters of the ‘White DNA cum IQ superiority’, puts the cart before the horses. The triumphs of European Christianity are a consequence of the ‘marriage’ of the multi-millenary Ancient civilizations (unified by the Hellenistic-Roman empire) with the Church which brought into it the feral barbarian Widukinds, Beowulfs and Rurikids from the fringes of Europe, slowly domesticating and educating them (admittedly the greatest success was with the Rurikids). All science and culture of ‘White Europe’ irradiated from the Schools and Universities created and patroned by the Church. Ditto for the Renaissance. The Widukinds took their revenge in the Reformation utopianism which waged a long war against the Church and Christian culture and civilization. The drab vision of the anti-human dead Universe of the iconoclasts Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Locke and the deadly tyranny of the materialistic science which they help to create (and whose most egregious successes consist in devising more and more destructive weapons) is the direct result of that ‘Widukind’ revolt against the Church.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    A very sobering book about the 'triumphs' of christianity is
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Civilisations’, London, 2000

    Just the direction of the turning of the earth, the unique North Sea, and the grass highway from Mongolia to the Flemish coast.
    , @Anon
    Galileo an anti-human iconoclast? Insufferable ass, I'll grant you, but hardly more than that, I think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. AP says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I'm sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    I didn’t realize you were an undergraduate who figured it all out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    See #55
    , @Anon
    Hey, I'm an undergraduate. Don't slander us. ( :) )
    , @pll
    Just the unexpected answer to my question.

    Blessed be God forever!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. utu says:
    @The Plutonium Kid

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.
     
    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I'm tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

    AGREE! My Agree button doesn’t work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Seraphim
    Actually it is:
    lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadur-rasūlu-llāh
    There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God

    'Muslims' actually worship Muhammad. The Koran is just a collection of his ravings (and even that is not so sure). Muslims don't want to impose the belief in the 'unity of God' (in which actually everybody else was believing) but to 'submit' (this is the meaning of Islam) the world to the rants of Muhammad.

    The idea that the Koran is “co-eternal and uncreated” is official Muslim doctrine, and you’ll get your head chopped if you disagree.

    How these people have the gall to rant about “pure monotheism” is beyond me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Oh, yes, we know that. The real problem is with those pseudo-Christians who coddle the head choppers, foisting them and their demented 'faith' on us, forbidding us to expose them for what they really are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Stogumber says:

    The Jews who stepped out of Judaism and invented Christianity didn’t do this as a joke. They had reasons to feel unwell in the Jewish atmosphere of “materialism, identity and ritual” which Fred Reed deems so appropriate to the modern world.
    And they felt particularly unwell in the atmosphere of phariseeism – an eternal religion which Reed hasn’t taken into account.
    If we understand the reasons why Christianity was founded, we understand why it is needed now as well as always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    To really understand the reasons why Christianity was founded and is permanently needed, we have to discard the false idea that the 'Jews invented Christianity' and stick to the traditional view that Jesus Christ, who came on Earth for our salvation, founded the Church, the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. utu says:
    @Mulegino1
    100 percent correct! There are, of course, followers of the "pure Torah" still in existence (the Karaites, the Falashas, etc.) but they have virtually nothing in common with the Talmudic Jews, who as you accurately point out, are the spiritual ancestors of dead end anti-Christ rejectionists. The former are patrilineal and consider only the Pentateuch as inspired (so far as I know); the latter have only a tenuous and cosmetic regard for the Torah- their authority is the Babylonian Talmud, and, in absolute contradiction to any Semitic or Middle Eastern tradition, are matrilineal.

    Neither Christ, nor the first Christians were "Jews" in the commonly understood contemporary sense- they were Judeans, i.e., those who believed that the authentic worship of the God of Abraham was conducted at the temple in Jerusalem of Judea, not in Samaria on Mt. Gerizim. The idea that Christ or the first Christians had any spiritual or even ethnic affinity with the "Brooklyn Deli" type Jew of today is absurd in the extreme. Those people in the fur hats have about as much historical affinity with Palestine and the Levant as did King Kamehameha.

    The idea that Christ or the first Christians had any spiritual or even ethnic affinity with the “Brooklyn Deli” type Jew of today is absurd in the extreme. Those people in the fur hats have about as much historical affinity with Palestine and the Levant as did King Kamehameha.

    Excellent point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @The Plutonium Kid

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.
     
    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I'm tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

    “The church never insisted on strict biblical liberalism”

    Or as Bishop Desmond Tutu put it: “Whatever is not in the spirit of Christ, I reject it. I reject it absolutely.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless. Let him start his own church away from white people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Dube says:
    @Anon
    "The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind... Judaism? Materialist in the philosophical sense and not requiring its adherents to believe things apparently impossible, it would seem better adapted to modernity. It imposes no restrictions on its adherents in science, culture, or commerce."

    Old Testament is the real thing. It has everything. Mythology, history, poetry, laws, philosophy, etc.
    New Testament is great too, but it only pursues a single idea. Old Testament has more contradictions, therefore it is more interesting. In a way, New Testament tried to resolve those contradictions. But crisis is always more interesting than resolution.

    The Old Testament doesn't have a lot of magical events once the human realm is well-established. It is in the Genesis where most of the magical stuff is, but this makes sense since it's about pre-history. This is true of any civilization. Their 'remembrance' of the dawn is the most magical and mythical. But as things become more established, there is less of that magical stuff. So, the Dark Ages of Greek 'history' is filled with stories of gods and mythic heroes. But later Greek history is more like real history.
    The later parts of the Old Testament become more like histories and chronicles than mythology. Also, the magical parts of Genesis have great poetic power and can be read as such instead of literally as magic.

    As for the Old Testament being 'ugly', life is ugly. People are ugly. History is ugly. Religion isn't a fantasy or fairytale. Religion must grapple with the ugliness of life.
    And why is it 'immoral'? Because of God's laws about stoning people for a bunch of crimes? But is the heaven-hell theory of Christianity less cruel? In some ways, Christian cosmology is more cruel. If you get stoned to death for a sin, it's gonna be horrible, but when you're dead, the suffering is over. You're dead and that's that. In contrast, even though Christianity urges compassion and love in THIS WORLD, it says vengeance is God's. And if God is angry with you, you will burn in hell forever. Now, what is more cruel? Getting stoned to death or being burned forever? I'll take the stones.

    Some might say the Old Testament God is cruel in the way He killed people with floods and fires and such. But there were natural disasters that wiped out lots of people. So, people back then had to ask why such things happened. And they figured God was punishing people for doing bad stuff, like humping each other in the ass. I wouldn't mind if God existed and hurled some fireballs at the San Fran homo parade.

    Anyway, floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Locusts happen. And people back then had to come up with some kind of answer.

    The possibilities were:

    1. God doesn't make the bad things happen. They just happen, and God does nothing to stop them. But then, the problem with this argument is, 'why did God create a universe in which bad stuff happens?' Or, 'If God can intervene and stop the bad stuff, why doesn't he?'

    2. God wants to stop bad things from happening but He hasn't the power to do so. He feels sorry for humanity, wants to help, and but can't. Okay, now we have a nice god, but he's not a very powerful god. What good is a god who is not powerful enough to control the world?

    3. God makes bad things happen because he loves to feeeel the power like Mr. T in ROCKY III. And he pities the fool who dare bitch and complain. Okay, now we have a powerful badass god, but he's nihilistic and just loves to show off his power for the hell of it. He's like some rapping negro punk thug of the universe.

    4. God is powerful and good. He wants good stuff for us, but we sin so much and disappoint Him big time. And so, as punishment, He whups our butt once in awhile because we seem to lose sight of what really matters when things get good. It's like the Jews in TEN COMMANDMENTS while Moses was at Sinai getting the tablets. They had food and wine and began to boogie oogie.

    Out of the four possibilities, the fourth sounds most moral though not exactly perfect because God's punishment sometime makes good sense --- when He whupped the buggers of Sodom and Gomorrah --- but other times seems a bit excessive.
    Only #4 shows God to be all-powerful and good. And it's the only way to morally explain natural and historical phenomena of mayhem and stuff.

    As for the stuff about wiping out the entire enemy tribes when the Jews are seeking to establish their homeland, that is nasty business. But I suspect that kind of military butchery was common among ancient tribes. Also, are we any better? Mao killed millions. Stalin killed millions. Truman nukes entire cities. British blockade starved many Germans in WWI. Sanctions in Iraq killed 100,000s. Japanese went nuts in Nanking. America was built by wiping out Indians.

    Possibility #5: God takes the penalty for the evil. Isn’t that the straight story?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. wayfarer says:

    It’s ironic how scientific knowledge ( https://goo.gl/8rhy57 ) has evolved exponentially over the past several millennium, whereas religious knowledge ( Christianity, Islam, and Judaism ) has remained absolutely static within its 2000 to 3000 year old texts.

    What initially opened my mind to alternative truths, were various “close encounters of the third kind,” including a vis-a-vis experience with an extremely dangerous alien being. I’ve also stumbled upon these transcripts ( https://goo.gl/DdEVNj ), which have helped greatly to broaden my spiritual perspective of creation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Christian theology developed. It was Protestant Bible Literalists who took it backwards. (I write as an Anglican).
    , @Seraphim
    Exponential growths lead to catastrophic ends of the curve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anonymous
    You are passing off what is essentially hearsay, as the unquestionable truth. :)

    In stark contrast, the ideology of true monotheism, that is Islam (what else?), is not at all dependent on hearsay, but simple logical reasoning. That is, if you are fundamentally a theist at heart.

    Do you spiritual losers actually have a counter to, "There is no God, but God," except for; but believers in Tawhid are such worldly losers, so their foundational belief must be false too, right?

    It is indeed hilarious to see the Christian faithful trying to spin the trinity, as monotheism, just like the Hindus do their faith (I mean, seriously!). When will you twits realise that your spiritual faith is mostly a concoction of Hindu and Greek mythology.

    If (and that is a huge if) and when you realise that, your worldly accomplishments, of which you gloat much, will begin to appear minuscule.

    The question is whether that will happen as you breathe your last, in which case you are basically screwed, or when you have enough time for making amends. *shrug*

    Now, gloat away!

    After your sound first sentence you descend into nonsense. The only logic of theism is that theism is fundamentally illogical and rationally impossible because an omnipotent Creator deity that supposedly cares for his creation and creatures but doesn’t intervene to make sure they understand Him and his will (if any) correctly and leaves billions of Buddhists and Hindus totally uninstructed about Him is an impossibility.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. utu says:
    @Antiwar7
    Don't judge all of Islam so harshly. Compare the Puritans in America in the 1600's (capital punishment for religious crimes) to the Puritans' descendants of the 1900's (Congregationalists and Unitarians, amongst the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches).

    Plus, in the world of Islam, the West undermined the religiously tolerant, modern, nationalists of the 1950's by opposing them or co-opting them, and defeating them. Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they've evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski! If we simply left the Muslim world alone, they would have evolved along their 1950's trajectory, when a single Irish woman could bike from Europe to India, through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dervla Murphy, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163921.Full_Tilt ). And if we leave them alone enough, it would settle back to that again. (Ask the young people of Iran.)

    Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they’ve evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski!

    One may wonder who was really behind the overthrowing of the Shah regime in Iran. Iran was trying to do everything right by being a super friend of America and Israel. Still it did not protect them from the regime change. So what did them in? Was it because they were too successful in economic development and becoming a modern secular state? So who really unleashed the ayatollahs on them? The same people who tried to unleash Muslim Brotherhood on Nasser?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Even Stalin was unable to repress religion, the shah also failed.
    So this power overthrew him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Mao Cheng Ji

    Your first sentence is accurate, but the second depends on the position that the “lower orders” should be free to act unrestrained.
     
    It doesn't depend on any silly 'positions'. What I'm saying is that attributing subjectively defined 'achievements' of societies to minor details of their myths ("achievements of Christendom") is utterly idiotic. The author might want to read some materialistic account; there are popular publications, Guns, Germs, and Steel, for example.

    You do sound a bit undergraduate in your confident espousal of oversimplification. So what if the developments of modern civilisation could only occur in Eurasia and not Africa, Australasia or the Americas for environmental reasons suggested by Jared Diamond? That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s). Cf. also Eric Jones “The European Miracle”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s).
     
    No. Economics is the basis. Ideology, culture, law, politics - superstructure built upon it. This is very basic stuff.

    And by the way, religious doctrines and practices change as well, and take very different, sometimes the opposite forms, from communistic communes to the Inquisition to the Lord's Resistance Army - in accordance with variety of material conditions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @AP
    I didn't realize you were an undergraduate who figured it all out.

    See #55

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anon
    "The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind... Judaism? Materialist in the philosophical sense and not requiring its adherents to believe things apparently impossible, it would seem better adapted to modernity. It imposes no restrictions on its adherents in science, culture, or commerce."

    Old Testament is the real thing. It has everything. Mythology, history, poetry, laws, philosophy, etc.
    New Testament is great too, but it only pursues a single idea. Old Testament has more contradictions, therefore it is more interesting. In a way, New Testament tried to resolve those contradictions. But crisis is always more interesting than resolution.

    The Old Testament doesn't have a lot of magical events once the human realm is well-established. It is in the Genesis where most of the magical stuff is, but this makes sense since it's about pre-history. This is true of any civilization. Their 'remembrance' of the dawn is the most magical and mythical. But as things become more established, there is less of that magical stuff. So, the Dark Ages of Greek 'history' is filled with stories of gods and mythic heroes. But later Greek history is more like real history.
    The later parts of the Old Testament become more like histories and chronicles than mythology. Also, the magical parts of Genesis have great poetic power and can be read as such instead of literally as magic.

    As for the Old Testament being 'ugly', life is ugly. People are ugly. History is ugly. Religion isn't a fantasy or fairytale. Religion must grapple with the ugliness of life.
    And why is it 'immoral'? Because of God's laws about stoning people for a bunch of crimes? But is the heaven-hell theory of Christianity less cruel? In some ways, Christian cosmology is more cruel. If you get stoned to death for a sin, it's gonna be horrible, but when you're dead, the suffering is over. You're dead and that's that. In contrast, even though Christianity urges compassion and love in THIS WORLD, it says vengeance is God's. And if God is angry with you, you will burn in hell forever. Now, what is more cruel? Getting stoned to death or being burned forever? I'll take the stones.

    Some might say the Old Testament God is cruel in the way He killed people with floods and fires and such. But there were natural disasters that wiped out lots of people. So, people back then had to ask why such things happened. And they figured God was punishing people for doing bad stuff, like humping each other in the ass. I wouldn't mind if God existed and hurled some fireballs at the San Fran homo parade.

    Anyway, floods happen. Earthquakes happen. Locusts happen. And people back then had to come up with some kind of answer.

    The possibilities were:

    1. God doesn't make the bad things happen. They just happen, and God does nothing to stop them. But then, the problem with this argument is, 'why did God create a universe in which bad stuff happens?' Or, 'If God can intervene and stop the bad stuff, why doesn't he?'

    2. God wants to stop bad things from happening but He hasn't the power to do so. He feels sorry for humanity, wants to help, and but can't. Okay, now we have a nice god, but he's not a very powerful god. What good is a god who is not powerful enough to control the world?

    3. God makes bad things happen because he loves to feeeel the power like Mr. T in ROCKY III. And he pities the fool who dare bitch and complain. Okay, now we have a powerful badass god, but he's nihilistic and just loves to show off his power for the hell of it. He's like some rapping negro punk thug of the universe.

    4. God is powerful and good. He wants good stuff for us, but we sin so much and disappoint Him big time. And so, as punishment, He whups our butt once in awhile because we seem to lose sight of what really matters when things get good. It's like the Jews in TEN COMMANDMENTS while Moses was at Sinai getting the tablets. They had food and wine and began to boogie oogie.

    Out of the four possibilities, the fourth sounds most moral though not exactly perfect because God's punishment sometime makes good sense --- when He whupped the buggers of Sodom and Gomorrah --- but other times seems a bit excessive.
    Only #4 shows God to be all-powerful and good. And it's the only way to morally explain natural and historical phenomena of mayhem and stuff.

    As for the stuff about wiping out the entire enemy tribes when the Jews are seeking to establish their homeland, that is nasty business. But I suspect that kind of military butchery was common among ancient tribes. Also, are we any better? Mao killed millions. Stalin killed millions. Truman nukes entire cities. British blockade starved many Germans in WWI. Sanctions in Iraq killed 100,000s. Japanese went nuts in Nanking. America was built by wiping out Indians.

    You commit the fatal fallacy of allowing your deity to get annoyed with us and then behave in a way which we have long objected to as unjust and wrong in principal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I fail to understand this post. Is God or your interlocutor behaving in a way you to which you object? And how does either case constitute a fallacy?

    RB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. It’s interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.

    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.

    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it’s doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you’d think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn’t contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur’an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you’ll see that it’s been unfairly maligned because it’s simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.

    There’s no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren’t African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.

    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why is it that Talha is the only, well, Talha on this forum?
    , @Seraphim
    Does not the patently not true silly affirmation that the Koran descended from heavens depend on blind faith? Islamic 'logic' is the logic of the simple minded incapable of reasoning due to low IQ and incapacity for sustained mental efforts. It is the territory of the most blind faith you can see.
    , @mcohen
    wmt says

    "I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it’s doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith"

    believing in G-d requires blind faith.
    believing that your relegion is better than another relegion is fatal
    after mohammed islam changed and split and non moslems were viewed as inferior.that thought process is fatal.
    there is no connection between G-d and relegion.the connection is between G-d and man.as that was the case before islam.before the abrahamic relegions appeared.spirituality does not require a relegion ,it only requires that you believe.

    the laws of nature are the only true laws.
    , @KenH
    Gee, you make it sound like Islam is wedded to science and that Muslims are these stoic, ethical and highly thoughtful people with piercing, inquisitive intellects. Almost wants to make me head down to the local mosque and convert on the spot.

    But if Islam is all about peace, beauty, science and pragmatism then why are Muslim enclaves in Europe essentially ghettos and "no-go" zones teeming with sloth, religious extremism and violent crime? And why are most majority Muslim nations riven by tribal and ethnic hatreds and rivalries and teetering on civil war even before U.S. foreign policy destabilized the Middle East?

    , @jilles dykstra
    Ik ben inderdaad van mening dat de Islam niet veel minder erg is dan het katholicisme.
    I indeed am of the opinion that Islam is not much worse than catholicism.
    Though I must add, until 1500 Islam did not prevent science, and scientific thought.
    And indeed, until 1960 or so catholics were second rate citizens in the Netherlands.
    Since then almost all Dutch liberated themselves from oppressive religious leaders, discrimination ended.
    Thos that need such people now can find refuge in Islam, alas.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Here comes a converted cracker of yore telling his former kith and kin of the conviviality of Islam and how it is going to save the mankind... Pray, do tell us more!
    , @Zeta
    You have elected to worship a Stalin of the cosmos. Charming.
    , @German_reader

    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.
     
    You're deluded if you think this will be allowed. By itself, the Islamic world is very weak. If we ever come to a situation where adherents of other world civilizations really regard Islam an an existential threat, it will be crushed, mercilessly.
    , @attilathehen
    If the ramblings of an obscurantist like Paul were proven false, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, the Koran is wrong because it mentions Jesus in it.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    Islam is a religion of blacks/Asians, IQ deficient populations.

    Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.
    If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.

    Racially, you are kosher. Religiously, you are a heretic, a “kuffar.” Psychologically, you are someone who is looking for a belief system to justify things you are doing in your life.

    Devilish Islam is perfect for this.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. ” This is unfortunate, and stupid, since Christianity was the heart and soul of as yet the greatest civilization the world has seen. ”

    This sentence is the point to stop reading.
    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    Who exactly burned the Alexandria library is still in dispute, but there is no dispute on that the pope in 1600 burned Giordano Bruno alive, because he had other ideas than the church, at about the same time Calvin in Geneva burned Servetius also to death, alive, on green wood, then he suffered longer.

    The crime of Servetius, the man who discovered the blood circulation, was that the compromise reached on Cyprus in the 4th or so century about the holy trinity he saw as nonsense;

    Some 400 years BCE Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, it is some 40.000.
    Yet the crew of Columbus in 1500 or so were afraid to fall off the world.

    Even around 1860 a pope forbade all philosophic thinking not controlled by the church.
    Even today the pope forbids condoms, thereby spreading aids.

    Science stood still for some 1600 years, Galileo is seen as the first experimenter in christian times.

    I do not comment on the christian stupidity of ‘go and multiply’, heathen peoples were capable of restricting population to sustainable numbers.
    Nor am I commenting on excuses for trans Atlantic slave trade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Brown
    Thought the same but read the whole article. I wouldn't have published nothing from an ignorant 16 yo that writes "the greatest civilization the world has seen" even if s/he was referring to Chinese civilization. The writer is probably more than 16 but I 'm not sure if he's wiser. In fact I am sure he doesn't know what what he is talking about.
    , @Pat the Rat
    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    This is beyond nonsense Jilles. Thoughts like this have their roots in the most extreme prejudice.

    A few quotes from Jean Gimpel (1918–1996) was a French historian and medievalist…. In 1987 he was a founding vice-president of the Society for the History of Mediaeval Technology and Science, the British affiliate of AVISTA and the Association de Villard de Honnecourt.
    The Middle Ages was one of the great inventive eras of mankind. It should be known as the first industrial revolution of Europe….
    The medieval period witnessed one of the more rapid advances in the introduction of machinery in European history. This could not be accomplished without the effective taming of energy. The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind. These mills would grind corn, crush olives, tan leather, make paper, etc. While the Romans utilized the mill, it was not nearly to the extent utilized in these later periods. The relationship is inverse to the use of slaves in the economy – the increasing use of the mill corresponded with the drastic reduction of slavery during the Middle Ages.
    Monasteries built in countries separated by thousands of miles – Portugal, Sweden, Scotland, Hungary – all had very similar waterpowered systems within almost universally similar plans for the monasteries themselves…. In certain ways the discipline imposed by Saint Bernard on his monks – the rigid timetable, the impossibility of deviating from the Rule without facing punishment – brings to mind the work regulations that Henry Ford imposed on his assembly lines.

    How can you ignore the plain evidence Jillies. Consider Gothic Cathedrals, how do you think these were built. The learning, craftsmanship and imagination needed to enable such buildings is immense, and was being developed over centuries.
    Look at medicine. It was Catholics who started the hospitals and universities.

    Your claim is clearly wrong.
    , @dfordoom

    Yet the crew of Columbus in 1500 or so were afraid to fall off the world.
     
    This statement on its own tells me I don't need to take you seriously.
    , @Alden
    If the crew of Columbus feared they would fall off the world they never would have signed on.

    Columbus spent a lot of time at the Catholic university of Salmonacca where the priests assured him that the earth was round and if he just kept going west he would end up in east Asia, preferably China.

    What they didn't know of course was that the Americas were between Europe and China.

    And you believe that homosexuals who indulge in anal sex with a couple hundred infected men a year get AIDS because of the Pope.

    When every Protestant church in Europe has been turned into a mosque the Vatican will still be there and so will a Pope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @utu

    Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they’ve evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski!
     
    One may wonder who was really behind the overthrowing of the Shah regime in Iran. Iran was trying to do everything right by being a super friend of America and Israel. Still it did not protect them from the regime change. So what did them in? Was it because they were too successful in economic development and becoming a modern secular state? So who really unleashed the ayatollahs on them? The same people who tried to unleash Muslim Brotherhood on Nasser?

    Even Stalin was unable to repress religion, the shah also failed.
    So this power overthrew him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    You do not seem to understand much.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Create a super race of manageable billion or so, endowed with all worldly needs without want and occupied with learning of the limitless universe then see how fast they forget religion... As long as you have detritus populating the earth, you'll fail to eradicate the opium of the masses!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Seraphim
    This tribute to the claptrap of the basically judaizing anti-Church idolaters of the 'White DNA cum IQ superiority', puts the cart before the horses. The triumphs of European Christianity are a consequence of the 'marriage' of the multi-millenary Ancient civilizations (unified by the Hellenistic-Roman empire) with the Church which brought into it the feral barbarian Widukinds, Beowulfs and Rurikids from the fringes of Europe, slowly domesticating and educating them (admittedly the greatest success was with the Rurikids). All science and culture of 'White Europe' irradiated from the Schools and Universities created and patroned by the Church. Ditto for the Renaissance. The Widukinds took their revenge in the Reformation utopianism which waged a long war against the Church and Christian culture and civilization. The drab vision of the anti-human dead Universe of the iconoclasts Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Locke and the deadly tyranny of the materialistic science which they help to create (and whose most egregious successes consist in devising more and more destructive weapons) is the direct result of that 'Widukind' revolt against the Church.

    A very sobering book about the ‘triumphs’ of christianity is
    Felipe Fernández-Armesto, ‘Civilisations’, London, 2000

    Just the direction of the turning of the earth, the unique North Sea, and the grass highway from Mongolia to the Flemish coast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Veranon
    Islamic Contributions to the West - Lake Superior State University
    https://www.lssu.edu/faculty/.../Islamic%20Contributions%20to%20the%20West.doc

    ⦁ Thorkild Schioler, ‘Roman and Islamic water lifting wheels’, Odense University Press 1973

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward
    The idea that the Koran is "co-eternal and uncreated" is official Muslim doctrine, and you'll get your head chopped if you disagree.

    How these people have the gall to rant about "pure monotheism" is beyond me.

    Oh, yes, we know that. The real problem is with those pseudo-Christians who coddle the head choppers, foisting them and their demented ‘faith’ on us, forbidding us to expose them for what they really are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Wizard of Oz
    You commit the fatal fallacy of allowing your deity to get annoyed with us and then behave in a way which we have long objected to as unjust and wrong in principal.

    I fail to understand this post. Is God or your interlocutor behaving in a way you to which you object? And how does either case constitute a fallacy?

    RB

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I accept that one may quibble about the word fallacy. But I was giving a very truncated version of the logical argument that I have put or heard put to priests and prelates and nevet heard answered with even a shred of plausibility.

    The Abrahamic Creator god is omniscient, eternal, omnipotent and cares for and about and talks to humans. Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are? Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @The Plutonium Kid

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.
     
    The Church never insisted on strict biblical literalism. St. Augustine said that Christians should not believe things which could clearly be demonstrated to be false, as this would reflect poorly on Christianity. The Church maintained that scripture should be considered as metaphorical or symbolic, or even be said not to be clearly understood at all, when it clashed with easily observable fact. Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I'm tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six ...

    Quite right and well said. Literalism and, more importantly, is existence as a straw man that can be easily (and publicly) mocked by those that hate Christianity in the first place and who have been working assiduously towards its demise, has much (if not everything) to do with the fading away of Christian presence and influence within our western cultures.

    The other great destroyer (apart from the money-power’s covert war against Christianity) is the failure of the leadership of Christian Churches to stand up for Christian principles. The Catholic Church was taken over by Freemasons in 1958 and has been careering towards its own spiritual death (and a merging with globalist Luciferians) ever since.

    Swedenborg* wrote in the 1700′s that all Churches (spiritual civilisations) die in the end as they become replaced by their own inversion. It happened with the Adamic God-filled religion of our earliest ancestors who knew no separation from the Creator and accepted that all good was from ‘Him’. it happened to the benign religion of the original Hebrews and to other civilisations as well.
    This is what the Book of “Revelations/The Apocalypse” is all about. Christian scripture predicted its own demise 2000 years ago and told us clearly that a new and superior spirituality [the presence of the spirit of Christ in men and women, like to the Edenic religion] will rise from the ashes of Christian culture.

    *Read “Divine Providence” if interested.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons long before 1958. The plan for the infiltration was known since 1859 by a document of the Alta Vendita (the supreme lodge of the Carbonari - Freemasons) and published in a classic of anti-masonic literature:
    Jacques Crétineau-Joly, "L' Église Romaine en face de la Révolution", 1859
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Why is it that Talha is the only, well, Talha on this forum?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Are you talking about Talh`a the Arabic word meaning "big tree" or Talha ibn Obaidullah, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. utu says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Even Stalin was unable to repress religion, the shah also failed.
    So this power overthrew him.

    You do not seem to understand much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "Secular humanism’s ultimate end from sub-replacement birthrates and antibiotic-resistant STD’s will be quite ironic."

    Not quite. The blacks and browns are more than making up for whites and their apparent lack of interest in life creation. I'm sure you've been working hard to fill the void. I mean, your wife stays home and tends to your brood while you are off playing Ward Cleaver, right?

    Of course, your notion of secular humanism refers to those groups of people who are adherents to organized religion other than your own preferred brand of faith. In other words, unless people strictly believe in what you believe, they get dumped into this category. It's nice and neat and clean.

    Why are you obsessed with and fixated on race?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Why are you obsessed with and fixated on race?"

    Ask yourself that question first about how you view blacks and Jews and you will find the answer really quick. Or, just read Mr. Sailer's blog. He can easily provide you with the response.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Seraphim says:
    @Stogumber
    The Jews who stepped out of Judaism and invented Christianity didn't do this as a joke. They had reasons to feel unwell in the Jewish atmosphere of "materialism, identity and ritual" which Fred Reed deems so appropriate to the modern world.
    And they felt particularly unwell in the atmosphere of phariseeism - an eternal religion which Reed hasn't taken into account.
    If we understand the reasons why Christianity was founded, we understand why it is needed now as well as always.

    To really understand the reasons why Christianity was founded and is permanently needed, we have to discard the false idea that the ‘Jews invented Christianity’ and stick to the traditional view that Jesus Christ, who came on Earth for our salvation, founded the Church, the Body of Christ, the Temple of the Holy Spirit. “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @epnngg
    Fred is at least honest in his appraisal of Christianity and the powerful influence it has had in the world for the last 2000 years. The influence of Christ's teachings and His very claim to be the incarnate son of God come to save mankind from the darkness of sin and death is indeed unique in the history of all religions.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus, and we do have to make some decisions about who he truly was and is. He never claimed to be a great teacher. His clear declaration was that he had come to save mankind. That he alone had the power and authority to do so. His whole life was a declaration to this fact. He came to lay his life down as a sacrifice for all of mankind, and through his death, he claimed he had the power to give eternal life to all who came to him. So we decide. Either this man was a crazed egomaniac, or he was indeed who he said he was.

    No, Christianity is not dying out. The nihilist Nietzsche declared that "God was dead."Many since then have claimed the same thing. But even through terrible times of persecution, from the Roman gladiators and wild beasts that shed rivers of blood from the first martyred Christians in the Collesium, to today's Christians persecuted worldwide, a remnant is always rising who are certain that Christ is the true representative of the living God, the embodiment of all Truth, and that all things are continuing to be made new by his power.

    “We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus”. Maybe, but we can certainly doubt just about everything about him that Christians have been encouraged to believe based on what was filtered through from 1st century (but not contemporaneous) texts that the Roman church treated as canonical. I saw an interesting dico recently that seemed to make quite a good case for
    1. Jesus being your Essene related or inspired standard reforming or revolutionary Jewish preacher who had picked up the reins when his cousin John the Baptist was killed;
    2. Jesus and disciples needed financial support and got it from the wife of Herod’s chief minister;
    3. Herod who had only married in to the Judaean royal family was pretty happy with Jesus’s anti-establushment movement as he would hsve been happy to replace Caiaphas and control the Temple
    4. Herod had some sort of deal with Sejanus when he seemed to be able to speak for Tiberius, and Pilate also was Sejanus’s man. Herod was to keep the peace in Palestine for Sejanus when S took over from Tiberius, as emperor or as agent;
    5. The downfall of Sejanus in late 31 AD changed everything and meant that neitheŕ Herod nor Pilate would protect Jesus;
    6. The timing in the gospels doesn’t make sense. The events of the last week were really spread over months starting with the 31 AD festival of Tabernacles when the palm fronds would have traditionally been available and Jesus’s entry to Hosannas makes some sense. Initially he can turn over a money changer’s table in the Temple without being arrested but eventually the news of Sejanus’s fall undoes him and he can be crucified to please the local establishment. As to the crowds that had welcomed him turning into those who chose Barabas to be spared? At least it suggests a time frame of months rather than days.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    So, you suck up to frauds like Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor? I would have thought that Wizards (especially from Oz) are endowed with more common sense. SBS feeds them regularly that crap every Christmas and Easter so they should have smelled it before you turned on your TV.
    , @jilles dykstra
    An intriguing theory about Jesus is that he indeed never existed, was invented by Paulus as secret agent for the Roman emperor, in order to destroy judaism.

