History and Decline of Honour

[Taras Bulba]

It's not that I don't understand that; the concept that "the nations and races of the world" were created by God is easy to understand. It is rather that I don't believe it.
Not only do I disbelieve in such a 'creation', I also find it rather unacceptible that this one God created all of the nations and all of the races.

That's your problem, not mine.

Therefore, to a non-believer there is no "logic" in being devoted to God over one's own race & nation.

Therefore there is no logic in a non-believer trying to comment on a belief system that he himself does not actually adhere to. So in the name of common sense, I suggest you butt out of any discussions concerning Christian teachings of honour and nationhood, since by your own admission your own sense of logic prevents you from understanding it to being with!

This belief I find perverse in the extreme.

I could care less what you think about the teachings of the Holy Church.

This belief in one God fathering all the races & nations of the world is the pernicious Father of Multiculturalism and Anti-Racism.

How on earth can you assert that, when the Bible clearly warns against multiculturalism with the story of the Tower of Babel.

Of course, to the religious fanatic, Nationalism is considered a heresy [the use of the qualifying word "exaggerated" is a red-herring].

No, it is not a red-herring. There are too many references within Christian literature talking about how devotion to ones kin is a indeed a noble and natural virtue.

Belloc listed Nationalism [exaggerated or unexaggerated] in his book of Modern Heresies.

The fact you claim Belloc was condemning nationalism as a whole(as opposed to exaggerated nationalism) clearly demonstrates how little you know of the man. He was concerned that exaggerated nationalism would destroy the civilizational unity of Europe(founded and united by the Christian faith). He was not condemning devotion to nation and kin as a whole. And this becomes clear even within the very book you mention:

"Patriotism has always existed, and always will, so long as men are bound in societies. One may feel that emotion of loyalty towards a tribe or a town, a tiny district, a feudal group and lord, a large nation or a whole vast culture; but it is always present and always must be present. For if it were not, society could not hold together. Now, men must live in society; and therefore by every law of man's nature (that of self-preservation, that of the organ arising to supply the need, etc.), devotion to what the Greeks call 'the City' must be present. One may go much further and say that in sound morals patriotism must not only be present in every society, but should be strong; because the absence of it is inhuman and unnatural."
- Survivals and New Arrivals p. 140

That I doubt very much.

Read and weep Moody!

"The Bible, moreover, presented in Israel itself a developed model of what it means to be a nation - a unity of people, language, religion, territory and government. Perhaps it was an almost terrifyingly monolithic ideal, productive ever after all sorts of dangerous fantasies, but it was there, an all too obvious exemplar for Bible readers of what every other nation too might be, a mirror for national self-imagining."
--Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood pg. 18


"Old Testament beliefs in chosen peoples and sacred territories were a continual source of inspiration and language for a dynamic providential history among so many Christian peoples in Europe and America; that it in turn was vital for their growing sense of national identity in the early modern epoch. The religious aspect, rooted in the Hebrew Bible, appeared therefore to complement and reinforce their sense of common ethnicity.

That in turn had implications for nationalism. As a European ideology and movement, it owed much to biblical and religious motifs and assumptions; in many ways these have been more important than their secular forms and doctrines."
--Anthony D. Smith Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity pg. viii

Tacitus & Caesar tell us [writing before Christianity became the state religion of Rome and then by extension of conquered Europe] that the Germans were very much a pure race who jealously guarded that purity. We also hear in Tacitus of the proud nationalism of Herman [or Arminius] who fought against 'Roman slavery'.

The Germans of Tacitus time were not operating on any basis of nationalism, but petty-tribalism. Same thing with the Greeks; they owed more loyalty to their individual polis than to their nation. One was an Athenian or Spartan first, Hellenic second.

Moody, I strongly suggest you stop with this before you humiliate yourself even further. You clearly know nothing about Christian teachings on nationhood!

[Moody]

Therefore there is no logic in a non-believer trying to comment on a belief system that he himself does not actually adhere to. So in the name of common sense, I suggest you butt out of any discussions concerning Christian teachings of honour and nationhood, since by your own admission your own sense of logic prevents you from understanding it to being with!

Please keep a civil tongue sir; this is a discussion in the Ethics & Morals section [a section that is not specific to Christianity], and therefore the issue hinges around the concept of pride within honour.

This is very pertinent to the general question of national pride and racial pride, for obvious reasons.

'Belief' or 'Faith' itself is, by its very nature, illogical; especially when it is used to butt-ress the singular belief that all the races and nations of the world are the 'children' of one God!

Nationalists and racialists, whether they be believers, non-believers or agnostics have a right to examine such pernicious, to my mind, beliefs.

I could care less what you think about the teachings of the Holy Church.

You are actually presenting a contradictory position here; you are very emotional when such pet 'teachings' are challenged, and yet say you could 'care less'!

I find the teachings you quoted, that "all nations are the children of God", and that "at death racial differences disappear", to be perverse and destructive from a racial nationalist perspective.

Now if those anti-racialist teachings were true and proven, then that would be another matter. But that they are merely 'beliefs' means that they can, and should be, challenged.

How on earth can you assert that, when the Bible clearly warns against multiculturalism with the story of the Tower of Babel.

