PDA

View Full Version : Is Christianity Just for Women and Sissies?



Taras Bulba
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 10:13 PM
http://www.ucmpage.org/articles/mdodaro.html

Is Christianity Just for Women and Sissies?
by Mike Dodaro

a review of "The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity. By Leon J. Podles.
Spence. 288 pages. $27.95

The Church Impotent is not one more wearisome tract about goddess worship at convocations of pseudo-Christian organizations. This book is a scholarly analysis of an appallingly misconstrued metaphorical theology beginning as early as the 13th century and continuing through the medieval period, the Reformation, and into the present, all within presumably orthodox Christianity. The author has done his research diligently, and page by page he documents literary imagery that in its milder forms makes men squeamish and in its excesses becomes the kind of masochism that condemns many men to lives of antipathy for Christianity.

Well before the dislocations of culturally approved feminism and homosexuality, the founder of Christianity had been domesticated into a strangely androgynous being in Christian devotional literature. Nearly everybody has had sufficient exposure to Sunday school art to be aware of the strange incongruity of the carpenter from Galilee who must have had weathered skin and enlarged hands like others of his craft being portrayed with womanly hair and skin, looking more like an advertisement for hair coloring treatments than an atavistic Jewish male.

This was not always the norm. For centuries the Church was a manly enterprise, and brotherly love a virtue like wartime militancy. Jesus' disciples labored under the continuing threat of persecution or martyrdom. In canonical and patristic literature, military idioms abound. The warfare is not only against worldly powers and the tribulations of the flesh but is a battle with spiritual powers intent on destroying the faithful. How all this metamorphosed into the sentimentality of modern gospel choruses and into Christian bookstores that look and often smell like bed-and-bathroom boutiques is elucidated in The Church Impotent. It begins with an analysis of what Podles calls bridal mysticism.

Passages from the works of St. Bernard of Clairvaux contain references to the individual soul as the bride of Christ in contradistinction to canonical and patristic references to the whole Church as the bride. Origen's commentary on The Song of Songs also contains this subtle departure from earlier literature. Podles suspects unexamined Platonic influences in both Bernard and Origen. Origen's heterodoxy is sufficiently documented, but it is worth noting in this context that his spiritualistic rigor was of such severity that he altered his anatomy, literally becoming a eunuch for the Kingdom of God.

As residual Platonists, Origen and Bernard both cautioned against passionate indulgence in bridal mysticism, but the medieval period brought a massive influx of women into religious orders and a flowering of the sublimated eroticism lurking in such images. There is now a substantial literature on feminine spirituality in the Middle Ages, much of it laudatory regarding metaphors that were considered dubious as soon as they appeared in religious orders. Podles is able to draw on it revealingly.

Scholasticism revived Aristotle and brought logical analysis to theology. Podles notes that "Aristotle followed Pythagoras in organizing reality into polar opposites." Male and female became a dichotomy in which male attributes were castigated as inferior because of a disposition toward assertiveness and formative power as opposed to acquiescence. Mary was idealized for her receptivity to the formative power of God. Consequently, men had a new battle to fight with their inherent disposition, for if men already have a form that is inclined to resist molding, they must become more like women in order to receive the imprint of the Holy Spirit. This ethos explains the greater numbers of women in churches and religious orders. Why one still hears this kind of reasoning from 20th-century Evangelicals and feminists, who are unlikely to agree on much else, is a question that Podles examines, with a compounding effect that is as astonishing as it is conclusive.

Having begun a literary analysis of the motif that posits that men can be Christians only when they suppress their inherent assertiveness, Podles engages in some psychologizing along the lines of how a man normally develops. Podles education, apparently in literary criticism, is perhaps the reason he does literary analysis well. Probably because he is not a psychologist, he also analyzes masculine character development well. He says boys grow to manhood partly by separating themselves from their mothers and from conformity to other nurturing influences. Men, he reasons, confront the dangerous and often violent obligations of their clan or culture. Therefore they separate themselves from dependencies that hinder them in hunting, warmaking, and other activities involved in protecting and provisioning their kin and country.

Podles recognizes that this is a circular trajectory. Men separate themselves from maternal influences in order to commit themselves more profoundly than is otherwise possible to the well-being of their wives, families, and communities. The initial impulse for distinction is necessary but not sufficient for the fulfillment of male identity. More than anything else, men seem to want to be heroic. Early Christianity provided them opportunities to demonstrate strength of character in opposition to countervailing forces. A medieval religious culture that glorified feminine passivity and acquiescence alienated men from the Church. The remedial theology that would make it possible for large numbers of men to return without emasculation has yet to be fully elaborated.

Male assertiveness without the moral center and heroic self-abnegation found in early Christianity and stoicism (as opposed to feminine malleability) is not a stable element in human psychology. It can become a nihilistic will to power. For example, among Italian Futurists of the 1930's, artists glorified war and scorned women. They hated pacifism and cheered Mussolini. Fascism had a self-conscious element of nihilistic masculine power.