    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Mr. Reed,

    Thank you for this intelligent and respectful article. I disagree with you on certain points, of course, but when I state that I am a Christian it will be perfectly obvious what those points are and the possible discussion arising from them, so there is no need to go into them. I also applaud your choice of the Perseus, which I think you also used in a previous article. This statue has always made me somewhat uneasy, as, since the headless body of the Gorgon is present, indicating that this is in fact the decapitation scene: where is the mirror? Is this a sly joke on the fact that this is in fact a statue (metal is close enough to stone)? In any case it is a terrifying image, in the best of ways.

    I wonder, though: did interpretations similar to Jack London’s* have anything to do with the choice?

    RSDB

    *Yes, I got it from wikipedia. So sue me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. @Wizard of Oz
    You do sound a bit undergraduate in your confident espousal of oversimplification. So what if the developments of modern civilisation could only occur in Eurasia and not Africa, Australasia or the Americas for environmental reasons suggested by Jared Diamond? That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s). Cf. also Eric Jones "The European Miracle".

    That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s).

    No. Economics is the basis. Ideology, culture, law, politics – superstructure built upon it. This is very basic stuff.

    And by the way, religious doctrines and practices change as well, and take very different, sometimes the opposite forms, from communistic communes to the Inquisition to the Lord’s Resistance Army – in accordance with variety of material conditions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Isn't that such a primitive version of Marxism, so crude that Marx, who was a learned man, would regarded it as a vast oversimplification?

    Your last paragraph you would surely want tlo rethink. It is trite to say that religious doctrines and practices change but impossible to attribute even a great majority of the variations to the material environment or economics. Some of them are demonstrably the result of new knowledge or some possibly distorted version of new knowledge. Some were simply aesthetic or otherwise psychologically based adheremce to myth and ritual and satisfying story telling or incantation. Are the elaborations of Hindu myth responses to the environment? Are the differences of Shia and Sunni, Ahmadis, Alawites etc economicly based?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Seraphim says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Does not the patently not true silly affirmation that the Koran descended from heavens depend on blind faith? Islamic ‘logic’ is the logic of the simple minded incapable of reasoning due to low IQ and incapacity for sustained mental efforts. It is the territory of the most blind faith you can see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    If the content was nonsensical you'd have a point, but the content of the Holy Qur'an is what sets it apart. I invite you to sit and read it, it's a logical book that gives reasonable and logical arguments and explanations for everything that it asks you to believe and to do. Further evidence of it's divinity comes from the facts contained in the text that would've been unknown to an illiterate, orphaned 40 year old Meccan without being told so by God. Human evolution, the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang, the ever expanding universe. All of these things are in the Qur'an.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. doubter says:

    This summary is hard to take. Breathtaking in its simplicity and guilty of misrepresentation both by ommission and commission.

    For instance, the statement that Islam “…quickly fell into intellectual sloth and has since produced almost nothing other than splendid carpets and some lovely mosques” is stunning in its ignorance. The same can be said of the statement that mathematics, etc. are basically “Christian” and European. Forget the persecution of those who did not espouse the Christian view of creation, such as Copernicus (who reproduced models well known to, for instance, Inca and Middle Eastern scientists for centuries previously). Forget that the great learning centre in Toledo under the Ummayad Caliphate, for instance, preserved and transmitted Greek, Persian and Islamic learning to Europe in the late Middle Ages.

    Yes, Christianity does have a great cultural heritage, just as it has a history of blood and intolerance. But the greatest on Earth? Buddhism, Confusianism, Taoism and even Zoroastrianism certainly give Christian culture and values a run for that honour.

    Lastly, it is somewhat ironic to me that this piece is illustrated with a copy of a Greek statue of a pre-Christian hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. mcohen says:
    @anonymous coward

    Renegade Jews founded Christianity (most Jews soon wished they had not), as a sort of heresy that got out of control
     
    Factually false. To be Jewish is to follow the Talmud, and the Talmud didn't exist yet in the first century.

    If anything, it's the Jews who are a heresy of Christianity. (The Talmud can be viewed as a reaction to, or a rejection of, Christianity.)

    you come to unz,post some crap,take a crap,causes others to wisely nod like crap.whats the point……bored,lonely,toothache,back problems,to much curry.

    posted the link for you not to read.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

    i am working on the 14 principles that should be the foundation of an islamic state.care to contribute.so far i have completed principle number1

    1.the first principle for the basis for and islamic state must be the full acceptance of people of all relegions and cultures.it must have the ability to provide a safe space for all its inhabitants.survival must come first.both moslems and non moslems who want to live in an islamic state must accept this first principle.before anything else.

    2.the islamic state must first be a state in the mind before in the physical.those like minded people who wish to live in an islamic state must come together and agree to accept islam as the guiding principal governing daily life.the life based on sharia law.

    3.then only can the physical boundaries be chosen.they must be chosen in the path of peace and mutual consent.conflict must be rejected

    4……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    Your first principle directly contradicts Sharia and is punishable by death. Have a nice day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. I am not a Christian either, though my ancestors were. Although I agree with some of what you have to say about Christianity you seem to ignore the centuries before the renaissance (and even during it) when the Church was quite dogmatic about it’s fantastic stories etc.

    Even Kepler calculated the age of the earth to be rough 6,000 years old. Yes all these amazing intellects for several centuries after the Renaissance believed in Christianity and even in the literal word of the bible.

    But it seems to me it was the Greek and their Roman followers (Lucretius, many stoics etc.) that provided the source of the enlightenment not the Church which stood in active opposition.

    You mention this tradition in your article but only in passing. Personally I can see nothing but progress in the fading out of the belief in the supernatural.

    Very glad you’ve chosen the path you have,

    John

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. dearieme says:
    @Anon
    "Don’t judge all of Islam so harshly."

    Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks and Muslims.

    I think, in a way, we have to give the barbarians of Europe some credit for the rise of the West. This may sound counter-intuitive since barbarians sacked Rome. But sometimes, a civilization grows decadent and degenerate. It has to be destroyed like a dead tree in order for a new tree to grow.

    So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great whereas Eastern Roman Empire survived but maintained a mummified civilization for too long. West got rid of dead tree and grew a new tree. The East kept with its aging tree that got bigger but weaker and then dead... until the Turks finally came along and kicked it down.

    So, the barbarians must be given their due. But thankfully, the barbarians were white folks with genetic traits capable of amazing things. They were high-IQ barbarians. Like the Exterminators in ZARDOZ.

    Over time, barbarianism mixed with spiritualism. Thus, Europe had both warrior virility and saintly virtue-ness. It combined the balls with the heart. And then, with rediscovery of Classical knowledge, there was also the brain. So, the formula was the balls + heart + brains.
    In a way, the sense of 'rediscovery' made things more exciting. Suppose you have a book collection and it's always there and you get tired of it cuz it's always there. You might not much care to read. But suppose the books are lost, and you feel you lost something so precious. But then, suppose you rediscover it. Now it's like a miracle and you're excited to read the books.

    In a way, the rise of America was a form of neo-barbarianism. Even though European civilizations were great, they were rigidly stratified, and the energies of many people were repressed. In order for Western Europe to become civilized, they had to increasingly put away barbarian things. This made for more order but it also led to stifling of creative energies.
    The danger of rise of civilization was the suppression of the creative barbarian spirit of adventure and freedom. For Europe to develop into orderly societies, people had to be turned into serfs. In a way, being a serf was worse than being a slave of a barbarian lord. It was certainly less fun. If you were a slave of a barbarian lord who was pillaging some place and if you saved your lord in a battle, he might free you and embrace you as a fellow warrior, and then, you are riding alongside your master and playing barbarian too. But if you were a serf of a landed aristocrat, you were just stuck to your plot and planting turnips all year around.
    In the US, Europeans who had bowed down to masters, lords, and other such highfalutin types could finally be free. Even though whites fought the savage Indians, they went half-barbarian as free farmers, pioneers, adventurers, mountain men, cowboys, ranchers, and etc. In Europe, it was mostly the nobility that had horses and guns. In America, even regular folks could have guns and ride horses like wild Indians and act semi-barbarian. So, the repressed creative barbarian energies were allowed to run free in the US in Hemingway-ish manner, and that made America. It's like in LAST OF MOHICANS, which is almost like the telling of Romans vs Germanics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzMx60ea_gI

    America was founded by landed aristocrats like Jefferson and Washington and such. But many who fought to gain independence were regular folks like in the Al Pacino movie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avCXb58GNRU

    Another great achievement of the barbarians was that they ended the Roman project of proto-globalism that was bringing all these Arabs and Africans to Rome. Romans became like current Europe, and they let in all these non-whites to do stuff that Romans were too lazy to do themselves. Romans got decadent like in Fellini Satyricon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrBUdUYL71s

    Indeed, what the EU needs is a barbarian revolt. The elites are rotten to the core. Their system is decadent. Their religion is worship of men who indulge in fecal penetration. And their holy icon is some guy who removed his balls and penis to get fake vagina. And their idea of evolutionary progress is to have as many white wombs be colonized by Negro seed.
    We need a barbarian revolt when the system becomes too rotten.

    “Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks”

    Byzantium waxed and waned. It seems to have been the invasion by the western “Latin” crusaders that finally weakened it beyond recovery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @anarchyst
    The "beginning of the end" of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church "Vatican II Ecumenical Council" of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ's crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ which exists to this day. .
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its "universality". Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new "Modern Mass" and the New Church, in general...It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to "push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an "actor", diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church "dogma" or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations--nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize celebration of pre-Vatican II principles.

    The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy can correct your false assertion. The first identifiable Papal legislation dealing with continence/celibacy was promulgated by Pope Siricius, 384 A.D. and which legislation was dedicated to recalling his priests to the ancient praxis of continence/celibacy and was not novel legislation imposing a new discipline.

    Even the first new priests in the church, although married, had to be continent.

    The Catholic Church had good (traditional) reasons for adopting continence/chastity and it had aught to do with money or property. The practice was directly tied to the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood whose men had to be celibate during the time they served in the Temple – even though they were married.

    The idea – easily sloughed-off in this epoch of pornography and lust – was that to be completely committed to the ministry of sacrifice in the Temple meant one had to be liberated from any attachment to coitus or desire of same and

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. mcohen says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    wmt says

    “I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it’s doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith”

    believing in G-d requires blind faith.
    believing that your relegion is better than another relegion is fatal
    after mohammed islam changed and split and non moslems were viewed as inferior.that thought process is fatal.
    there is no connection between G-d and relegion.the connection is between G-d and man.as that was the case before islam.before the abrahamic relegions appeared.spirituality does not require a relegion ,it only requires that you believe.

    the laws of nature are the only true laws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Belief in God only requires blind faith if your God is illogical, like the triune Christian God or Zeus. There is a rational argument for a single, all powerful God, the one I call Allah subhana wa ta'ala and you call HaShem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @James N. Kennett
    Many of those Arabic texts were themselves translations from the Greek.

    Arab science was indeed great, and surpassed that of Christendom for a couple of centuries. The question is, why did the Arab world fail to build on those accomplishments?

    The answer seems to be in the way it handled the conflict between faith and reason. Fred mentions the book "The Closing of the Muslim Mind", which describes how that conflict was won by those Muslims who rejected reason. Another negative influence is that Baghdad was conquered by the Mongols and by Turkic peoples.

    In contrast, Western Christianity benefited from the insights of St Thomas Aquinas, who embraced classical Greek learning and reconciled it with Christian belief; and while we fought among ourselves, we were never overrun by powerful armies of other powers.

    Western Christendom came out on top, not because it started with some kind of moral superiority, but through accidents of history and geography.

    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster

    And the last books of the Hebrew Old Testament celebrate Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, the only verifiably historic figure in the entire OT.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    The buffoon makes a real disaster from Zoroaster.
    , @geokat62

    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster
     
    It appears that your favourite Professor is the latest in a long line of Phoenixes to rise from the ashes:

    The idea of oriental, and especially Iranian, origins of Greek philosophy was endowed by antiquity with a legendary aura, either by declaring that Pythagoras had been Zoroaster’s pupil in Babylon (a city where neither of them had probably ever been), or by writing, as did Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, 5.9.4), that Heraclitus had drawn on “the barbarian philosophy,” an expression by which, in view of the proximity of Ephesus to the Persian empire, he must have meant primarily the Iranian doctrines.

    The problem, studied seriously since the beginning of the 19th century, has often been negatively solved by the great historians of Greek philosophy; but it seems, nevertheless, repeatedly to rise anew like the Phoenix from its ashes, as though the temptation to compare the two traditions and discover a bond of interdependence between them periodically became irresistible.

    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-iii
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. “I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it’s doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you’d think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn’t contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur’an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system”

    Sacred Communities and The Emergent Multipolar Landscape by Blake Archer Williams

    “When people with Western sensibilities talk about the system of governance in Iran, two closely-related category errors are invariably present in the discourse. The first is that they fail to distinguish between Covenantal or Dispensational polities and Conventional ones; and this is because, secondly, they fail to distinguish between communities and societies, or, more specifically, between sacred communities and civil societies. Covenantal or Dispensational polities yield sacred communities, whereas Conventional polities yield civil societies; or, to put it slightly differently: sacred communities are the product of a communal consensus on a given Covenant (and on the Dispensation which ensues from that Covenant), whereas civil societies are the product of a Conventional communal consensus.”

    or — are we to work out our salvation — the growth and health of our souls and character — as autonomous individuals, or in a supportive community?

    Walter McDougall traces the descent of American civil religion from its Puritan base (already flawed) to its current, hubristic and murderous manifestation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. Dr. X says:

    The Old Testament in particular is ugly and immoral and its magical events I suspect are too much for the modern mind.

    The Old Testament isn’t about Christianity, it’s about Judaism. It’s in the Christian Bible to demonstrate that Christianity is fundamentally a rejection of the “ugly and immoral” ways of the Jews.

    In Christianity, “God is love.” In Judaism, God is death — for the enemies of the Chosen Ones. The Old Testament is full of nothing but stories of God killing the enemies of the Jews, or empowering the Jews to kill their enemies themselves. Passover is the celebration of God murdering Egyptian babies but sparing Jewish ones. Exodus is about God murdering the Egyptian army by drowning them. God empowers the Jews to kill the Canaanites and steal their land as long as Moses keeps his arms up. Purim is the Jewish holiday celebrating the treachery of Esther and Mordecai, who conspire to murder Haman and his sons and then get the blessing of the Persian king to murder 75,000 enemies of the Jews — including women and children.

    The Old Testament ends when the Jews conspire to have Jesus executed for the blasphemy of saying that the Jews are not the Chosen People, and that salvation is possible for Gentiles as well.

    If Judaism is the “religion of the future,” Christianity is needed now more than ever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. Corvinus says:
    @Anon
    Why are you obsessed with and fixated on race?

    “Why are you obsessed with and fixated on race?”

    Ask yourself that question first about how you view blacks and Jews and you will find the answer really quick. Or, just read Mr. Sailer’s blog. He can easily provide you with the response.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    "We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus". Maybe, but we can certainly doubt just about everything about him that Christians have been encouraged to believe based on what was filtered through from 1st century (but not contemporaneous) texts that the Roman church treated as canonical. I saw an interesting dico recently that seemed to make quite a good case for
    1. Jesus being your Essene related or inspired standard reforming or revolutionary Jewish preacher who had picked up the reins when his cousin John the Baptist was killed;
    2. Jesus and disciples needed financial support and got it from the wife of Herod's chief minister;
    3. Herod who had only married in to the Judaean royal family was pretty happy with Jesus's anti-establushment movement as he would hsve been happy to replace Caiaphas and control the Temple
    4. Herod had some sort of deal with Sejanus when he seemed to be able to speak for Tiberius, and Pilate also was Sejanus's man. Herod was to keep the peace in Palestine for Sejanus when S took over from Tiberius, as emperor or as agent;
    5. The downfall of Sejanus in late 31 AD changed everything and meant that neitheŕ Herod nor Pilate would protect Jesus;
    6. The timing in the gospels doesn't make sense. The events of the last week were really spread over months starting with the 31 AD festival of Tabernacles when the palm fronds would have traditionally been available and Jesus's entry to Hosannas makes some sense. Initially he can turn over a money changer's table in the Temple without being arrested but eventually the news of Sejanus's fall undoes him and he can be crucified to please the local establishment. As to the crowds that had welcomed him turning into those who chose Barabas to be spared? At least it suggests a time frame of months rather than days.

    So, you suck up to frauds like Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor? I would have thought that Wizards (especially from Oz) are endowed with more common sense. SBS feeds them regularly that crap every Christmas and Easter so they should have smelled it before you turned on your TV.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Never heard of SJ or JT. I think it was on the History Channel. Instead of offering mere abuse of others' actual or purported views can you answer the detail that I gave of the doco's thesis. As someone brought up with quite a good knowledge of the Bible (i even taught Sunday School at the age of 13) but without any religious belief from the age of 15 I found it more plausible than the standard Christian version. But you think I should not. Why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @jimbojones
    If anything, Fred's praise doesn't go far enough, and his diagnosis of Christianity's health is too harsh.

    For one thing, Christians WERE more moral than others - the European Christian, unlike the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese, and the American Indians, successfully abolished slavery. Christendom invented and popularized the notions of Natural Law and Human Rights. What is true that Christians never were morally perfect - but that's not saying much, especially with regard to a religion which holds Original Sin as a core doctrine.

    And regarding Christianity's current health - well, the Europeans may be abandoning their faith, to their own vast detriment (as Hilaire Belloc wrote, Europe is the faith - and the faith is Europe); but Christianity is burgeoning in both Africa and Asia.

    Christianity has been around for 2000 years and has been spectacularly more successful than ANYTHING else. The Faith has gone through many crises in its long existence and will do just fine. The West - formerly known as Christendom - may abandon its own faith to its own detriment.

    Highly recommend Rodney Stark's books, they offer great recent insights on the subject.

    “For one thing, Christians WERE more moral than others – the European Christian, unlike the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese, and the American Indians, successfully abolished slavery. Christendom invented and popularized the notions of Natural Law and Human Rights. What is true that Christians never were morally perfect – but that’s not saying much, especially with regard to a religion which holds Original Sin as a core doctrine.”

    So what you’re saying is that Christianity is flaccid and sentimental?

    I was raised Catholic and that’s my view.

    Read your book and then read mine, the New Testament slanders our creator and some sort of needy, lovey dovey, Lord of the Feels character. My book, whose authorship and history isn’t shrouded in mystery (we know the most mundane facts of our Nabi and Sahaba’s lives) shows God as he really is, an all powerful king of creation. Instead of the nonsensical Christian idea of humanity as God’s cosmic lovers, my God created me because he is a king and a king needs subjects. My God doesn’t give As for effort or love you for existing, He loves those who serve Him.

    Read More
    • Agree: Abdī
    • Disagree: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @jilles dykstra
    " This is unfortunate, and stupid, since Christianity was the heart and soul of as yet the greatest civilization the world has seen. "

    This sentence is the point to stop reading.
    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    Who exactly burned the Alexandria library is still in dispute, but there is no dispute on that the pope in 1600 burned Giordano Bruno alive, because he had other ideas than the church, at about the same time Calvin in Geneva burned Servetius also to death, alive, on green wood, then he suffered longer.

    The crime of Servetius, the man who discovered the blood circulation, was that the compromise reached on Cyprus in the 4th or so century about the holy trinity he saw as nonsense;

    Some 400 years BCE Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, it is some 40.000.
    Yet the crew of Columbus in 1500 or so were afraid to fall off the world.

    Even around 1860 a pope forbade all philosophic thinking not controlled by the church.
    Even today the pope forbids condoms, thereby spreading aids.

    Science stood still for some 1600 years, Galileo is seen as the first experimenter in christian times.

    I do not comment on the christian stupidity of 'go and multiply', heathen peoples were capable of restricting population to sustainable numbers.
    Nor am I commenting on excuses for trans Atlantic slave trade.

    Thought the same but read the whole article. I wouldn’t have published nothing from an ignorant 16 yo that writes “the greatest civilization the world has seen” even if s/he was referring to Chinese civilization. The writer is probably more than 16 but I ‘m not sure if he’s wiser. In fact I am sure he doesn’t know what what he is talking about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. KenH says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Gee, you make it sound like Islam is wedded to science and that Muslims are these stoic, ethical and highly thoughtful people with piercing, inquisitive intellects. Almost wants to make me head down to the local mosque and convert on the spot.

    But if Islam is all about peace, beauty, science and pragmatism then why are Muslim enclaves in Europe essentially ghettos and “no-go” zones teeming with sloth, religious extremism and violent crime? And why are most majority Muslim nations riven by tribal and ethnic hatreds and rivalries and teetering on civil war even before U.S. foreign policy destabilized the Middle East?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Abdī
    But if Islam is all about peace, beauty, science and pragmatism then why are Muslim enclaves in Europe essentially ghettos and “no-go” zones teeming with sloth, religious extremism and violent crime? And why are most majority Muslim nations riven by tribal and ethnic hatreds and rivalries and teetering on civil war even before U.S. foreign policy destabilized the Middle East?

    Basically because the Ottoman Caliphate crumbled. I know, why did it crumble then if Islam is so great, right? Well, 600+ years was a pretty good reign; the consensus of most muslims is that it fell by abandoning key tenets of Islam that had debilitating effects such as racking up usurious debt to European state banks - interest being expressly disallowed in the religion.

    In a way Muslims are "sedevacantists" since the seat of caliphal leadership has been vacant for so many decades.
    , @Abdī
    And those problems you mention: sloth, ethnic hate, religious malpractice, violent crime. Those are classical failings of mankind that good men have been working against since time immemorial. What concerns me more are the new failings - or, sorry, "progress" - being exhibited by the majority population mere furlongs from the dystopic picture you paint of euro muslim communities.

    These new kind of failings are not a source of shame but rather pride, like how rightwingers now organize gay parades through muslim areas of town. Our sins are our sins but increasingly the sins of the majority population in Europe are its identity. Simple vices of men must be corrected, but they are more or less bound to appear in one form or another. The great moral principle is that they are not officially celebrated by authorities, and by the mainstream culture, like, for instance, sodomy is in European society.

    Such celebration of evil as good is a total subversion of morality. It also marks the point where the majority identity becomes a hodgepodge of everything islam rejects which marks the end of the postchristian age and the beginning of the anti/pre-islamic age.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Seraphim says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppjg4Q-mCZg


    And the last books of the Hebrew Old Testament celebrate Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, the only verifiably historic figure in the entire OT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jnlzForRio

    The buffoon makes a real disaster from Zoroaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    That Zoroaster is explained to ordinary (read, disinformed over the course of a lifetime) Christians by a "buffoon" may be a "disaster," but the larger disaster is that all of these Christians have been fed lies for all of their lives and generations before that.

    For sure, it would be preferable to have a highly-polished speaker, supported by a wealthy 501-c3, teaching the masses about Zoroaster, maybe even priests, preachers and rabbis preaching from pulpits from the books of Chronicles, but that doesn't happen.

    Why do you suppose that is?

    Why do you suppose zionists celebrate Passover -- the slaughter of Egyptian babies (they were probably not beautiful), and Purim -- the slaughter of 75,000 Persians and the displacement of their king and government, but have no day commemorating Cyrus the Great and his liberation and political and financial support of Yehud and their return to Jerusalem?

    Why do you suppose Scofield ballyhooed Protestant bible-pounders and seminaries to emphasize the Choseness of Yahweh's people, and that Christian Zionists go on to treat the book of Revelation as more important than either Cyrus or the Sermon on the Mount?

    Marginal characters -- "buffoons" -- like Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda, and they act as god's fool in an attempt to clear out centuries of garbage.

    Meanwhile, here's a more polished insight (also imperfect, imo) into Zoroaster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1t0hrl4pE

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @Wizard of Oz
    "We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus". Maybe, but we can certainly doubt just about everything about him that Christians have been encouraged to believe based on what was filtered through from 1st century (but not contemporaneous) texts that the Roman church treated as canonical. I saw an interesting dico recently that seemed to make quite a good case for
    1. Jesus being your Essene related or inspired standard reforming or revolutionary Jewish preacher who had picked up the reins when his cousin John the Baptist was killed;
    2. Jesus and disciples needed financial support and got it from the wife of Herod's chief minister;
    3. Herod who had only married in to the Judaean royal family was pretty happy with Jesus's anti-establushment movement as he would hsve been happy to replace Caiaphas and control the Temple
    4. Herod had some sort of deal with Sejanus when he seemed to be able to speak for Tiberius, and Pilate also was Sejanus's man. Herod was to keep the peace in Palestine for Sejanus when S took over from Tiberius, as emperor or as agent;
    5. The downfall of Sejanus in late 31 AD changed everything and meant that neitheŕ Herod nor Pilate would protect Jesus;
    6. The timing in the gospels doesn't make sense. The events of the last week were really spread over months starting with the 31 AD festival of Tabernacles when the palm fronds would have traditionally been available and Jesus's entry to Hosannas makes some sense. Initially he can turn over a money changer's table in the Temple without being arrested but eventually the news of Sejanus's fall undoes him and he can be crucified to please the local establishment. As to the crowds that had welcomed him turning into those who chose Barabas to be spared? At least it suggests a time frame of months rather than days.

    An intriguing theory about Jesus is that he indeed never existed, was invented by Paulus as secret agent for the Roman emperor, in order to destroy judaism.

    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You seem to be a very young, naive and impressionable person if you can be swayed by the 'theories' of notorious swindlers. The 'intriguing' theory is known long, long before Baigent &Co. At least this variant. The 'traditional' one is that Paul was the secret agent of Judaism to destroy the Roman Empire! I don't know, but there must be somewhere the theory that Paul was a 'reptilian'! Keep digging. Although I deem that it be more profitable for you to study the traditional 'theories' about Jesus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Ik ben inderdaad van mening dat de Islam niet veel minder erg is dan het katholicisme.
    I indeed am of the opinion that Islam is not much worse than catholicism.
    Though I must add, until 1500 Islam did not prevent science, and scientific thought.
    And indeed, until 1960 or so catholics were second rate citizens in the Netherlands.
    Since then almost all Dutch liberated themselves from oppressive religious leaders, discrimination ended.
    Thos that need such people now can find refuge in Islam, alas.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Seraphim says:
    @nickels
    Civilization and beauty are results of Logos = reason, harmony, peace = Christ.

    Logos made appearances before Christ (pre-figurations of Christ in the Old T, in Greece, etc...).

    The message of the resurrection is precisely that there is a reckoning beyond the material and the pleasures of this world. This leads people to sacrifice their own wills to a greater good. That suppression of immediate will is the building block of western civilization. The adoration of God is the source of beauty in the west and its art.

    As we lose the Logos, the bloodletting and degradation of beauty will only increase.

    It was so simply and beautifully said from the beginning by the one who saw Him:

    In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:1-18).

    But indeed, we are too busy reading what luminaries like James Tabor or fraudsters like Simcha Jacobovici have to say about the Gospels to have time to read the Gospels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Entirely compatible with anything astrophysics has to say. Especially Light.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. My Christian faith gives me some comfort that when, in 2030, a giant meteor crashes into Earth and wipes out humanity, it will be the Almighty’s due correction of Western Europe’s final submission to Islam and the putting to an end of the Chelsea Clinton Presidency after two brief but horrendous years that settled upon all of mankind like a pestilence.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/giant-meteor-set-wipe-out-10320379

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @Anon
    "Don’t judge all of Islam so harshly."

    Byzantines were Christians, but their civilization was stagnant and just got weaker and weaker.. until it fell to the Turks and Muslims.

    I think, in a way, we have to give the barbarians of Europe some credit for the rise of the West. This may sound counter-intuitive since barbarians sacked Rome. But sometimes, a civilization grows decadent and degenerate. It has to be destroyed like a dead tree in order for a new tree to grow.

    So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great whereas Eastern Roman Empire survived but maintained a mummified civilization for too long. West got rid of dead tree and grew a new tree. The East kept with its aging tree that got bigger but weaker and then dead... until the Turks finally came along and kicked it down.

    So, the barbarians must be given their due. But thankfully, the barbarians were white folks with genetic traits capable of amazing things. They were high-IQ barbarians. Like the Exterminators in ZARDOZ.

    Over time, barbarianism mixed with spiritualism. Thus, Europe had both warrior virility and saintly virtue-ness. It combined the balls with the heart. And then, with rediscovery of Classical knowledge, there was also the brain. So, the formula was the balls + heart + brains.
    In a way, the sense of 'rediscovery' made things more exciting. Suppose you have a book collection and it's always there and you get tired of it cuz it's always there. You might not much care to read. But suppose the books are lost, and you feel you lost something so precious. But then, suppose you rediscover it. Now it's like a miracle and you're excited to read the books.

    In a way, the rise of America was a form of neo-barbarianism. Even though European civilizations were great, they were rigidly stratified, and the energies of many people were repressed. In order for Western Europe to become civilized, they had to increasingly put away barbarian things. This made for more order but it also led to stifling of creative energies.
    The danger of rise of civilization was the suppression of the creative barbarian spirit of adventure and freedom. For Europe to develop into orderly societies, people had to be turned into serfs. In a way, being a serf was worse than being a slave of a barbarian lord. It was certainly less fun. If you were a slave of a barbarian lord who was pillaging some place and if you saved your lord in a battle, he might free you and embrace you as a fellow warrior, and then, you are riding alongside your master and playing barbarian too. But if you were a serf of a landed aristocrat, you were just stuck to your plot and planting turnips all year around.
    In the US, Europeans who had bowed down to masters, lords, and other such highfalutin types could finally be free. Even though whites fought the savage Indians, they went half-barbarian as free farmers, pioneers, adventurers, mountain men, cowboys, ranchers, and etc. In Europe, it was mostly the nobility that had horses and guns. In America, even regular folks could have guns and ride horses like wild Indians and act semi-barbarian. So, the repressed creative barbarian energies were allowed to run free in the US in Hemingway-ish manner, and that made America. It's like in LAST OF MOHICANS, which is almost like the telling of Romans vs Germanics.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzMx60ea_gI

    America was founded by landed aristocrats like Jefferson and Washington and such. But many who fought to gain independence were regular folks like in the Al Pacino movie.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avCXb58GNRU

    Another great achievement of the barbarians was that they ended the Roman project of proto-globalism that was bringing all these Arabs and Africans to Rome. Romans became like current Europe, and they let in all these non-whites to do stuff that Romans were too lazy to do themselves. Romans got decadent like in Fellini Satyricon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrBUdUYL71s

    Indeed, what the EU needs is a barbarian revolt. The elites are rotten to the core. Their system is decadent. Their religion is worship of men who indulge in fecal penetration. And their holy icon is some guy who removed his balls and penis to get fake vagina. And their idea of evolutionary progress is to have as many white wombs be colonized by Negro seed.
    We need a barbarian revolt when the system becomes too rotten.

    ” So, in a way, the great paradox is the Western Roman Empire was destroyed but paved the way for something great ”
    I fear that the great police and slavery state Western Roman Empire was destroyed by what itself had created, christianity.
    This christianity then stopped all progress until around 1600 Galileo looked through a Dutch made telescope, and saw the moons of Jupiter.
    The end of church science.
    And of course, much later, ‘tactical’ hydrogen bombs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @mcohen
    wmt says

    "I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it’s doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith"

    believing in G-d requires blind faith.
    believing that your relegion is better than another relegion is fatal
    after mohammed islam changed and split and non moslems were viewed as inferior.that thought process is fatal.
    there is no connection between G-d and relegion.the connection is between G-d and man.as that was the case before islam.before the abrahamic relegions appeared.spirituality does not require a relegion ,it only requires that you believe.

    the laws of nature are the only true laws.

    Belief in God only requires blind faith if your God is illogical, like the triune Christian God or Zeus. There is a rational argument for a single, all powerful God, the one I call Allah subhana wa ta’ala and you call HaShem.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Seraphim
    Does not the patently not true silly affirmation that the Koran descended from heavens depend on blind faith? Islamic 'logic' is the logic of the simple minded incapable of reasoning due to low IQ and incapacity for sustained mental efforts. It is the territory of the most blind faith you can see.