When you [or the Church] says that "nationalism is a plague and a heresy", then I think that we can see that you have much in common with the Anti-Racism movement.
As for the Tower of Babel tale, like many Biblical stories from the Middle East, this can be interpreted a number of ways, none of which are particularly clear [the Bible rejoices in contrary interpretations and self-contradictions, particularly between New and Old Testaments].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel

There are too many references within Christian literature talking about how devotion to ones kin is a indeed a noble and natural virtue.

What is meant here by 'kin'?
Is it the kindred referred to by Jesus Himself, when he spaketh;

"And everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life".
[Matthew 19:29]

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven".
[Matthew 23:9]

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me".
[Matthew 10:37]

These are purported to be the words of the founder of the religion!

The fact you claim Belloc was condemning nationalism as a whole (as opposed to exaggerated nationalism) clearly demonstrates how little you know of the man.

I said that he listed "the intense Nationalism of our day" [i.e., 1929] as a Modern Heresy or 'Opposition' of Christianity.

"The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism"

See section 4 of Belloc's Survivals and New Arrivals: The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church;
Link;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SURVIV.HTM#0

Read and weep Moody!"The Bible, moreover, presented in Israel itself a developed model of what it means to be a nation".

I disagree; I see the State of Israel as the antithesis of Aryan nationhood.
Indeed, you are seemingly advocating Zionism as the model!

"Old Testament beliefs in chosen peoples and sacred territories were a continual source of inspiration and language for a dynamic providential history among so many Christian peoples in Europe and America; that it in turn was vital for their growing sense of national identity in the early modern epoch. The religious aspect, rooted in the Hebrew Bible, appeared therefore to complement and reinforce their sense of common ethnicity.

A second-hand nationalism based on the Old Testament Jews?
What could be more perverse than to base your own nationalism on that of another nation?
Isn't it interesting that the America you mention above, allows and props-up Israel's own Semitic nationalism, while at the same time condemning the white Aryan nationalism of its own people in the name of the Brotherhood of Man!

That in turn had implications for nationalism. As a European ideology and movement, it owed much to biblical and religious motifs and assumptions; in many ways these have been more important than their secular forms and doctrines."

Yes; these biblical motifs have led to the tremendous double-standards of today!
Not surprising when we have a Bible which praises the Jewish nationalism of God's Chosen on the one hand, but tells us that we are all the 'children of God' on the other hand!
A Bible which glorifies the exaggerated nationalism of the Jews, but condemns the exaggerated nationalism of the Gentiles!
Any one smell a rat?

The Germans of Tacitus time were not operating on any basis of nationalism, but petty-tribalism. Same thing with the Greeks; they owed more loyalty to their individual polis than to their nation. One was an Anthenian or Spartan first, Hellenic second.

Nothing "petty" about tribalism.
All Aryan nationalism is rooted in the tribe, in the kin group, in the family, in the ancestors, & in the Blood.
Racial Nationalism is an extension of that; an evolved form of that, as populations have grown [the populations of ancient Germania, Sparta and Athens were much smaller than that of today's Germany or Greece, of course].

Moody, I strongly suggest you stop with this before you humiliate yourself even further. You clearly know nothing about Christian teachings on nationhood!

We are discussing the concept of Honour, and in particular the Christian rejection of Pride, under the heading of Ethics and Morals.
So I suggest that it is you who are hi-jacking the discussion towards [self-contradictory] "Christian teachings of nationhood".

[Taras Bulba]

Please keep a civil tongue sir;

Pot calling the cattle black arent we?

this is a discussion in the Ethics & Morals section [a section that is not specific to Christianity], and therefore the issue hinges around the concept of pride within honour.

This is a discussion concerning Christian attitudes towards honour, and then you brought up issues about how Christianity(because it rejects pride) also rejects loyalty to ones ethnicity. So dont hand me this, but then again you're famous for words games like these!

'Belief' or 'Faith' itself is, by its very nature, illogical;

Yeah ok.....numerous theologians and philosophers have noted the strong link between faith and the use of reason(logic). St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain are just two examples of such.

You are actually presenting a contradictory position here; you are very emotional when such pet 'teachings' are challenged, and yet say you could 'care less'!

Ahhhh.....ok. There's a difference between spreading lies about what Christianity teachings concerning the existance of nations and simply stating what your own personal opinion is. If you're claiming Christianity is against the existance of nations, I will refute that statement. However, if your argument amounts to nothing more than "well I think Christianity is anti-national and only presents a perverted sense of nationalism"....then quite frankly I dont give a rats ass.

Im not even bothering to refute your claim of me being "emotional", which is largely nothing more than attempt by you to claim you're keeping a cool head while Im not. Nice try.

I find the teachings you quoted, that "all nations are the children of God", and that "at death racial differences disappear", to be perverse and destructive from a racial nationalist perspective.

And again I repeat myself....I DON'T CARE! Your opnion doesn't mean the least to me.

When you [or the Church] says that "nationalism is a plague and a heresy", then I think that we can see that you have much in common with the Anti-Racism movement.

Only when concerning semantics. Anti-racists claim nationalism as a plague from the perspective that nations themselves are the cause, and the cure is to get rid of national identites altogether. Christians claim that an unhealthy self-obsession and "idolatry of the nation" is the cause; and that the cure is a more healthy form of nationalism that will be respectful towards the rights and identities of other nations.

As I explained in another thread, there is a difference between "monocentric" nationalism and "polycentric" nationalism. Christianity favours the latter as opposed to the former.