Churches continue to be refuges for women under the influence of an ancient bridal spirituality or some later equivalent. And many Christian men, even among Promise Keepers, will tell you that the way to spiritual maturity is in the surrender of the will. But while these newly sensitive males are working on that, the Protestant ministry is becoming a woman's profession. This seems a fitting conclusion after centuries of majorities of women being involved in the activities of churches. And, as has been the case for ages, despite the hullabaloo to the contrary, the churches are still refuges for homosexuals.

That it has taken until now for somebody to write a book about this centuries-old problem of so many men being repelled by a maudlin Christianity is extraordinary. Thank God, Leon Podles has finally spelled it out. He has a few suggestions as to how the situation might be rectified, but more than once he concedes that new activities designed for men will not bring very many back from an indignant exile that long ago became reflexive for them.

Among the Christian virtues are manly self-denial, not amorphous receptivity; moral restraint, not moral passivity; and courage, the antithesis of acquiescence. Military stoicism again comes to mind, but what is needed isn't some kind of religious boot camp or more strenuous witnessing by Christian athletes, though these might help. The damage, if Podles is correct, has been done by a settled habit of misusing metaphors.

If the seduction began with a subtle change in references, so that the soul of the believer (instead of the Church) is the bride of Christ, then sermons, hymns, and prayers are going to have to take pains to avoid the saccharine images that are exacerbating the damage. Christians are going to have to re-inject masculine metaphors into discourse about our Faith. Justification is by the grace of God, but true peace comes from overcoming moral challenges and from disciplined pursuit of real values, not sentimental indulgence.

Art embodies the metaphors by which we live. Art is not the cornerstone of the Christian church, but the artistry in worship and devotion are more significant than the cornerstone of any building in which that church assembles. A cathedral can't be built on slimy sand and be expected to stand for a thousand years. But a thousand years in Purgatory engendered by slimy metaphors does appear to be a possibility for many.

Taras Bulba
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Good article. I firmly believe in a revival of what is commonly called "Muscular Christianity". The same kind of Christianity that encouraged the martyrs to face off death without fear, the same Christianity that encouraged St. George to slay the dragon, the same Christianity that ecnouraged the Crusaders to march off into battle against the Muslim infidels. Indeed, I find it no concidence that besides priests, the greatest number of saints were warriors!

ONWARDS CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS!
http://history.smsu.edu/jchuchiak/Knights%20of%20the%20Order%20of%20St.%20 John%20Hospitalers.jpg

Mistress Klaus
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 10:40 PM
I find the term Women & Sissies offensive....in that particulary context.. :D

Taras Bulba
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM
I find the term Women & Sissies offensive....in that particulary context.. :D

Oh yeah..................well TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)

Mistress Klaus
Friday, April 16th, 2004, 10:51 PM
Oh yeah..................well TOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;)


Oh...you just need to find a female for a longlife partner. ;) ...I am quite content....are you...?....just kidding ;)

Evolved
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 12:04 AM
Isn't a real man supposed to be accountable for his own actions? What is manly about unloading one's spiritual baggage on a carpenter supposedly martyred 2000 years ago? :yawn

Taras Bulba
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 01:04 AM
Oh...you just need to find a female for a longlife partner. ;)

Oh perhaps you're right! :D ;)

stroker
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 04:39 AM
Isn't a real man supposed to be accountable for his own actions? What is manly about unloading one's spiritual baggage on a carpenter supposedly martyred 2000 years ago? :yawn

Was he even really a carpenter? Passages such as the wedding seem to indicate that he was more than just a carpenter...unless he was a carpenter with servants. It is my theory that the church has toyed with the original texts and made him a carpenter so that the common folk of the day would be able to relate to him more easily and the church would have an easier job swaying them. There also is no teaching of brothers and sisters of Jesus also, but more and more indications are coming to light that he may not have been the only child. The church like governments twist things to suit their own purposes.

And yes a real man should be accountable for his own actions.
Is it just me or is every born again christian I've ever come across feeble and devoid of common sense, seems the ones I have met are walking around in a permanent fog disconnected somehow from the real world and the goings on around them.

Taras Bulba
Saturday, April 17th, 2004, 06:54 PM
It is my theory that the church has toyed with the original texts and made him a carpenter so that the common folk of the day would be able to relate to him more easily and the church would have an easier job swaying them.
ROTFL! Can you actually back this ridiculious accusation up with evidence?



There also is no teaching of brothers and sisters of Jesus also, but more and more indications are coming to light that he may not have been the only child. The church like governments twist things to suit their own purposes.

ROTFL! The church has always recognized that Jesus had several half-brothers and sisters. Nice try! :eyes



And yes a real man should be accountable for his own actions.
Is it just me or is every born again christian I've ever come across feeble and devoid of common sense, seems the ones I have met are walking around in a permanent fog disconnected somehow from the real world and the goings on around them.

LOL! And you assume born-again Christians are the norm in Christianity? As I have often said, people find the stupidiest reasons to hate Christianity. :eyes

Oswiu
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006, 02:13 AM
Good article. I firmly believe in a revival of what is commonly called "Muscular Christianity".
Revival? But Pravoslavie is alive and well! ;)

Well before the dislocations of culturally approved feminism and homosexuality, the founder of Christianity had been domesticated into a strangely androgynous being in Christian devotional literature.
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1020.jpghttp://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1034.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1018.jpghttp://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1277.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1027.jpghttp://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1197.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1017.jpghttp://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib1301.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib2579.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib461.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib568.jpghttp://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib2586.jpg
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Images/ib294.jpg
Hardly...