    If the content was nonsensical you’d have a point, but the content of the Holy Qur’an is what sets it apart. I invite you to sit and read it, it’s a logical book that gives reasonable and logical arguments and explanations for everything that it asks you to believe and to do. Further evidence of it’s divinity comes from the facts contained in the text that would’ve been unknown to an illiterate, orphaned 40 year old Meccan without being told so by God. Human evolution, the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang, the ever expanding universe. All of these things are in the Qur’an.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zeta
    Like the sun setting in a pool of mud? Logical indeed.
    , @marylou
    This is what Moslems and Christians have in common: Both are scared of hell, and collecting Brownie points for heaven.

    In the minds of most of the commentators on here, Christianity seems to be synonymous with the Catholic church. Which had it's good and bad points. It is fashionable to only look at the bad ones in some circles. I grew up in this "Christianity" and I liked it. I had a happy childhood. I left because it had incorporated so many clearly pagan things and suppressed important teachings of the NT.

    I have read your book and I have read mine.
    I doubt that you have read the New Testament. Challenge:
    Do a simple thing. Take a red pencil and go over the whole of the Koran, front to back, and underline every verse that threatens you with hell fire and torment for ever. Scary. Every second page it seems you are threatened with it. If you do believe the koran you have to be steeped in fear.
    Now do the same thing with the New Testament. what I mean is, do try to do it. You can't because there is no constant threat of hellfire. Wherever there is a verse that should be followed by a threat of hellfire, like in the koran, the NT talks about destruction, not getting life eternal, and the like.
    Yes, there is a fire at the end. But it lasts until it is burnt out. Nothing left but ashes.

    Fear of hell is a powerful means of keeping the sheep in line, be they Christian or Moslem. It also keeps you from looking at what it indeed does say. It was a great idea of the Catholic church to introduce this belief. Mohammed plagiarized it to great advantage.

    So, I bought a Koran, then I read it from cover to cover, and color coded specific subjects. Women, heaven, (pretty ridiculous); calls to war, fighting, killing, violence; last but not least, infidels. Half the koran seems to be reserved for me, the infidel.
    Maybe read it, I doubt that you have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Anon
    Why is it that Talha is the only, well, Talha on this forum?

    Are you talking about Talh`a the Arabic word meaning “big tree” or Talha ibn Obaidullah, the companion of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Seraphim says:
    @ThereisaGod
    Quite right and well said. Literalism and, more importantly, is existence as a straw man that can be easily (and publicly) mocked by those that hate Christianity in the first place and who have been working assiduously towards its demise, has much (if not everything) to do with the fading away of Christian presence and influence within our western cultures.

    The other great destroyer (apart from the money-power's covert war against Christianity) is the failure of the leadership of Christian Churches to stand up for Christian principles. The Catholic Church was taken over by Freemasons in 1958 and has been careering towards its own spiritual death (and a merging with globalist Luciferians) ever since.

    Swedenborg* wrote in the 1700's that all Churches (spiritual civilisations) die in the end as they become replaced by their own inversion. It happened with the Adamic God-filled religion of our earliest ancestors who knew no separation from the Creator and accepted that all good was from 'Him'. it happened to the benign religion of the original Hebrews and to other civilisations as well.
    This is what the Book of "Revelations/The Apocalypse" is all about. Christian scripture predicted its own demise 2000 years ago and told us clearly that a new and superior spirituality [the presence of the spirit of Christ in men and women, like to the Edenic religion] will rise from the ashes of Christian culture.

    *Read "Divine Providence" if interested.

    The Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons long before 1958. The plan for the infiltration was known since 1859 by a document of the Alta Vendita (the supreme lodge of the Carbonari – Freemasons) and published in a classic of anti-masonic literature:
    Jacques Crétineau-Joly, “L’ Église Romaine en face de la Révolution”, 1859

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    "les sociétés secrètes déploient l'étendard de la liberté; l'exil et la persécution vont être le partage de l'Église." Certainly an exile from temporal influence, at least.

    And they had already discovered the effective talking points: "Dans la lutte maintenant engagée entre le despo- tisme sacerdotal ou monarchique et le principe de liberté,". Though perhaps nowadays they insist more on "progress", the useful new religion. Utopias, both of them. Yet the gates of hell shall not...

    Very interesting, thank you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Anonymous
    I fail to understand this post. Is God or your interlocutor behaving in a way you to which you object? And how does either case constitute a fallacy?

    RB

    I accept that one may quibble about the word fallacy. But I was giving a very truncated version of the logical argument that I have put or heard put to priests and prelates and nevet heard answered with even a shred of plausibility.

    The Abrahamic Creator god is omniscient, eternal, omnipotent and cares for and about and talks to humans. Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are? Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are?
     
    He did. It is there for anyone to read, if they care to do so.

    Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.
     
    He didn't. Last I checked, these groups are either extinct or on the fast track to be extinct in a few generations due to their own folly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Mao Cheng Ji

    That by no means precludes one culture, maybe strongly associated with a particular religion, being an important, if not essential, cause or condition of the rise of modern civilisation via Rennaissance, Reformation, Scientific, Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions and the Enlightenment(s).
     
    No. Economics is the basis. Ideology, culture, law, politics - superstructure built upon it. This is very basic stuff.

    And by the way, religious doctrines and practices change as well, and take very different, sometimes the opposite forms, from communistic communes to the Inquisition to the Lord's Resistance Army - in accordance with variety of material conditions.

    Isn’t that such a primitive version of Marxism, so crude that Marx, who was a learned man, would regarded it as a vast oversimplification?

    Your last paragraph you would surely want tlo rethink. It is trite to say that religious doctrines and practices change but impossible to attribute even a great majority of the variations to the material environment or economics. Some of them are demonstrably the result of new knowledge or some possibly distorted version of new knowledge. Some were simply aesthetic or otherwise psychologically based adheremce to myth and ritual and satisfying story telling or incantation. Are the elaborations of Hindu myth responses to the environment? Are the differences of Shia and Sunni, Ahmadis, Alawites etc economicly based?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Are the elaborations of Hindu myth responses to the environment?
     
    Sure they are. Their substance is in justifying the usual societal arrangements, including, quite openly, classes of priests, warriors, workers, etc. Also, maintaining the discipline: promising rewards for prescribed behavior and inevitable punishments for deviations, just like any other religion. This is the substance, which is wrapped into a bunch of fantastic stories capturing the imagination.

    Are the differences of Shia and Sunni, Ahmadis, Alawites etc economicly based?
     
    There are no substantial differences between those. These are artificially introduced political divisions, identities. When elites act in concert, no one remembers of these divisions. And when elites compete, suddenly they become extremely important. But they are no more meaningful than Big-Endians and Little-Endians in Gulliver's Travels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Agent76 says:

    “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C. S. Lewis

    Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

    In the scriptures Jesus received the most opposition from the most religious people of his day. At it’s core Jesus’ gospel and the good news of the Cross is in pure opposition to self-righteousness/self-justification. Religion is man centered, Jesus is God-centered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. @Seraphim
    So, you suck up to frauds like Simcha Jacobovici and James Tabor? I would have thought that Wizards (especially from Oz) are endowed with more common sense. SBS feeds them regularly that crap every Christmas and Easter so they should have smelled it before you turned on your TV.

    Never heard of SJ or JT. I think it was on the History Channel. Instead of offering mere abuse of others’ actual or purported views can you answer the detail that I gave of the doco’s thesis. As someone brought up with quite a good knowledge of the Bible (i even taught Sunday School at the age of 13) but without any religious belief from the age of 15 I found it more plausible than the standard Christian version. But you think I should not. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    'But you think I should not. Why?'

    Because the primary evidence gives a completely different story compared to the documentary you saw.
    The gospels are primary evidence written by people who saw the events in good faith. They are full of the most amazing detail. Sure there are some inconsistencies as you would expect of testimonies written at different times, by different people, under differing levels of persecution with differing purposes and audiences in mind. They are incredibility consistent when factors such as these are considered.
    Consider how absurd are claims that Jesus was invented. Fifteen hundred years before the first novel the gospel writers poor men, invented Jesus, invented all the stories, the Sermon on the mount, the Olivet discourse, the parables, the passion. All a work of imagination. Clearly these writers were towering geniuses who all happen to be born at the same time and place and invent a narrative that no fiction writer in all of history has come close to, except perhaps the "fiction" writers of Exodus.
    It is all beyond words in its absurdity, clearly the gospels are accounts written by sincere men.
    Wizard you should consider these things more like an artist or penitent using as much heart and creativity as head. That is how God is trying to reach us, through our heart.
    , @Seraphim
    You should not firstly because your religious knowledge is at the level of a 13 years old and the discussion is largely between adults.
    Secondly, because of your denial that you ever heard of SJ and JT when you reproduce word for word the themes they presented in that doco and in what is their pet theory of 'The Jesus Dynasty'. ST&JT are involved in the archaeological forgeries of "The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History" and 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' and of the 'James Ossuary' (Oded Golan, the forger of the 'James Ossuary', narrowly avoided a long term in jail for it).
    Thirdly because one should dismiss out of hand any opinions expressed by people who start with 'I was a Christian, but I renounced it when I realized that the 'standard version' is implausible, or illogical, or...(fill the dots).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Agent76 says:

    Evolution Vs. God Movie

    Hear expert testimony from leading evolutionary scientists from some of the world’s top universities:

    • Peter Nonacs, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA
    • Craig Stanford, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC
    • PZ Myers, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris
    • Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor, Anthropology, UCLA

    A study of the evidence of vestigial organs, natural selection, the fifth digit, the relevance of the stickleback, Darwin’s finches and Lenski’s bacteria—all under the microscope of the Scientific Method—observable evidence from the minds of experts. Prepare to have your faith shaken.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Pretty accurate article save that part about the mathematics… You ought to go back and do some real research on the subject and report back!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. @Anonymous
    Muslims and their non-existent patents list? White racists, moral midgets, spiritual losers, pagan polytheists, love to rub that essential truth in, don't you? Fair enough. :)

    But, we "losers" do have our very own most valuable "patent";

    There is no God, but God.

    We truly understand this and live by it every single day?

    So go ahead, revel in your accomplishments. In fact, I would like to thank the non-Muslim world for all the glorious discoveries and inventions, which I too get to take advantage of.

    For me, best of both worlds. All praise is due to Allah(swt) alone!!

    Sorry! “There is no God, but God.” would be a trademark not a patent because the latter would demand familiarity with hard sciences (math, physics etc.) not soft ones like (jive, voodoo etc.)!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    As usual, Fred mixes fact and fiction to reach a false conclusion.

    Fiction: Christianity is a Jewish heresy
    Fact: Christianity produced the greatest civilization the World has known
    Fiction Christianity is dead
    False Conclusion: time now to get on with the New World Order under Jewish control.

    Jesus and the early Christians were Jews, but Christianity is not Judaism. The god of the Jews is a cruel, sadistic, tyrant, whose name the Jewish people feared to speak; he is an ignoramus, unable to distinguish between leprosy and mildew on a damp wall (Leviticus 14); and he is an irredeemable racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, and an imperialist who commands the Jewish people to rule over the nations of the Earth.

    The God of the Christians is an entirely different personality, one who loves all of mankind and is to be addressed as a child speaks with a loving father. The Jewish Holy Scripture is included in the Christian Bible to provide context for the life of Jesus. [It has also served to provide Christian nations justification to engage, like the Jewish state, in criminal wars of aggression, genocide and conquest.]

    As for it being time for Christianity to give way to Judaism, suffice it to say that there are 2.2 billion nominal Christians in the world versus a mere 15 million Jews. I suggest Fred should be looking about him for signs of Christian push back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    What is your definition of a great civilisation ?
    , @Corvinus
    "Fact: Christianity produced the greatest civilization the World has known"

    This statement is actually an opinion.

    "The god of the Jews is a cruel, sadistic, tyrant, whose name the Jewish people feared to speak; he is an ignoramus, unable to distinguish between leprosy and mildew on a damp wall (Leviticus 14); and he is an irredeemable racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, and an imperialist who commands the Jewish people to rule over the nations of the Earth."

    That is called blasphemy.

    "The God of the Christians is an entirely different personality, one who loves all of mankind and is to be addressed as a child speaks with a loving father. The Jewish Holy Scripture is included in the Christian Bible to provide context for the life of Jesus. [It has also served to provide Christian nations justification to engage, like the Jewish state, in criminal wars of aggression, genocide and conquest.]"

    How is a mortal able to have the power to compare Gods?

    "I suggest Fred should be looking about him for signs of Christian push back."

    So do expect another Crusade to take place? Will YOU lead it directly or will you be an armchair warrior?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Mr. Hack says:
    @epnngg
    Fred is at least honest in his appraisal of Christianity and the powerful influence it has had in the world for the last 2000 years. The influence of Christ's teachings and His very claim to be the incarnate son of God come to save mankind from the darkness of sin and death is indeed unique in the history of all religions.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus, and we do have to make some decisions about who he truly was and is. He never claimed to be a great teacher. His clear declaration was that he had come to save mankind. That he alone had the power and authority to do so. His whole life was a declaration to this fact. He came to lay his life down as a sacrifice for all of mankind, and through his death, he claimed he had the power to give eternal life to all who came to him. So we decide. Either this man was a crazed egomaniac, or he was indeed who he said he was.

    No, Christianity is not dying out. The nihilist Nietzsche declared that "God was dead."Many since then have claimed the same thing. But even through terrible times of persecution, from the Roman gladiators and wild beasts that shed rivers of blood from the first martyred Christians in the Collesium, to today's Christians persecuted worldwide, a remnant is always rising who are certain that Christ is the true representative of the living God, the embodiment of all Truth, and that all things are continuing to be made new by his power.

    Yours is a welcome reply within this grab bag of replies, mostly written in response to the question that nags at the soul of most every intelligent, inquiring human being: ‘what is the meaning of life; for what purpose am I here?’ The author of this piece makes a good point here when he states:

    ‘Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.’

    Having to admit mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime, not being able to find better metaphors for the existential existence of modern man during the last quarter of the 20th century, I can joyfully point to this tract to help lead others out of the conundrum of modern fatalistic oppression. It’s an expression of the Good News that you, of course, allude to within your reply. Theosis or deification, the pursuit of union with God, although a part of Catholic and Protestant theology is most fully taught and explained within the Orthodox Church. I consider this tract to be a ‘pearl of great value’, I hope that you do to:

    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava

    mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime
     
    Congratulations for your bad taste. I had a friend who was a fan like you, tried to force me to watch it, I could never manage one episode.

    You do understand that the demi-monde depicted is entirely New York Jewish? That it is not actually funny (this is why the bass hook and canned laughter are so important)? That the bonhomie so cloyingly depicted would evaporate if you suddenly appeared on the set?
    , @epnngg
    Mr. Hack, Thank you for the link. When I find a little time in the next few days I will read through it. Appreciate your comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @anarchyst
    The "beginning of the end" of Christianity was sealed with the infiltration of the Catholic Church "Vatican II Ecumenical Council" of the 1960s by Jews and Protestants.
    Much Catholic ritual was discarded, as well as the promotion of absolution of the Jews for Jesus Christ's crucifixion and death, despite vitriolic Jewish hatred of Jesus Christ which exists to this day. .
    Abandoning the use of Latin in the Mass destroyed its "universality". Previous to Vatican II, one could attend Mass anywhere in the Roman Catholic world and understand the meaning of the Mass.
    Prohibition of the celebration of the Tridentine Mass (except by special ecclesiastical permission) pushed many Catholics away from the new "Modern Mass" and the New Church, in general...It took a brave Cardinal Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X to "push back against Vatican II and re-legitimize the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Tridentine Mass and other Catholic rites.
    In pre-Vatican II times, the priest (celebrant of the Mass) was considered to be a part of the congregation, and a representative of the people.
    By turning the priest around to face the congregation, the priest was no longer a representative, but an "actor", diminishing his status and importance.
    One area where the Catholic Church could improve itself involves celibacy, which is NOT Church "dogma" or doctrine. Celibacy was put in place during the middle ages in order to keep Church property from being inherited by family and relatives of priests and bishops. Celibacy was based on purely financial considerations--nothing more. It is interesting to note that Episcopal (Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can bring their families with them to the Church while Roman Catholic priests are denied marriage.
    It was a grave mistake by the Church to de-legitimize celebration of pre-Vatican II principles.

    How do you feel about the same sex marriage for the clergy from the parish priest to the Bishop of Rome?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    there is NO SUCH THING as "same sex marriage"...marriage is between a man and a woman--not "adam and steve"...it is wrong to define marriage in homosexual terms...such homosexual unions are not marriage, regardless of what the "supreme court" says...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Wizard of Oz
    Isn't that such a primitive version of Marxism, so crude that Marx, who was a learned man, would regarded it as a vast oversimplification?

    Your last paragraph you would surely want tlo rethink. It is trite to say that religious doctrines and practices change but impossible to attribute even a great majority of the variations to the material environment or economics. Some of them are demonstrably the result of new knowledge or some possibly distorted version of new knowledge. Some were simply aesthetic or otherwise psychologically based adheremce to myth and ritual and satisfying story telling or incantation. Are the elaborations of Hindu myth responses to the environment? Are the differences of Shia and Sunni, Ahmadis, Alawites etc economicly based?

    Are the elaborations of Hindu myth responses to the environment?

    Sure they are. Their substance is in justifying the usual societal arrangements, including, quite openly, classes of priests, warriors, workers, etc. Also, maintaining the discipline: promising rewards for prescribed behavior and inevitable punishments for deviations, just like any other religion. This is the substance, which is wrapped into a bunch of fantastic stories capturing the imagination.

    Are the differences of Shia and Sunni, Ahmadis, Alawites etc economicly based?

    There are no substantial differences between those. These are artificially introduced political divisions, identities. When elites act in concert, no one remembers of these divisions. And when elites compete, suddenly they become extremely important. But they are no more meaningful than Big-Endians and Little-Endians in Gulliver’s Travels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Antiwar7
    Don't judge all of Islam so harshly. Compare the Puritans in America in the 1600's (capital punishment for religious crimes) to the Puritans' descendants of the 1900's (Congregationalists and Unitarians, amongst the most liberal of mainline Protestant churches).

    Plus, in the world of Islam, the West undermined the religiously tolerant, modern, nationalists of the 1950's by opposing them or co-opting them, and defeating them. Then America created and used transnational, conservative religious warriors to fight the Soviets, and they've evolved into the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. Good going, Zbigniew Brzezinski! If we simply left the Muslim world alone, they would have evolved along their 1950's trajectory, when a single Irish woman could bike from Europe to India, through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan (Dervla Murphy, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/163921.Full_Tilt ). And if we leave them alone enough, it would settle back to that again. (Ask the young people of Iran.)

    We shall leave them alone 1) either when the oil is depleted or is replaced by something else, 2) and when Israel has achieved all it wants to as a destiny nation…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    Here comes a converted cracker of yore telling his former kith and kin of the conviviality of Islam and how it is going to save the mankind… Pray, do tell us more!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    What would you like to know?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @wayfarer
    It's ironic how scientific knowledge ( https://goo.gl/8rhy57 ) has evolved exponentially over the past several millennium, whereas religious knowledge ( Christianity, Islam, and Judaism ) has remained absolutely static within its 2000 to 3000 year old texts.

    What initially opened my mind to alternative truths, were various "close encounters of the third kind," including a vis-a-vis experience with an extremely dangerous alien being. I've also stumbled upon these transcripts ( https://goo.gl/DdEVNj ), which have helped greatly to broaden my spiritual perspective of creation.

    Christian theology developed. It was Protestant Bible Literalists who took it backwards. (I write as an Anglican).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. If modernity is all about different people coming together under one tent and going forward, Christianity is far better suited than Judaism. If modernity is about a small group working everyone else like serfs and keeping the profits, then Judaism is better suited for what we have now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  121. @jilles dykstra
    Even Stalin was unable to repress religion, the shah also failed.
    So this power overthrew him.

    Create a super race of manageable billion or so, endowed with all worldly needs without want and occupied with learning of the limitless universe then see how fast they forget religion… As long as you have detritus populating the earth, you’ll fail to eradicate the opium of the masses!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Seraphim
    It was so simply and beautifully said from the beginning by the one who saw Him:

    In the beginning was the Word (the Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him" (John 1:1-18).

    But indeed, we are too busy reading what luminaries like James Tabor or fraudsters like Simcha Jacobovici have to say about the Gospels to have time to read the Gospels.

    Entirely compatible with anything astrophysics has to say. Especially Light.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Actually, astrophysics is compatible with the Gospel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Ram says:
    @Alex Weir
    Decent article but I'm caffeinated so...

    If protestantism can be said to have set the ground for capitalism...

    Then Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be said to have set the ground for faschism and communism.

    Notice the countries effected by the respective systems.

    Tsarist Russia was collectivist and charmingly folksy with a simultaneous adoration for heroes Saints/Kings and high regard for longsuffering peasants. What better place to preach the protection of the virtue of the proleterait by wise Commisars?

    Nazism seems to come most easily to a mind shaped by the idealism and severity of Catholicism. The SS was modeled on the Jesuits if I am not mistaken.

    Between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism:

    Which devoloped the United States Constitution?

    I think the answer to that question as to any question about human advances is niether.

    People develop things inspite of ideology not because of it.

    The reason that the Christian influence is so great is because Christ pointed this out when he scorned the pharisees.

    His was a command to hold truth and justice in higher regard than power and honor even if the cost required the ultimate sacrifice.

    I was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church and I value it but I do not hold it or any other earthly realization of Christs teaching to be responsible for the achievements of great spirits.

    Czarist Russia was probably the worst of the feudal societies, with serfs serving a few masters. It was NOT collectivist. Collectivism became an attractive proposition to such a population held in bondage.
    However much the Pharisees were ridiculed, today it is Rabbinical Pharisaism which rules the wealth of the world, with the Puritan descendents becoming their tools.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. “Christianity seems to be dying out.” No. It has more adherents in more places than ever. Growth in SS Africa, China, Korea, Orthodoxy continues even if the rest of Europe declines and the Americas stagnate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @mcohen
    you come to unz,post some crap,take a crap,causes others to wisely nod like crap.whats the point......bored,lonely,toothache,back problems,to much curry.

    posted the link for you not to read.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud

    i am working on the 14 principles that should be the foundation of an islamic state.care to contribute.so far i have completed principle number1

    1.the first principle for the basis for and islamic state must be the full acceptance of people of all relegions and cultures.it must have the ability to provide a safe space for all its inhabitants.survival must come first.both moslems and non moslems who want to live in an islamic state must accept this first principle.before anything else.

    2.the islamic state must first be a state in the mind before in the physical.those like minded people who wish to live in an islamic state must come together and agree to accept islam as the guiding principal governing daily life.the life based on sharia law.

    3.then only can the physical boundaries be chosen.they must be chosen in the path of peace and mutual consent.conflict must be rejected

    4........

    Your first principle directly contradicts Sharia and is punishable by death. Have a nice day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    Why not back your statement up with proof.how does it contradict sharia law.
    , @mcohen
    Ok i get it we have a two up bullshit team aptly named

    White muslim traditionalist

    And

    Anonymous coward

    Ping
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Zeta says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    You have elected to worship a Stalin of the cosmos. Charming.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Yeh, the true God, sorry he isn't progressive enough for you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Wizard of Oz
    I accept that one may quibble about the word fallacy. But I was giving a very truncated version of the logical argument that I have put or heard put to priests and prelates and nevet heard answered with even a shred of plausibility.

    The Abrahamic Creator god is omniscient, eternal, omnipotent and cares for and about and talks to humans. Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are? Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.

    Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are?

    He did. It is there for anyone to read, if they care to do so.

    Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.

    He didn’t. Last I checked, these groups are either extinct or on the fast track to be extinct in a few generations due to their own folly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The trouble is your Abrahamic God can't be one who really cares about us as individuals as his shamans pretend he does. And if he has only created us for his ghoulish entertainment as seems the only logical conclusion why should we care about Him?

    The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God's creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak.

    That can no longer work as we know very well that the self we might wish to survive death must be lost with the decay of our brain.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. Zeta says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    If the content was nonsensical you'd have a point, but the content of the Holy Qur'an is what sets it apart. I invite you to sit and read it, it's a logical book that gives reasonable and logical arguments and explanations for everything that it asks you to believe and to do. Further evidence of it's divinity comes from the facts contained in the text that would've been unknown to an illiterate, orphaned 40 year old Meccan without being told so by God. Human evolution, the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang, the ever expanding universe. All of these things are in the Qur'an.

    Like the sun setting in a pool of mud? Logical indeed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Seraphim
    The buffoon makes a real disaster from Zoroaster.

    That Zoroaster is explained to ordinary (read, disinformed over the course of a lifetime) Christians by a “buffoon” may be a “disaster,” but the larger disaster is that all of these Christians have been fed lies for all of their lives and generations before that.

    For sure, it would be preferable to have a highly-polished speaker, supported by a wealthy 501-c3, teaching the masses about Zoroaster, maybe even priests, preachers and rabbis preaching from pulpits from the books of Chronicles, but that doesn’t happen.

    Why do you suppose that is?

    Why do you suppose zionists celebrate Passover — the slaughter of Egyptian babies (they were probably not beautiful), and Purim — the slaughter of 75,000 Persians and the displacement of their king and government, but have no day commemorating Cyrus the Great and his liberation and political and financial support of Yehud and their return to Jerusalem?

    Why do you suppose Scofield ballyhooed Protestant bible-pounders and seminaries to emphasize the Choseness of Yahweh’s people, and that Christian Zionists go on to treat the book of Revelation as more important than either Cyrus or the Sermon on the Mount?

    Marginal characters — “buffoons” — like Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda, and they act as god’s fool in an attempt to clear out centuries of garbage.

    Meanwhile, here’s a more polished insight (also imperfect, imo) into Zoroaster

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda

    No, their agenda is not hidden at all, they are on a mission to 'convince' the 'ordinary' that the Church is a fraud. His 'discourse' is a piece of political propaganda full of the usual tricks of the trade.
    But a liar he is. An academic intent to enlighten people about relations of Christianity with other religions would speak about Zarathustra, Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati instead of 'Zoroaster', and about Mazdayasna instead of 'Zoroastrism', based on the original texts and would draw different conclusions. He would not use histrionics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Zeta
    You have elected to worship a Stalin of the cosmos. Charming.

    Yeh, the true God, sorry he isn’t progressive enough for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    All right, in your view God is, like Stalin, a tyrannical SOB, whom we should obey because there will be, literally, hell to pay if we don't, and because we'll enjoy paradise if we do.

    Carrying the Stalin analogy further, why should we believe Him? I mean, I certainly wouldn't believe the NKVD officer who tells me they'll let me go and give me a nice apartment if I inform.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    You’re deluded if you think this will be allowed. By itself, the Islamic world is very weak. If we ever come to a situation where adherents of other world civilizations really regard Islam an an existential threat, it will be crushed, mercilessly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    What do you mean allowed? It's happening around you. You live in Germany right? Go to look at the people in the obstetrics department in any hospital in any city of size, look at your birth rates.

    There's no invasion going on, no horde is marching on Wien, it's simply that you're being replaced.


    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to "stop it" but they're not. It's actually cute how you hide your fear with faux confidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Here comes a converted cracker of yore telling his former kith and kin of the conviviality of Islam and how it is going to save the mankind... Pray, do tell us more!

    What would you like to know?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders. The piece above, I'm sorry to say, is utterly idiotic.

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders.

    Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.

    Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing.

    Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion. To the elites, a secular moral code, whether it be Communism, or multi-culti-globo-liberalism, is preferable to religion since it can be modified by legislation at any time without evidence of supernatural guidance.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite. In the West, globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive, not a unifying and civilizing influence, and hence something that all will come to agree should be abolished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    Absolutely
     
    I'm thrilled that we agree on something.

    Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.
     
    For the ruling class - for sure. For the rest of us, who knows. And for some, those in the underclass, it's already nasty, brutal and short.

    Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior
     
    'Civilized' is a loaded word with unreasonably positive undertones, in this context. It promotes obedience, more like. By an appeal to supernatural forces.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion.
     
    Correct: education, the media, and other institutional mechanisms. Here you choose to use the word 'brainwashing', which has negative connotations. But you could use the word 'civilizing' as well, just as you did in the case of religion. Let's be objective.

    it can be modified by legislation
     
    Well, I'll say: better by legislation than secretly by a small group of elite priests. Not much better, but a little better.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite.
     
    Elites use doctrines - religious or secular - to maintain their rule. But surely the common religious doctrine of the divine right of kings is far more useful for 'tyrannical elite' than communism? Simply because the communist doctrine proclaims absolute equality, so it clearly isn't the best tool.

    globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive
     
    I dunno about that. I get the impression that universal religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) also promote multi-culturalism. The cultures of Christians in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia are dramatically different. And yet they are all Christians. I don't think German and Cuban Catholics belong to the same 'civilization': two very different environments, very different cultures.

    And of course there are even more universal religious doctrines, like the Universalist Church of America, new-age spiritualism, stuff like that.

    , @Corvinus
    "Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short."

    Ruling is also what religion does, and they use tools such as "natural law" and religious doctrine to do it. Without a religious-class imposed social order, especially on individuals who do not strictly adhere to that particular faith, life in that society is other than desirable.

    "Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing."

    BOTH religious based and secular societies have criminal codes that rely on this tendency you described. BOTH put pressure on individuals to internalize the rules and regulations of the society which will induce civilized conduct.

    "Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control."

    Patently false. Refer to Puritan society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @German_reader

    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.
     
    You're deluded if you think this will be allowed. By itself, the Islamic world is very weak. If we ever come to a situation where adherents of other world civilizations really regard Islam an an existential threat, it will be crushed, mercilessly.

    What do you mean allowed? It’s happening around you. You live in Germany right? Go to look at the people in the obstetrics department in any hospital in any city of size, look at your birth rates.

    There’s no invasion going on, no horde is marching on Wien, it’s simply that you’re being replaced.

    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to “stop it” but they’re not. It’s actually cute how you hide your fear with faux confidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Well, I'll be more explicit then: If there's a real danger of Islam taking over the West, you and people like you will simply be killed, all of you. You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did during the Balkan wars, and much worse. And there will be no US air force or NATO then coming to save you, because by that point America itself will be fragmented and busy with its own affairs (and many Americans will sympathize with our cause anyway).
    Now I hope that won't be necessary since mass violence isn't a pleasant business after all. But you'd do well to remember that something like this isn't prevented by Muslims' own strength. It's prevented by Westerners' foolish goodwill and tolerance. If you keep abusing that tolerance, don't be surprised if eventually it's replaced by something very different.
    , @Rurik

    it’s simply that you’re being replaced.

    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to “stop it” but they’re not.
     
    you sound like this guy

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1446489189

    but then you're white, so you're really more like this guy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx9392WJ1BE
    , @jilles dykstra
    You should study history in SE Europe from 1912 to 1925.
    Peoples unable to live together were deported on an enormous scale.
    So who will be replaced remains to be seen.
    Our Dutch DENK party, with propaganda that assimilation is not necessary, is playing a very dangerous game.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. KenH says:

    mathematics was a Christian enterprise as were physics, chemistry, pretty much everything.

    Math didn’t originate with Christianity. The pagan Greeks made great strides in math which provided a basis for later European mathematicians. Pythagoras is listed as one math’s pioneers and Euclid invented geometry. The “dry spell” Romans employed relatively sophisticated architecture and math to construct the aqueducts, the coliseum and other towering structures that were unrivaled during its time. Roman siege engineers were peerless during Rome’s heyday.

    It’s more attributable to race than religion. I don’t know of any pioneering Christian mathematicians, chemists or engineers in Africa, the Middle East or central America then or now.

    The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine.

    The real question is will Christianity outlive the white race who are on a trajectory toward diminution and collective death? Even though most Western nations are only Christian in the nominal sense these days it is still protected and granted safe haven. Western nations are still the best place on earth for Christians.

    Christendom owes its existence to European man, but now the Catholic Pope and Protestant clergy have largely turned against us. Most church leaders these days are Marxist activists anyway. They aren’t a bulwark against anything that threatens the existence of Western man nor do they intend to be from what I’ve seen.