As for the Tower of Babel tale, like many Biblical stories from the Middle East, this can be interpreted a number of ways, none of which are particularly clear

Across the theological spectrum theologians have noted that the Tower of Babel condemns multi-culturalist-like projects; because they inevitably amount to man thinking he is higher than God.

[the Bible rejoices in contrary interpretations and self-contradictions, particularly between New and Old Testaments].

That only depends on how one looks at the Bible. The Bible doesnt contradict itself, but rather peoples interpretations get contradicted.

And please stop with the old Marconite polemic.

What is meant here by 'kin'?
Is it the kindred referred to by Jesus Himself, when he spaketh;

"And everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life".
[Matthew 19:29]

"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven".
[Matthew 23:9]

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me".
[Matthew 10:37]

These are purported to be the words of the founder of the religion!

*sigh* the basis of those verses is that love for God comes before love for everything else. Nowhere EVER does that imply that one cannot love others(nation, family, friends, etc).

To say so is to completely misread Christianity, which you have done so many times both in this debate and others we had in the past. Your interpretation of Christianity bears more resemblence to Islam than to Christ.

I said that he listed "the intense Nationalism of our day" [i.e., 1929] as a Modern Heresy or 'Opposition' of Christianity.

Im well aware of what Belloc wrote, and it is still clear that your argument was refuted. Belloc was referring to exaggerated nationalism, not nationalism as a whole(as you tried to present).

"The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism"

See section 4 of Belloc's Survivals and New Arrivals: The Old and New Enemies of the Catholic Church;
Link;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SURVIV.HTM#0

Yes Ive read that....in fact I just quoted from that text above. Now what's your point?

I see the State of Israel as the antithesis of Aryan nationhood.

And again, I dont really care what you think; and it has little bearing on the historical fact that the model of the Israelites was influential in forging European concepts of nationhood.

But oh well, I'll play along for a moment. Steven Grosby in his studies of nationalism in the ancient world noted that concepts of ethnic-statehood like that found in Biblical Israel was quite common throughout the near-East in places like Egypt, Babylon, and I also believe Persia. Now if Im not mistaken, some claim those civilizations as having an "Aryan" basis to them.

Indeed, you are seemingly advocating Zionism as the model!

I find this assertion laughable at best Moody! I have made myself known to be a great critic of Zionism.

What could be more perverse than to base your own nationalism on that of another nation?

That's actually quite common Moody....nationalist movements seeking inspiration from other nationalists and modelling themselves off each other.

Interestingly enough, when many German tribes converted to Christianity; they actually preferred the model of Biblical Israel as opposed to Rome. Many German leaders saw they had more in common with the Israelites than with the then collasped Roman Empire. In fact, that was the main reason why they argued for maintaining the old custom of polygamy, on the grounds that the Patriarchs of the Old Testament practiced it as well.

Isn't it interesting that the America you mention above, allows and props-up Israel's own Semitic nationalism, while at the same time condemning the white Aryan nationalism of its own people in the name of the Brotherhood of Man!

Which is irrelevant to the discussion here.

Yes; these biblical motifs have led to the tremendous double-standards of today!

An absurd assertion at best!

Not surprising when we have a Bible which praises the Jewish nationalism of 'God's Chosen' on the one hand, but tells us that we are all the children of God on the other hand!
A Bible which glorifies the exaggerated nationalism of the Jews, but condemns the exaggerated nationalism of the Gentiles!

Moody clearly demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge of the Bible and its meaning pertaining to the discussion at hand. When one reads the Old Testament, you will notice that it is actually quite critical of the Israelites; especially in many of the Prophecy books.

Any one smell a rat?

Yes, your arguments in this discussion.

Nothing "petty" about tribalism.

Actually there is. More below.

All nationalism is rooted in the tribe, in the kin group, in the family, in the ancestors, in the Blood.

Absolutely true, but you're not describing petty-tribalism. Petty-tribalism is basically where you have sub-divisions of one nations fighting and competiting with each other, rather than uniting into one powerful force.

Like how the 12 tribes of Israel united into one nation.

We are discussing the concept of Honour, and in particular the Christian rejection of Pride, under the heading of Ethics and Morals.
So I suggest that it is you who are hi-jacking the discussion towards "Christian teachings of nationhood".

Moody, how on earth can I hijack a discussion that I basically started?

You were the one who first claimed that the Christian rejection of pride was responsible for Europeans rejecting their own heritages. Again, dont hand me this nonsense!

[Moody]

Pot calling the cattle black arent we?

When have I told you or anyone else to "butt out" of a discussion?
Such unhonourable incivility is always indictative of someone who has lost the argument.

This is a discussion concerning Christian attitudes towards honour, and then you brought up issues about how Christianity(because it rejects pride) also rejects loyalty to ones ethnicity. So dont hand me this, but then again you're famous for words games like these!

No, you began by introducing Bowman's book on 'Honour' [which deals with the concept in the widest sense, not just the Christian] to the Forum.

In the 'review' of Bowman which you then appended to that introduction, you concentrated on Christianity [claiming that Bowman had not done so enough for your tastes!], while making a thinly veiled attack on Paganism in the process.

Stating that Christianity condemned pride, you at the same time asserted that Paganism's failing was due to the opposite, i.e., to Paganism's embracing of pride.