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006, 05:05 AM
Read the Beatitudes. The 'virtues" extolled there, e.g. meekness, humility, poverty of spirit, etc. are those which make a good slave, They are not appropriate for free men and women who would make a good life for themselves and their offspring through their own efforts. Christianity condemns prosperity ("It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven.") and extolls weakness. Imagine the effects of forcing such a defeatist philosophy upon a proud, virile, self-reliant people such as the Norsemen. It turned them into the dispirited "poor relations" of the Danes for 800 years. Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire and it destroyed the fighting spirit of the Vikings. It is fit only for wimps. Spirited women, as well, would be well-advised to steer clear of its defeatism.

Leofric
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 07:10 AM
I'm going to borrow this quote from a better Christian than I am:

"Here's an example of the meekness of Jesus Christ: 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!'"

Seeing as how the Pharisaical tradition is the only Jewish tradition to survive to the present day, that would make Jesus a very early fighter against the Jews as we now know them. And a bold fighter. One so bold he was killed for his boldness. We should all be that meek.

I would suggest that perhaps when a god says "meek," he might not be referring to the same thing we so frequently refer to when we say "meek." His ways are not our ways, after all.

Jesus was no weakling and no slave. To follow him and to try to live like the Master is not the course of a slave, but of a Master-in-training. As Paul said, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

lady_goth
Wednesday, May 24th, 2006, 07:08 PM
"Just for women and sissies?" Since I'm a woman, I don't wish to be classified in such an unflattering category. Just because I'm a woman doesn't make me a sissy.

As for whether or not christianity is a religion for sissies (turning the other cheek?), I wouldn't know about that - I'm a Pagan, and besides, my parents and I never went to church when I was growing up.

SuuT
Thursday, May 25th, 2006, 07:32 AM
I am always reticent to attempt to explain to Christians how foreign its anti-aryan presuppositions, fear, guilt, and anti-natural-ness is to those of us who find it so, do to how foreign it is to them to see it as having anti-aryan presuppositions, fear, guilt, and anti-natural-ness. Frankly, the thread title is...lacking tact with respect to women; and, well, the whole "sissy" thing?--if you mean effete, yes. I will provide examples below.


I'm going to borrow this quote from a better Christian than I am:

So long as you give it back when your done:"thou shall not steal";)

"Here's an example of the meekness of Jesus Christ: 'Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!'"

Goosebumps.
I am consistenty filled with a surreal sense of awe with respect to the tenaciousness with which Christians, of every flavor, are at the ready with quips such as this in their quiver; and believe, in their heart of hearts, that they are somehow indicative of moxy--macht even.

Seeing as how the Pharisaical tradition is the only Jewish tradition to survive to the present day, that would make Jesus a very early fighter against the Jews as we now know them. And a bold fighter. One so bold he was killed for his boldness. We should all be that meek.

First, let us be historically balanced: had Christianity not conquered the west so completely; had Constantine not had his 'vision', it is inductively sound to say that Jesus, if he in fact existed beyond the fable, was executed for being in defiance of the Imperium Romanum and breaking the law. This is macht: the will, as if it were swating a fly, to nail a man to wood and let him bleed-out. This is why Rome endured and the Polis has been called, by numerous figures of Germanic import, the noblest exemplification of nobility itself to ever have appeared on this Earth.



But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
St Matthew, 10. 6

Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
St. John, 1. 47

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Hebrews, 13. 8 (herein the stagnation--the BEING of a christ who cannot become).


They that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death.
Romans, 8. 5 (Carnal pleasure is natural: man, due to his mind, is the animal capable of eroticism. Another ascetic inversion).


Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.
Romans, 12. 15


If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Romans, 12. 18 (Provide me with a single example of when it is ever impossible to live peaceably with all men, and I will go to church tomorrow).


If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. (i.e. Pacifism is prefered because the reward lay in the "true" world for doing so--for allowing God to punish one's enemy: another inversion of actuality and emasculation of the male urge to conquest)
Romans, 12. 20

Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Romans, 12. 19 (Vengeance is mine, saith Suut).

I would suggest that perhaps when a god says "meek," he might not be referring to the same thing we so frequently refer to when we say "meek." His ways are not our ways, after all.

This is like saying "when Jesus says 'love,' he might not be refering to the same thing we so frequently refer to when we say 'love'".

At any rate,

Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any of the New Testament Scriptures imply that Christians are held to the cultic or ethical rules of the law of Moses, so you might have something here to work with. Paul clearly taught that Christians are no longer under the Old Law (Galatians 3:23-25); However, the Old Law is brought to completion in Christ (Romans 10:4); and its fulfillment is in love (Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14). "Love is the fulfilling of the law."
Romans, 13. 10

Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
St Matthew, 10. 16

For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.
Hebrews, 13. 14

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
Romans, 3. 23

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Romans, 7. 24

This uni-polar worldview, that negates this world as the realm of 'evil', as the Devil's playground, as mere appearance is unhealthy, regardless of the resting heart rate it may give you. It is the perspective of a simple mind that finds comfort and assuredness in simplicities. It is, in short, not for thinking men (or women).