    It’s an open questions whether Europeans left the church or if the church left Europeans. I think Europeans, being restless and inquisitive, will outgrow Christianity like it outgrew paganism.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  136. Miro23 says:

    Then came in the Nineteenth Century the third great religion of Middle Eastern origin, or religion manque, Communism. Like Christianity directly, and Islam indirectly, it was a Jewish product. Never has so small a people had so great an influence on history.

    The appeal then (and now) is the potential for DESTRUCTION OF TRADITIONAL SOCIETY making way for a NEW ELITE. The Bolshevik Jews succeeded in Russia (Petrograd 1917) leading to the mass killings and transportation of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. They had a brief success in Hungary (Budapest 1919: Bela Kuhn’s all Jewish “Council of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants” – Red Terror ) but failed twice in Germany ( Berlin 1919: Liebnecht and Luxemburg’s Strike & Spartacist Uprising “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” and Munich 1919: Levine’s German Soviet Revolutionary Dictatorship “Workers and Soldiers Council”) both destroyed in street gun battles.

    We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.

    It’s the same process of weakening society sufficiently to overthrow it – now channeled through PC Counter-Culturalism by much the same crowd.

    The article could have usefully gone further into formation of the early European states in European Christendom.

    For example:

    The late Roman Empire was already Christian after Emperor Constantine’s conversion and it was Christianity that endured after the Empire collapsed. The so called “barbarians” converted to Christianity allying with the monastic Church using written and spoken Latin for their administrations, and as a marker of being part of the educated class that they needed/aspired to. This was a European Christendom diverging from its Byzantine Eastern Orthodox brother.

    Charlemagne actually defined himself as a Christian king with the first Papal Coronation in 800 A.D., with later pagan invaders also converting to Christianity (e.g. Canute, bringing in Scandinavia). A Europe wide network of monasteries in the early Middle Ages created the reality of Christendom which was concerned with resisting Islam, regaining the Holy Places and most notably engaging in the Europe wide Christian project for the re-conquest of Spain (which it successfully did in one of the few examples of Christianity rolling back Islam).

    The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world.

    Well, the Franciscans (followers of St. Francis of Assisi) are alive and well and dedicated to respect for and preservation of the natural world ” to assume responsibility for it, taking all care so that everything stays healthy and integrated, so as to offer a welcoming and friendly environment even to those who succeed us.” which is somewhat different from the US Plutocratic/Zionist/Counter Cultural “modern world” agenda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Those Franciscans sound pretty much like inner city Greens to me like the ones who seem to be trying to hem me and my automobile in with bicycle only lanes....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    What do you mean allowed? It's happening around you. You live in Germany right? Go to look at the people in the obstetrics department in any hospital in any city of size, look at your birth rates.

    There's no invasion going on, no horde is marching on Wien, it's simply that you're being replaced.


    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to "stop it" but they're not. It's actually cute how you hide your fear with faux confidence.

    Well, I’ll be more explicit then: If there’s a real danger of Islam taking over the West, you and people like you will simply be killed, all of you. You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did during the Balkan wars, and much worse. And there will be no US air force or NATO then coming to save you, because by that point America itself will be fragmented and busy with its own affairs (and many Americans will sympathize with our cause anyway).
    Now I hope that won’t be necessary since mass violence isn’t a pleasant business after all. But you’d do well to remember that something like this isn’t prevented by Muslims’ own strength. It’s prevented by Westerners’ foolish goodwill and tolerance. If you keep abusing that tolerance, don’t be surprised if eventually it’s replaced by something very different.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Lololol, you seem to be under delusions of grandeur.


    There will be no grand conflict, it will just look like how things are looking in America with whites and Latin Americans, a slow and steady demographic change.



    If your fantasies keep you sane, then you do you.
    , @Rurik

    You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did...
     
    people like this guy confuse kindness for weakness

    he presumes to think that like the Jews of medieval Spain opened the gates to the Moorish invasion, conquest and occupation, that the same thing is going to happen today to all of Europe and the West, and the trajectory certainly looks that way

    but Christianity/liberalism notwithstanding, the spirit of the West still lingers in the blood of its people, and when the Swedes and Brits and Germans and French have had en0ugh of the joys of diversity, they're going to waken from their catatonic slumber, and the Western spirit will rustle to life.

    Many Muslims today are the victims of serial atrocities visited upon them by the same Zio-fiend that some of them applaud so long as its keeping the gates to Europe open for their assault, but that fiend is losing its grip, as Brexit and Trump and the rise of Le Pen are examples of. So let him gloat white he can, as his fellow Muslims suffer outrage after outrage at the Zio-hand that he kneels down and licks.

    The West is generous and tolerant to a fault, so long as those coming to her shores are refugees and supplicants. But let these people come as arrogant invading hoards, bearing not pleadings but demands, and watch as the poles used by Vlad to impale the Turkish hoards, are dusted off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqrqeeTJek

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Rurik says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    What do you mean allowed? It's happening around you. You live in Germany right? Go to look at the people in the obstetrics department in any hospital in any city of size, look at your birth rates.

    There's no invasion going on, no horde is marching on Wien, it's simply that you're being replaced.


    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to "stop it" but they're not. It's actually cute how you hide your fear with faux confidence.

    it’s simply that you’re being replaced.

    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to “stop it” but they’re not.

    you sound like this guy

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1446489189

    but then you’re white, so you’re really more like this guy

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Well I'm neither that aggressive nor am I a Jewish linken politician, I'm just being realistic. The great white hope isn't coming, there will be no race war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @AP
    I didn't realize you were an undergraduate who figured it all out.

    Hey, I’m an undergraduate. Don’t slander us. ( :) )

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are probably more intelligent about these things, and more humble.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Klokman says:

    Three topics (minimum) have more controversy than anything else (aside from the termagant): Religion, politics, and history. (If it occurs in science it is because people refuse to relinquish the first two.)

    To mix the two, by one who is deficient in both…. The topic must on a rotation list, as Fred continues to dabble in it to his discredit.

    The curious thing is, everyone who has read religious and secular history knows that before the Flood era, there was no Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Yet they had among them a civilization and technology which today we still are unable to rival.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  141. @Rurik

    it’s simply that you’re being replaced.

    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to “stop it” but they’re not.
     
    you sound like this guy

    https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4ad_1446489189

    but then you're white, so you're really more like this guy

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx9392WJ1BE

    Well I’m neither that aggressive nor am I a Jewish linken politician, I’m just being realistic. The great white hope isn’t coming, there will be no race war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @German_reader
    Well, I'll be more explicit then: If there's a real danger of Islam taking over the West, you and people like you will simply be killed, all of you. You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did during the Balkan wars, and much worse. And there will be no US air force or NATO then coming to save you, because by that point America itself will be fragmented and busy with its own affairs (and many Americans will sympathize with our cause anyway).
    Now I hope that won't be necessary since mass violence isn't a pleasant business after all. But you'd do well to remember that something like this isn't prevented by Muslims' own strength. It's prevented by Westerners' foolish goodwill and tolerance. If you keep abusing that tolerance, don't be surprised if eventually it's replaced by something very different.

    Lololol, you seem to be under delusions of grandeur.

    There will be no grand conflict, it will just look like how things are looking in America with whites and Latin Americans, a slow and steady demographic change.

    If your fantasies keep you sane, then you do you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Muslims aren't comparable to Latin Americans. The latter speak a Western language, have a Christian background and can intermarry with American whites without their spouse having to convert to some alien religion. Latin American immigration is probably bad for the US on the whole, but it doesn't have the same character of a clash between hostile civilzations Islamic immigration to Europe has.
    So no, just because there probably won't be a race war against Mexicans in the US, don't feel safe that the same will be true for Muslims.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppjg4Q-mCZg


    And the last books of the Hebrew Old Testament celebrate Cyrus, the Zoroastrian, the only verifiably historic figure in the entire OT.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jnlzForRio

    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster

    It appears that your favourite Professor is the latest in a long line of Phoenixes to rise from the ashes:

    The idea of oriental, and especially Iranian, origins of Greek philosophy was endowed by antiquity with a legendary aura, either by declaring that Pythagoras had been Zoroaster’s pupil in Babylon (a city where neither of them had probably ever been), or by writing, as did Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, 5.9.4), that Heraclitus had drawn on “the barbarian philosophy,” an expression by which, in view of the proximity of Ephesus to the Persian empire, he must have meant primarily the Iranian doctrines.

    The problem, studied seriously since the beginning of the 19th century, has often been negatively solved by the great historians of Greek philosophy; but it seems, nevertheless, repeatedly to rise anew like the Phoenix from its ashes, as though the temptation to compare the two traditions and discover a bond of interdependence between them periodically became irresistible.

    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-iii

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Iranica Online is surely a credible resource, geokat62, capable of defending Greek culture.

    Its academic details reveal a more nuanced judgment of the extent and direction of cultural borrowings between Iran and Greece. For example, on the one hand,

    "Empedocles already shared the microcosm idea, which governed the conception of medicine he had inherited from the Cnidian school, influenced by Iran. He also declared that “the general law is widely extended through the ether of the vast dominion and the immense brightness of the sky,” (Fr. 38), which harks back to Heraclitus and, through him, to Zarathushtra proclaiming the coincidence of Aṧa with the light"
     
    On the other hand,

    The Chaldaic Oracles, despite their fire-cult, probably owe nothing to Iran.
     
    While

    "Three kinds of medicine were distinguished, through spells, the knife, or herbs, both in Iran . . . and in Greece (Pindar, 3.47-55), not elsewhere; borrowing seems, therefore, plausible, either way . . .."
     
    Jorjani is an ideologue who uses (valid) facts, simplistically -- i.e. it is a fact that Heraclitus lived in Ephesus, and Ephesus was in the Persian empire at the time of Heraclitus -- to support points that buttress his passion; namely, a Renaissance of Iranian culture (as opposed to the Islamic subversion of Zoroastrian/Iran).

    It seems to me that rather than "Who came first, the chicken or the egg," its far more fruitful to wrestle with the ideas, their evolution and context/in context, and how we may apply them to make our own lives better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Lololol, you seem to be under delusions of grandeur.


    There will be no grand conflict, it will just look like how things are looking in America with whites and Latin Americans, a slow and steady demographic change.



    If your fantasies keep you sane, then you do you.

    Muslims aren’t comparable to Latin Americans. The latter speak a Western language, have a Christian background and can intermarry with American whites without their spouse having to convert to some alien religion. Latin American immigration is probably bad for the US on the whole, but it doesn’t have the same character of a clash between hostile civilzations Islamic immigration to Europe has.
    So no, just because there probably won’t be a race war against Mexicans in the US, don’t feel safe that the same will be true for Muslims.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    hallo German

    There is a prediction from 1828 which says, among a lot of other things:

    "Bunter Fremdling, unwillkommner Gast, flieh das Land das du gepfluegt nicht hast..."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Rurik says:
    @German_reader
    Well, I'll be more explicit then: If there's a real danger of Islam taking over the West, you and people like you will simply be killed, all of you. You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did during the Balkan wars, and much worse. And there will be no US air force or NATO then coming to save you, because by that point America itself will be fragmented and busy with its own affairs (and many Americans will sympathize with our cause anyway).
    Now I hope that won't be necessary since mass violence isn't a pleasant business after all. But you'd do well to remember that something like this isn't prevented by Muslims' own strength. It's prevented by Westerners' foolish goodwill and tolerance. If you keep abusing that tolerance, don't be surprised if eventually it's replaced by something very different.

    You think Europeans like me will just let you destroy our world? No, we will prevent that, and use the methods the Serbs did…

    people like this guy confuse kindness for weakness

    he presumes to think that like the Jews of medieval Spain opened the gates to the Moorish invasion, conquest and occupation, that the same thing is going to happen today to all of Europe and the West, and the trajectory certainly looks that way

    but Christianity/liberalism notwithstanding, the spirit of the West still lingers in the blood of its people, and when the Swedes and Brits and Germans and French have had en0ugh of the joys of diversity, they’re going to waken from their catatonic slumber, and the Western spirit will rustle to life.

    Many Muslims today are the victims of serial atrocities visited upon them by the same Zio-fiend that some of them applaud so long as its keeping the gates to Europe open for their assault, but that fiend is losing its grip, as Brexit and Trump and the rise of Le Pen are examples of. So let him gloat white he can, as his fellow Muslims suffer outrage after outrage at the Zio-hand that he kneels down and licks.

    The West is generous and tolerant to a fault, so long as those coming to her shores are refugees and supplicants. But let these people come as arrogant invading hoards, bearing not pleadings but demands, and watch as the poles used by Vlad to impale the Turkish hoards, are dusted off.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    but Christianity/liberalism notwithstanding, the spirit of the West still lingers in the blood of its people
     
    I'd love to believe that. I really would. At the moment I see no evidence of it. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Yeh, the true God, sorry he isn't progressive enough for you.

    All right, in your view God is, like Stalin, a tyrannical SOB, whom we should obey because there will be, literally, hell to pay if we don’t, and because we’ll enjoy paradise if we do.

    Carrying the Stalin analogy further, why should we believe Him? I mean, I certainly wouldn’t believe the NKVD officer who tells me they’ll let me go and give me a nice apartment if I inform.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. mcohen says:
    @anonymous coward
    Your first principle directly contradicts Sharia and is punishable by death. Have a nice day.

    Why not back your statement up with proof.how does it contradict sharia law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Alex Weir
    Decent article but I'm caffeinated so...

    If protestantism can be said to have set the ground for capitalism...

    Then Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be said to have set the ground for faschism and communism.

    Notice the countries effected by the respective systems.

    Tsarist Russia was collectivist and charmingly folksy with a simultaneous adoration for heroes Saints/Kings and high regard for longsuffering peasants. What better place to preach the protection of the virtue of the proleterait by wise Commisars?

    Nazism seems to come most easily to a mind shaped by the idealism and severity of Catholicism. The SS was modeled on the Jesuits if I am not mistaken.

    Between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism:

    Which devoloped the United States Constitution?

    I think the answer to that question as to any question about human advances is niether.

    People develop things inspite of ideology not because of it.

    The reason that the Christian influence is so great is because Christ pointed this out when he scorned the pharisees.

    His was a command to hold truth and justice in higher regard than power and honor even if the cost required the ultimate sacrifice.

    I was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church and I value it but I do not hold it or any other earthly realization of Christs teaching to be responsible for the achievements of great spirits.

    Fascism in the strict sense did primarily afflict Catholic societies (Italy, Spain, Austria, France). But its hyper-radicalized variant, Nazisim, drew its strongest support from the Protestant areas of Germany.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. mcohen says:
    @anonymous coward
    Your first principle directly contradicts Sharia and is punishable by death. Have a nice day.

    Ok i get it we have a two up bullshit team aptly named

    White muslim traditionalist

    And

    Anonymous coward

    Ping

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. […] Catholicism in particular has combined spiritual concerns with a strong intellectual bent. The Christian interest in questions of origin and destiny and man’s purpose produced profound thought from the Church Fathers to C. S. Lewis. Today consideration of such matters as death and meaning are held to be in bad taste. Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance. […]

    Read More
  151. AP says:
    @Anon
    Hey, I'm an undergraduate. Don't slander us. ( :) )

    You are probably more intelligent about these things, and more humble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra
    An intriguing theory about Jesus is that he indeed never existed, was invented by Paulus as secret agent for the Roman emperor, in order to destroy judaism.

    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach

    You seem to be a very young, naive and impressionable person if you can be swayed by the ‘theories’ of notorious swindlers. The ‘intriguing’ theory is known long, long before Baigent &Co. At least this variant. The ‘traditional’ one is that Paul was the secret agent of Judaism to destroy the Roman Empire! I don’t know, but there must be somewhere the theory that Paul was a ‘reptilian’! Keep digging. Although I deem that it be more profitable for you to study the traditional ‘theories’ about Jesus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I'm quite old, over seventy, in my view very cynical, since I discovered the truth about sept 11, and I no longer believe anything on sight.
    Can you explain why Paulus got an escort of several hundred Roman soldiers on his way from Jerusalem tot the coast, where he took a ship to Rome, to talk to the emperor ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Seraphim says:
    @Philip Owen
    Entirely compatible with anything astrophysics has to say. Especially Light.

    Actually, astrophysics is compatible with the Gospel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Art says:

    Mr. Reed says he is not a Christian – he is half right. He is not a religious Christian – but he is a philosophical Christian. If you are over 50 and an American, you grew up in a Christian country that valued life and hope and truth and love and forgiveness — and the freedom those philosophical ideals generated.

    It is easy to trash many priests and preachers – they have it coming. But it is totally foolish to throw out Christian philosophy. It is the idealistic goodness that emanates from the Christian philosophical mindset that makes freedom possible. There can be no better philosophy then idealism – it is the ultimate.

    In the last 50 years, the Jew MSM have managed to trash all of Christianity by pointing to the bad priests and preachers (who were following the Jewish Old Testament). Because of the Jew – America is disintegrating. Just like in Rome, the Jews promise us bread and circuses. America is going to fall just like Rome did.

    The good news about Rome falling is that it was replaced by something better – religious and philosophical Christianity.

    It will happen again – but this time with Christian philosophy leading the way forward.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. The strength of Christianity is its superior morality, its recognition of human frailty, and the equality of all in the eyes of God. Its impact on culture and the structure of society has been immense. Judaism is a tribal system of political organization, not a religion. It hides from the world, deceives the world, misleads the world, and steals from the world. The god it worships is the source of its power in this world — the monetary system it established and controls.

    If this is the future of humanity, humanity’s future is slavery, and perhaps extinction. Capitalism is the economic and political expression of Judaism. This expression of Judaism has replaced the religious one because it could do what the religious expression could never do – spread Judaism globally.

    That the rise of Judaism in the 19th and 20th centuries coincided with the rise of the power of the monetary system is no coincidence, but the unfolding of a long term plan of conquest. It was a brilliant plan concocted by a tiny minority of the world’s population that will soon reach its apex. But it is a plan that will ultimately fail because it must ultimately fail. Christianity has stood down and shares much blame in letting this happen, but it is far from dead.

    Ultimately it was the superior morality of Christianity that moved the world forward, not the chosen one morality of insatiable greed that is Judaism. It will recover its lost sense of purpose, eventually.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    Great post Clearpoint. Eloquently and clearly stated. I sometimes despair of the power, influence, and perversion of The Chosen. Posts like yours instill hope, and I thank you.
    , @Druid
    The sooner the bette!
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I'm thinking of starting a little monthly journal called "Protocols". We will need an eloquent editorial bladt each month. Any chance you are available? Money not great but we will rely on the pasdion fuelled.
    PS No footnotes or bibliographies will be allowed space. We want it to look like Playboy.
    , @sowhat
    I agree, Clearpoint, that Christianity is far from dead and will outlive The West. We may live as lights on hillsides...ever-darkening hillsides. I've often wondered how my lot was to live among the Capitalists but, it could be a lot worse and is a lot worse, elsewhere. As I grow older, it's much easier to see the slide of mankind. "It is not in man to direct his own ways." - sounds foreign to a worldly person. Christianity- the Promise, The Gift of Eternal Life is not to be taken lightly and CANNOT be taken from anyone who has accepted the free Gift. When Christianity leaves this earth, all of hell breaks loose. We're just passing through.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. The Renaissance was a result of Europe being reacquainted with classical knowledge on the dime of the Medici. Before that time there was a period called the Dark Age that was ruled by Christianity. The Christian Church was against knowledge at the time of the Renaissance. They went full ISIS with something called an inquisition. The Renaissance gave way to the Enlightenment and the present West. Also Protestantism is a result of the Medici. The Medici pope and the indulgence scam ticked off Martin Luther and started a religious schism.

    There are Christians who contributed many great things to the world but much of it was a result of earlier European knowledge and thought which they had access to. Christianity would be a positive in the West if it could be detached from its crazed land hungry father and violently insane brother.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You would probably be surprised if someone told you that the 'Dark Ages' knew three 'Renaissances' before the Medici's 'Renaissance': the Carolingian Renaissance (8th and 9th centuries), Ottonian Renaissance (10th century) and the Renaissance of the 12th century, all three characterized by significant cultural renewal right across medieval Western Europe and all under the patronage of the Church. All in search of the the European earlier knowledge (obscured perhaps, but never lost).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. anarchyst says:
    @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    How do you feel about the same sex marriage for the clergy from the parish priest to the Bishop of Rome?

    there is NO SUCH THING as “same sex marriage”…marriage is between a man and a woman–not “adam and steve”…it is wrong to define marriage in homosexual terms…such homosexual unions are not marriage, regardless of what the “supreme court” says…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Che Guava says:
    @Escher
    Arabic numerals actually came from India, including the concept of zero.

    ‘Concept of zero’:Rubbish. The concept was known and considered in many cultures, Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, just from memory.

    Chinese script has a character for it and Chinese arithmetic had a notation for zero as a placeholder (which is the role of 0).

    Sure, the Indian notation was a great convenience for arithmetic, but not the introduction of a previously unknown concept.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    It's interesting that you equate less Christian with irreligious.


    I was raised Catholic in the Netherlands, which is a historically Protestant nation with a large Catholic minority, although now there are more Catholics than Protestants (60/40 Calvinist/Catholic in 1950, 10/20 Calvinist Catholic 2010). I, along with many others, left Christianity because it is completely illogical, relativist, and not even the people preaching it believe that it is the religion of God, which is how they change things around to let gays marry etc.


    I became Muslim because Islam is logical, it's doctrines and theology stand up to scrutiny without dependence on blind faith, even things that you'd think need faith like Isra and Miraj have scientific explanations like Theory of Relativity. Islam doesn't contradict science, human evolution is not a matter for debate among Muslims since it is more or less described in the Qur'an, it has a strong moral code, a developed and objective ethical system land once you actually research Islam you'll see that it's been unfairly maligned because it's simplistic truths invite you to timeless truth and that scares the powers that be. They rely on public Islamophobia to support wars of conquest and the continued supine behavior thy display to toward Israel.


    There's no wonder why Christianity is moribun in the west and would be quickly dying worldwide if it weren't African rice Christians, and why Islam is growing everywhere, Islamic youth are more religious than their parents, and millions of secular/Christian westerners 70% women, 55% under 27) have become Muslim.


    The religious future of the west, and everywhere outside of the Orient and the Hindu areas of India is Islam.

    If the ramblings of an obscurantist like Paul were proven false, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, the Koran is wrong because it mentions Jesus in it.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    Islam is a religion of blacks/Asians, IQ deficient populations.

    Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.
    If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.

    Racially, you are kosher. Religiously, you are a heretic, a “kuffar.” Psychologically, you are someone who is looking for a belief system to justify things you are doing in your life.

    Devilish Islam is perfect for this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes."

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are able to show convincingly how Jesus, our savior, is in complete support of your decision.

    "If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches."

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.
    , @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Paul's lyingdoesn't disprove Christ, it just disproves Christ's divinity.
    , @Priss Factor
    "Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes. If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem."

    This is where you are misguided. You say if non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. No, that's the wrong way to go about it.

    Whites must form their own covenant with God. A covenant that exists only between God and European folks. A covenant not unlike the one between God and the Jews.
    Because Judaism was founded on this principle, only Jews can be part of Judaism(though Reform Judaism plays funny games).

    So far, there has been two ways of worshiping God. The tribal way for Jews and universal way for gentiles.

    So, Jews have Judaism. It's about Jews and God.

    Christians and Muslims have Christianity and Islam. And they are open to anyone who accepts Jesus or Allah(and Muhammad as his last and greatest prophet).

    So, Jews have an ethnic religion.

    Gentiles don't. While there are French Christians, German Christians, African Christians, Arab Christians, and etc. Christianity doesn't belong to any one of them like Judaism belongs to Jews.
    Same goes for Islam.

    So, the two options were

    Tribalism for Jews.
    Universalism for gentiles.

    But there is a third way. Tribalism for gentiles. Let each gentile group form its own covenant with God. That way, they can worship God but with a special covenant that applies only to their own kind. This is the best way. As Christianity and Islam become overly global and 'inclusive', they are becoming messy, confused, and contentious. To accommodate all that diversity, the religion is being made ever more generic. The result is the current pope who should be called the poop.

    In the end, Christianity is more about the preservation of an idea than a people/culture. In contrast, Judaism is about the preservation of a people since it can't do without them.
    Judaism is finished if the Jews disappear. Even if non-Jews were to read the Torah after all Jews disappear, it would not be Judaism. Judaism cannot exist apart from Jewish people. As solely an idea, it is not a religion. As a religion, it needs Jews who made the Covenant with God. So, Jewish ethnos is central to Judaism.

    In contrast, the idea is what matters most in credo-religions like Christianity. Even if all German Christians were killed or died off, it doesn't matter since Christianity could carry on in the hearts/minds of others. In the end, it doesn't matter who believes in Jesus. What matters is the idea remains alive by spreading like a virus. Thus, any group of Christians is dispensable to Christianity. If all French Christians died, the faith could go on with Chinese Christians. If all Chinese Christians died, it could go on with Mexican Christians.
    This is why so many Christians find less value in their faith When Christianity was defacto the religion of the West, it made white folks special. But as it's spread to Africa, Asian, and all over, white Christians now feel dispensable. Christianity can do without them. In contrast, Judaism can't do without Jews. Christianity, as a conversion-religion, can convert any bunch of people. Judaism is a conception-religion, not a conversion-religion. Jews have to be conceived in wombs of Jewish mothers.

    But if each gentile group form their own special covenant with God, their religion will gain in meaning once again. When something is overly 'inclusive', it loses all value. Taken an elite college. If it goes for open admission, it is no longer a top college. It is just a community college.
    If your people have a covenant with God, then your special religion cannot do without your people. Jews believe in a universal God but through a tribal covenant. This must be the way for each people. Each people need to develop this covenant with their own prophets, narratives, and visions. This will be the great spiritual project of the 21st century. New Covenantism.

    There is a lesson to be learned from history of Jews and Christianity.
    They have mastered the art of survival through defeat. Judaism began with a humble man named Abram. He was no great warrior or super-rich powerful guy. His main justification for existence came from Covenant with God. So, his life had meaning even in exile, defeat, and loss. Even if he lost everything in the material world, he was blessed with relation to God. And in that there was everlasting hope. Because Judaism was founded on humility in covenant with greatest power, Jews could handle defeat better than any other people whose civilization was founded on pride. Take Assyrians. A mighty warlike people. Their justification was based on power and might. As long as they kicked butt, they were great. But in defeat, they were nothing because they had placed so little value for humility and wisdom of defeat.
    Of course, humility alone won't get you very far. Humility on its own is just slavishness. If Jews only had humility, they would have groveled to the greater power and would have been happy as slaves. But Jewish humility was in relation to God, the greatest power. So, even as Jewish humility made them better-suited to weather the storms, they felt the assurance of being favored by the greatest power in the universe. Jews had humility appreciated by the pride of God.

    All peoples have their rises and falls. But when most fell, they tended to vanish from history. For one thing, most civilizations were centered around the Power. Kings and chieftains mattered most. Everyone else was servant or slave or minion. Now, as long as kings and princes kept the power, the civilization felt justified and masterful under their rule. But when the civilization was defeated, the kings and princes were killed or banished. Without pride of victory, they were nothing. And since the civilization instilled little inherent meaning to the minions and hoi polloi, they just drifted apart when their rulers fell from power or were conquered. Their cultural value depended on the status of their rulers. When their rulers were great, they felt justified in serving a great lord. But when their rulers fell, they felt empty, like how a fan feels after his team loses.
    Also, such powers tended to be idolatrous. Their power was represented by massive sculptures and monuments. So, people came to associate power with material expressions of might. The problem is when the system falls and the new conquerors take over, the monuments and idols can easily be smashed... or they can be appropriated by the conquerors as their own.

    In contrast, Judaism made every Jew feel like he counted independent of their rulers or leaders. After all, the Covenant was between God and Abraham, an ordinary man. So, there was the idea that God valued each Jew regardless of his wealth or status. So, even though there were big Jews, middle Jews, and little Jews, all Jews enjoyed spiritual parity in the eyes of God. There was a spiritual and moral democracy among the Jews. So, Jews didn't develop minion-ism. When the Babylon kings fell, the Babylon minions were lost. Without service to their king, they had no purpose in life. But even when Jewish chieftains and kings fell and even when Jews were scattered, they felt a sense of inner value since God valued every Jews as a member of the Covenant.
    Also, as Jews were anti-idolatrous, their meaning was invested more with the idea, and ideas are portable, alive, and moral. Even if a Jewish city is sacked and Jewish treasures burned and destroyed, the core of Jewishness survives because it's in the heart and in the texts. Also, anti-idolatry-ism had the benefit of reminding Jews to never conflate the sight of might with might itself. A Babylonian or Roman might look upon the great monuments and statues of his civilization and feel powerful. Egyptians might look upon Pyramids and other stuff and feel mighty. After all, the physical structures were so impressive. But in the end, idols are just that. They look mighty but they are just stones piled on top of another. They will not defend a people when the people grow decadent, confused, lazy, depraved, and craven. Romans were so into idolatryism that they kept believing in the power that was no longer there because they were surrounded by giant stadiums and towering monuments.

    In the end, what really matters is the stuff in the mind and hearts. Suppose there is a people with sound values in heart and mind. And there is another people with decayed values. Suppose both have nice big cities. Now, suppose a terrible natural disaster destroys the city of the people with sound values. In contrast, the city of the depraved people is spared. In 50 yrs, the sound people will rebuild a great city whereas the depraved people will let their city rot and decay. Those with sound ideas can turn nothing in something. Those with depraved ideas will turn something into nothing.

    The current West is into idolatryism. It judges everything by glittering skyscrapers and such impressive stuff. And when we look at Western cities and cities like Tokyo, they are bright and glittering. But the fact is the values in the hearts and minds of Westerners and Japanese are now decadent, depraved, and rotten. They have forgotten the meaning of family and moral values. They live and toil only for money and materialism and fun. But they think everything is fine since they got shiny buildings and stuff. But as the values of the civilization have begun to rot, the system will fail in the end.

    It can't be an accident that Jews survived for 3,500 yrs. Also, it can't be an accident that Christianity and Islam survived for long as continuous civilizations. Among the many ancient peoples, why did Jews have the advantage in survival? And why did Christian and Islamic civilizations survive for so long whereas pagan orders all rose and fell and vanished?

    One could argue that Greeks and Romans were more intellectually curious than the Jews. So,why did Greek and Roman civilizations fade away whereas the Jewish one survived?
    One of the blessing of intellect is the ability to think new thoughts and make progress. But the downside is the elites come to separate themselves from the rest of the community. After all, intellect and higher education are the property of the elites. We are seeing such Coming Apart today. When US was a Christian nation, the rich and the poor had faith in God in common at least. But with the fading of religion among the elites, they believe themselves to be pulling ahead of the rest. They are wrapped up with the conceit of having these fancy ideas that makes them so much better than the rest. Spirituality emotionally binds a people together. Intellect works like a razor in cutting the binds between elites and masses. The blessing of the West was that, for a long spell, it balanced the Hellenic intellectualism with Hebraic spiritualism(via Christianity). That way, the elites did think new thoughts and make progress but also felt a spiritual-emotional tie with the rest of the community.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3XHMDkxsT8

    Intellectualism can do wonders in real meritocratic terms. But it also leads to the conceit of snobbery and smugness. It's like the whole nonsense about acceptance of 'gay marriage' making some people 'more evolved' than others. Judaism and its outgrowths, Christianity and Islam, had a binding effect between elites and masses. Intellectualism is necessary for progress, but it can have a dividing effect between the elites and masses. Also, intellectualism fills the elites with hubris and arrogance. They think they are so smart and can do anything. They try to build the Tower of Babel. Meanwhile, they neglect the people. Also, finding common morality to be stifling to their desire for unfettered liberty, they undermine the value of shared common morality. In time, the masses become immoral too, and society begins to fall apart from all sorts of social pathologies. And when this happens, the elites are not able to re-institute a moral order even if they want to since the hoi polloi have turned into a bunch of feral pigs. For things to work again, the whole system must fall and must be built from the ground up. This is doable if there are no Negroes. But if Negroes take over, the fallen state will be permanent since the Negro way is savage.