Now, Paganism has given us some great ethical material; for example, in Nordic and Celtic heathenry.
This Pagan ethics includes the extolling of Pride as a virtue.
I gave an example of the Proud Germanic Hero in the person of Herman or Arminius.

I have always held the position that polytheists like Pagans, and monotheists like Christians can work together if they;

(i) are genuine racialists, and
(ii) refrain from making abusive attacks on each other.

Therefore, when one makes a gratuitous attack on the other, the result can only be divisive and counter-productive.

If you had kept to the firm ground of asserting that Christianity rejects Pride, it is unlikely that I would've been compelled to comment as this is rather an obvious statement [and you do know your Christianity].

However, when you venture into the realm of attacking Paganism in exaggerated language, talking of narcissism, egotism etc., then you must be challenged.

Not only that; but when you extend that attack on Pagan Pride to make an attack on Racial Pride and National Pride, then you must be brought to book.

Such intemperate attacks as you make here will split the movement apart, with Christians on one-side and Pagans on the other, with agnostics and atheists somewhere in the middle or on the outside.

numerous theologians and philosophers have noted the strong link between faith and the use of reason(logic). St. Thomas Aquinas and Jacques Maritain are just two examples of such.

They are both Catholics, and Maritain was a follower of Aquinas.
Of course, such men believe themselves to be rational even when they make what Kierkegaard called the 'leap of faith'.

But 'faith' by its very definition in a religious context [any religion] is illogical.

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion.

There's a difference between spreading lies about what Christianity teachings concerning the existance of nations and simply stating what your own personal opinion is. If you're claiming Christianity is against the existance of nations, I will refute that statement. However, if your argument amounts to nothing more than "well I think Christianity is anti-national and only presents a perverted sense of nationalism"....then quite frankly I dont give a rats ass.

Those inferences are all your own. I responded only to assertions and statements made by yourself [and those who you quote from to support your assertions].

It was you who put forward statements which claimed that 'racial difference disappears after death', not I.
It was you who put forth the idea that nationalism was a 'plague' on humanity, not I.
It was you who asserted that all races are God's children, not I.

I merely objected to those notions only after you had put them out.
Those statements and others which you claim are Christian can only be destructive of racial and national pride - because they actually say so themselves!
Such statements actually assert that race is not the highest value!
Look back on your own postings on this thread.

Christians claim that an unhealthy self-obsession and "idolatry of the nation" is the cause; and that the cure is a more healthy form of nationalism that will be respectful towards the rights and identities of other nations.

Is idolatry the harmful thing here?
If so, isn't it then just as harmful to idolize God as to idolize anyone else?
Why is it supposedly 'unhealthy' to idolize your race and your nation, but apparently 'healthy' to idolize Jehovah?

As I explained in another thread, there is a difference between "monocentric" nationalism and "polycentric" nationalism. Christianity favours the latter as opposed to the former.

Again, is it the 'monocentrism' that is harmful in itself?
If so, why is monocentric nationalism harmful, but monotheist religion unharmful?
Why is it wrong to love One Folk, but right to love One God?

Across the theological spectrum theologians have noted that the Tower of Babel condemns multi-culturalist-like projects; because they inevitably amount to man thinking he is higher than God.

That too lacks even the most basic philosophical rigour.
Multiculturalism takes place with the blessing of Christianity [as you have them say, 'we are all God's children', just as multiculturalists say that 'all cultures are equal']; mutliculturalism actually rejects national and racial pride in the same way as those Christians you quoted.

love for God comes before love for everything else. Nowhere EVER does that imply that one cannot love others (nation, family, friends, etc).

As long as that love of self, family, tribe, nation etc., is always second to the love of a Hebrew God.
So your message is this; put the love of your race and nation second.
That is what I object to.

Belloc was referring to exaggerated nationalism, not nationalism as a whole(as you tried to present).

Not so; I quoted his headings;

The Main Opposition:
(i) Nationalism

That he qualifies this by praising what he calls 'patriotism' instead does not wash. He, like you, requires a diluted nationalism which is scaled-down to a kind of geriatric patriotism over which the Church can have ultimate dominion. Why? Because to him, God, not Blood & Soil, comes first.

the model of the Israelites was influential in forging European concepts of nationhood ...

'Forging' may be the right word.
The Israelite model is essentially a theocratic one; a model which has the Israelites as the slaves to their God YWH whose name they daren't even say, whose image they daren't even make.

This slavishishness was utterly alien to the Aryan Pagans who walked with their own gods.

Just as Christianity poisoned the Pagan notion of Pride, so too did it pervert the Pagan sense of Blood & Honour.

I have made myself known to be a great critic of Zionism.

By holding up the model of Jewish nationalism you are promoting Zionism whether you know it or not.

That's actually quite common Moody....nationalist movements seeking inspiration from other nationalists and modelling themselves off each other.

And we need to reject all that is common. The Aryan peoples have their own Gods - let's be done with this idolatry of a strange God!

Many German leaders saw they had more in common with the Israelites than with the then collasped Roman Empire.

And this is no doubt the root of Protestantism. However, neither Israel nor Rome is in Germany. The German spirit must rid itself of all alien spirits in order to return to its true nature.

When one reads the Old Testament, you will notice that it is actually quite critical of the Israelites; especially in many of the Prophecy books.