"You shall remain as little children"

Jesus was no weakling and no slave. To follow him and to try to live like the Master is not the course of a slave, but of a Master-in-training. As Paul said, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."

To what end?

O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
St Matthew, 3. 7

The devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.
St Matthew, 4. 8

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
St Matthew, 5. 3

Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
Romans, 13, 14

And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years.
Revelation, 20. 2

I'm sorry Leofric, the thousand years is actually long up--it is not yet to come.

"The mighty shall inherit the Earth; the meek shall inherit the yolk" (Red Beard).

Leofric
Friday, May 26th, 2006, 07:47 PM
I am always reticent to attempt to explain to Christians how foreign its anti-aryan presuppositions, fear, guilt, and anti-natural-ness is to those of us who find it so, do to how foreign it is to them to see it as having anti-aryan presuppositions, fear, guilt, and anti-natural-ness.
You might find a better reception for your explanations if you understood Christianity: if your arguments showed a real understanding of Christianity, your Christian audience might take you seriously.






The mighty shall inherit the Earth

Christianity . . . conquered the west so completely
Well I'm glad we all agree on who is mighty. Perhaps, as I suggested, meek doesn't mean what you think it means.





Suppose you are in a fight and someone swings at you. You sidestep, saving your trunk from damage, but your arm cannot avoid being hit. What is the best way to keep your arm strong so you will be able to defeat your attacker?

SuuT
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 01:37 AM
You might find a better reception for your explanations if you understood Christianity: if your arguments showed a real understanding of Christianity, your Christian audience might take you seriously.

I am receptive to a dialectic as to how I am lacking in understanding. I have in fact made examples as to how Christianity is un-Aryan more than an argument via the very text that is holy for the Christian. I think that the inherent problem, as I have always experienced it, is that a Christian will counter with definitively contradictory examples from the same text, and/or a different 'interpretation' of the very same chapter and verse, and believe that they have demonstrated something beyond the ability to achieve even tentative accord due to the very contradictions raised. My understanding of Christianity is no less real than yours (at least there is no way to demonstrate as much--but I welcome the attempt) for being cynical about it. As far as being taken seriously by my Christian audience: well, I am not so concerned with such things as I am being recognised as serious; and seriously dedicated to the rebirth of Arya--to which I consider Christianity a threat, as explained elsewhere in a rudimentary fasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suut
The mighty shall inherit the Earth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suut
Christianity . . . conquered the west so completely

Well I'm glad we all agree on who is mighty. Perhaps, as I suggested, meek doesn't mean what you think it means.

If your reasoning here be correct, than Jews are the mighty; and Talmud chosen-ism is not only a current manifest truth, but an eternally intrinsic one--as they espouse...

Christian ethics currently dominates the west, even the secular west, yes. May I suggest that its tenure relative to other faiths is the temporal equivalent of the proverbial 'blink of an eye'--not something that has, or will, enjoy a protracted tenure when seen from the same perspective. In short, though none of us here may live to see it, when the memetic change, the transmogrifying aspect of the progression of regression, is effeted i.e. when it is realized at what point the proud Europid, built squarely in body and soul, lost his way--our descendants (hopefully us!) will see the rebirth of definitive Macht.


Suppose you are in a fight and someone swings at you. You sidestep, saving your trunk from damage, but your arm cannot avoid being hit. What is the best way to keep your arm strong so you will be able to defeat your attacker?

Clearly you have something in mind here: hopefully I'm not raining on your parade. 1.) You suppose the arm necessary to defeat the attacker; 2.) you suppose an off-the-mark punch in the arm would be so debilitating as to render victory impossible. Both are erroneous: in your scenario, any number of options are available. I'm a ground-and-pounder; so I would probably shoot in, leverage the leg, mount, and rain elbows. However, if I felt the conflict could be resolved via submission--I would seek it; however much it may bruise my occasional will to 'cruelty'.

En summa:

This is macht: the will, as if it were swating a fly, to nail a man to wood and let him bleed-out. This is why Rome endured and the Polis has been called, by numerous figures of Germanic import, the noblest exemplification of nobility itself to ever have appeared on this Earth.

Rhydderch
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Isn't a real man supposed to be accountable for his own actions? What is manly about unloading one's spiritual baggage on a carpenter supposedly martyred 2000 years ago? :yawnIf your preconceived assumptions were true, then that would be unmanly. But if the Bible really is totally true, then any other option is fantasy, and in fact, quite babyish if God is, as the Bible claims, in total control of his creatures, who are completely helpless in his sight; it would therefore be babyish to think one can do without him; it'd be just as absurd as when naughty toddlers arrogantly think they can do without their parents (a toddler who realises he's totally dependent on his parents would be a very wise and mature one indeed).

In other words you're simply begging a question. Christianity would in some respects be unmanly if it's not true, but otherwise, it's absolutely realistic, natural and manly.