    Japan and Germany were smashed but could rebuild after WWII. They could suffer millions of deaths and destruction of cities. But suppose Japan and Germany has been bombed with Negroes. Suppose Japan has been bombed with 30 million Negroes. Suppose Germany had been bombed with 25 million Negroes. They never would have risen from the rubble but would have been turned into Haiti. Indeed, look at Detroit. It was the leading industrial city in the 1950s. But there were all these Negroes, they burned things down, they went wild, and they took over. And now, Detroit is a hell. This is why Negroes are the worst and most terrible things in the world. Non-negro Humans can overcome just about anything but not Negro-ization. As EU is being overtaken by Africans, it is being Negro-bombed, and that will be the end of Europe. The current invasion wave is the Mother of All Negro Bombs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @CanSpeccy
    "The church never insisted on strict biblical liberalism"

    Or as Bishop Desmond Tutu put it: "Whatever is not in the spirit of Christ, I reject it. I reject it absolutely."

    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless. Let him start his own church away from white people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless
     
    You're wrong about that if on no other ground (and I could suggest several others) than that Christianity is a universalist faith.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. marylou says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    If the content was nonsensical you'd have a point, but the content of the Holy Qur'an is what sets it apart. I invite you to sit and read it, it's a logical book that gives reasonable and logical arguments and explanations for everything that it asks you to believe and to do. Further evidence of it's divinity comes from the facts contained in the text that would've been unknown to an illiterate, orphaned 40 year old Meccan without being told so by God. Human evolution, the Theory of Relativity, the Big Bang, the ever expanding universe. All of these things are in the Qur'an.

    This is what Moslems and Christians have in common: Both are scared of hell, and collecting Brownie points for heaven.

    In the minds of most of the commentators on here, Christianity seems to be synonymous with the Catholic church. Which had it’s good and bad points. It is fashionable to only look at the bad ones in some circles. I grew up in this “Christianity” and I liked it. I had a happy childhood. I left because it had incorporated so many clearly pagan things and suppressed important teachings of the NT.

    I have read your book and I have read mine.
    I doubt that you have read the New Testament. Challenge:
    Do a simple thing. Take a red pencil and go over the whole of the Koran, front to back, and underline every verse that threatens you with hell fire and torment for ever. Scary. Every second page it seems you are threatened with it. If you do believe the koran you have to be steeped in fear.
    Now do the same thing with the New Testament. what I mean is, do try to do it. You can’t because there is no constant threat of hellfire. Wherever there is a verse that should be followed by a threat of hellfire, like in the koran, the NT talks about destruction, not getting life eternal, and the like.
    Yes, there is a fire at the end. But it lasts until it is burnt out. Nothing left but ashes.

    Fear of hell is a powerful means of keeping the sheep in line, be they Christian or Moslem. It also keeps you from looking at what it indeed does say. It was a great idea of the Catholic church to introduce this belief. Mohammed plagiarized it to great advantage.

    So, I bought a Koran, then I read it from cover to cover, and color coded specific subjects. Women, heaven, (pretty ridiculous); calls to war, fighting, killing, violence; last but not least, infidels. Half the koran seems to be reserved for me, the infidel.
    Maybe read it, I doubt that you have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The great thing for me of the Quran is that it resembles the bible, anyone can find anything that suits him.
    When de Quran was written, it was some 200 years after Mohammed died.
    There was great controversy about what he had said.
    This problem was solved to put anything in the Quran what he was supposed to have said, but, luckily, arranged to subject.
    So the prescription to pray in the direction of Mecca is next to the prescription to pray in he direction of Jerusalem.
    In one places jews are to be eradicated, in another they are promised the Islam heaven if they live well, that means, follow Islamic prescriptions such as giving to the poor.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Hell was an Egyptian invention.
    If indeed Mozes existed, then he in all probability was a former priest of the rejected Egyptian monotheism, Sun worship, in Heliopolis.
    There may have been a priest rebellion, with just one god less employment.
    So Mozes may have liked the concept of monotheism, it gives power to those in power, but he may have considered strengthening it with hell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Che Guava says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Yours is a welcome reply within this grab bag of replies, mostly written in response to the question that nags at the soul of most every intelligent, inquiring human being: 'what is the meaning of life; for what purpose am I here?' The author of this piece makes a good point here when he states:

    'Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.'

    Having to admit mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime, not being able to find better metaphors for the existential existence of modern man during the last quarter of the 20th century, I can joyfully point to this tract to help lead others out of the conundrum of modern fatalistic oppression. It's an expression of the Good News that you, of course, allude to within your reply. Theosis or deification, the pursuit of union with God, although a part of Catholic and Protestant theology is most fully taught and explained within the Orthodox Church. I consider this tract to be a 'pearl of great value', I hope that you do to:
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx

    mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime

    Congratulations for your bad taste. I had a friend who was a fan like you, tried to force me to watch it, I could never manage one episode.

    You do understand that the demi-monde depicted is entirely New York Jewish? That it is not actually funny (this is why the bass hook and canned laughter are so important)? That the bonhomie so cloyingly depicted would evaporate if you suddenly appeared on the set?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    There's no accounting for taste, or as they say in Russian:

    В кус и цвет товариша нет!
     
    As an American, I had the good fortune growing up on a steady fare of TV and film comedy written by talented Jewish writers. Starting with the great surrealistic cartooning of Max Fleischer, Steve Allen, Sid Caesar, Steve Allen, Burns and Allen, Woody Allen, etc; etc;

    Perhaps, your friend was trying to get you to relax and get you out of your comfort zone? :-)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. FLgeezer says:
    @Clearpoint
    The strength of Christianity is its superior morality, its recognition of human frailty, and the equality of all in the eyes of God. Its impact on culture and the structure of society has been immense. Judaism is a tribal system of political organization, not a religion. It hides from the world, deceives the world, misleads the world, and steals from the world. The god it worships is the source of its power in this world --- the monetary system it established and controls.

    If this is the future of humanity, humanity's future is slavery, and perhaps extinction. Capitalism is the economic and political expression of Judaism. This expression of Judaism has replaced the religious one because it could do what the religious expression could never do - spread Judaism globally.

    That the rise of Judaism in the 19th and 20th centuries coincided with the rise of the power of the monetary system is no coincidence, but the unfolding of a long term plan of conquest. It was a brilliant plan concocted by a tiny minority of the world's population that will soon reach its apex. But it is a plan that will ultimately fail because it must ultimately fail. Christianity has stood down and shares much blame in letting this happen, but it is far from dead.

    Ultimately it was the superior morality of Christianity that moved the world forward, not the chosen one morality of insatiable greed that is Judaism. It will recover its lost sense of purpose, eventually.

    Great post Clearpoint. Eloquently and clearly stated. I sometimes despair of the power, influence, and perversion of The Chosen. Posts like yours instill hope, and I thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @attilathehen
    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless. Let him start his own church away from white people.

    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless

    You’re wrong about that if on no other ground (and I could suggest several others) than that Christianity is a universalist faith.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Of the two suggested by Google for "Archbishop Tu--", I rather prefer Bishop Turpin myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Corvinus says:
    @attilathehen
    If the ramblings of an obscurantist like Paul were proven false, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, the Koran is wrong because it mentions Jesus in it.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    Islam is a religion of blacks/Asians, IQ deficient populations.

    Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.
    If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.

    Racially, you are kosher. Religiously, you are a heretic, a “kuffar.” Psychologically, you are someone who is looking for a belief system to justify things you are doing in your life.

    Devilish Islam is perfect for this.

    “Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.”

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are able to show convincingly how Jesus, our savior, is in complete support of your decision.

    “If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches.”

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.
     
    Would you kindly enlighten us with your idea, so different from that of the dictionaries, of what heresy and heretics are?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @geokat62

    Jason Reza Jorjani demonstrates (with compelling logic) that Greek philosophy reformed under influence of the Persians/Zoroaster
     
    It appears that your favourite Professor is the latest in a long line of Phoenixes to rise from the ashes:

    The idea of oriental, and especially Iranian, origins of Greek philosophy was endowed by antiquity with a legendary aura, either by declaring that Pythagoras had been Zoroaster’s pupil in Babylon (a city where neither of them had probably ever been), or by writing, as did Clement of Alexandria (Clement of Alexandria, 5.9.4), that Heraclitus had drawn on “the barbarian philosophy,” an expression by which, in view of the proximity of Ephesus to the Persian empire, he must have meant primarily the Iranian doctrines.

    The problem, studied seriously since the beginning of the 19th century, has often been negatively solved by the great historians of Greek philosophy; but it seems, nevertheless, repeatedly to rise anew like the Phoenix from its ashes, as though the temptation to compare the two traditions and discover a bond of interdependence between them periodically became irresistible.

    http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/greece-iii
     

    Iranica Online is surely a credible resource, geokat62, capable of defending Greek culture.

    Its academic details reveal a more nuanced judgment of the extent and direction of cultural borrowings between Iran and Greece. For example, on the one hand,

    “Empedocles already shared the microcosm idea, which governed the conception of medicine he had inherited from the Cnidian school, influenced by Iran. He also declared that “the general law is widely extended through the ether of the vast dominion and the immense brightness of the sky,” (Fr. 38), which harks back to Heraclitus and, through him, to Zarathushtra proclaiming the coincidence of Aṧa with the light”

    On the other hand,

    The Chaldaic Oracles, despite their fire-cult, probably owe nothing to Iran.

    While

    “Three kinds of medicine were distinguished, through spells, the knife, or herbs, both in Iran . . . and in Greece (Pindar, 3.47-55), not elsewhere; borrowing seems, therefore, plausible, either way . . ..”

    Jorjani is an ideologue who uses (valid) facts, simplistically — i.e. it is a fact that Heraclitus lived in Ephesus, and Ephesus was in the Persian empire at the time of Heraclitus — to support points that buttress his passion; namely, a Renaissance of Iranian culture (as opposed to the Islamic subversion of Zoroastrian/Iran).

    It seems to me that rather than “Who came first, the chicken or the egg,” its far more fruitful to wrestle with the ideas, their evolution and context/in context, and how we may apply them to make our own lives better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    It seems to me that rather than “Who came first, the chicken or the egg,” its far more fruitful to wrestle with the ideas, their evolution and context/in context, and how we may apply them to make our own lives better.
     
    While I couldn't agree more, S2C, I couldn't allow these statements by yourself and Jorjani to go uncontested:

    S2C - "Jason Reza Jorjani argues that Greeks were backward until after they were conquered by Persia, whereupon Greeks under Persian occupation developed more civilized habits and philosophies."

    Jorjani - "Greece is said to be the birthplace of philosophy, but what must be realized is that philosophy emerged in the centuries after the Persians colonized Greece . . .”
     

    as they imply the Persian civilization is superior to the Greek, especially after having previously provided this excerpt from Copleston’s History of Philosophy, Vol. 1, which brings into sharp relief the shortcomings of a subject living under the Persian Empire versus a citizen living within a direct democracy [in Greece]:

    When man reflects on human life, on man’s good and on the good life, as Plato did, he clearly cannot pass by man’s social relations. Man is born into a society, not only into that of the family but also into a wider association, and it is in that society that he must live the good life and attain his end. He cannot be treated as though he were an isolated unit, living to himself alone. Yet, although every thinker who concerns himself with the humanistic viewpoint, man’s place and destiny, must form for himself some theory of man’s social relations, it may be well that no theory of the State will result, unless a somewhat advanced political consciousness has gone before.

    If man feels himself as a passive member of some great autocratic Power—the Persian Empire, for example—in which he is not called upon to play any active role, save as taxpayer or soldier, his political consciousness is scarcely aroused: one autocrat or another, one empire or another, Persian or Babylonian, it may make very little difference to him. But when a man belongs to a community in which he is called upon to shoulder his burden of responsibility, in which he has not only duties but also rights and activities, then he will become politically conscious. To the politically unconscious man the State may appear as some thing set over against him, alien if not oppressive, and he will tend to conceive his way of salvation as lying through individual activity and perhaps through co-operation in other societies than that of the reigning bureaucracy: he will not be immediately stimulated to form a theory of the State. To the politically conscious man, on the other hand, the State appears as a body in which he has a part, as an extension in some sort of himself, and so will be stimulated—the reflective thinker, that is to say—to form a theory of the State. The Greeks had this political consciousness in a very advanced degree: the good life was to them inconceivable apart from the polis…

    The political theory of Plato and Aristotle has indeed formed the foundation for subsequent fruitful speculation on the nature and characteristics of the State. Many details of Plato’s Republic may be unrealisable in practice, and also undesirable even if practicable, but his great thought is that of the State as rendering possible and as promoting the good life of man, as contributing to man’s temporal end and welfare. This Greek view of the State, which is also that of St. Thomas, is superior to the view which may be known as the liberal idea of the State, i.e. the view of the State as an institution, the function of which is to private property and, in general, to exhibit a negative attitude towards the members of the State. In practice, of course, even the upholders of this view of the State have had to abandon a completely laissez-faire policy, but their theory remains barren, empty and negative in comparison with that of the Greeks.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy

    Bishop Tuti Frutti is black so his opinions to Caucasians is worthless
     
    You're wrong about that if on no other ground (and I could suggest several others) than that Christianity is a universalist faith.

    Of the two suggested by Google for “Archbishop Tu–”, I rather prefer Bishop Turpin myself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    I cannot see what possible interest there can be in the expression of unexplained contempt for a Christian priest and Nobel Prize winner by a person of concealed identity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. epnngg says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Yours is a welcome reply within this grab bag of replies, mostly written in response to the question that nags at the soul of most every intelligent, inquiring human being: 'what is the meaning of life; for what purpose am I here?' The author of this piece makes a good point here when he states:

    'Insensible of the wonder and strangeness of existence, we watch Seinfeld reruns and congratulate ourselves on not paying attention to that, you know, like, religious stuff. We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.'

    Having to admit mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime, not being able to find better metaphors for the existential existence of modern man during the last quarter of the 20th century, I can joyfully point to this tract to help lead others out of the conundrum of modern fatalistic oppression. It's an expression of the Good News that you, of course, allude to within your reply. Theosis or deification, the pursuit of union with God, although a part of Catholic and Protestant theology is most fully taught and explained within the Orthodox Church. I consider this tract to be a 'pearl of great value', I hope that you do to:
    http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/theosis.aspx

    Mr. Hack, Thank you for the link. When I find a little time in the next few days I will read through it. Appreciate your comments.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Veritatis says:
    @Seraphim
    The Catholic Church was infiltrated by Freemasons long before 1958. The plan for the infiltration was known since 1859 by a document of the Alta Vendita (the supreme lodge of the Carbonari - Freemasons) and published in a classic of anti-masonic literature:
    Jacques Crétineau-Joly, "L' Église Romaine en face de la Révolution", 1859

    “les sociétés secrètes déploient l’étendard de la liberté; l’exil et la persécution vont être le partage de l’Église.” Certainly an exile from temporal influence, at least.

    And they had already discovered the effective talking points: “Dans la lutte maintenant engagée entre le despo- tisme sacerdotal ou monarchique et le principe de liberté,”. Though perhaps nowadays they insist more on “progress”, the useful new religion. Utopias, both of them. Yet the gates of hell shall not…

    Very interesting, thank you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    "dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: si vos manseritis in sermone meo vere discipuli mei eritis, et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos".
    " dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me, si cognovissetis me et Patrem meum utique cognovissetis et amodo cognoscitis eum et vidistis eum".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Druid says:
    @Clearpoint
    The strength of Christianity is its superior morality, its recognition of human frailty, and the equality of all in the eyes of God. Its impact on culture and the structure of society has been immense. Judaism is a tribal system of political organization, not a religion. It hides from the world, deceives the world, misleads the world, and steals from the world. The god it worships is the source of its power in this world --- the monetary system it established and controls.

    If this is the future of humanity, humanity's future is slavery, and perhaps extinction. Capitalism is the economic and political expression of Judaism. This expression of Judaism has replaced the religious one because it could do what the religious expression could never do - spread Judaism globally.

    That the rise of Judaism in the 19th and 20th centuries coincided with the rise of the power of the monetary system is no coincidence, but the unfolding of a long term plan of conquest. It was a brilliant plan concocted by a tiny minority of the world's population that will soon reach its apex. But it is a plan that will ultimately fail because it must ultimately fail. Christianity has stood down and shares much blame in letting this happen, but it is far from dead.

    Ultimately it was the superior morality of Christianity that moved the world forward, not the chosen one morality of insatiable greed that is Judaism. It will recover its lost sense of purpose, eventually.

    The sooner the bette!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Wizard of Oz
    Never heard of SJ or JT. I think it was on the History Channel. Instead of offering mere abuse of others' actual or purported views can you answer the detail that I gave of the doco's thesis. As someone brought up with quite a good knowledge of the Bible (i even taught Sunday School at the age of 13) but without any religious belief from the age of 15 I found it more plausible than the standard Christian version. But you think I should not. Why?

    ‘But you think I should not. Why?’

    Because the primary evidence gives a completely different story compared to the documentary you saw.
    The gospels are primary evidence written by people who saw the events in good faith. They are full of the most amazing detail. Sure there are some inconsistencies as you would expect of testimonies written at different times, by different people, under differing levels of persecution with differing purposes and audiences in mind. They are incredibility consistent when factors such as these are considered.
    Consider how absurd are claims that Jesus was invented. Fifteen hundred years before the first novel the gospel writers poor men, invented Jesus, invented all the stories, the Sermon on the mount, the Olivet discourse, the parables, the passion. All a work of imagination. Clearly these writers were towering geniuses who all happen to be born at the same time and place and invent a narrative that no fiction writer in all of history has come close to, except perhaps the “fiction” writers of Exodus.
    It is all beyond words in its absurdity, clearly the gospels are accounts written by sincere men.
    Wizard you should consider these things more like an artist or penitent using as much heart and creativity as head. That is how God is trying to reach us, through our heart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your "primary evidence" is merely a small collection sanctioned by church authorities of second and third hand accounts by persons actually unknown, despite our giving names to the authors. The selection was made - some 200 years later - despite none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus, and it should be noted that the gospels were the narrowest posdible propaganda source for the Jesus movement giving nothing of the political context of the wider Roman world nor making it clear that there were many movements or sects like the Essenes to give background and context.

    So, if you want to answer the thesis I summarised you should atend to the detail even if you are not willing to find and view the doco (something like The Last Days of Jesus). Of course it is remarkable how the Jesus movement - especially Paul - turned disaster into triumph. Of course martyrdom by lion bite is much sexier than the suicide bomber's way. (We should make it easier for radical Islamists to gain glory as victim martyrs so they don't have to blow others up).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @anonymous coward

    Why then did he not tell billions of Buddhists, Hindus and Animists what the right theological and moral doctrines are?
     
    He did. It is there for anyone to read, if they care to do so.

    Why did he allow Ancient Hebrews, Jesus followers, followers of the violent pederast, Cathars, Albigensians, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Zwinglians, Anglicans etc to wallow in the uncertainty created by their many incompatibilities? The Abrahamic God is logically impossible.
     
    He didn't. Last I checked, these groups are either extinct or on the fast track to be extinct in a few generations due to their own folly.

    The trouble is your Abrahamic God can’t be one who really cares about us as individuals as his shamans pretend he does. And if he has only created us for his ghoulish entertainment as seems the only logical conclusion why should we care about Him?

    The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God’s creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak.

    That can no longer work as we know very well that the self we might wish to survive death must be lost with the decay of our brain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    "The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God’s creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak."

    The meaning here is a bit opaque.

    Are you suggesting Christian societies which believe in heaven and hell and judgement oppress an exploit the weak?

    A quote from Ronald Segal's book on slavery in Islam.

    Zanzibar was a black Belsen, a clearing house of shackled humanity, where the stench of death was masked by the cloves on which the island’s Omani emirs built a great trading empire.
    Without a nascent industrial complex to feed, many of the men were castrated for domestic service or drafted into slave armies that emptied the lands around the great lakes of their peoples. One in 10, by some estimates, survived the trek from the interior. By the mid-19th century, when east African slave magnates – many of them the free sons of Arab slavers and their black concubines – ran out of infidels and animists to enslave, they, and the expanding black Islamic empires that supplied them, circumvented the scruples set out in the Koran and carried off their own on the flimsiest of criminal pretexts.
    Slaves were the luxury goods the Islamic world seemed unable to wean itself off, despite hectoring from a self-righteous west that had embraced emancipation just as mechanisation had rendered slavery obsolete. Like horses and gold, slaves conferred status, and the most opulent households had thousands. When he died in 1870, one Arab official of the black state of Bornu on the shores of Lake Chad had several thousand slaves to complement his stable of 1,000 stallions.
     
    Do you think Rome was any different? It was probably worse.

    These slaves simply worked to death, or used for sex, under threat of death and torture.

    Catholic culture ended slavery in Europe, it started the hospitals and universities, and yet this culture leads the strong to exploit the weak? It is untrue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Clearpoint
    The strength of Christianity is its superior morality, its recognition of human frailty, and the equality of all in the eyes of God. Its impact on culture and the structure of society has been immense. Judaism is a tribal system of political organization, not a religion. It hides from the world, deceives the world, misleads the world, and steals from the world. The god it worships is the source of its power in this world --- the monetary system it established and controls.

    If this is the future of humanity, humanity's future is slavery, and perhaps extinction. Capitalism is the economic and political expression of Judaism. This expression of Judaism has replaced the religious one because it could do what the religious expression could never do - spread Judaism globally.

    That the rise of Judaism in the 19th and 20th centuries coincided with the rise of the power of the monetary system is no coincidence, but the unfolding of a long term plan of conquest. It was a brilliant plan concocted by a tiny minority of the world's population that will soon reach its apex. But it is a plan that will ultimately fail because it must ultimately fail. Christianity has stood down and shares much blame in letting this happen, but it is far from dead.

    Ultimately it was the superior morality of Christianity that moved the world forward, not the chosen one morality of insatiable greed that is Judaism. It will recover its lost sense of purpose, eventually.

    I’m thinking of starting a little monthly journal called “Protocols”. We will need an eloquent editorial bladt each month. Any chance you are available? Money not great but we will rely on the pasdion fuelled.
    PS No footnotes or bibliographies will be allowed space. We want it to look like Playboy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @jilles dykstra
    " This is unfortunate, and stupid, since Christianity was the heart and soul of as yet the greatest civilization the world has seen. "

    This sentence is the point to stop reading.
    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    Who exactly burned the Alexandria library is still in dispute, but there is no dispute on that the pope in 1600 burned Giordano Bruno alive, because he had other ideas than the church, at about the same time Calvin in Geneva burned Servetius also to death, alive, on green wood, then he suffered longer.

    The crime of Servetius, the man who discovered the blood circulation, was that the compromise reached on Cyprus in the 4th or so century about the holy trinity he saw as nonsense;

    Some 400 years BCE Greeks calculated the circumference of the earth at 39.000 km, it is some 40.000.
    Yet the crew of Columbus in 1500 or so were afraid to fall off the world.

    Even around 1860 a pope forbade all philosophic thinking not controlled by the church.
    Even today the pope forbids condoms, thereby spreading aids.

    Science stood still for some 1600 years, Galileo is seen as the first experimenter in christian times.

    I do not comment on the christian stupidity of 'go and multiply', heathen peoples were capable of restricting population to sustainable numbers.
    Nor am I commenting on excuses for trans Atlantic slave trade.

    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    This is beyond nonsense Jilles. Thoughts like this have their roots in the most extreme prejudice.

    A few quotes from Jean Gimpel (1918–1996) was a French historian and medievalist…. In 1987 he was a founding vice-president of the Society for the History of Mediaeval Technology and Science, the British affiliate of AVISTA and the Association de Villard de Honnecourt.
    The Middle Ages was one of the great inventive eras of mankind. It should be known as the first industrial revolution of Europe….
    The medieval period witnessed one of the more rapid advances in the introduction of machinery in European history. This could not be accomplished without the effective taming of energy. The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind. These mills would grind corn, crush olives, tan leather, make paper, etc. While the Romans utilized the mill, it was not nearly to the extent utilized in these later periods. The relationship is inverse to the use of slaves in the economy – the increasing use of the mill corresponded with the drastic reduction of slavery during the Middle Ages.
    Monasteries built in countries separated by thousands of miles – Portugal, Sweden, Scotland, Hungary – all had very similar waterpowered systems within almost universally similar plans for the monasteries themselves…. In certain ways the discipline imposed by Saint Bernard on his monks – the rigid timetable, the impossibility of deviating from the Rule without facing punishment – brings to mind the work regulations that Henry Ford imposed on his assembly lines.

    How can you ignore the plain evidence Jillies. Consider Gothic Cathedrals, how do you think these were built. The learning, craftsmanship and imagination needed to enable such buildings is immense, and was being developed over centuries.
    Look at medicine. It was Catholics who started the hospitals and universities.

    Your claim is clearly wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind.
    ⦁ Thorkild Schioler, ‘Roman and Islamic water lifting wheels’, Odense University Press 1973
    My objection to christianity was preventing any scientific thought.
    Until 1600.
    But indeed, christianity could not prevent technical progress.
    This was exactly what broke the church's power, Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter through a Dutch made telescope.
    The Dutch artisan Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek saw bacteria and amoebe in his primitive microscopes.
    Medicine, indeed, Calvin burned to death Servatius, who had discovered blood circulation.
    And cathedrals, great, the poor lived in them comfortably, great progress.
    Then there was the 1524 German insurrection against the aristocracy and the monasteries, so grateful they were towards the monks.
    Wilhelm Zimmermann, ‘Der grosse deutsche Bauernkrieg’, 1856, 1982, Berlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. It is interesting that Christianity has enjoyed; intellectually and doctrinally, some workarounds to refreshment and revision to cope with a succesion of changing civilisations and changing challenges to existing ones. In particular the secular corruption of the Catholic church at a time when the printing press was empowering people of low rank prompted people with the same dogmatic asdumption about God’s existence to resort to arguments over the supposedly divinely sanctioned scriptures. Islam has substantially missed out on that. Now Christianity faces an impossible task in harnessing the finest most vigorous minds to update it and make it plausible to moderns because science has gradually eroded the possibility of believing in the fundamentals as they were assumed to be by Luther, Calvin, Aloysius Loyola, Erasmus, More, the Popes and Henry Vlll alike. Of course its amazing how, if you are really really clever, you can still rationalise Christian belief with science…. Not a recipe for the masses however.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    "If you are really really clever", you would not confuse Saint Ignatius de Loyola with Saint Aloysius de Gonzaga. Is it a Freudian slip? Is there where you lost your faith?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Wizard of Oz
    The trouble is your Abrahamic God can't be one who really cares about us as individuals as his shamans pretend he does. And if he has only created us for his ghoulish entertainment as seems the only logical conclusion why should we care about Him?

    The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God's creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak.

    That can no longer work as we know very well that the self we might wish to survive death must be lost with the decay of our brain.

    “The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God’s creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak.”

    The meaning here is a bit opaque.

    Are you suggesting Christian societies which believe in heaven and hell and judgement oppress an exploit the weak?

    A quote from Ronald Segal’s book on slavery in Islam.

    Zanzibar was a black Belsen, a clearing house of shackled humanity, where the stench of death was masked by the cloves on which the island’s Omani emirs built a great trading empire.
    Without a nascent industrial complex to feed, many of the men were castrated for domestic service or drafted into slave armies that emptied the lands around the great lakes of their peoples. One in 10, by some estimates, survived the trek from the interior. By the mid-19th century, when east African slave magnates – many of them the free sons of Arab slavers and their black concubines – ran out of infidels and animists to enslave, they, and the expanding black Islamic empires that supplied them, circumvented the scruples set out in the Koran and carried off their own on the flimsiest of criminal pretexts.
    Slaves were the luxury goods the Islamic world seemed unable to wean itself off, despite hectoring from a self-righteous west that had embraced emancipation just as mechanisation had rendered slavery obsolete. Like horses and gold, slaves conferred status, and the most opulent households had thousands. When he died in 1870, one Arab official of the black state of Bornu on the shores of Lake Chad had several thousand slaves to complement his stable of 1,000 stallions.

    Do you think Rome was any different? It was probably worse.

    These slaves simply worked to death, or used for sex, under threat of death and torture.

    Catholic culture ended slavery in Europe, it started the hospitals and universities, and yet this culture leads the strong to exploit the weak? It is untrue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Surely faith can't be so bad for the intellect. You have got the point of Catholic saint Thomas More's prescription in Utopia exactly 180 degrees wrong.

    More was assuming that people - not Christians specifically, just people, would misuse their superior abilities to exploit others and take more than their fair shate if they could and there were no sanctions against it.

    As to your point about slavery it merely emphasises that the Catholic Church did *not* stop slavery outside Europe. It was Protestant evangelicals in England that led the way from about 100 years before the end of slavery in Brazil and Spanish America.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Anon
    Of the two suggested by Google for "Archbishop Tu--", I rather prefer Bishop Turpin myself.

    I cannot see what possible interest there can be in the expression of unexplained contempt for a Christian priest and Nobel Prize winner by a person of concealed identity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Nor can I see how an expression of appreciation for the virtues of Archbishop Turpin ought to be taken as an expression of contempt for anyone else, even by a person of equally concealed identity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @CanSpeccy
    As usual, Fred mixes fact and fiction to reach a false conclusion.

    Fiction: Christianity is a Jewish heresy
    Fact: Christianity produced the greatest civilization the World has known
    Fiction Christianity is dead
    False Conclusion: time now to get on with the New World Order under Jewish control.

    Jesus and the early Christians were Jews, but Christianity is not Judaism. The god of the Jews is a cruel, sadistic, tyrant, whose name the Jewish people feared to speak; he is an ignoramus, unable to distinguish between leprosy and mildew on a damp wall (Leviticus 14); and he is an irredeemable racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe, and an imperialist who commands the Jewish people to rule over the nations of the Earth.

    The God of the Christians is an entirely different personality, one who loves all of mankind and is to be addressed as a child speaks with a loving father. The Jewish Holy Scripture is included in the Christian Bible to provide context for the life of Jesus. [It has also served to provide Christian nations justification to engage, like the Jewish state, in criminal wars of aggression, genocide and conquest.]

    As for it being time for Christianity to give way to Judaism, suffice it to say that there are 2.2 billion nominal Christians in the world versus a mere 15 million Jews. I suggest Fred should be looking about him for signs of Christian push back.

    What is your definition of a great civilisation ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @Pat the Rat
    'But you think I should not. Why?'

    Because the primary evidence gives a completely different story compared to the documentary you saw.
    The gospels are primary evidence written by people who saw the events in good faith. They are full of the most amazing detail. Sure there are some inconsistencies as you would expect of testimonies written at different times, by different people, under differing levels of persecution with differing purposes and audiences in mind. They are incredibility consistent when factors such as these are considered.
    Consider how absurd are claims that Jesus was invented. Fifteen hundred years before the first novel the gospel writers poor men, invented Jesus, invented all the stories, the Sermon on the mount, the Olivet discourse, the parables, the passion. All a work of imagination. Clearly these writers were towering geniuses who all happen to be born at the same time and place and invent a narrative that no fiction writer in all of history has come close to, except perhaps the "fiction" writers of Exodus.
    It is all beyond words in its absurdity, clearly the gospels are accounts written by sincere men.
    Wizard you should consider these things more like an artist or penitent using as much heart and creativity as head. That is how God is trying to reach us, through our heart.

    Your “primary evidence” is merely a small collection sanctioned by church authorities of second and third hand accounts by persons actually unknown, despite our giving names to the authors. The selection was made – some 200 years later – despite none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus, and it should be noted that the gospels were the narrowest posdible propaganda source for the Jesus movement giving nothing of the political context of the wider Roman world nor making it clear that there were many movements or sects like the Essenes to give background and context.

    So, if you want to answer the thesis I summarised you should atend to the detail even if you are not willing to find and view the doco (something like The Last Days of Jesus). Of course it is remarkable how the Jesus movement – especially Paul – turned disaster into triumph. Of course martyrdom by lion bite is much sexier than the suicide bomber’s way. (We should make it easier for radical Islamists to gain glory as victim martyrs so they don’t have to blow others up).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    I've seen the documentary it was interesting with good production values but I know the work of the experts they consulted so the narrative theme was pretty predictable.

    none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus

     

    Only 30 years you say. That is like people writing about the 1980's today. Are books about contemporary politics in the 80's suspect because they are 30 years away from the historical events of the 80's.