I didn't say that it wasn't; I just mentioned that the Jews regard themselves as God's Chosen People; No doubt some Gentiles agree with them.

Petty-tribalism is basically where you have sub-divisions of one nations fighting and competiting with each other, rather than uniting into one powerful force.

Which you rejected above, apparently preferring "polycentric" nationalism to monocentric nationalism. Once again you contradict yourself.

[Taras Bulba]

Such unhonourable incivility is always indictative of someone who has lost the argument.

Yes Moody you make this claim in everyone of our discussions: poor little you is being picked on by big bad old me. Being a little overly sensitive arent we? If you cant stand my somewhat aggressive style of discussion, then I suggest you move on to another topic.

As for me losing the argument, well if you want to feed yourself that delusion, then by all means I wont stop you. Whatever makes you feel happy in the morning.

No, you began by introducing Bowman's book on 'Honour' [which deals with the concept in the widest sense, not just the Christian] to the Forum.

Yes and?

In the 'review' of Bowman which you then appended to that introduction, you concentrated on Christianity

Whatever Moody, my mentioning of Christianity takes up only one section of my reivew. I talk about many other topics besides Christianity. It's clearly you whose concentrating on Christianity, not me.

[claiming that Bowman had not done so enough for your tastes!]

A book that claims to be a full-scale history of the concept of honour that only spends 5 or so pages detailing the Medieval concepts of chivalry is rather skimpy wouldnt you think? As I also stated, Leo Braudy’s From Chivalry to Terrorism: War and the Changing Nature of Masculinity provides far more information in that regards. And Bowman knee-jerks Baudy's work; which I find highly uncalled for. I certainly explained some of the flaws of Baudy's works, but also explained that despite that it provides a more fuller account of the subject matter(ie a historical look into concepts of honour and heroic masculinity).

Have you actually read either Bowman's or Baudy's books btw?

while making a thinly veiled attack on Paganism in the process.

I really dont know where on earth you got this from. I actually spent far much more time explaining the Christian concept of honour(which Bowman incorrectly describes) than I do about paganism. In fact I didnt even mention paganism at all in my review. You were the one who first mentioned paganism.

Stating that Christianity condemned pride, you at the same time asserted that Paganism's failing was due to the opposite, i.e., to Paganism's embracing of pride.

Moody, I really cannot say where on earth you came up with that. Yes, I said Christianity condemns pride; but again I did not mention anything about paganism.

In fact the first within this discussion I even mention anything about pagans is when concerning tribalism among pre-Christian peoples and how that does not equate to nationalism.

Now, Paganism has given us some great ethical material;

This is a strawman. Where on earth did I deny this?

for example, in Nordic and Celtic heathenry.

A better example IMO would be Aristotle's The Nicomachean Ethics

This Pagan ethics includes the extolling of Pride as a virtue.

Yeah and what of it?

I have always held the position that polytheists like Pagans, and monotheists like Christians can work together if they;

(i) are genuine racialists, and
(ii) refrain from making abusive attacks on each other.

Therefore, when one makes a gratuitous attack on the other, the result can only be divisive and counter-productive.

Yeah ok, it's neo-Pagans like you who continously make absusive and rude assaults upon Christianity; far more than vice versa.

If you had kept to the firm ground of asserting that Christianity rejects Pride, it is unlikely that I would've been compelled to comment as this is rather an obvious statement [and you do know your Christianity].

Yes I asserted that Christianity rejects pride, so why did you comment in this thread?

However, when you venture into the realm of attacking Paganism in exaggerated language, talking of narcissism, egotism etc., then you must be challenged.

Yeah ok Moody....as I said the first time I ever mentioned anything about paganism was in relation to tribalism and nationalism. You were the one who first stormed into this discussion raving about pagan this and pagan that.

Not only that; but when you extend that attack on Pagan Pride to make an attack on Racial Pride and National Pride, then you must be brought to book.

Ahhh excuse me....you were the one who attacked Christian concepts of nationalism first, calling it "perverse in the extreme".

Quite honestly Moody, within this thread you've said far more negative things about Christianity than I have about paganism.

Seriously I think you jumped into this discussion without really knowing what this is really about and sadly as a result youve been making some shaky arguments.

They are both Catholics, and Maritain was a follower of Aquinas.
Of course, such men believe themselves to be rational even when they make what Kierkegaard called the 'leap of faith'.

So you're trying to minimize the level of reason that Aquinas and Maritain operated on. I sincerly suggest you read both mens' works. Also, it should be noted that within his 5 proofs for the existance of God, Aquinas actually outlined many elements of what we now know as the laws of physics; a few centuries before Netwon's outlined them. So Id careful about bashing Aquinas as a deluded man of faith.

Those inferences are all your own. I responded only to assertions and statements made by yourself [and those who you quote from to support your assertions].

Actually you havent. Just within this one post, you've largely made strawman arguments and misrepresented what my position actually is.

Why is it wrong to love One Folk, but right to love One God?

This is a strawman. It's clear Moody doesnt even know what monocentric nationalism means.

Multiculturalism takes place with the blessing of Christianity

Yeah ok, then why are multiculturalists constantly screaming about how much Christianity is a racist religion? Why did Pope Benedict XVI criticised multiculturalism because it largely meant abandoning your own heritage? Yeah Christianity and multiculturalism are the best of friends.

mutliculturalism actually rejects national and racial pride in the same way as those Christians you quoted.