Rhydderch
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 05:09 AM
Read the Beatitudes. The 'virtues" extolled there, e.g. meekness, humility, poverty of spirit, etc. are those which make a good slave, They are not appropriate for free men and women who would make a good life for themselves and their offspring through their own efforts. Christianity condemns prosperity ("It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven.")Can you find a condemnation of the exceedingly rich and godly men Abraham and Job? This is not a condemnation of prosperity, merely a statement of the fact that rich men frequently trust in their riches and lull themselves into spiritual sleep because they think they can get satisfaction and happiness out of their possessions, whereas people with very little are sometimes less blinded to the fact that they are hopelessly lost without Christ.


and extolls weakness. Imagine the effects of forcing such a defeatist philosophy upon a proud, virile, self-reliant people such as the Norsemen. It turned them into the dispirited "poor relations" of the Danes for 800 years. Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire and it destroyed the fighting spirit of the Vikings.Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West.


"Just for women and sissies?" Since I'm a woman, I don't wish to be classified in such an unflattering category. Just because I'm a woman doesn't make me a sissy.Being sissy is an insult to a man because it involves acting in an unmanly way, but obviously there's nothing wrong with a woman acting unmanly, so it shouldn't be insulting to a woman :D

[...]

SuuT
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 06:00 AM
If your preconceived assumptions were true, then that would be unmanly. But if the Bible really is totally true, then any other option is fantasy, and in fact, quite babyish if God is, as the Bible claims, in total control of his creatures, who are completely helpless in his sight; it would therefore be babyish to think one can do without him; it'd be just as absurd as when naughty toddlers arrogantly think they can do without their parents (a toddler who realises he's totally dependent on his parents would be a very wise and mature one indeed).

In other words you're simply begging a question. Christianity would in some respects be unmanly if it's not true, but otherwise, it's absolutely realistic, natural and manly.

This entire post is, by definition, begging at least 3 questions.

SuuT
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 06:11 AM
Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire (Really...when? how? why?), just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West.



1.) "True Christianity" = ?

2.) How do we save something that is utterly out of our control?:

"...if the Bible really is totally true, then any other option is fantasy, and in fact, quite babyish if God is, as the Bible claims, in total control of his creatures, who are completely helpless in his sight; it would therefore be babyish to think one can do without him; it'd be just as absurd as when naughty toddlers arrogantly think they can do without their parents (a toddler who realises he's totally dependent on his parents would be a very wise and mature one indeed)."

The West will be saved by expunging all of the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, and returning to a this-worldly cosmology.

Rhydderch
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 12:01 PM
This entire post is, by definition, begging at least 3 questions.And what are they?


1.) "True Christianity" = ?The Christianity taught in the Bible, taken in context and not twisted to suit the philosophy of worldly minded men.

Regarding the fall of Rome, perhaps you can ask SnorriSturluson the same question.


2.) How do we save something that is utterly out of our control?:As I said, by turning to Christ.


The West will be saved by expunging all of the Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, and returning to a this-worldly cosmology.Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God.

SuuT
Saturday, May 27th, 2006, 05:05 PM
And what are they?

"If your preconceived assumptions were true, then that would be unmanly. But if the Bible really is totally true, then any other option is fantasy, and in fact, quite babyish if God is, as the Bible claims, in total control of his creatures, who are completely helpless in his sight; it would therefore be babyish to think one can do without him; it'd be just as absurd as when naughty toddlers arrogantly think they can do without their parents (a toddler who realises he's totally dependent on his parents would be a very wise and mature one indeed).

In other words you're simply begging a question. Christianity would in some respects be unmanly if it's not true, but otherwise, it's absolutely realistic, natural and manly."

Although couched in an 'if/then' structure, it is clear by what you state below, that you are attempting a formal argument. Formally speaking, the simplest form of begging the question follows the following structure. For some proposition p:

p implies p
suppose p
therefore, p. However, the following structure is more common:

p implies q
q implies r
r implies p
suppose p
therefore, q
therefore, r
therefore, p. I'll let you figure it out from there.

Quote:
1.) "True Christianity" = ?


The Christianity taught in the Bible, taken in context and not twisted to suit the philosophy of worldly minded men.

See above. Also: "taken in context"=?; "twisted"=?

Regarding the fall of Rome, perhaps you can ask SnorriSturluson the same question.

I am interested in your thoughts on the matter relative to your claim that: "Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."


As I said, by turning to Christ.

I don't know what this means.

Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God.

First, you presuppose that I, myself, need 1.) Saved; and that 2.) "Saved" as you use the term contextually, is definitevely self-evident; and 3.) I need something from without to achieve any said salvation.

Second, you fall back on the "wait and see/you'll be sorry" rhetoric to achieve a rational, but illogical, claim to prima facie truth.

What care you for racialism? It is, by its nature, a this-worldly concern, no? I ask you to review your acumen because your rationale leads in a direction that self-defeating in the extreme.

Rhydderch
Monday, May 29th, 2006, 02:09 AM
Although couched in an 'if/then' structure, it is clear by what you state below, that you are attempting a formal argument.What I stated below was in direct response to a question of yours. You asked me for my opinion, I gave it.

