PDA

View Full Version : Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy



Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, January 22nd, 2006, 11:13 PM
Is it just my impression, or true that:

CHRISTIANITY is a White, Gentile, Japhetic thing?
- Protestantism is a Liberal, Nordic, Scandinavian, Baltic Sea thing?
- Catholicism is a Moderate, Alpine, European, North Atlantic Ocean thing?
- Orthodoxy is a Conservative, Mediterranean, Anatolian, Black Sea thing?

JUDAISM is a Mulatto, Arabian, Semitic thing?
ISLAM is a Black, African, Hamitic thing?

Jekatrina
Wednesday, January 25th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Is it just my impression, or true that:

CHRISTIANITY is a White, Gentile, Japhetic thing?
- Protestantism is a Liberal, Nordic, Scandinavian, Baltic Sea thing?
- Catholicism is a Moderate, Alpine, European, North Atlantic Ocean thing?
- Orthodoxy is a Conservative, Mediterranean, Anatolian, Black Sea thing?

JUDAISM is a Mulatto, Arabian, Semitic thing?
ISLAM is a Black, African, Hamitic thing?

You can't say that a certain religion only fits one group of people, but looking at the big picture - you're right, although a lot of Arabs are muslims, too. The interaction of Islam and Judaism already began in the 7th century with the spread of Islam in Arabia. Both of the religions share a common origin in the Middle East, and there are lots of shared aspects of those two faiths.

But of course, those three religions "belong" to certain races, even though, e.g., some Scandinavians choose to become muslims. (Not many, though, thank goodness)

Leofric
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 03:20 AM
You can't say that a certain religion only fits one group of people, but looking at the big picture - you're right, although a lot of Arabs are muslims, too. The interaction of Islam and Judaism already began in the 7th century with the spread of Islam in Arabia. Both of the religions share a common origin in the Middle East, and there are lots of shared aspects of those two faiths.

But of course, those three religions "belong" to certain races, even though, e.g., some Scandinavians choose to become muslims. (Not many, though, thank goodness)

Hmm. I think some religions can very easily be said to fit only certain groups of people. Many religions are folk religions that, in my opinion, should only be followed by the folk that own them, as it were. Consider Judaism, for example: for someone who is not an ethnic Jew to adopt a religion that views ethnic Jews as the Lord's chosen people and all others as their inferiors is not thinking very clearly. Hinduism is another prominent example of a folk religion that is rather meaningless for those of us who are foreign to the folk who own it. Less prominent examples would include any of the tribal religions known around the world by the tribes that live them.

Our own ancestral religion is another good example of such a folk religion that can only rightly be practiced by our own folk.

Your point about these three religions in question "belonging" to particular races* (though not those that were originally suggested) highlights what I think of as the cause for all of this. I think people of various races are both hardwired and trained to view the world in various ways. A given religion will sort of require a particular world view, and those races that are previously inclined toward the world view in question will allow the religion's spread much more readily than will other races.

(* Throughout this paragraph, I have not restricted "race" to any physical anthropological definition "ethnicities" would perhaps have been a better term, but I'll leave "races", since it's a good deal shorter.)

Jekatrina
Thursday, January 26th, 2006, 01:08 PM
Hmm. I think some religions can very easily be said to fit only certain groups of people. Many religions are folk religions that, in my opinion, should only be followed by the folk that own them, as it were. Consider Judaism, for example: for someone who is not an ethnic Jew to adopt a religion that views ethnic Jews as the Lord's chosen people and all others as their inferiors is not thinking very clearly. Hinduism is another prominent example of a folk religion that is rather meaningless for those of us who are foreign to the folk who own it. Less prominent examples would include any of the tribal religions known around the world by the tribes that live them.

Our own ancestral religion is another good example of such a folk religion that can only rightly be practiced by our own folk.

Your point about these three religions in question "belonging" to particular races* (though not those that were originally suggested) highlights what I think of as the cause for all of this. I think people of various races are both hardwired and trained to view the world in various ways. A given religion will sort of require a particular world view, and those races that are previously inclined toward the world view in question will allow the religion's spread much more readily than will other races.

(* Throughout this paragraph, I have not restricted "race" to any physical anthropological definition "ethnicities" would perhaps have been a better term, but I'll leave "races", since it's a good deal shorter.)

I think you're right, definitely. But so many religions (especially the "big ones") have been twisted into something completely different than they originally were. I know from own personal experience that when the muslims started immigrating to Denmark in large groups, a lot of Danish females wanted to convert to Islam, and for what cause? They hadn't even read the Koran, all they were focused about was what the "charming", male muslims told them; that this was the right way to live, no matter WHAT "race" you belonged to.

In my opinion, the different religions should be kept at their origins, or ethnicities - as you put it. I think you're very right about what you're saying, yet - unfortunately - a great amount of people from pretty much all ethnicities doesn't quite seem to understand this.

Taras Bulba
Sunday, January 29th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Ahh I dont what you mean by Catholicism being "moderate". Also speaking within a strictly European perspective I guess you're mostly right.

Protestantism has been the main force for liberalism within history, and without the Reformation much of liberalism would not have been possible. It's true its been restricted largely to Germanic peoples(Nordic to be more specific), and most Protestant communities outside Germany's borders are usually Germanic in nature. Thats why many Nordicists praised Protestantism as the most truely Nordic religion. Interestingly enough this was/is true for Nordicists who are supposedly neo-pagan/anti-Christian in orientation.

I know most of Ukraine's Protestant community was made up of German Mennonite settlers. Yet Scotland and Northern Ireland are possibly the only major exceptions to this rule.

Catholicism is a little more complex. Its widespread among Mediterrean, Celtic, Slavic, and some Germanic(Bavarians and Austrians mostly) peoples. By being "moderate", I guess that might mean that Catholicism has always struck a balance between rationalism and mysticism.

Orthodoxy is primarily concentrated among the Eastern Slavic and Greek peoples. Orthodoxy is far more mystical in its orientation than Catholicism is.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 27th, 2018, 08:51 PM
I prefer Protestant "Liberalism" (Whiggery) myself. I don't care to fit some Popish "Conservative" (Tory) agenda that tries to blame Germanic sentiments for the Decline of the West.