This is completely absurd. All the men Ive quoted above we staunch nationalists and patriotic towards their own folk.

And thats all I can respond to today. Tommorrow Ill deal with the rest.

[Moody]

Yes Moody you make this claim in everyone of our discussions: poor little you is being picked on by big bad old me. Being a little overly sensitive arent we? If you cant stand my somewhat aggressive style of discussion, then I suggest you move on to another topic.

No I am stating only a point of fact: in post #8 in this thread you told me to, quote, "butt out" of this discussion.
This is an example of an unwarranted, unnecessary, retarded and gratuitous rudeness on your part towards myself, as I have already underlined.
That is not "aggression" [how you flatter yourself!], it is merely bad manners, and was obviously meant to derail the discussion in hand.
What I objected to next was your false accusation that I too had made the same or similar remark to you.
I had not, and I never would.
Being rude is one thing, but telling lies is another.
Again, your behaviour is not "tough" but puerile, and I will always point it out. So if you don't want it to be mentioned, then stop making such remarks.
If you want to learn how to argue 'tough', then follow my own example: I can be tough without stooping to insults and lies.

It's clearly you whose concentrating on Christianity, not me ... I actually spent far much more time explaining the Christian concept of honour than I do about paganism. In fact I didnt even mention paganism at all in my review. You were the one who first mentioned paganism.

Then I wonder whether it was you who wrote that 'review'. For in post #2 where you claim to 'review' the book 'you' put;
"Many times honour can too easily degrade into egotism & protecting one's pride & vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, & was a major element to the pagan sense of honour. The Christian sense of honour on the other hand condemns this ... The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian & the pagan concepts of honour".
[Taras Bulba post #2, this thread, my emphasis]

Moody, I really cannot say where on earth you came up with that. Yes, I said Christianity condemns pride; but again I did not mention anything about paganism.

You mentioned paganism negatively twice in your second post on this thread of yours!

You were the one who first stormed into this discussion raving about pagan this and pagan that.

Not true. The first two posts in this thread were both by yourself. In the second one you made the remarks against paganism which I have already quoted.

Ahhh excuse me....you were the one who attacked Christian concepts of nationalism first, calling it "perverse in the extreme".

Actually, in your post #6 you say that for "nations to worship themselves" is a "perversion". It was you who set the tone for this discussion claiming [via quotations] in that same post;
"The Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest palgue of the human race".

That is a grossly abusive attack on nationalism that is not excused by using the weasel word "exaggerated".

Quite honestly Moody, within this thread you've said far more negative things about Christianity than I have about paganism.

Quite inaccurate; it is you who have used the strongest language in calling nationalism a "plague" and a "perversion", and in using "condemnation" against paganism, as well as telling me to "butt out" [the cheek of it all!].

You are 'condemned' by your own words, sir.

Yeah ok, then why are multiculturalists constantly screaming about how much Christianity is a racist religion? Why did Pope Benedict XVI criticised multiculturalism because it largely meant abandoning your own heritage? Yeah Christianity and multiculturalism are the best of friends.

I know that it is not all one-way traffic, and I accept that there are elements to Christianity that are in line with a Folkish outlook, just as I will admit that there elements in Nietzsche which do indeed clash with a Folkish outlook.
However, it is you who promoted anti-nationalist statements from the Church in this thread leading me to think that you do not discriminate between that aspect of the Church which clearly does promote multiculturalism [and you seem blind to], and that aspect which does not [which is underground].
How else could you offer the following quote with your approbation?;

"Man will not be justified in God's judgement by belonging to this or that race".
[Tara Bulba post #6]

Is that the God of the Chosen People speaking?

....

[Taras Bulba]

No I am stating only a point of fact: in post #8 in this thread you told me to, quote, "butt out" of this discussion.

Yes, since basically you dont seem to understand the issue being discussed and by your admission you claimed you can never understand the Christian position on many issues. If so, whats even the point of you trying to comment on Christian positions?

Then I wonder whether it was you who wrote that 'review'. For in post #2 where you claim to 'review' the book 'you' put;
"Many times honour can too easily degrade into egotism & protecting one's pride & vanity. This certainly has happened many times throughout history, & was a major element to the pagan sense of honour. The Christian sense of honour on the other hand condemns this ... The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into more details about the significant differences between the Christian & the pagan concepts of honour".
[Taras Bulba post #2, this thread, my emphasis]

Oh ok Im sorry....I forgot those statments, I dont remember every single word I mentioned. From what you were saying it sounded like you claimed I made a large-scale attack on paganism, although this only serves to prove my point that nothing of the sort happened.

I largely made a very basic comparison of the Christian and pagan concepts of honour. I did not dwell too much on the issue and very quickly move on, something you're unable to do.

You mentioned paganism negatively twice in your second post on this thread of yours!

More like I passively mention paganism within the context of explaining the Christian concept of honour. Claiming that was a full-blown assault on paganism is a gross exaggeration on your part.

Actually, in your post #6 you say that for "nations to worship themselves" is a "perversion".

Worshipping yourself is a perversion....it's goes by the name of narcissicism.

It was you who set the tone for this discussion claiming [via quotations] in that same post;
"The Holy Church should condemn exaggerated nationalism among the contemporary heresies, as the biggest palgue of the human race".