Put it this way: if Christianity's claims are false, then it would be in some respects unmanly; if it's claims are true, then non-Christians are unmanly. Since none of us have proven either way to everyone else, then it remains to be seen which is true.


Also: "taken in context"=?; "twisted"=?Are you asking me to explain the whole Bible to show you what I mean? That's what I'd have to do to show the full implication.


I am interested in your thoughts on the matter relative to your claim that: "Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."And apparently you're not interested in SnorriSturluson's thoughts relative to his assertion. I simpy made an opposite claim, though equally lacking in evidence to accompany it.

Bear in mind though, that every other preceding Empire fell with just as big a crash as Rome, in spite of their pagan gods, pride and no Christianity to erase the outlook which you seem to be saying would have saved Rome.


I don't know what this means.Instead of turning to pagan gods or some other ideology, which is presumably your solution.


First, you presuppose that I, myself, need 1.) Saved; and that 2.) "Saved" as you use the term contextually, is definitevely self-evident; and 3.) I need something from without to achieve any said salvation.As I said, you asked me for my opinion; obviously I don't base my explanation on a hypothetical assumption that your worldview is correct.

As for the word "saved", well, yes I did assume that any grown man would understand it :D However, I was using it in the same context you understood it when you mentioned monotheism. When I referred to Baal (i.e. pagan gods) I was still talking in terms of the West, rather than of what would happen after death (if that's what you were thinking).


Second, you fall back on the "wait and see/you'll be sorry" rhetoric to achieve a rational, but illogical, claim to prima facie truth.Because it remains to be seen, like I said.


What care you for racialism? It is, by its nature, a this-worldly concern, no?I've never described myself as a "racialist" (I'd need to ask you what the full implications of that term are though, to see if I fit in that category), but after all, Christians believe this world is God's, and that he intended man to live and function in it, so its concerns are hardly irrelevant, though clearly material concerns are secondary to the spiritual, and someone whose priority is something other than God and His glorification is, according to the Bible, committing idolatry.


your rationale leads in a direction that self-defeating in the extreme.Yeah, provided your worldview is true (which you haven't proven). Provided mine is true, then your rationale is self-defeating.

SuuT
Monday, May 29th, 2006, 06:22 AM
Originally Posted by Suut
"Although couched in an 'if/then' structure, it is clear by what you state below, that you are attempting a formal argument."

What I stated below was in direct response to a question of yours. You asked me for my opinion, I gave it.

(Suut) This--quoted below--is where you attempted a formal argument (implied: for the truth of Christiaity by the rhetorical devices you employed via insulting Paganism: "Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God"). The attempt at a formal argument was directed toward Ig; while the question I raised relating to "Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."

--as of yet, remains unanswered.

But again, here is your argument to Ig:

"If your preconceived assumptions were true, then that would be unmanly. But if the Bible really is totally true, then any other option is fantasy, and in fact, quite babyish if God is, as the Bible claims, in total control of his creatures, who are completely helpless in his sight; it would therefore be babyish to think one can do without him; it'd be just as absurd as when naughty toddlers arrogantly think they can do without their parents (a toddler who realises he's totally dependent on his parents would be a very wise and mature one indeed)"

In other words you're simply begging a question. Christianity would in some respects be unmanly if it's not true, but otherwise, it's absolutely realistic, natural and manly."

(Suut)--you have not dealt with the formal fallaciousness of this. You brought the logic ball; I'm just playing the game. If you'd like to take it a different direction, that's alright as well.


Put it this way: if Christianity's claims are false, then it would be in some respects unmanly; if it's claims are true, then non-Christians are unmanly. Since none of us have proven either way to everyone else, then it remains to be seen which is true.

(Suut) Based on what premesis.--but this is not the prime issue. The prime issue is that you accept as true something which remains to be seen as such, by your own quasi-parapraxsis. If you are going to utilize logic (not rationale: the two are mutually exclusive), you render an incorrect structure by negating your own deduction. There is a way out of this; you have not, however, demonstrated it.



Quote: suut
Also: "taken in context"=?; "twisted"=?

Are you asking me to explain the whole Bible to show you what I mean? That's what I'd have to do to show the full implication.


(Suut) No. You need only to fortify your phraseology, and terminology relative to the argument that you are attempting to make by implication:


"Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."


Formally:


p implies q
q implies r
r implies p
suppose p
therefore, q
therefore, r
therefore, p.

--Which is fallacious, and begs the question--again. And even if you could construct it correctly, it would end in Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quote: Suut
"I am interested in your thoughts on the matter relative to your claim that: "Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."

And apparently you're not interested in SnorriSturluson's assertion.

(Suut) This statement is irrelevant.

I simpy made an opposite claim, though equally lacking in evidence to accompany it.

(Suut) Ergo, you subscribe to a claim, based on logical fallacy, "equally lacking in evidence" to your own, and yet subscribe.

Bear in mind though, that every other preceding Empire fell with just as big a crash as Rome, in spite of their pagan gods, pride and no Christianity to erase the outlook which you seem to be saying would have saved Rome.