    I must tell that to all biographers who take Churchill or Napoleon as a subject. These people are lying and their information is utter rubbish hopelessly compromised by the government departments that fund their writing. Any new research or information must be inaccurate because it is now more than 30 years away from the death of the subject.

    These arguments are all a bit laughable Wizard, they have been constantly rolled out by haters of the Catholic church for decades.

    I doubt if anything I say will change you mind at all. I have had enough conversations with atheists in the past to know that many have erected other idols to worship. And their new idols burn with indignation and injustice towards traditional Christianity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Philip Owen
    "Christianity seems to be dying out." No. It has more adherents in more places than ever. Growth in SS Africa, China, Korea, Orthodoxy continues even if the rest of Europe declines and the Americas stagnate.

    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    Read More
    • LOL: CanSpeccy
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    You always should beware what you are wishing for! Do not complain when you have it!

    "Liever Turks dan Paaps ("Rather Turkish than Papist"), also Liever Turksch dan Paus ("Rather Turkish than Pope"), was a Dutch slogan during the Dutch Revolt of the end of the 16th century. The slogan was used by the Dutch mercenary naval forces (the "Sea Beggars") in their fight against Catholic Spain...
    The phrase "Liever Turks dan Paaps" was coined as a way to express that life under the Muslim Ottoman Sultan would have been more desirable than life under the Catholic King of Spain. The Flemish noble D'Esquerdes wrote to this effect that he:
    " would rather become a tributary to the Turks than live against his conscience and be treated according to those [anti-heresy] edicts".
    — Letter of Flemish noble D'Esquerdes.

    Smoking pot and exposing whores in windows won't bring the liberation from the Turks.

    , @CanSpeccy

    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
     
    The Dutch atheists are like all the other damn fool European atheists. They childishly discarded Christianity for the trivial reason that it was based on stories that are obviously, to those raised in a scientific culture, untrue. But the truth of the narrative upon which religious faith is based is irrelevant, and only people with an adolescent conceit and stupidity would think otherwise.

    The importance of religion is that it imbues believers with a moral code, which enables strangers in a large and complex society to cooperate with one another. Now the idiot Dutch, like the cretinous Swedes and Norwegians, the Brits, the French and the Germans have discarded a faith that built the greatest civilization the world has known, while showing unlimited tolerance to adherents of the most vicious, intolerant and tyrannical faith the world has ever known.

    I don't even wish you good luck with that. You deserve only the utmost contempt. Contempt for your idiot liberal tolerance, and contempt for your staggering ignorance and stupidity.

    , @Anonymous
    And if the Catholic Church had not prevented it, science would have discovered the hydrogen atom, dna, wiped out the black plague and went to the moon by at least 800AD. The coronation of Charlemagne being shown on TV.

    You have to put one foot in front of the other to get somewhere and that is exactly what happened, and here we are.
    What did the church prevent? In effect, nothing.
    , @Anonymous
    Really? How so?
    What has become better for the average person?
    Let me tell you:
    What really improved day to day living was the invention of the washing machine, indoor plumbing, better transportation, (love public transportation in the Netherlands, for instance), modern dentistry, etc.

    As for the absence of the christian religion, the effect has been mainly the break down of the family, more and more putting the infirm to 'sleep' like a dog, and of course, the freedom to be as promiscuous as you like, confusion among the 'genders' and science if it keeps going as it is, doing away with all of us and making the planet uninhabitable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Mr. Hack says:
    @Che Guava

    mea culpa for watching every Seinfeld rerun episode at least 6-7 times during my lifetime
     
    Congratulations for your bad taste. I had a friend who was a fan like you, tried to force me to watch it, I could never manage one episode.

    You do understand that the demi-monde depicted is entirely New York Jewish? That it is not actually funny (this is why the bass hook and canned laughter are so important)? That the bonhomie so cloyingly depicted would evaporate if you suddenly appeared on the set?

    There’s no accounting for taste, or as they say in Russian:

    В кус и цвет товариша нет!

    As an American, I had the good fortune growing up on a steady fare of TV and film comedy written by talented Jewish writers. Starting with the great surrealistic cartooning of Max Fleischer, Steve Allen, Sid Caesar, Steve Allen, Burns and Allen, Woody Allen, etc; etc;

    Perhaps, your friend was trying to get you to relax and get you out of your comfort zone? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Nice reply. There is no comparison of Seinfeld with most on your list. Of course, I have enjoyed work by some, have not heard of all.

    Woody Allen, if I recall correctly, is a very sleazy man who seduced his step-daughter while she was a minor.

    Sure, he made a few good films.

    Mel Brooks certainly had his moments, too, I have seen old reruns of Get Smart, it is pure brilliance, some of his movies were good, too, until they were relying too much on scatological humour.

    To me, Seinfeld is on the same unfunny plane as Sex and the City and Friends, very insular and not interesting to anyone who is not a fool or tribal member.

    It does not challenge my 'comfort zone', just bores and alienates, for natural reasons.

    I have decided to learn how to read the sounds of Cyrillic and names of the letters, but have just started a few days ago, should be able to read most (sounds, badly) in the week after next. So I cannot read most of the 'as they say in Russian' in your post.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    What do you mean allowed? It's happening around you. You live in Germany right? Go to look at the people in the obstetrics department in any hospital in any city of size, look at your birth rates.

    There's no invasion going on, no horde is marching on Wien, it's simply that you're being replaced.


    You can hang on to comfortable delusions that the people in charge are going to to "stop it" but they're not. It's actually cute how you hide your fear with faux confidence.

    You should study history in SE Europe from 1912 to 1925.
    Peoples unable to live together were deported on an enormous scale.
    So who will be replaced remains to be seen.
    Our Dutch DENK party, with propaganda that assimilation is not necessary, is playing a very dangerous game.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Ik ben Nederlands! De DENK partij is een grap, maar niet zo grappig als de gedachte van de gefeminiseerde Nederlandse natie die een etnische zuivering uitvoert.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Seraphim
    You seem to be a very young, naive and impressionable person if you can be swayed by the 'theories' of notorious swindlers. The 'intriguing' theory is known long, long before Baigent &Co. At least this variant. The 'traditional' one is that Paul was the secret agent of Judaism to destroy the Roman Empire! I don't know, but there must be somewhere the theory that Paul was a 'reptilian'! Keep digging. Although I deem that it be more profitable for you to study the traditional 'theories' about Jesus.

    I’m quite old, over seventy, in my view very cynical, since I discovered the truth about sept 11, and I no longer believe anything on sight.
    Can you explain why Paulus got an escort of several hundred Roman soldiers on his way from Jerusalem tot the coast, where he took a ship to Rome, to talk to the emperor ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Old age does not necessarily bring wisdom. It is mostly the first stage in the regression to the 'second childhood'. It is accompanied by a reduction of intellectual capacities, the more if it was helped by smoking to much pot. You read and seem to not understand what you read (if you indeed had read the Acts and not only the Baigent 'Gospel').
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @marylou
    This is what Moslems and Christians have in common: Both are scared of hell, and collecting Brownie points for heaven.

    In the minds of most of the commentators on here, Christianity seems to be synonymous with the Catholic church. Which had it's good and bad points. It is fashionable to only look at the bad ones in some circles. I grew up in this "Christianity" and I liked it. I had a happy childhood. I left because it had incorporated so many clearly pagan things and suppressed important teachings of the NT.

    I have read your book and I have read mine.
    I doubt that you have read the New Testament. Challenge:
    Do a simple thing. Take a red pencil and go over the whole of the Koran, front to back, and underline every verse that threatens you with hell fire and torment for ever. Scary. Every second page it seems you are threatened with it. If you do believe the koran you have to be steeped in fear.
    Now do the same thing with the New Testament. what I mean is, do try to do it. You can't because there is no constant threat of hellfire. Wherever there is a verse that should be followed by a threat of hellfire, like in the koran, the NT talks about destruction, not getting life eternal, and the like.
    Yes, there is a fire at the end. But it lasts until it is burnt out. Nothing left but ashes.

    Fear of hell is a powerful means of keeping the sheep in line, be they Christian or Moslem. It also keeps you from looking at what it indeed does say. It was a great idea of the Catholic church to introduce this belief. Mohammed plagiarized it to great advantage.

    So, I bought a Koran, then I read it from cover to cover, and color coded specific subjects. Women, heaven, (pretty ridiculous); calls to war, fighting, killing, violence; last but not least, infidels. Half the koran seems to be reserved for me, the infidel.
    Maybe read it, I doubt that you have.

    The great thing for me of the Quran is that it resembles the bible, anyone can find anything that suits him.
    When de Quran was written, it was some 200 years after Mohammed died.
    There was great controversy about what he had said.
    This problem was solved to put anything in the Quran what he was supposed to have said, but, luckily, arranged to subject.
    So the prescription to pray in the direction of Mecca is next to the prescription to pray in he direction of Jerusalem.
    In one places jews are to be eradicated, in another they are promised the Islam heaven if they live well, that means, follow Islamic prescriptions such as giving to the poor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You obviously have not consulted neither the Bible nor the Koran very much.

    As for "Mozes" , there is no hell in the OT. You die and sleep "with your fathers. " You are dead. Just like the animals are dead when they die. Go look it up in the OT. If you come up with the promise of an everburning hell that you can't get out of, let me know, I have not been able to find it and have worn out a couple of Bibles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Seraphim says:
    @Johnny F. Ive
    The Renaissance was a result of Europe being reacquainted with classical knowledge on the dime of the Medici. Before that time there was a period called the Dark Age that was ruled by Christianity. The Christian Church was against knowledge at the time of the Renaissance. They went full ISIS with something called an inquisition. The Renaissance gave way to the Enlightenment and the present West. Also Protestantism is a result of the Medici. The Medici pope and the indulgence scam ticked off Martin Luther and started a religious schism.

    There are Christians who contributed many great things to the world but much of it was a result of earlier European knowledge and thought which they had access to. Christianity would be a positive in the West if it could be detached from its crazed land hungry father and violently insane brother.

    You would probably be surprised if someone told you that the ‘Dark Ages’ knew three ‘Renaissances’ before the Medici’s ‘Renaissance’: the Carolingian Renaissance (8th and 9th centuries), Ottonian Renaissance (10th century) and the Renaissance of the 12th century, all three characterized by significant cultural renewal right across medieval Western Europe and all under the patronage of the Church. All in search of the the European earlier knowledge (obscured perhaps, but never lost).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Pat the Rat
    For some 1600 years christianity prevented all progress.

    This is beyond nonsense Jilles. Thoughts like this have their roots in the most extreme prejudice.

    A few quotes from Jean Gimpel (1918–1996) was a French historian and medievalist…. In 1987 he was a founding vice-president of the Society for the History of Mediaeval Technology and Science, the British affiliate of AVISTA and the Association de Villard de Honnecourt.
    The Middle Ages was one of the great inventive eras of mankind. It should be known as the first industrial revolution of Europe….
    The medieval period witnessed one of the more rapid advances in the introduction of machinery in European history. This could not be accomplished without the effective taming of energy. The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind. These mills would grind corn, crush olives, tan leather, make paper, etc. While the Romans utilized the mill, it was not nearly to the extent utilized in these later periods. The relationship is inverse to the use of slaves in the economy – the increasing use of the mill corresponded with the drastic reduction of slavery during the Middle Ages.
    Monasteries built in countries separated by thousands of miles – Portugal, Sweden, Scotland, Hungary – all had very similar waterpowered systems within almost universally similar plans for the monasteries themselves…. In certain ways the discipline imposed by Saint Bernard on his monks – the rigid timetable, the impossibility of deviating from the Rule without facing punishment – brings to mind the work regulations that Henry Ford imposed on his assembly lines.

    How can you ignore the plain evidence Jillies. Consider Gothic Cathedrals, how do you think these were built. The learning, craftsmanship and imagination needed to enable such buildings is immense, and was being developed over centuries.
    Look at medicine. It was Catholics who started the hospitals and universities.

    Your claim is clearly wrong.

    The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind.
    ⦁ Thorkild Schioler, ‘Roman and Islamic water lifting wheels’, Odense University Press 1973
    My objection to christianity was preventing any scientific thought.
    Until 1600.
    But indeed, christianity could not prevent technical progress.
    This was exactly what broke the church’s power, Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter through a Dutch made telescope.
    The Dutch artisan Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek saw bacteria and amoebe in his primitive microscopes.
    Medicine, indeed, Calvin burned to death Servatius, who had discovered blood circulation.
    And cathedrals, great, the poor lived in them comfortably, great progress.
    Then there was the 1524 German insurrection against the aristocracy and the monasteries, so grateful they were towards the monks.
    Wilhelm Zimmermann, ‘Der grosse deutsche Bauernkrieg’, 1856, 1982, Berlin

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat the Rat
    It's easy to pick and choose single incidents and paint a damning narrative.

    The point Jillies is that Christian Europe stormed ahead of the rest of the world centuries before the Reformation when the Catholic Church was the chief spiritual guide of Europe.

    The point about the Gothic Cathedrals is that no other culture in world, at that time or at any time until the present would have had any hope of building those Cathedrals. The technology and knowledge only existed in Europe.

    Sure they could build buildings, but not on the scale or knowledge required for Gothic Cathedrals.
    And the same point rings true in many many fields. Yes Islam and Rome had water mills, they also had army's of slaves to carry it. Yes Islam and Rome had guns, and ships and armor and farm tools and roads. But in Christian Europe under the Catholic church technical innovation and invention accelerated beyond any country and has always stayed that way until the present.

    All this happened before the Reformation.

    You divide technology and scientific thought. How the two can be divided is beyond me, But it is also a matter of historical fact that the great universities of Europe had Christian roots, they were organisation started by the Catholic Church.

    You're picking of individual incidents here and there to create a narrative that the church impeded scientific progress is not convincing when the whole of European thought and innovation in comparison to other Non Christian nations is taken into account.
    , @Alden
    Your country was under the North Sea in 500 AD when Roman Catholic monks settled on the western shore of the sea.

    Little by little, year by year, they built out into the sea until the Netherlands existed.

    You are such a snarky pseudo intellectual.
    I've seen the sex slaves ( literally) of the Albanian Muslim pimps in the Netherlands. And most of your wealth came from 400 years of vicious exploitation of Indonesia.

    FYI, Jews hate the Netherlands. Reason is that the largest percentage of dead Jews in WW2 were Durtch and Jews attribute it to collaboration of the Dutch with the Nazis.

    The Dutch Calvinists you admire so much were one of the craziest religions ever. They believed that they could be sinners all their lives but that they would go to heaven on the strength of their belief.

    , @Alden
    Galileo and his Dutch telescope saw Jupiter from the Vatican observatory. It is now in the American state of Arizona.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    "Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes."

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are able to show convincingly how Jesus, our savior, is in complete support of your decision.

    "If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches."

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.

    Would you kindly enlighten us with your idea, so different from that of the dictionaries, of what heresy and heretics are?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    attilathehen holds two opinions which are clearly contrary to church dogma. Now, if he is able to cite evidence from the Bible that supports his position, that in reality the supermajority of Christians are themselves heretics, he would be back in the good graces of God and the rest would be subject to His wrath.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @marylou
    This is what Moslems and Christians have in common: Both are scared of hell, and collecting Brownie points for heaven.

    In the minds of most of the commentators on here, Christianity seems to be synonymous with the Catholic church. Which had it's good and bad points. It is fashionable to only look at the bad ones in some circles. I grew up in this "Christianity" and I liked it. I had a happy childhood. I left because it had incorporated so many clearly pagan things and suppressed important teachings of the NT.

    I have read your book and I have read mine.
    I doubt that you have read the New Testament. Challenge:
    Do a simple thing. Take a red pencil and go over the whole of the Koran, front to back, and underline every verse that threatens you with hell fire and torment for ever. Scary. Every second page it seems you are threatened with it. If you do believe the koran you have to be steeped in fear.
    Now do the same thing with the New Testament. what I mean is, do try to do it. You can't because there is no constant threat of hellfire. Wherever there is a verse that should be followed by a threat of hellfire, like in the koran, the NT talks about destruction, not getting life eternal, and the like.
    Yes, there is a fire at the end. But it lasts until it is burnt out. Nothing left but ashes.

    Fear of hell is a powerful means of keeping the sheep in line, be they Christian or Moslem. It also keeps you from looking at what it indeed does say. It was a great idea of the Catholic church to introduce this belief. Mohammed plagiarized it to great advantage.

    So, I bought a Koran, then I read it from cover to cover, and color coded specific subjects. Women, heaven, (pretty ridiculous); calls to war, fighting, killing, violence; last but not least, infidels. Half the koran seems to be reserved for me, the infidel.
    Maybe read it, I doubt that you have.

    Hell was an Egyptian invention.
    If indeed Mozes existed, then he in all probability was a former priest of the rejected Egyptian monotheism, Sun worship, in Heliopolis.
    There may have been a priest rebellion, with just one god less employment.
    So Mozes may have liked the concept of monotheism, it gives power to those in power, but he may have considered strengthening it with hell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Seraphim says:
    @Veritatis
    "les sociétés secrètes déploient l'étendard de la liberté; l'exil et la persécution vont être le partage de l'Église." Certainly an exile from temporal influence, at least.

    And they had already discovered the effective talking points: "Dans la lutte maintenant engagée entre le despo- tisme sacerdotal ou monarchique et le principe de liberté,". Though perhaps nowadays they insist more on "progress", the useful new religion. Utopias, both of them. Yet the gates of hell shall not...

    Very interesting, thank you.

    “dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: si vos manseritis in sermone meo vere discipuli mei eritis, et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”.
    ” dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me, si cognovissetis me et Patrem meum utique cognovissetis et amodo cognoscitis eum et vidistis eum”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    I'm afraid I can only muddle through Latin because of familiarity with derived languages, so I cannot really follow you there! But I recognized both quotes, among the most beautiful teachings. Via, veritas et vita. We can can get away from Him temporarily, but must needs always come back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Seraphim says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    That Zoroaster is explained to ordinary (read, disinformed over the course of a lifetime) Christians by a "buffoon" may be a "disaster," but the larger disaster is that all of these Christians have been fed lies for all of their lives and generations before that.

    For sure, it would be preferable to have a highly-polished speaker, supported by a wealthy 501-c3, teaching the masses about Zoroaster, maybe even priests, preachers and rabbis preaching from pulpits from the books of Chronicles, but that doesn't happen.

    Why do you suppose that is?

    Why do you suppose zionists celebrate Passover -- the slaughter of Egyptian babies (they were probably not beautiful), and Purim -- the slaughter of 75,000 Persians and the displacement of their king and government, but have no day commemorating Cyrus the Great and his liberation and political and financial support of Yehud and their return to Jerusalem?

    Why do you suppose Scofield ballyhooed Protestant bible-pounders and seminaries to emphasize the Choseness of Yahweh's people, and that Christian Zionists go on to treat the book of Revelation as more important than either Cyrus or the Sermon on the Mount?

    Marginal characters -- "buffoons" -- like Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda, and they act as god's fool in an attempt to clear out centuries of garbage.

    Meanwhile, here's a more polished insight (also imperfect, imo) into Zoroaster

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1t0hrl4pE

    @Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda

    No, their agenda is not hidden at all, they are on a mission to ‘convince’ the ‘ordinary’ that the Church is a fraud. His ‘discourse’ is a piece of political propaganda full of the usual tricks of the trade.
    But a liar he is. An academic intent to enlighten people about relations of Christianity with other religions would speak about Zarathustra, Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati instead of ‘Zoroaster’, and about Mazdayasna instead of ‘Zoroastrism’, based on the original texts and would draw different conclusions. He would not use histrionics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    they are on a mission to ‘convince’ the ‘ordinary’ that the Church is a fraud.
     
    What's most important to you, Seraphim, worshiping "the Church" or a profound understanding of the human spirit, its relationship to ineffable grandeur of "nature and nature's god," and developing character and behaviors to improve -- "achieve salvation," i.e. the fullness of spiritual health and wellbeing. (Recall that Machiavelli waged war on the corruption of Roman Catholicism, but never left home without a copy of Dante in his pocket.)

    I grant you Donahue uses "histrionics." Hard to figure out who he is, where he comes from; he seems a little weird.
    On the other hand, I've tried to read Mary Boyce & other scholars in an attempt to learn about Zoroaster; I get lost in the weeds -- Arunya and Mazdayasna and the Vedas; Divas and Gathas -- they all run together. Maybe I'm intellectually lazy, or maybe I need to learn like a child learns -- basics first, to establish a notion of what is this about? Donahue's approach also appeals to my particular experience which is a lot like his mother's -- my Catholic experience placed very heavy emphasis on priests and nuns and sinfulness and my own powerlessness. Donahue tears that down -- appropriately, in my personal opinion -- as an imposition on the true meaning of much of Scripture and the essence of Zarathustra: he clears away the junk to get at an essence of a person's relationship to nature and to the attempt to live a life of goodness.

    Congratulations on your ability to differentiate among Zarathustra, Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati. Which of them can I find on the head of a pin, or do they dance there together?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Seraphim says:
    @wayfarer
    It's ironic how scientific knowledge ( https://goo.gl/8rhy57 ) has evolved exponentially over the past several millennium, whereas religious knowledge ( Christianity, Islam, and Judaism ) has remained absolutely static within its 2000 to 3000 year old texts.

    What initially opened my mind to alternative truths, were various "close encounters of the third kind," including a vis-a-vis experience with an extremely dangerous alien being. I've also stumbled upon these transcripts ( https://goo.gl/DdEVNj ), which have helped greatly to broaden my spiritual perspective of creation.

    Exponential growths lead to catastrophic ends of the curve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Never heard of SJ or JT. I think it was on the History Channel. Instead of offering mere abuse of others' actual or purported views can you answer the detail that I gave of the doco's thesis. As someone brought up with quite a good knowledge of the Bible (i even taught Sunday School at the age of 13) but without any religious belief from the age of 15 I found it more plausible than the standard Christian version. But you think I should not. Why?

    You should not firstly because your religious knowledge is at the level of a 13 years old and the discussion is largely between adults.
    Secondly, because of your denial that you ever heard of SJ and JT when you reproduce word for word the themes they presented in that doco and in what is their pet theory of ‘The Jesus Dynasty’. ST&JT are involved in the archaeological forgeries of “The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History” and ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus’ and of the ‘James Ossuary’ (Oded Golan, the forger of the ‘James Ossuary’, narrowly avoided a long term in jail for it).
    Thirdly because one should dismiss out of hand any opinions expressed by people who start with ‘I was a Christian, but I renounced it when I realized that the ‘standard version’ is implausible, or illogical, or…(fill the dots).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Whatever sect of Christianity you belong to should be ashamed of and embarrassed for you. You demean the notion of religious scholarship. (You are even wrong in your pettiness. As a typically enthusiastic novice atheist I put my head down and won a Religious Studies prize at 15 for Year 12 students)

    Then there is the difficulty you create of knowing whether to regard you as a deliberate liar who knows that what he writes is false or one better described by the tort lawyer's "reckless whether it wss true or false" which tilts more towarda reckless stupidity. Neither the doco I saw nor the summsry detsils I gave have anything to do with the controversial work of SJ and JT as it is easy to check. So much for your "you reproduce word for word [sic] the themes they presented in that doco". Your recklessness and carelessness with both the truth and the proprieties of civilised debate seem to know no bounds.

    Your final par merely exhibits a weak grasp of the rules of English (or any) prose composition as, apart from its dubious logic you don't even make clear wbo you are referring to.

    Except that you seem bound to disgrace yourself I would invite you to try again with the thesis I summarised rather than the product of your febrile brain.

    Unlike you, I do a little elementary checking just in case I am not up to date, so I did a search for the "last days of Jesus" and, to my surprise found that the showing in Australia was of a contemporary April 2017 PBS doco with, again I note, nothing to do with your hate figures SJ or JT.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Seraphim
    This tribute to the claptrap of the basically judaizing anti-Church idolaters of the 'White DNA cum IQ superiority', puts the cart before the horses. The triumphs of European Christianity are a consequence of the 'marriage' of the multi-millenary Ancient civilizations (unified by the Hellenistic-Roman empire) with the Church which brought into it the feral barbarian Widukinds, Beowulfs and Rurikids from the fringes of Europe, slowly domesticating and educating them (admittedly the greatest success was with the Rurikids). All science and culture of 'White Europe' irradiated from the Schools and Universities created and patroned by the Church. Ditto for the Renaissance. The Widukinds took their revenge in the Reformation utopianism which waged a long war against the Church and Christian culture and civilization. The drab vision of the anti-human dead Universe of the iconoclasts Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Locke and the deadly tyranny of the materialistic science which they help to create (and whose most egregious successes consist in devising more and more destructive weapons) is the direct result of that 'Widukind' revolt against the Church.

    Galileo an anti-human iconoclast? Insufferable ass, I’ll grant you, but hardly more than that, I think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Galileo was the first experimenter in 1600 years.
    He discovered the laws of gravitation, such as that a feather falls as quickly as a stone.
    And the acceleration by gravity.
    When he saw the moons of Jupiter he realised that the earth centered universe was a fairy tale.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    It is interesting that Christianity has enjoyed; intellectually and doctrinally, some workarounds to refreshment and revision to cope with a succesion of changing civilisations and changing challenges to existing ones. In particular the secular corruption of the Catholic church at a time when the printing press was empowering people of low rank prompted people with the same dogmatic asdumption about God's existence to resort to arguments over the supposedly divinely sanctioned scriptures. Islam has substantially missed out on that. Now Christianity faces an impossible task in harnessing the finest most vigorous minds to update it and make it plausible to moderns because science has gradually eroded the possibility of believing in the fundamentals as they were assumed to be by Luther, Calvin, Aloysius Loyola, Erasmus, More, the Popes and Henry Vlll alike. Of course its amazing how, if you are really really clever, you can still rationalise Christian belief with science.... Not a recipe for the masses however.

    “If you are really really clever”, you would not confuse Saint Ignatius de Loyola with Saint Aloysius de Gonzaga. Is it a Freudian slip? Is there where you lost your faith?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    At least this time you pack into a short space a summary illustration of your fatal weaknesses as a serious controversialist.

    First you put "If you are really really clever" in quotes. Surprise. Did I say that or something like it? No, and nor did anyone else on the thread.

    Then there is the totally baseless assertion that I confused Loyola and Gonzaga! Che?! You don't even make sense of your suggestion. What sort of Freudian slip could possibly be involved (though maybe you are trying to show that you are a true early 20th century man by pretending to know something of a Viennese Jew who was one of Jewry's least claims to intellectual achievement)?

    Even your last sentence is marred by carelessness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. @CanSpeccy

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders.
     
    Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.

    Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing.

    Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion. To the elites, a secular moral code, whether it be Communism, or multi-culti-globo-liberalism, is preferable to religion since it can be modified by legislation at any time without evidence of supernatural guidance.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite. In the West, globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive, not a unifying and civilizing influence, and hence something that all will come to agree should be abolished.

    Absolutely

    I’m thrilled that we agree on something.

    Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.

    For the ruling class – for sure. For the rest of us, who knows. And for some, those in the underclass, it’s already nasty, brutal and short.

    Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior

    ‘Civilized’ is a loaded word with unreasonably positive undertones, in this context. It promotes obedience, more like. By an appeal to supernatural forces.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion.

    Correct: education, the media, and other institutional mechanisms. Here you choose to use the word ‘brainwashing’, which has negative connotations. But you could use the word ‘civilizing’ as well, just as you did in the case of religion. Let’s be objective.

    it can be modified by legislation

    Well, I’ll say: better by legislation than secretly by a small group of elite priests. Not much better, but a little better.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite.

    Elites use doctrines – religious or secular – to maintain their rule. But surely the common religious doctrine of the divine right of kings is far more useful for ‘tyrannical elite’ than communism? Simply because the communist doctrine proclaims absolute equality, so it clearly isn’t the best tool.

    globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive

    I dunno about that. I get the impression that universal religions (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism) also promote multi-culturalism. The cultures of Christians in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia are dramatically different. And yet they are all Christians. I don’t think German and Cuban Catholics belong to the same ‘civilization’: two very different environments, very different cultures.

    And of course there are even more universal religious doctrines, like the Universalist Church of America, new-age spiritualism, stuff like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @jilles dykstra
    The most common method was the mill – primarily water but also wind.
    ⦁ Thorkild Schioler, ‘Roman and Islamic water lifting wheels’, Odense University Press 1973
    My objection to christianity was preventing any scientific thought.
    Until 1600.
    But indeed, christianity could not prevent technical progress.
    This was exactly what broke the church's power, Galileo saw the moons of Jupiter through a Dutch made telescope.
    The Dutch artisan Anthonie van Leeuwenhoek saw bacteria and amoebe in his primitive microscopes.
    Medicine, indeed, Calvin burned to death Servatius, who had discovered blood circulation.
    And cathedrals, great, the poor lived in them comfortably, great progress.
    Then there was the 1524 German insurrection against the aristocracy and the monasteries, so grateful they were towards the monks.
    Wilhelm Zimmermann, ‘Der grosse deutsche Bauernkrieg’, 1856, 1982, Berlin

    It’s easy to pick and choose single incidents and paint a damning narrative.

    The point Jillies is that Christian Europe stormed ahead of the rest of the world centuries before the Reformation when the Catholic Church was the chief spiritual guide of Europe.

    The point about the Gothic Cathedrals is that no other culture in world, at that time or at any time until the present would have had any hope of building those Cathedrals. The technology and knowledge only existed in Europe.

    Sure they could build buildings, but not on the scale or knowledge required for Gothic Cathedrals.
    And the same point rings true in many many fields. Yes Islam and Rome had water mills, they also had army’s of slaves to carry it. Yes Islam and Rome had guns, and ships and armor and farm tools and roads. But in Christian Europe under the Catholic church technical innovation and invention accelerated beyond any country and has always stayed that way until the present.

    All this happened before the Reformation.

    You divide technology and scientific thought. How the two can be divided is beyond me, But it is also a matter of historical fact that the great universities of Europe had Christian roots, they were organisation started by the Catholic Church.

    You’re picking of individual incidents here and there to create a narrative that the church impeded scientific progress is not convincing when the whole of European thought and innovation in comparison to other Non Christian nations is taken into account.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Che Guava says:
    @Mr. Hack
    There's no accounting for taste, or as they say in Russian:

    В кус и цвет товариша нет!
     
    As an American, I had the good fortune growing up on a steady fare of TV and film comedy written by talented Jewish writers. Starting with the great surrealistic cartooning of Max Fleischer, Steve Allen, Sid Caesar, Steve Allen, Burns and Allen, Woody Allen, etc; etc;

    Perhaps, your friend was trying to get you to relax and get you out of your comfort zone? :-)

    Nice reply. There is no comparison of Seinfeld with most on your list. Of course, I have enjoyed work by some, have not heard of all.

    Woody Allen, if I recall correctly, is a very sleazy man who seduced his step-daughter while she was a minor.

    Sure, he made a few good films.

    Mel Brooks certainly had his moments, too, I have seen old reruns of Get Smart, it is pure brilliance, some of his movies were good, too, until they were relying too much on scatological humour.

    To me, Seinfeld is on the same unfunny plane as Sex and the City and Friends, very insular and not interesting to anyone who is not a fool or tribal member.

    It does not challenge my ‘comfort zone’, just bores and alienates, for natural reasons.

    I have decided to learn how to read the sounds of Cyrillic and names of the letters, but have just started a few days ago, should be able to read most (sounds, badly) in the week after next. So I cannot read most of the ‘as they say in Russian’ in your post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Wizard of Oz
    Your "primary evidence" is merely a small collection sanctioned by church authorities of second and third hand accounts by persons actually unknown, despite our giving names to the authors. The selection was made - some 200 years later - despite none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus, and it should be noted that the gospels were the narrowest posdible propaganda source for the Jesus movement giving nothing of the political context of the wider Roman world nor making it clear that there were many movements or sects like the Essenes to give background and context.