That is a grossly abusive attack on nationalism that is not excused by using the weasel word "exaggerated".

That is not a grossly abusive attack on nationalism, and your continual attempts to dismiss the key term "exaggerated" as a "weasel word" clearly demonstrates your utter lack of understanding of the subject matter being discussed.

Hence why Im constantly suggesting that you "butt out" of this discussion, so that you avoid humilitating yourself further.

Quite inaccurate; it is you who have used the strongest language in calling nationalism a "plague" and a "perversion",

Exaggerated nationalism mind you.

[the cheek of it all!].

Yes Im such a cheeky fellow as Bridie mentioned.

You are 'condemned' by your own words, sir.

Yeah ok Moody, maybe you need to lose your sense of overly dramatizing everything!

However, it is you who promoted anti-nationalist statements from the Church in this thread

For the last time Moody, it's EXAGGERATED nationalism that I condemn; not nationalism as a whole. However, you seem incapable of understanding that....and frankly thats not my problem.

"Man will not be justified in God's judgement by belonging to this or that race".
[Tara Bulba post #6]

Yes and?

[Moody]

I largely made a very basic comparison of the Christian and pagan concepts of honour.

Yes, and it was a biased comparison.
In the interest of balance I offered an alternative interpretation.
I said that far from being an impediment [as you suggested], paganism's promoting of pride was a good thing and can be compared to notions such as racial pride.

Indeed, I then made the philosophical point that the Christian rejection of pride as a sin, may have resulted in, or combined with, the rejection of racial pride in our era.

That is an interpretation that I stand by, because you managed to quote Churchmen condemning national pride which confirmed my suspicions.

Worshipping yourself is a perversion....it's goes by the name of narcissicism.

Worshipping your own nation was called a "perversion" by your Churchmen! Worshipping your own nation is not a perversion in my book, anymore than worshipping your own God would be a 'perversion' in your book.

When the Church sides aganist Racialism and Nationalism then the Church must be exposed by its own words as I have done here, quoting back your own statements, some of which you had even forgot making.
That's why I won't butt out, if only to remind you of what you actually said.

For the last [**** expletive deleted by Moderator] time Moody, it's EXAGGERATED nationalism that I condemn; not nationalism as a whole.

I know that; however, you have refused to give examples of what that so-called "exaggerated" nationalism is!

Until you do that, I will take your Christian attacks on nationalism as attacks on Race & Nation per se.

Until you can convince me otherwise - by actually telling us what particular nationalism [with names and dates] you regard, so dramatically, as a "plague on humanity"!

[Taras Bulba]

Yes, and it was a biased comparison.

Im speaking from a Christian perspective.

Indeed, I then made the philosophical point that the Christian rejection of pride as a sin, may have resulted in, or combined with, the rejection of racial pride in our era.

An assertion that cannot be backed up really. Rather the reintroduction of pagan ideals of racial pride helped lead to many violent excesses, which created an excessive backlash.

Worshipping your own nation was called a "perversion" by your Churchmen!

Yeah and?

Worshipping your own nation is not a perversion in my book, anymore than worshipping your own God would be a 'perversion' in your book.

You're confusing worship with idoltry.

When the Church sides aganist Racialism and Nationalism then the Church must be exposed by its own words

Yeah the Church is so damn anti-national!

"If Catholicism were the enemy of the country, it would no longer be a divine religion... Yes, it is worthy not only of love but of predilection that country (patrie) whose sacred name awakens in your mind the most cherished memories and makes quiver every fiber of your soul, that common country which has cradled you, to which you are bound by bonds of blood and by still nobler bonds of affection and tradition."
--Pope Pius X, April 19, 1909

"Men have always lived in groups. Apparently it is a part of God's plan that they should. And one of the things which have enabled them to live in groups has been the loyalty —the patriotism—which God has implanted in their very nature. This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One's 'country' connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One's 'native land'—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one's forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one's children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future."
--Patriotism, Nationalism, and the Brotherhood of Man, composed by the Catholic Association for International Peace

"So awfully alive is that Christian thing called a nation that its very death is a living death. It is a living death which lasts a hundred times longer than any life of man."
--GK Chesterton, "The Thing Called a Nation," in The Lay of Kossovo, p. 32.

"[S]maller social units -- whether nations themselves, communities, ethnic or religious groups, families or individuals -- must not be namelessly absorbed into a greater conglomeration, thus losing their identity and having their prerogatives usurped."
--Pope John Paul II, Feburary 2000

"The term 'nation' designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture. Catholic social doctrine holds that families and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention. Therefore, in human history they cannot be replaced by anything else."
--Pope John Paul II, Memory and Identity pg. 69-70

"Christ never by teaching or example resisted or withstood the spirit of true nationalism."
--1910 World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh

"The point is that Catholic Christianity, understood in a wide sense, was both incarnationalist and universalist - it tended to both identify closely with particular communities, cultures, and nations, and to insist upon a communion transcending such particularities. It oscillated, one might say, between Old and New Testament sources of inspiration."
--Adrian Hastings The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion and Nationalism pg.203

as I have done here,

You havent done squat except misrepresent the views of the Church on this issue. Particularly with Belloc, whom you have clearly not read. Ive posted his quote concerning patriotism(which you desperately try to dismiss), plus I can easily quote him in which he further explains what he means by "nationalism".

quoting back your own statements, some of which you had even forgot making.