(Suut) Besides being historically false, and therefore indemonstrative, this is a textbook red herring. I've not once said anything about the 'salvation' of early Christian Rome.



Quote: Suut
"I don't know what this means."

Instead of turning to pagan gods or some other ideology, which is presumably your solution.


(Suut) Yes. It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns, is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation (The ambit of the forum of which you are a member).


Quote: Suut
"First, you presuppose that I, myself, need 1.) Saved; and that 2.) "Saved" as you use the term contextually, is definitevely self-evident; and 3.) I need something from without to achieve any said salvation."

As I said, you asked me for my opinion; obviously I don't base my explanation on a hypothetical assumption that your worldview is correct.

(Suut) No: you base it, as I have proven, on a rational, yet illogical, claim to prima facie truth.

As for the word "saved", well, yes I did assume that any grown man would understand it :D

(Suut) Is that right.

Quote: Suut
Second, you fall back on the "wait and see/you'll be sorry" rhetoric to achieve a rational, but illogical, claim to prima facie truth.

Because it remains to be seen, like I said.

(Suut) You have more than demonstrated that you need to see nothing. At any rate: "Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God" is not your attempt at an 'objective' statement--it is, as I have also said, a vacuous rhetorical heuristic that implies other-worldly retribution.


Quote:Suut
"What care you for racialism? It is, by its nature, a this-worldly concern, no?"

I've never described myself as a "racialist" (I'd need to ask you what the full implications of that term are though, to see if I fit in that category),

(Suut) See above.

but after all, Christians believe this world is God's, and that he intended man to live and function in it, so its concerns are hardly irrelevant, though clearly material concerns are secondary to the spiritual, and someone whose priority is something other than God and His glorification is, according to the Bible, committing idolatry.


(Suut) All hail the twilight of the Idols whose dim illumination only cedes when Gods shadow is cast to the arroyo of time lost. My existence be a vaccum without thee my Dionysus. In honour of you, my rougery...




"I could believe only, in a god who would dance" (Nietzsche)

Rhydderch
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 01:44 AM
This--quoted below--is where you attempted a formal argument (implied: for the truth of Christiaity by the rhetorical devices you employed via insulting Paganism: "Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God"). The attempt at a formal argument was directed toward Ig; while the question I raised relating to "Liberalisation and rejection of true Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, just as it's destroying the Western World now. Turning to true Christianity is the only thing that will save the West."

--as of yet, remains unanswered.You're correct in that it wasn't answered, (and it's something which would take an awful lot to explain anyway; so at least at the moment I don't intend to); except that my comment was in response to a statement of the opposite, and for which there is no evidence, and in fact the evidence suggests otherwise.


(Suut)--you have not dealt with the formal fallaciousness of this. You brought the logic ball; I'm just playing the game.Ig's statement was based on the premise that Christianity is false, so in other words she hasn't demonstrated an inconsistency in Christianity. It appears from the context that she was trying to tell Christians that their own system of beliefs logically result in unmanliness as seen from their own point of view. But she cannot prove to them that they are unmanly unless she proves that the claims of Christians about their religion are false.

I could be wrong about her intention though, she may have been stating it for non-Christians.


If you'd like to take it a different direction, that's alright as well.I never claimed anything more than the above.


(Suut) Based on what premesis.--but this is not the prime issue."Based on what premise"?? Obviously I mean provided one or the other is true, is that what you're getting at?


The prime issue is that you accept as true something which remains to be seen as such, by your own quasi-parapraxsis.It remains to be seen by others, not by me.


(Suut) No. You need only to fortify your phraseology, and terminology relative to the argument that you are attempting to make by implication:As I said, it's not an argument and was never intended to be one. It's a response to another assertion; you see, just throwing the assertion ball ;)


Formally:
p implies q
q implies r
r implies p
suppose p
therefore, q
therefore, r
therefore, p. I'm afraid you've jumped to conclusions there. I made three assertions, which were intended to be independent, but if you wish to see them in another light, that's up to you.


--Which is fallacious, and begs the question--again. And even if you could construct it correctly, it would end in Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Yes, provided your assumption about my statement had been correct.


(Suut) This statement is irrelevant.Not entirely.


(Suut) Ergo, you subscribe to a claim, based on logical fallacy, "equally lacking in evidence" to your own, and yet subscribe.By "lacking in evidence to accompany it", I'm referring to the fact that I didn't accompany my statement with evidence, i.e. it was an assertion. I did not mean that there is no evidence for it.


(Suut) Besides being historically false, and therefore indemonstrative,Well, perhaps I shouldn't say every Empire fell with as big a crash, but the relevance is that many did, and therefore the claim that Rome fell because of Christianity is based on very shaky circumstantial evidence.


this is a textbook red herring. I've not once said anything about the 'salvation' of early Christian Rome.I said 'you' instead of 'he'. I was referring to the implications of Snorri's claim.