    So, if you want to answer the thesis I summarised you should atend to the detail even if you are not willing to find and view the doco (something like The Last Days of Jesus). Of course it is remarkable how the Jesus movement - especially Paul - turned disaster into triumph. Of course martyrdom by lion bite is much sexier than the suicide bomber's way. (We should make it easier for radical Islamists to gain glory as victim martyrs so they don't have to blow others up).

    I’ve seen the documentary it was interesting with good production values but I know the work of the experts they consulted so the narrative theme was pretty predictable.

    none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus

    Only 30 years you say. That is like people writing about the 1980′s today. Are books about contemporary politics in the 80′s suspect because they are 30 years away from the historical events of the 80′s.

    I must tell that to all biographers who take Churchill or Napoleon as a subject. These people are lying and their information is utter rubbish hopelessly compromised by the government departments that fund their writing. Any new research or information must be inaccurate because it is now more than 30 years away from the death of the subject.

    These arguments are all a bit laughable Wizard, they have been constantly rolled out by haters of the Catholic church for decades.

    I doubt if anything I say will change you mind at all. I have had enough conversations with atheists in the past to know that many have erected other idols to worship. And their new idols burn with indignation and injustice towards traditional Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think you have met too many passionate atheist converts ex-fundies or ex-Cstholics. But i claim the great intellectual achievement of being a "lapsed Anglican". Mild silly joke perhaps but it goes with my occasional explanation that being sn Anglican atheist means only that I am not a theist. I see no need for a deity that created the world and has purposes or preferences that there is any reason for us to take notice of. Everything useful that can be made to connect the "is" with the "ought" - acknowledging Hume's and later objections - can be found in considering the evolution of the brains, bodies and societies of hominids. The Big Bang, Inflation, Higgs Boson etc. ate modtly fun for those who don't want to use their spare mental capacity on chess or bridge, though their study might help develop new elements or maybe just find new ways to kill each other.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Oh you really are a simple duffer aren't you? Your fallacious argument could only be rescued if there were archives and letters and diaries contemporaneous with the events up to Jesus's death to which the pseudonymous Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could have referred. As it is they don't even give their oral sources in a way any half decent historian or journalist would.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You may prefer the more concrete argument wtt to the writing of the Gospels....

    Consider how reliable our knowledge of Hitler would be if it was confined to the canon vetted by the Hitler Perpetuation Society and consisted only of the rough transcripts by anonymous interviewers of the recollections in 1975 of one of Hitler's secretaries who had been besties with Hitler's favourite cousin, in 1985 of his attorney who prepared and notarised his will, in 1995 of his doctor and in 2005 of a flaky philosophy student who claimed to have talked to 50 people who had known Hitler. (No exact parallels intended, just prompts to your imagination to grasp what the reality was like).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. geokat62 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Iranica Online is surely a credible resource, geokat62, capable of defending Greek culture.

    Its academic details reveal a more nuanced judgment of the extent and direction of cultural borrowings between Iran and Greece. For example, on the one hand,

    "Empedocles already shared the microcosm idea, which governed the conception of medicine he had inherited from the Cnidian school, influenced by Iran. He also declared that “the general law is widely extended through the ether of the vast dominion and the immense brightness of the sky,” (Fr. 38), which harks back to Heraclitus and, through him, to Zarathushtra proclaiming the coincidence of Aṧa with the light"
     
    On the other hand,

    The Chaldaic Oracles, despite their fire-cult, probably owe nothing to Iran.
     
    While

    "Three kinds of medicine were distinguished, through spells, the knife, or herbs, both in Iran . . . and in Greece (Pindar, 3.47-55), not elsewhere; borrowing seems, therefore, plausible, either way . . .."
     
    Jorjani is an ideologue who uses (valid) facts, simplistically -- i.e. it is a fact that Heraclitus lived in Ephesus, and Ephesus was in the Persian empire at the time of Heraclitus -- to support points that buttress his passion; namely, a Renaissance of Iranian culture (as opposed to the Islamic subversion of Zoroastrian/Iran).

    It seems to me that rather than "Who came first, the chicken or the egg," its far more fruitful to wrestle with the ideas, their evolution and context/in context, and how we may apply them to make our own lives better.

    It seems to me that rather than “Who came first, the chicken or the egg,” its far more fruitful to wrestle with the ideas, their evolution and context/in context, and how we may apply them to make our own lives better.

    While I couldn’t agree more, S2C, I couldn’t allow these statements by yourself and Jorjani to go uncontested:

    S2C – “Jason Reza Jorjani argues that Greeks were backward until after they were conquered by Persia, whereupon Greeks under Persian occupation developed more civilized habits and philosophies.”

    Jorjani – “Greece is said to be the birthplace of philosophy, but what must be realized is that philosophy emerged in the centuries after the Persians colonized Greece . . .”

    as they imply the Persian civilization is superior to the Greek, especially after having previously provided this excerpt from Copleston’s History of Philosophy, Vol. 1, which brings into sharp relief the shortcomings of a subject living under the Persian Empire versus a citizen living within a direct democracy [in Greece]:

    When man reflects on human life, on man’s good and on the good life, as Plato did, he clearly cannot pass by man’s social relations. Man is born into a society, not only into that of the family but also into a wider association, and it is in that society that he must live the good life and attain his end. He cannot be treated as though he were an isolated unit, living to himself alone. Yet, although every thinker who concerns himself with the humanistic viewpoint, man’s place and destiny, must form for himself some theory of man’s social relations, it may be well that no theory of the State will result, unless a somewhat advanced political consciousness has gone before.

    If man feels himself as a passive member of some great autocratic Power—the Persian Empire, for example—in which he is not called upon to play any active role, save as taxpayer or soldier, his political consciousness is scarcely aroused: one autocrat or another, one empire or another, Persian or Babylonian, it may make very little difference to him. But when a man belongs to a community in which he is called upon to shoulder his burden of responsibility, in which he has not only duties but also rights and activities, then he will become politically conscious. To the politically unconscious man the State may appear as some thing set over against him, alien if not oppressive, and he will tend to conceive his way of salvation as lying through individual activity and perhaps through co-operation in other societies than that of the reigning bureaucracy: he will not be immediately stimulated to form a theory of the State. To the politically conscious man, on the other hand, the State appears as a body in which he has a part, as an extension in some sort of himself, and so will be stimulated—the reflective thinker, that is to say—to form a theory of the State. The Greeks had this political consciousness in a very advanced degree: the good life was to them inconceivable apart from the polis…

    The political theory of Plato and Aristotle has indeed formed the foundation for subsequent fruitful speculation on the nature and characteristics of the State. Many details of Plato’s Republic may be unrealisable in practice, and also undesirable even if practicable, but his great thought is that of the State as rendering possible and as promoting the good life of man, as contributing to man’s temporal end and welfare. This Greek view of the State, which is also that of St. Thomas, is superior to the view which may be known as the liberal idea of the State, i.e. the view of the State as an institution, the function of which is to private property and, in general, to exhibit a negative attitude towards the members of the State. In practice, of course, even the upholders of this view of the State have had to abandon a completely laissez-faire policy, but their theory remains barren, empty and negative in comparison with that of the Greeks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Seraphim
    @Bill Donahue are imperfect instruments, but they are not liars with a hidden agenda

    No, their agenda is not hidden at all, they are on a mission to 'convince' the 'ordinary' that the Church is a fraud. His 'discourse' is a piece of political propaganda full of the usual tricks of the trade.
    But a liar he is. An academic intent to enlighten people about relations of Christianity with other religions would speak about Zarathustra, Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati instead of 'Zoroaster', and about Mazdayasna instead of 'Zoroastrism', based on the original texts and would draw different conclusions. He would not use histrionics.

    they are on a mission to ‘convince’ the ‘ordinary’ that the Church is a fraud.

    What’s most important to you, Seraphim, worshiping “the Church” or a profound understanding of the human spirit, its relationship to ineffable grandeur of “nature and nature’s god,” and developing character and behaviors to improve — “achieve salvation,” i.e. the fullness of spiritual health and wellbeing. (Recall that Machiavelli waged war on the corruption of Roman Catholicism, but never left home without a copy of Dante in his pocket.)

    I grant you Donahue uses “histrionics.” Hard to figure out who he is, where he comes from; he seems a little weird.
    On the other hand, I’ve tried to read Mary Boyce & other scholars in an attempt to learn about Zoroaster; I get lost in the weeds — Arunya and Mazdayasna and the Vedas; Divas and Gathas — they all run together. Maybe I’m intellectually lazy, or maybe I need to learn like a child learns — basics first, to establish a notion of what is this about? Donahue’s approach also appeals to my particular experience which is a lot like his mother’s — my Catholic experience placed very heavy emphasis on priests and nuns and sinfulness and my own powerlessness. Donahue tears that down — appropriately, in my personal opinion — as an imposition on the true meaning of much of Scripture and the essence of Zarathustra: he clears away the junk to get at an essence of a person’s relationship to nature and to the attempt to live a life of goodness.

    Congratulations on your ability to differentiate among Zarathustra, Zartosht and Zardosht in Persian and Zaratosht in Gujarati. Which of them can I find on the head of a pin, or do they dance there together?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Seraphim says:
    @jilles dykstra
    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    You always should beware what you are wishing for! Do not complain when you have it!

    “Liever Turks dan Paaps (“Rather Turkish than Papist”), also Liever Turksch dan Paus (“Rather Turkish than Pope”), was a Dutch slogan during the Dutch Revolt of the end of the 16th century. The slogan was used by the Dutch mercenary naval forces (the “Sea Beggars”) in their fight against Catholic Spain…
    The phrase “Liever Turks dan Paaps” was coined as a way to express that life under the Muslim Ottoman Sultan would have been more desirable than life under the Catholic King of Spain. The Flemish noble D’Esquerdes wrote to this effect that he:
    ” would rather become a tributary to the Turks than live against his conscience and be treated according to those [anti-heresy] edicts”.
    — Letter of Flemish noble D’Esquerdes.

    Smoking pot and exposing whores in windows won’t bring the liberation from the Turks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. mcohen says:

    true story

    waiting at the traffic light and 3 people cross the road.2 men and a women.definitely homeless,heading for the church across the road for a meal.the woman points at the big sign on the wall of the church and says …..”see what the sign says,Jesus Saves.
    one of the men turns around and says to her…”how would you know,you’re not God”.
    but that did not stop him from getting a free meal.survival comes first.relegion gives you the will and intent to survive.
    a lot of people think the judaism and christianity and islam is about praying and this and that but the reality is that many people in need are helped by these institutions,millions of people in fact.charity or tzedakah,not sure what the islamic word is.thats what counts,helping the sick,the homeless,visiting people in hospital,volunteering.relegion is about helping your fellow man.all the rest is just window dressing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  203. Veritatis says:
    @Seraphim
    "dicebat ergo Iesus ad eos qui crediderunt ei Iudaeos: si vos manseritis in sermone meo vere discipuli mei eritis, et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos".
    " dicit ei Iesus ego sum via et veritas et vita nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me, si cognovissetis me et Patrem meum utique cognovissetis et amodo cognoscitis eum et vidistis eum".

    I’m afraid I can only muddle through Latin because of familiarity with derived languages, so I cannot really follow you there! But I recognized both quotes, among the most beautiful teachings. Via, veritas et vita. We can can get away from Him temporarily, but must needs always come back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    For those of us who might be interested but don't speak Latin, the quoted passages are John 8:31-32 and 14:6-7 .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Corvinus says:
    @Anon

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are to cite the relevant Bible passages, with full explanation, that support your position.
     
    Would you kindly enlighten us with your idea, so different from that of the dictionaries, of what heresy and heretics are?

    attilathehen holds two opinions which are clearly contrary to church dogma. Now, if he is able to cite evidence from the Bible that supports his position, that in reality the supermajority of Christians are themselves heretics, he would be back in the good graces of God and the rest would be subject to His wrath.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Okay, I get where you're coming from now. But most people would regard bibliolatry itself as heresy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Anon
    Galileo an anti-human iconoclast? Insufferable ass, I'll grant you, but hardly more than that, I think.

    Galileo was the first experimenter in 1600 years.
    He discovered the laws of gravitation, such as that a feather falls as quickly as a stone.
    And the acceleration by gravity.
    When he saw the moons of Jupiter he realised that the earth centered universe was a fairy tale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Galileo was the first experimenter in 1600 years.
     
    Hardly.

    He discovered the [some?] laws of gravitation, such as that a feather falls as quickly as a stone.
     
    No, Stevin did that, and even he was not the first by a long shot, just the definitive establishment.

    And the acceleration by gravity.
     
    No.

    When he saw the moons of Jupiter he realised that the earth centered universe was a fairy tale.
     
    Again, no.

    See http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down-for.html for a rather entertaining discussion of the circumstances and significance of the discovery of the Jovian moons.

    Galileo was a brilliant scientist, but his reputation is ridiculously overinflated. See https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/ . And, contrary to what you may think, being a great scientist is not at all mutually exclusive with being an insufferable ass, which Galileo also was.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Veritatis
    I'm afraid I can only muddle through Latin because of familiarity with derived languages, so I cannot really follow you there! But I recognized both quotes, among the most beautiful teachings. Via, veritas et vita. We can can get away from Him temporarily, but must needs always come back.

    For those of us who might be interested but don’t speak Latin, the quoted passages are John 8:31-32 and 14:6-7 .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Corvinus
    attilathehen holds two opinions which are clearly contrary to church dogma. Now, if he is able to cite evidence from the Bible that supports his position, that in reality the supermajority of Christians are themselves heretics, he would be back in the good graces of God and the rest would be subject to His wrath.

    Okay, I get where you’re coming from now. But most people would regard bibliolatry itself as heresy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    Galileo was the first experimenter in 1600 years.
    He discovered the laws of gravitation, such as that a feather falls as quickly as a stone.
    And the acceleration by gravity.
    When he saw the moons of Jupiter he realised that the earth centered universe was a fairy tale.

    Galileo was the first experimenter in 1600 years.

    Hardly.

    He discovered the [some?] laws of gravitation, such as that a feather falls as quickly as a stone.

    No, Stevin did that, and even he was not the first by a long shot, just the definitive establishment.

    And the acceleration by gravity.

    No.

    When he saw the moons of Jupiter he realised that the earth centered universe was a fairy tale.

    Again, no.

    See http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down-for.html for a rather entertaining discussion of the circumstances and significance of the discovery of the Jovian moons.

    Galileo was a brilliant scientist, but his reputation is ridiculously overinflated. See https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/ . And, contrary to what you may think, being a great scientist is not at all mutually exclusive with being an insufferable ass, which Galileo also was.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @jilles dykstra
    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.

    The Dutch atheists are like all the other damn fool European atheists. They childishly discarded Christianity for the trivial reason that it was based on stories that are obviously, to those raised in a scientific culture, untrue. But the truth of the narrative upon which religious faith is based is irrelevant, and only people with an adolescent conceit and stupidity would think otherwise.

    The importance of religion is that it imbues believers with a moral code, which enables strangers in a large and complex society to cooperate with one another. Now the idiot Dutch, like the cretinous Swedes and Norwegians, the Brits, the French and the Germans have discarded a faith that built the greatest civilization the world has known, while showing unlimited tolerance to adherents of the most vicious, intolerant and tyrannical faith the world has ever known.

    I don’t even wish you good luck with that. You deserve only the utmost contempt. Contempt for your idiot liberal tolerance, and contempt for your staggering ignorance and stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "while showing unlimited tolerance to adherents of the most vicious, intolerant and tyrannical faith the world has ever known"

    Y0u are certainly entitled to your opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    And if the Catholic Church had not prevented it, science would have discovered the hydrogen atom, dna, wiped out the black plague and went to the moon by at least 800AD. The coronation of Charlemagne being shown on TV.

    You have to put one foot in front of the other to get somewhere and that is exactly what happened, and here we are.
    What did the church prevent? In effect, nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @CanSpeccy
    I cannot see what possible interest there can be in the expression of unexplained contempt for a Christian priest and Nobel Prize winner by a person of concealed identity.

    Nor can I see how an expression of appreciation for the virtues of Archbishop Turpin ought to be taken as an expression of contempt for anyone else, even by a person of equally concealed identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    Really? How so?
    What has become better for the average person?
    Let me tell you:
    What really improved day to day living was the invention of the washing machine, indoor plumbing, better transportation, (love public transportation in the Netherlands, for instance), modern dentistry, etc.

    As for the absence of the christian religion, the effect has been mainly the break down of the family, more and more putting the infirm to ‘sleep’ like a dog, and of course, the freedom to be as promiscuous as you like, confusion among the ‘genders’ and science if it keeps going as it is, doing away with all of us and making the planet uninhabitable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Sparkon says:
    @epnngg
    Fred is at least honest in his appraisal of Christianity and the powerful influence it has had in the world for the last 2000 years. The influence of Christ's teachings and His very claim to be the incarnate son of God come to save mankind from the darkness of sin and death is indeed unique in the history of all religions.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus, and we do have to make some decisions about who he truly was and is. He never claimed to be a great teacher. His clear declaration was that he had come to save mankind. That he alone had the power and authority to do so. His whole life was a declaration to this fact. He came to lay his life down as a sacrifice for all of mankind, and through his death, he claimed he had the power to give eternal life to all who came to him. So we decide. Either this man was a crazed egomaniac, or he was indeed who he said he was.

    No, Christianity is not dying out. The nihilist Nietzsche declared that "God was dead."Many since then have claimed the same thing. But even through terrible times of persecution, from the Roman gladiators and wild beasts that shed rivers of blood from the first martyred Christians in the Collesium, to today's Christians persecuted worldwide, a remnant is always rising who are certain that Christ is the true representative of the living God, the embodiment of all Truth, and that all things are continuing to be made new by his power.

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus…

    Speak for thyself.

    But debating this issue with the faithful is not far removed from insisting to some young child that there really is no Santa Claus.

    ‘Rough work, and who wants to do it?

    Whether or not human civilization is more of less advanced because of Christianity is a tough call and impossible to know. We can only know what history tells us, for example the fine work of Innocent VIII, as exemplified by his Papal Bull of 1484 dealing with witchcraft:

    It has recently come to our ears…that many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover, they deny with sacrilegious lips the faith they received in holy baptism; and that, at the instigation of the enemy of mankind, they do not fear to commit and perpetrate many other abominable offences and crimes, at the risk of their own souls,
    [...]
    We therefore… do hereby decree, by virtue of our apostolic authority, that it shall be permitted to the said inquisitors in these regions to exercise their office of inquisition and to proceed to the correction, imprisonment, and punishment of the aforesaid persons for their said offences and crimes
    [...]
    Let no man, therefore, dare to infringe this page of our declaration, extension, grant, and mandate, or with rich hardihood to contradict it. If any presume this, let him know that he incurs the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.

    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes

    Just in case almighty God is not enough, throw in Peter and Paul for good measure. Burn some witches, and pray harder…that’ll cure your impotence.

    Blaming scapegoats, dupes, and patsies is a well-established practice in our modern world, and it probably has ancient roots going back far beyond the Papal Bull of Innocent VIII to the very dawn of human civilization, when witch doctors gained their power by claiming to have contact with, and/or control over both natural and supernatural forces.

    But all is not lost. The open mind turns agnostic, neither accepting nor denying the possibility of a deity, or deities, but rejecting all the theological scribblings of man as fairy tales for adults.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    Sparkon, you said a mouth full!

    Is it true that remaining an agnostic is truly the place to be as we live out our short lives?
    Are there no sureties in life? Is there no absolute truth that we can weigh all the things and events that come into our lives as either good or evil? I would contend that each one of us has a natural law indwelling us that is constantly reminding us what is good and what is evil. Where does this natural law or conscience come from?

    We can attempt to rip the natural law from within us. Many men and women have sought to purge themselves of their consciences, and some have successfully done so to the detriment of themselves and the societies they live in!

    Your quotes from Innocent The VIII are truly appalling. Not all that declare themselves Christians truly are. Some indeed use the name of Christ to further their own power and seduce many to destruction. But I can name many men and women who claimed the Christian faith that has made a positive and substantial good in our societies. William Wilberforce comes to mind.
    Mother Theresa, Samuel Johnson, Michael Faraday come immediately to mind also.

    Jesus said that many would come in His name and claim to do great wonders but in the end, they would be rejected by Him. His constant reminder to His disciples was that they were to be servants of mankind and not to desire to lord their lives over others.

    I would contend that if all men truly adhered to the teachings of Jesus and were fully able to flesh out the first two commandments of the ten commandments, there would indeed be heaven on earth.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Svigor says:

    Biblical literalism is so recent a development in Christianity (and almost entirely among Protestants) that I’m tempted to call it a heresy, and seems to be centered almost entirely in the United States.

    And someone will bring up Galileo in ten, nine, eight, seven, six …

    This might seem a big deal, until one considers that a heretic has ascended to the throne of the Catholic Church.

    What a failure of a piece.. Author is clueless with a very clear bias. I wonder how he would account to the fact that almost all scientific texts used in Europe post the dark ages were translations of Arabic texts???

    Too stupid to even know English (“post the dark ages” means “from the end of the dark ages until the present.”).

    Or how about that we routinely use numerous Arabic words in science, globally, such as algebra, algorithm, chemistry, etc.? Or here is another one he could try and answer, how did the period known as the renaissance start?

    English loves to borrow words from other languages. There are many from most languages with long contact. Far more from Latin than from Arabic, of course. I wonder how the Arabs get along, without borrowing words (never mind concepts) from English? /end sarcasm. (Seriously though, what do modern Arabs do but buy others’ tech with oil money made by extracting mineral resources using European technology? And how does this pro-Muslim, pro-Arab line of thinking not invariably end in Nation of Islam conspiracy theories of White Devils’ intellectual thievery and tricknology?).

    So far, the greatest accomplishments I’ve been able to attribute to Muslims is the great slaughter they made of Mongols, via the Mughal Empire. So, thanks for that, I suppose, though it was not Arabs doing the heavy lifting. There is no doubt that Muslims have been more civilized than the Mongol scum ever were (sans borrowing; yes, both cultures borrowed heavily, but the Mongols gave the world nothing they didn’t steal or borrow from someone else).

    In contrast, Western Christianity benefited from the insights of St Thomas Aquinas, who embraced classical Greek learning and reconciled it with Christian belief; and while we fought among ourselves, we were never overrun by powerful armies of other powers.

    Ironically, all the infighting might have been key to never being overrun by alien hordes. Look at “Deep Ditches and Well-built Walls: A Reappraisal of the Mongol Withdrawal from Europe in 1242″ by Lindsey Stephen Pow. The TL;DR version is that the limit of the Mongol invasion of Europe corresponds almost exactly to where the frontier (limited fortifications made of wood and earth) gave way to civilization (extensive fortifications of stone). The density and quality of stone fortifications in Western and Central Europe were unparalleled. No place on Earth ever came close (China, probably well above the world historical mean in this regard, looks rather pathetic in comparison). In numbers alone (European fortifications were of dramatically higher quality than elsewhere), there are tens of thousands of known sites of stone castles in Europe: this might approach an order of magnitude greater than for any other region.

    The parts of India that put paid to the Mongols were also better-fortified than most. As was the area that marked the limits of Mongol incursions into the Levant.

    This tendency to take self-defense so seriously might have implications for European history in general that are poorly understood.

    Western Christendom came out on top, not because it started with some kind of moral superiority, but through accidents of history and geography.

    Well, if it was moral superiority, that would be down to an “accident of history” by way of evolution, or somesuch. This is always the language of the enemy.

    If protestantism can be said to have set the ground for capitalism…

    Then Catholicism and Orthodoxy can be said to have set the ground for faschism and communism.

    Fascism was basically a speed bump. Apart from its war with communism, it’s probably responsible for less than 1/10th the murders that communism is.

    And communism did most of its killing in China, where Christianity had negligible influence; we might as well say Chinese religions laid the ground for communism, as communism’s most fertile ground was outside Christian territory.

    Notice the countries effected by the respective systems.

    Tsarist Russia was collectivist and charmingly folksy with a simultaneous adoration for heroes Saints/Kings and high regard for longsuffering peasants. What better place to preach the protection of the virtue of the proleterait by wise Commisars?

    Russia was retarded for centuries by Mongol depradations, so perhaps it’s no coincidence that it was as vulnerable to communism as east Asia was.

    Speaking of the Mongols, the world’s greatest butchers by far seem to be the Mongoloid type: the Mongols, and the Red Chinese. Next to this, Europeans have no answer.

    Between Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Protestantism:

    Which devoloped the United States Constitution?

    I think the answer to that question as to any question about human advances is niether.

    You dodged answering your own question. The answer is clearly “Protestants.”

    For one thing, Christians WERE more moral than others – the European Christian, unlike the Muslims, the Africans, the Chinese, and the American Indians, successfully abolished slavery. Christendom invented and popularized the notions of Natural Law and Human Rights. What is true that Christians never were morally perfect – but that’s not saying much, especially with regard to a religion which holds Original Sin as a core doctrine.

    I tend to think that Europeans colonized Christianity, more than Christianity colonized Europeans. They took this SW Asian import and hammered and beat and forged it until it was something they could live with.

    My God doesn’t give As for effort or love you for existing, He loves those who serve Him.

    Yes but why would anyone want his love, or to serve him?

    An intriguing theory about Jesus is that he indeed never existed, was invented by Paulus as secret agent for the Roman emperor, in order to destroy judaism.

    Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, ‘Verschlusssache Jesus, Die Wahrheit über das frühe Christentum’, (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, 1991), 2005, Bergisch Gladbach

    Care to give us English-only folks a bit more than this?

    This christianity then stopped all progress until around 1600 Galileo looked through a Dutch made telescope, and saw the moons of Jupiter.

    On the contrary, it helped enable the propagation of the knowledge left behind by the Romans. Note that the eastern Empire didn’t advance civilization much in the thousand years that followed. One might equally plausibly attribute this to a lack among the Greeks (who haven’t exactly flowered as their Christianity withered), or to a lack in their adopted religion.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website
    April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

    As a Nationalist, I propose a third synthesis, wherein Europeans (mankind, actually, but Europeans are the bit I’m worried about) derives the original “racism, sexism, homophobia, and xenophobia” for themselves, to defend against leftist insanity (we’ll leave out the imperialist bit, it’s more globalist than Nationalist).

    Western nations are still the best place on earth for Christians.

    There is no distinction to be had here; they’re still the best place on Earth for everyone.

    I agree with the rest of your comment.

    The ‘intriguing’ theory is known long, long before Baigent &Co. At least this variant. The ‘traditional’ one is that Paul was the secret agent of Judaism to destroy the Roman Empire!

    Precisely. Which is why I wanted more detail than he offered.

    Mr. Reed says he is not a Christian – he is half right. He is not a religious Christian – but he is a philosophical Christian.

    Or, to borrow a Jewish term, he is a “secular Christian.” Well, I don’t know about Reed, but I am. Nothing Jews hate so much can be all bad.

    . The Christian Church was against knowledge at the time of the Renaissance. They went full ISIS with something called an inquisition.

    Nonsense. The Spanish Inquisition was largely an attempt by the Spanish to purge themselves of the cancer of crypto-Jews. It also kicked off quite the Spanish Golden Age. Britain, too, had one of the longest good runs in her history after expelling the Jews. I admit this may be more correlation than causation; it may be more that people who get their shit together tend to expel Jews, than people getting their shit together because they expelled Jews.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    There’s some math missing here: when did Christ do away with polygamy or slavery? I submit that he did not.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    While I agree with much of what you say about Mohammed and Islam, I have to ask, when did Christ do away with pedophilia? I submit that he did not.

    I submit that Europeans did away with those things, because that was their preference. Christianity was naturally the form that preference took, but I don’t think it was the cause.

    ***

    Like Che Guava, I have watched less than one episode of Seinfeld. I have watched far more Seinfeld while surfing past it to find something good to watch, than I have watched continuously. Unlike Che Guava, I know almost nothing about the show. I suppose I am just instinctively repelled. Maybe I just can’t watch TV that lacks good-looking people.

    Ah, Corvanus:

    Religiously, you are a heretic. Unless, of course, you are able to show convincingly how Jesus, our savior, is in complete support of your decision.

    Logically, Corvanus is a moron.

    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
    Hope it does not take us again hundreds of years for liberation.

    Do you really not see the contradiction? Here, I’ll help: “liberated ourselves from religion” + “far better” = “alas we imported Islam.”

    Perhaps, your friend was trying to get you to relax and get you out of your comfort zone? :-)

    I took to critiquing Jews to get them to relax and get out of their comfort zone (no contradiction there, amirite?). Too busy with that for anything else.

    So the prescription to pray in the direction of Mecca is next to the prescription to pray in he direction of Jerusalem.
    In one places jews are to be eradicated, in another they are promised the Islam heaven if they live well, that means, follow Islamic prescriptions such as giving to the poor.

    Sounds like Mohamed’s experiences with the Jews were rather typical (Jewish PR, followed by dawning reality).

    You would probably be surprised if someone told you that the ‘Dark Ages’ knew three ‘Renaissances’ before the Medici’s ‘Renaissance’: the Carolingian Renaissance (8th and 9th centuries), Ottonian Renaissance (10th century) and the Renaissance of the 12th century, all three characterized by significant cultural renewal right across medieval Western Europe and all under the patronage of the Church. All in search of the the European earlier knowledge (obscured perhaps, but never lost).

    Generally speaking, the “Dark Ages” correspond to the early Middle Ages/early Medieval period, roughly from 5-10th centuries. So two of your revivals fall outside its boundaries. It doesn’t take much jiggering to see the Carolingian revival as a transition period out of that period, and into the High Middle Ages.

    Would you kindly enlighten us with your idea, so different from that of the dictionaries, of what heresy and heretics are?

    Corvanus has a head full of bad wiring. I’m surprised he’s able to restrain himself from lecturing us about the true nature of Christianity (it means either wickedness, or leftism, in his mind). Funny how he criticizes only Christians and Christianity, but not Jews or Muslims. A familiar pattern, that.

    Blaming scapegoats, dupes, and patsies is a well-established practice in our modern world, and it probably has ancient roots going back far beyond the Papal Bull of Innocent VIII to the very dawn of human civilization, when witch doctors gained their power by claiming to have contact with, and/or control over both natural and supernatural forces.

    Well, we can trace the practice of scapegoating as far back as the Jews, but beyond that it starts to get hazy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  215. epnngg says:
    @Sparkon

    We cannot deny the historicity of Jesus...
     
    Speak for thyself.

    But debating this issue with the faithful is not far removed from insisting to some young child that there really is no Santa Claus.

    'Rough work, and who wants to do it?

    Whether or not human civilization is more of less advanced because of Christianity is a tough call and impossible to know. We can only know what history tells us, for example the fine work of Innocent VIII, as exemplified by his Papal Bull of 1484 dealing with witchcraft:

    It has recently come to our ears...that many persons of both sexes, heedless of their own salvation and forsaking the catholic faith, give themselves over to devils male and female, and by their incantations, charms, and conjurings, and by other abominable superstitions and sortileges, offences, crimes, and misdeeds, ruin and cause to perish the offspring of women, the foal of animals, the products of the earth, the grapes of vines, and the fruits of trees, as well as men and women, cattle and flocks and herds and animals of every kind, vineyards also and orchards, meadows, pastures, harvests, grains and other fruits of the earth; that they afflict and torture with dire pains and anguish, both internal and external, these men, women, cattle, flocks, herds, and animals, and hinder men from begetting and women from conceiving, and prevent all consummation of marriage; that, moreover, they deny with sacrilegious lips the faith they received in holy baptism; and that, at the instigation of the enemy of mankind, they do not fear to commit and perpetrate many other abominable offences and crimes, at the risk of their own souls,
    [...]
    We therefore... do hereby decree, by virtue of our apostolic authority, that it shall be permitted to the said inquisitors in these regions to exercise their office of inquisition and to proceed to the correction, imprisonment, and punishment of the aforesaid persons for their said offences and crimes
    [...]
    Let no man, therefore, dare to infringe this page of our declaration, extension, grant, and mandate, or with rich hardihood to contradict it. If any presume this, let him know that he incurs the wrath of almighty God and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.
     
    https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes

    Just in case almighty God is not enough, throw in Peter and Paul for good measure. Burn some witches, and pray harder...that'll cure your impotence.

    Blaming scapegoats, dupes, and patsies is a well-established practice in our modern world, and it probably has ancient roots going back far beyond the Papal Bull of Innocent VIII to the very dawn of human civilization, when witch doctors gained their power by claiming to have contact with, and/or control over both natural and supernatural forces.