Yes Im sorry, I forgot two short sentences that I typed....big deal.

That's why I won't butt out, if only to remind you of what you actually said.

Nit-picking other peoples posts is not that impressive Moody.

I know that; however, you have refused to give examples of what that so-called "exaggerated" nationalism is!

For all your nit-picking my posts, apparently you failed to notice that I did give an example of such: the perverted sense of "patriotism" that's promoted within American society today.

But oh well, I'll use another example. Much of the aggressive and imperialistic nationalisms that existed in the 19th century. Somehow national pride rested upon the domination and extermination of other nations.

In fact lets look at the British example. Some "nationalists" glorified the empire and how Britian was on top of the world. On the other hand, there were the "Little Englanders" who believed that imperialism was an affront to British national dignity.

[Moody]

The reintroduction of pagan ideals of racial pride helped lead to many violent excesses, which created an excessive backlash.

This is too vague - who, what, when and where?

You're confusing worship with idoltry.

One man's worship is another man's idolatry.
Who are these nationalists who you accuse of 'worshipping/idolising' their nation?

Yeah the Church is so damn anti-national!;"This loyalty—this patriotism—this love of country'—involves a triple affection. It embraces an affection for familiar places, an affection for familiar persons, and an affection for familiar ideas. One's 'country' connotes all of these: the land itself, the persons on it, and the traditions associated with it. One's 'native land'—the terra patria, la patrie, das Vaterland—is an extension of hearth and home. It is the soil that has given life to one's forefathers and holds their tombs, and which in turn nurtures one's children and grandchildren. It is a link between generations, between families and friends, between common experience of the past and that of the present and future."

If the Church agrees with this type of patriotism, then what is the "exaggerated" forms which it apparently regards [from your own quote] as being a "plague on humanity"?

You havent done squat except misrepresent the views of the Church on this issue. Particularly with Belloc, whom you have clearly not read. Ive posted his quote concerning patriotism(which you desperately try to dismiss), plus I can easily quote him in which he further explains what he means by "nationalism".

I've read an awful lot of Belloc [and GK Chesterton], getting cheap copies of most of their books from a local Catholic bookstore.
I actually think they are both great writers - Belloc's overall conception of the history of Christian Europe is superb, and GKC is a sublime essayist.
However, as Catholics they resisted race-based nationalism.

As you are using Belloc to voice your views and say that with him, you reject racial [or "exaggerated"] nationalism, please tell us what kind of nationalism this is; we need some examples [one man's exaggeration is another man's emphasis].

apparently you failed to notice that I did give an example of such: the perverted sense of "patriotism" that's promoted within American society today.

Well you've contradicted yourself; you say that "patriotism" is good, but "exaggerated nationalism is bad".
Modern American patriotism can hardly be described as "nationalism", let alone an exaggerated nationalism.
Indeed, even patriotism seems a misnomer for what in America today is rather a selfish and rapacious capitalism.
This cannot be an example of "exaggerated nationalism", by any stretch of the imagination, and it seems perverse to use 'American global capitalism' as a stick to beat 'racial-nationalism' with.

I'll use another example. Much of the aggressive and imperialistic nationalisms that existed in the 19th century. Somehow national pride rested upon the domination and extermination of other nations.

Too vague; and anyway, imperialism is imperialistic rather than nationalistic, and the nationalisms of the 19th century tended to be anti-imperialist!

You have still not given a clear, precise and convincing example of this so-called "exaggerated nationalism" - I'm beginning to think that this is a 'straw man' argument!

In fact lets look at the British example. Some "nationalists" glorified the empire and how Britian was on top of the world. On the other hand, there were the "Little Englanders" who believed that imperialism was an affront to British national dignity.

There you go: the Imperialists were not nationalists, they were 'imperialists'.
As Henry VIII said long ago, 'Britain' is an empire within itself, it is not a nation.
It contains distinct nations within it; i.e., the Celtic nations such as Scotland and Wales, and the Anglo-Saxon nations of England etc.

Britain is not a 'nation' but a united kingdom [hence UK] [whereas England could be considered to be a nation, for example].

Even more so, when Britain aquired its extensive Empire which covered the globe and brought in many different races and cultures, it would be impossible for any British Imperialist to be a 'nationalist' as such, as the British Empire was a huge conglomerate of many nations.

The so-called 'Little Englander'* would believe in English independence [from the UK, e.g., from Scotland, and more importantly from the European Union].

So is this English Nationalist guilty of "exaggerated nationalism" according to the Catholics?
I wouldn't have thought so as right-wing Catholics in Britain tend to encourage such 'little Englander' nationalism.

You cannot call the Imperialist a 'nationalist' for reasons I have already given: the Imperialist is a multi-nationalist.

{* While inline with current usuage, this is not quite the historically correct use of the term 'Little Englander', which apparently dates "from the time of the Second Boer War (1899-1901). The term then designated people who wished the British Empire to extend only to the borders of the United Kingdom itself, i.e., these were people who wished to end British rule over India, South Africa, Canada, etc., and to withdraw the empire to domestic borders.
Since those times, the term has come to mean any Englishman who sees only 'Little England' and who is unaware of the wider world ..."}
See link for full explanation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_England