(Suut) Yes. It follows to say that a cosmology that is this-worldly i.e. rooted in verifiable/falsifiable scientific fact; culturally related as, derived from and commited to, the indemnification of race and the principles of race; blood and geographical entities and the fair claim to geographical, moral, and ethical homogeneic liberty as following from a biological imperative, or any faith system that is demonstratively self-consistent and self-integrated with these this-worldly concerns,By "save" I mean from the mess the West is now in. And reliance on anything other than God will at most only get us into a different mess (and yes, this is an assertion, my opinion; I'm not claiming to have shown you proof). Perhaps a mess which would be better as far as you're concerned, but it's likely to be at the expense of other things. It won't solve the underlying problems.

But preservation as stated in the aim of this forum does not, in itself, define that someone only fits in this category if it is his priority, which seems to be what you're implying.


is a solution superior to reliance on a God, or any god, that can be neither demonstrated to exist, nor demonstrated to not exist, let alone be of aid in the above scope, to preserve Germanic racial, spiritual, and cultural preservation (The ambit of the forum of which you are a member).If the Biblical claims are true (and you haven't proven otherwise), then your solution will ultimately fail miserably if its aim is to achieve genuine, fuller satisfaction and happiness, which I would imagine is your ultimate aim.

As for the existence of the Biblical God, well only He can prove that to you beyond doubt.

Now correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be saying you’re open to the existence of such a God, but since (as you think) this can’t be proven, it doesn’t matter to you anyway even if He does exist, and you’d prefer a purely this-worldly religion and/or outlook which ignores the question.

If this is your attitude, then once again it comes down to whether or not the Biblical God is real; because, if he does exist, and an individual can be sure of it, then reliance on him is infinitely superior to your solution. And provided your premise is true (that one can’t be sure of God’s existence, regardless of whether he does exist or not), then your solution within that scenario is inferior to reliance on God within the other scenario. So of course it begs the question again as to which scenario, if either, is correct.


(Suut) No: you base it, as I have proven, on a rational, yet illogical, claim to prima facie truth.As I said, you haven't proven that at all.


(Suut) You have more than demonstrated that you need to see nothing. At any rate: "Let's wait and see if Baal can save you; wait and see who's the real God" is not your attempt at an 'objective' statement--it is, as I have also said, a vacuous rhetorical heuristic that implies other-worldly retribution. I said in my previous post that it wasn't to do with death (It would apply equally to that though). Also it's the exact opposite of an argument, and such was my intention.


(Suut) See above.I don't think the 'above' really answered the question, but if it did, then I'm not a racialist.


(Suut) All hail the twilight of the Idols whose dim illumination only cedes when Gods shadow is cast to the arroyo of time lost. My existence be a vaccum without thee my Dionysus. In honour of you, my rougery...The implicaton of which, also begs the question ;)

"I could believe only, in a god who would dance" (Nietzsche)What’s this supposed to mean?

SuuT
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 04:54 AM
Your reasoning is vaccuous and circular; your logic, when attempted, is fallacious; and, you are evasive. You are arguing with an individual with a PhD in Philosophy (who teaches 500-700 level symbolic logic courses) about whether or not your "worldview", be it implied by "assertion", called "statements" by yourself, or is implicit obscurantism because you haven't the time, or inclination, to base your "assertions" or "statements" on anything, is based on a rational, yet illogical, claim to prima facie truth. I am justified in saying that our interaction in this thread has reached its productive zenith. Instead of writing some opus here, I provide you with the following links. You are clearly intellegent: I just hope that that intellegence trumps the obdurate, insubstantial, and nescient approach that you have evinced in this dialogue.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#PreStrAss

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-epistemology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/uhs/website/courses/WC/Historiography/roman_empire_and_christianity.htm

http://www.ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/index.htm


Or, perhaps, we have demonstrated who Christianity is for after all: the obdurate, insubstantial and nescient.

But I suppose that, too, would just be indicative of my 'persuasion'.

Rhydderch
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 01:56 PM
Your reasoning is vaccuous and circular; your logic, when attempted, is fallacious; and, you are evasive.I disagree. You've reached certain incorrect conclusions about my meaning, and I'm simply explaining what I meant.


You are arguing with an individual with a PhD in Philosophy (who teaches 500-700 level symbolic logic courses)I suspected you might have been some sort of teacher/professor.


You are clearly intellegent:Oh, thank you :D

Taras Bulba
Tuesday, May 30th, 2006, 06:49 PM
oh boy, I'll have to get back to this topic later.

Rhydderch
Saturday, June 10th, 2006, 04:11 AM
Who would true valour see,
Let him come hither;
One here will constant be,
Come wind, come weather;
There's no discouragement
Shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent
To be a pilgrim.

Whoso beset him round
With dismal stories,
Do but themselves confound;
His strength the more is.
No lion can him fright,
He'll with a giant fight,
But he will have a right
To be a pilgrim.

Hobgoblin nor foul fiend
Can daunt his spirit;
He knows he at the end
Shall life inherit.
Then fancies fly away;
He'll fear not what men say;
He'll labour night and day
To be a pilgrim.


John Bunyan (Bedford, England 1628-88)

SuuT
Saturday, June 10th, 2006, 04:31 AM
"Old age realizes the dreams of youth: look at Dean Swift; in his youth he built an asylum for the insane, in his old age he was himself an inmate" (Soren Kierkegaard).