    But all is not lost. The open mind turns agnostic, neither accepting nor denying the possibility of a deity, or deities, but rejecting all the theological scribblings of man as fairy tales for adults.

    Sparkon, you said a mouth full!

    Is it true that remaining an agnostic is truly the place to be as we live out our short lives?
    Are there no sureties in life? Is there no absolute truth that we can weigh all the things and events that come into our lives as either good or evil? I would contend that each one of us has a natural law indwelling us that is constantly reminding us what is good and what is evil. Where does this natural law or conscience come from?

    We can attempt to rip the natural law from within us. Many men and women have sought to purge themselves of their consciences, and some have successfully done so to the detriment of themselves and the societies they live in!

    Your quotes from Innocent The VIII are truly appalling. Not all that declare themselves Christians truly are. Some indeed use the name of Christ to further their own power and seduce many to destruction. But I can name many men and women who claimed the Christian faith that has made a positive and substantial good in our societies. William Wilberforce comes to mind.
    Mother Theresa, Samuel Johnson, Michael Faraday come immediately to mind also.

    Jesus said that many would come in His name and claim to do great wonders but in the end, they would be rejected by Him. His constant reminder to His disciples was that they were to be servants of mankind and not to desire to lord their lives over others.

    I would contend that if all men truly adhered to the teachings of Jesus and were fully able to flesh out the first two commandments of the ten commandments, there would indeed be heaven on earth.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    My country, the Netherlands, became far better in my subjective judgment, since we liberated ourselves from religion.
    Alas we imported Islam.
     
    The Dutch atheists are like all the other damn fool European atheists. They childishly discarded Christianity for the trivial reason that it was based on stories that are obviously, to those raised in a scientific culture, untrue. But the truth of the narrative upon which religious faith is based is irrelevant, and only people with an adolescent conceit and stupidity would think otherwise.

    The importance of religion is that it imbues believers with a moral code, which enables strangers in a large and complex society to cooperate with one another. Now the idiot Dutch, like the cretinous Swedes and Norwegians, the Brits, the French and the Germans have discarded a faith that built the greatest civilization the world has known, while showing unlimited tolerance to adherents of the most vicious, intolerant and tyrannical faith the world has ever known.

    I don't even wish you good luck with that. You deserve only the utmost contempt. Contempt for your idiot liberal tolerance, and contempt for your staggering ignorance and stupidity.

    “while showing unlimited tolerance to adherents of the most vicious, intolerant and tyrannical faith the world has ever known”

    Y0u are certainly entitled to your opinion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @jilles dykstra
    You should study history in SE Europe from 1912 to 1925.
    Peoples unable to live together were deported on an enormous scale.
    So who will be replaced remains to be seen.
    Our Dutch DENK party, with propaganda that assimilation is not necessary, is playing a very dangerous game.

    Ik ben Nederlands! De DENK partij is een grap, maar niet zo grappig als de gedachte van de gefeminiseerde Nederlandse natie die een etnische zuivering uitvoert.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. @attilathehen
    If the ramblings of an obscurantist like Paul were proven false, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, the Koran is wrong because it mentions Jesus in it.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    Islam is a religion of blacks/Asians, IQ deficient populations.

    Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.
    If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.

    Racially, you are kosher. Religiously, you are a heretic, a “kuffar.” Psychologically, you are someone who is looking for a belief system to justify things you are doing in your life.

    Devilish Islam is perfect for this.

    Paul’s lyingdoesn’t disprove Christ, it just disproves Christ’s divinity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Corvinus says:
    @CanSpeccy

    Religion is a tool of the ruling class, used mostly for maintaining control over lower orders.
     
    Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.

    Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing.

    Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.

    In godless places like China, and increasingly the West, brainwashing, aka education, etc., has become a substitute for religion. To the elites, a secular moral code, whether it be Communism, or multi-culti-globo-liberalism, is preferable to religion since it can be modified by legislation at any time without evidence of supernatural guidance.

    For the people, the downside to a secular religion such as Communism or globo-liberalism is that it can so readily be adapted to serve none but a tyrannical elite. In the West, globo-liberalism seeks to destroy competition from God through the promotion of multi-culturalism, which ensures that religion becomes a disruptive, not a unifying and civilizing influence, and hence something that all will come to agree should be abolished.

    “Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short.”

    Ruling is also what religion does, and they use tools such as “natural law” and religious doctrine to do it. Without a religious-class imposed social order, especially on individuals who do not strictly adhere to that particular faith, life in that society is other than desirable.

    “Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing.”

    BOTH religious based and secular societies have criminal codes that rely on this tendency you described. BOTH put pressure on individuals to internalize the rules and regulations of the society which will induce civilized conduct.

    “Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.”

    Patently false. Refer to Puritan society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CanSpeccy

    Ruling is also what religion does
     
    Christian religious authorities rule in religious matters, states rule in all else, and when there is a clash, states dominate. Or as Joe Stalin asked: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

    True, Islam combines both state and religious authority in one body, which is why admission of Muslims to the West will likely destroy Western civilization, such as remains of it. Muslim migrants to the West are settlers and colonists intent on domination and ethnic cleansing.


    “Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.”

    Patently false. Refer to Puritan society.
     

    Puritanism was a transient Christian heresy long gone from the world. Why not read the Origin of Political Order, by Francis Fukuyama. Then you might not be quite so aggressively ignorant on the role of religion in society. You might also read Carroll Quigley's Evolution of Civilizations, which expounds the roles of the various institutions, including religious institutions, in determining the survival, prosperity and expansion of civilizations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @Pat the Rat
    "The logical key to any posible answer favourable to your beliefs has to be the one Thomas More articulated in Utopia. His Utopia made it a capital offence to deny the existence of Heaven and Hell in an afterlife (or of Hod of course). Why? The obvious reason that God’s creatures as More knew them would, if strong, oppress and exploit the weak."

    The meaning here is a bit opaque.

    Are you suggesting Christian societies which believe in heaven and hell and judgement oppress an exploit the weak?

    A quote from Ronald Segal's book on slavery in Islam.

    Zanzibar was a black Belsen, a clearing house of shackled humanity, where the stench of death was masked by the cloves on which the island’s Omani emirs built a great trading empire.
    Without a nascent industrial complex to feed, many of the men were castrated for domestic service or drafted into slave armies that emptied the lands around the great lakes of their peoples. One in 10, by some estimates, survived the trek from the interior. By the mid-19th century, when east African slave magnates – many of them the free sons of Arab slavers and their black concubines – ran out of infidels and animists to enslave, they, and the expanding black Islamic empires that supplied them, circumvented the scruples set out in the Koran and carried off their own on the flimsiest of criminal pretexts.
    Slaves were the luxury goods the Islamic world seemed unable to wean itself off, despite hectoring from a self-righteous west that had embraced emancipation just as mechanisation had rendered slavery obsolete. Like horses and gold, slaves conferred status, and the most opulent households had thousands. When he died in 1870, one Arab official of the black state of Bornu on the shores of Lake Chad had several thousand slaves to complement his stable of 1,000 stallions.
     
    Do you think Rome was any different? It was probably worse.

    These slaves simply worked to death, or used for sex, under threat of death and torture.

    Catholic culture ended slavery in Europe, it started the hospitals and universities, and yet this culture leads the strong to exploit the weak? It is untrue.

    Surely faith can’t be so bad for the intellect. You have got the point of Catholic saint Thomas More’s prescription in Utopia exactly 180 degrees wrong.

    More was assuming that people – not Christians specifically, just people, would misuse their superior abilities to exploit others and take more than their fair shate if they could and there were no sanctions against it.

    As to your point about slavery it merely emphasises that the Catholic Church did *not* stop slavery outside Europe. It was Protestant evangelicals in England that led the way from about 100 years before the end of slavery in Brazil and Spanish America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @German_reader
    Muslims aren't comparable to Latin Americans. The latter speak a Western language, have a Christian background and can intermarry with American whites without their spouse having to convert to some alien religion. Latin American immigration is probably bad for the US on the whole, but it doesn't have the same character of a clash between hostile civilzations Islamic immigration to Europe has.
    So no, just because there probably won't be a race war against Mexicans in the US, don't feel safe that the same will be true for Muslims.

    hallo German

    There is a prediction from 1828 which says, among a lot of other things:

    “Bunter Fremdling, unwillkommner Gast, flieh das Land das du gepfluegt nicht hast…”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @Miro23

    Then came in the Nineteenth Century the third great religion of Middle Eastern origin, or religion manque, Communism. Like Christianity directly, and Islam indirectly, it was a Jewish product. Never has so small a people had so great an influence on history.
     
    The appeal then (and now) is the potential for DESTRUCTION OF TRADITIONAL SOCIETY making way for a NEW ELITE. The Bolshevik Jews succeeded in Russia (Petrograd 1917) leading to the mass killings and transportation of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. They had a brief success in Hungary (Budapest 1919: Bela Kuhn's all Jewish "Council of Soldiers, Workers and Peasants" - Red Terror ) but failed twice in Germany ( Berlin 1919: Liebnecht and Luxemburg's Strike & Spartacist Uprising "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and Munich 1919: Levine's German Soviet Revolutionary Dictatorship "Workers and Soldiers Council") both destroyed in street gun battles.

    We live under a sort or Disneyland Marxism and descend ever deeper into complacent ignorance.
     
    It's the same process of weakening society sufficiently to overthrow it - now channeled through PC Counter-Culturalism by much the same crowd.

    The article could have usefully gone further into formation of the early European states in European Christendom.

    For example:

    The late Roman Empire was already Christian after Emperor Constantine's conversion and it was Christianity that endured after the Empire collapsed. The so called "barbarians" converted to Christianity allying with the monastic Church using written and spoken Latin for their administrations, and as a marker of being part of the educated class that they needed/aspired to. This was a European Christendom diverging from its Byzantine Eastern Orthodox brother.

    Charlemagne actually defined himself as a Christian king with the first Papal Coronation in 800 A.D., with later pagan invaders also converting to Christianity (e.g. Canute, bringing in Scandinavia). A Europe wide network of monasteries in the early Middle Ages created the reality of Christendom which was concerned with resisting Islam, regaining the Holy Places and most notably engaging in the Europe wide Christian project for the re-conquest of Spain (which it successfully did in one of the few examples of Christianity rolling back Islam).


    The future? Christianity seems to be dying out. A resurgence is hard to imagine. It simply isn’t suited to the modern world.
     
    Well, the Franciscans (followers of St. Francis of Assisi) are alive and well and dedicated to respect for and preservation of the natural world " to assume responsibility for it, taking all care so that everything stays healthy and integrated, so as to offer a welcoming and friendly environment even to those who succeed us." which is somewhat different from the US Plutocratic/Zionist/Counter Cultural "modern world" agenda.

    Those Franciscans sound pretty much like inner city Greens to me like the ones who seem to be trying to hem me and my automobile in with bicycle only lanes….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    The great thing for me of the Quran is that it resembles the bible, anyone can find anything that suits him.
    When de Quran was written, it was some 200 years after Mohammed died.
    There was great controversy about what he had said.
    This problem was solved to put anything in the Quran what he was supposed to have said, but, luckily, arranged to subject.
    So the prescription to pray in the direction of Mecca is next to the prescription to pray in he direction of Jerusalem.
    In one places jews are to be eradicated, in another they are promised the Islam heaven if they live well, that means, follow Islamic prescriptions such as giving to the poor.

    You obviously have not consulted neither the Bible nor the Koran very much.

    As for “Mozes” , there is no hell in the OT. You die and sleep “with your fathers. ” You are dead. Just like the animals are dead when they die. Go look it up in the OT. If you come up with the promise of an everburning hell that you can’t get out of, let me know, I have not been able to find it and have worn out a couple of Bibles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Corvinus
    "Absolutely. Ruling is what ruling classes do, and they use tools such as religion, traffic regulations, and the criminal code, to do it. Without a ruling-class-imposed social order, life would indeed for most people be nasty, brutal and short."

    Ruling is also what religion does, and they use tools such as "natural law" and religious doctrine to do it. Without a religious-class imposed social order, especially on individuals who do not strictly adhere to that particular faith, life in that society is other than desirable.

    "Religion is a bit different from the criminal code since it relies on the near universal human tendency to regard rules of conduct as a matter of great importance. Religious faith thus results in a form of internalized control that promotes civilized behavior in a society where one must continually interact with strangers of whose character one knows nothing."

    BOTH religious based and secular societies have criminal codes that rely on this tendency you described. BOTH put pressure on individuals to internalize the rules and regulations of the society which will induce civilized conduct.

    "Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control."

    Patently false. Refer to Puritan society.

    Ruling is also what religion does

    Christian religious authorities rule in religious matters, states rule in all else, and when there is a clash, states dominate. Or as Joe Stalin asked: “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

    True, Islam combines both state and religious authority in one body, which is why admission of Muslims to the West will likely destroy Western civilization, such as remains of it. Muslim migrants to the West are settlers and colonists intent on domination and ethnic cleansing.

    “Religion thus eliminates the need for much external control.”

    Patently false. Refer to Puritan society.

    Puritanism was a transient Christian heresy long gone from the world. Why not read the Origin of Political Order, by Francis Fukuyama. Then you might not be quite so aggressively ignorant on the role of religion in society. You might also read Carroll Quigley’s Evolution of Civilizations, which expounds the roles of the various institutions, including religious institutions, in determining the survival, prosperity and expansion of civilizations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "True, Islam combines both state and religious authority in one body, which is why admission of Muslims to the West will likely destroy Western civilization, such as remains of it."

    First, the number of Muslim Americans in the United States on the whole have not distinctly contributed to the destruction of my nation. Second, most white people in the States are other than concerned with "Western Civilization". Your fixation is duly noted.

    "Muslim migrants to the West are settlers and colonists intent on domination and ethnic cleansing."

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    "Puritanism was a transient Christian heresy long gone from the world."

    Regardless if it has gone by the wayside, the society of the Puritans clearly demonstrated their knack of external control, which refutes your contention.

    "Why not read the Origin of Political Order, by Francis Fukuyama. Then you might not be quite so aggressively ignorant on the role of religion in society."

    Strawman. Of course throughout history, the role of religion has an enormous impact on society. But you are making the case that there ought to be ONE dominant religion that ALL people adhere to. Moreover, there are those on the Alt Right who are of the mindset that there ought not be freedom of religion, which directly counters the intention of the Founding Fathers. Vox Day says...

    "Religious freedom is a bogus and ill-considered pseudoright. In practice, it has been turned into a weapon that is almost solely used against Christianity across the West, and therefore it has to be abandoned. It has always been a charade anyhow; any religious belief or practice that challenges the state is always going to be banned no matter how sincerely held it may be. No one is about to let Aztecs start mass sacrificing to the sun or permit Druids to burn people in wicker baskets, no matter how historically legitimate their religious traditions are."

    Do you honestly believe that the majority of white Americans who embrace a faith will demand that this key component of the First Amendment be abolished?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @Seraphim
    You should not firstly because your religious knowledge is at the level of a 13 years old and the discussion is largely between adults.
    Secondly, because of your denial that you ever heard of SJ and JT when you reproduce word for word the themes they presented in that doco and in what is their pet theory of 'The Jesus Dynasty'. ST&JT are involved in the archaeological forgeries of "The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History" and 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus' and of the 'James Ossuary' (Oded Golan, the forger of the 'James Ossuary', narrowly avoided a long term in jail for it).
    Thirdly because one should dismiss out of hand any opinions expressed by people who start with 'I was a Christian, but I renounced it when I realized that the 'standard version' is implausible, or illogical, or...(fill the dots).

    Whatever sect of Christianity you belong to should be ashamed of and embarrassed for you. You demean the notion of religious scholarship. (You are even wrong in your pettiness. As a typically enthusiastic novice atheist I put my head down and won a Religious Studies prize at 15 for Year 12 students)

    Then there is the difficulty you create of knowing whether to regard you as a deliberate liar who knows that what he writes is false or one better described by the tort lawyer’s “reckless whether it wss true or false” which tilts more towarda reckless stupidity. Neither the doco I saw nor the summsry detsils I gave have anything to do with the controversial work of SJ and JT as it is easy to check. So much for your “you reproduce word for word [sic] the themes they presented in that doco”. Your recklessness and carelessness with both the truth and the proprieties of civilised debate seem to know no bounds.

    Your final par merely exhibits a weak grasp of the rules of English (or any) prose composition as, apart from its dubious logic you don’t even make clear wbo you are referring to.

    Except that you seem bound to disgrace yourself I would invite you to try again with the thesis I summarised rather than the product of your febrile brain.

    Unlike you, I do a little elementary checking just in case I am not up to date, so I did a search for the “last days of Jesus” and, to my surprise found that the showing in Australia was of a contemporary April 2017 PBS doco with, again I note, nothing to do with your hate figures SJ or JT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Seraphim
    "If you are really really clever", you would not confuse Saint Ignatius de Loyola with Saint Aloysius de Gonzaga. Is it a Freudian slip? Is there where you lost your faith?

    At least this time you pack into a short space a summary illustration of your fatal weaknesses as a serious controversialist.

    First you put “If you are really really clever” in quotes. Surprise. Did I say that or something like it? No, and nor did anyone else on the thread.

    Then there is the totally baseless assertion that I confused Loyola and Gonzaga! Che?! You don’t even make sense of your suggestion. What sort of Freudian slip could possibly be involved (though maybe you are trying to show that you are a true early 20th century man by pretending to know something of a Viennese Jew who was one of Jewry’s least claims to intellectual achievement)?

    Even your last sentence is marred by carelessness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Where did you get the Aloysius Loyola from? For a winner of a Religious Studies Prize (or was it for wizardry?) is an impermissible blunder. Either you don't know what you are talking about (of which you give us ample proofs all the time - you can't even remember that you did indeed say 'if you are really, really clever' talking about yourself) or somewhere in your mind was lurking the Jesuit College of Saint Aloysius in Sydney. Why?
    I was not demeaning 'the notion of religious studies'. I was pouring some cold water on your typically adolescent 'novice atheist enthusiasm'. Grow up man, do some serious study before talking about serious matters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Pat the Rat
    I've seen the documentary it was interesting with good production values but I know the work of the experts they consulted so the narrative theme was pretty predictable.

    none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus

     

    Only 30 years you say. That is like people writing about the 1980's today. Are books about contemporary politics in the 80's suspect because they are 30 years away from the historical events of the 80's.

    I must tell that to all biographers who take Churchill or Napoleon as a subject. These people are lying and their information is utter rubbish hopelessly compromised by the government departments that fund their writing. Any new research or information must be inaccurate because it is now more than 30 years away from the death of the subject.

    These arguments are all a bit laughable Wizard, they have been constantly rolled out by haters of the Catholic church for decades.

    I doubt if anything I say will change you mind at all. I have had enough conversations with atheists in the past to know that many have erected other idols to worship. And their new idols burn with indignation and injustice towards traditional Christianity.

    I think you have met too many passionate atheist converts ex-fundies or ex-Cstholics. But i claim the great intellectual achievement of being a “lapsed Anglican”. Mild silly joke perhaps but it goes with my occasional explanation that being sn Anglican atheist means only that I am not a theist. I see no need for a deity that created the world and has purposes or preferences that there is any reason for us to take notice of. Everything useful that can be made to connect the “is” with the “ought” – acknowledging Hume’s and later objections – can be found in considering the evolution of the brains, bodies and societies of hominids. The Big Bang, Inflation, Higgs Boson etc. ate modtly fun for those who don’t want to use their spare mental capacity on chess or bridge, though their study might help develop new elements or maybe just find new ways to kill each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    I am perhaps slightly less lapsed than you but I agree that theology has moved on from the Bronze Age and spare a Protestant or two, senior Anglicans are mostly up to date.

    It seems that Creation (if there was such an "event") will always be a Mystery. Everything we know about Jesus may be a telling of the story as it should have been, not as it was but he still said the right things. And there is one humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    At least this time you pack into a short space a summary illustration of your fatal weaknesses as a serious controversialist.

    First you put "If you are really really clever" in quotes. Surprise. Did I say that or something like it? No, and nor did anyone else on the thread.

    Then there is the totally baseless assertion that I confused Loyola and Gonzaga! Che?! You don't even make sense of your suggestion. What sort of Freudian slip could possibly be involved (though maybe you are trying to show that you are a true early 20th century man by pretending to know something of a Viennese Jew who was one of Jewry's least claims to intellectual achievement)?

    Even your last sentence is marred by carelessness.

    Where did you get the Aloysius Loyola from? For a winner of a Religious Studies Prize (or was it for wizardry?) is an impermissible blunder. Either you don’t know what you are talking about (of which you give us ample proofs all the time – you can’t even remember that you did indeed say ‘if you are really, really clever’ talking about yourself) or somewhere in your mind was lurking the Jesuit College of Saint Aloysius in Sydney. Why?
    I was not demeaning ‘the notion of religious studies’. I was pouring some cold water on your typically adolescent ‘novice atheist enthusiasm’. Grow up man, do some serious study before talking about serious matters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. 1199: Jocelyn

    Beginning of the Crusades – Masons – Temple of Salomon

    Glasgow History – NORTH [LV2] –

    Jocelyn, The Templars and The Bishop’s Forest:

    ” In 1162, Henry II of England levied a tax to support the crusades—the first of a series of taxes levied by Henry over the years with the same objective. The Templars and Hospitallers acted as Henry’s bankers in the Holy Land. The Templars’ wide flung, large land holdings across Europe also emerged in the 1100–1300 time frame as the beginning of Europe-wide banking, as their practice was to take in local currency, for which a demand note would be given that would be good at any of their castles across Europe, allowing movement of money without the usual risk of robbery while traveling.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  230. @Pat the Rat
    I've seen the documentary it was interesting with good production values but I know the work of the experts they consulted so the narrative theme was pretty predictable.

    none of the accounts being earlier than about 30 years after the death of Jesus

     

    Only 30 years you say. That is like people writing about the 1980's today. Are books about contemporary politics in the 80's suspect because they are 30 years away from the historical events of the 80's.

    I must tell that to all biographers who take Churchill or Napoleon as a subject. These people are lying and their information is utter rubbish hopelessly compromised by the government departments that fund their writing. Any new research or information must be inaccurate because it is now more than 30 years away from the death of the subject.

    These arguments are all a bit laughable Wizard, they have been constantly rolled out by haters of the Catholic church for decades.

    I doubt if anything I say will change you mind at all. I have had enough conversations with atheists in the past to know that many have erected other idols to worship. And their new idols burn with indignation and injustice towards traditional Christianity.

    Oh you really are a simple duffer aren’t you? Your fallacious argument could only be rescued if there were archives and letters and diaries contemporaneous with the events up to Jesus’s death to which the pseudonymous Matthew, Mark, Luke and John could have referred. As it is they don’t even give their oral sources in a way any half decent historian or journalist would.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @attilathehen
    If the ramblings of an obscurantist like Paul were proven false, then Jesus did not exist. If Jesus did not exist, the Koran is wrong because it mentions Jesus in it.

    The Old Testament has polygamy, slavery because that shows the fallen world filled with sin. In the New Testament, Jesus came to straighten out mankind’s sinfulness. That’s why Christianity (of the Western world) got rid of slavery and polygamy.

    Mohammed, a paedophile and child rapist, took the polygamy and slavery of the Old Testament to justify his sexual perversions.

    Islam is a religion of blacks/Asians, IQ deficient populations.

    Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes.
    If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.

    Racially, you are kosher. Religiously, you are a heretic, a “kuffar.” Psychologically, you are someone who is looking for a belief system to justify things you are doing in your life.

    Devilish Islam is perfect for this.

    “Even though I am a Christian, I left the RCC because I do not accept black/Asian priests-popes. If non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. Islam is a universalist belief system, so that’s a big problem.”

    This is where you are misguided. You say if non-whites want to be Christian, they must have their own churches. No, that’s the wrong way to go about it.

    Whites must form their own covenant with God. A covenant that exists only between God and European folks. A covenant not unlike the one between God and the Jews.
    Because Judaism was founded on this principle, only Jews can be part of Judaism(though Reform Judaism plays funny games).

    So far, there has been two ways of worshiping God. The tribal way for Jews and universal way for gentiles.

    So, Jews have Judaism. It’s about Jews and God.

    Christians and Muslims have Christianity and Islam. And they are open to anyone who accepts Jesus or Allah(and Muhammad as his last and greatest prophet).

    So, Jews have an ethnic religion.

    Gentiles don’t. While there are French Christians, German Christians, African Christians, Arab Christians, and etc. Christianity doesn’t belong to any one of them like Judaism belongs to Jews.
    Same goes for Islam.

    So, the two options were

    Tribalism for Jews.
    Universalism for gentiles.

    But there is a third way. Tribalism for gentiles. Let each gentile group form its own covenant with God. That way, they can worship God but with a special covenant that applies only to their own kind. This is the best way. As Christianity and Islam become overly global and ‘inclusive’, they are becoming messy, confused, and contentious. To accommodate all that diversity, the religion is being made ever more generic. The result is the current pope who should be called the poop.

    [MORE]

    In the end, Christianity is more about the preservation of an idea than a people/culture. In contrast, Judaism is about the preservation of a people since it can’t do without them.
    Judaism is finished if the Jews disappear. Even if non-Jews were to read the Torah after all Jews disappear, it would not be Judaism. Judaism cannot exist apart from Jewish people. As solely an idea, it is not a religion. As a religion, it needs Jews who made the Covenant with God. So, Jewish ethnos is central to Judaism.

    In contrast, the idea is what matters most in credo-religions like Christianity. Even if all German Christians were killed or died off, it doesn’t matter since Christianity could carry on in the hearts/minds of others. In the end, it doesn’t matter who believes in Jesus. What matters is the idea remains alive by spreading like a virus. Thus, any group of Christians is dispensable to Christianity. If all French Christians died, the faith could go on with Chinese Christians. If all Chinese Christians died, it could go on with Mexican Christians.
    This is why so many Christians find less value in their faith When Christianity was defacto the religion of the West, it made white folks special. But as it’s spread to Africa, Asian, and all over, white Christians now feel dispensable. Christianity can do without them. In contrast, Judaism can’t do without Jews. Christianity, as a conversion-religion, can convert any bunch of people. Judaism is a conception-religion, not a conversion-religion. Jews have to be conceived in wombs of Jewish mothers.

    But if each gentile group form their own special covenant with God, their religion will gain in meaning once again. When something is overly ‘inclusive’, it loses all value. Taken an elite college. If it goes for open admission, it is no longer a top college. It is just a community college.
    If your people have a covenant with God, then your special religion cannot do without your people. Jews believe in a universal God but through a tribal covenant. This must be the way for each people. Each people need to develop this covenant with their own prophets, narratives, and visions. This will be the great spiritual project of the 21st century. New Covenantism.

    There is a lesson to be learned from history of Jews and Christianity.
    They have mastered the art of survival through defeat. Judaism began with a humble man named Abram. He was no great warrior or super-rich powerful guy. His main justification for existence came from Covenant with God. So, his life had meaning even in exile, defeat, and loss. Even if he lost everything in the material world, he was blessed with relation to God. And in that there was everlasting hope. Because Judaism was founded on humility in covenant with greatest power, Jews could handle defeat better than any other people whose civilization was founded on pride. Take Assyrians. A mighty warlike people. Their justification was based on power and might. As long as they kicked butt, they were great. But in defeat, they were nothing because they had placed so little value for humility and wisdom of defeat.
    Of course, humility alone won’t get you very far. Humility on its own is just slavishness. If Jews only had humility, they would have groveled to the greater power and would have been happy as slaves. But Jewish humility was in relation to God, the greatest power. So, even as Jewish humility made them better-suited to weather the storms, they felt the assurance of being favored by the greatest power in the universe. Jews had humility appreciated by the pride of God.

    All peoples have their rises and falls. But when most fell, they tended to vanish from history. For one thing, most civilizations were centered around the Power. Kings and chieftains mattered most. Everyone else was servant or slave or minion. Now, as long as kings and princes kept the power, the civilization felt justified and masterful under their rule. But when the civilization was defeated, the kings and princes were killed or banished. Without pride of victory, they were nothing. And since the civilization instilled little inherent meaning to the minions and hoi polloi, they just drifted apart when their rulers fell from power or were conquered. Their cultural value depended on the status of their rulers. When their rulers were great, they felt justified in serving a great lord. But when their rulers fell, they felt empty, like how a fan feels after his team loses.
    Also, such powers tended to be idolatrous. Their power was represented by massive sculptures and monuments. So, people came to associate power with material expressions of might. The problem is when the system falls and the new conquerors take over, the monuments and idols can easily be smashed… or they can be appropriated by the conquerors as their own.

    In contrast, Judaism made every Jew feel like he counted independent of their rulers or leaders. After all, the Covenant was between God and Abraham, an ordinary man. So, there was the idea that God valued each Jew regardless of his wealth or status. So, even though there were big Jews, middle Jews, and little Jews, all Jews enjoyed spiritual parity in the eyes of God. There was a spiritual and moral democracy among the Jews. So, Jews didn’t develop minion-ism. When the Babylon kings fell, the Babylon minions were lost. Without service to their king, they had no purpose in life. But even when Jewish chieftains and kings fell and even when Jews were scattered, they felt a sense of inner value since God valued every Jews as a member of the Covenant.
    Also, as Jews were anti-idolatrous, their meaning was invested more with the idea, and ideas are portable, alive, and moral. Even if a Jewish city is sacked and Jewish treasures burned and destroyed, the core of Jewishness survives because it’s in the heart and in the texts. Also, anti-idolatry-ism had the benefit of reminding Jews to never conflate the sight of might with might itself. A Babylonian or Roman might look upon the great monuments and statues of his civilization and feel powerful. Egyptians might look upon Pyramids and other stuff and feel mighty. After all, the physical structures were so impressive. But in the end, idols are just that. They look mighty but they are just stones piled on top of another. They will not defend a people when the people grow decadent, confused, lazy, depraved, and craven. Romans were so into idolatryism that they kept believing in the power that was no longer there because they were surrounded by giant stadiums and towering monuments.

    In the end, what really matters is the stuff in the mind and hearts. Suppose there is a people with sound values in heart and mind. And there is another people with decayed values. Suppose both have nice big cities. Now, suppose a terrible natural disaster destroys the city of the people with sound values. In contrast, the city of the depraved people is spared. In 50 yrs, the sound people will rebuild a great city whereas the depraved people will let their city rot and decay. Those with sound ideas can turn nothing in something. Those with depraved ideas will turn something into nothing.

    The current West is into idolatryism. It judges everything by glittering skyscrapers and such impressive stuff. And when we look at Western cities and cities like Tokyo, they are bright and glittering. But the fact is the values in the hearts and minds of Westerners and Japanese are now decadent, depraved, and rotten. They have forgotten the meaning of family and moral values. They live and toil only for money and materialism and fun. But they think everything is fine since they got shiny buildings and stuff. But as the values of the civilization have begun to rot, the system will fail in the end.

    It can’t be an accident that Jews survived for 3,500 yrs. Also, it can’t be an accident that Christianity and Islam survived for long as continuous civilizations. Among the many ancient peoples, why did Jews have the advantage in survival? And why did Christian and Islamic civilizations survive for so long whereas pagan orders all rose and fell and vanished?

    One could argue that Greeks and Romans were more intellectually curious than the Jews. So,why did Greek and Roman civilizations fade away whereas the Jewish one survived?
    One of the blessing of intellect is the ability to think new thoughts and make progress. But the downside is the elites come to separate themselves from the rest of the community. After all, intellect and higher education are the property of the elites. We are seeing such Coming Apart today. When US was a Christian nation, the rich and the poor had faith in God in common at least. But with the fading of religion among the elites, they believe themselves to be pulling ahead of the rest. They are wrapped up with the conceit of having these fancy ideas that makes them so much better than the rest. Spirituality emotionally binds a people together. Intellect works like a razor in cutting the binds between elites and masses. The blessing of the West was that, for a long spell, it balanced the Hellenic intellectualism with Hebraic spiritualism(via Christianity). That way, the elites did think new thoughts and make progress but also felt a spiritual-emotional tie with the rest of the community.

    Intellectualism can do wonders in real meritoc