Lutheranist shot at Catholicism

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Churches have had the liberty to decide what kind of marriages they choose to bless, at least until very recent times.

Are you going to tell me that Lutheranism prohibited interracial marriage?

A diatribe of Luther against the medieval Catholic prohibition of mixed marriages with Jews:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians—and indeed the greater part of them—who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman—God's good creation—as St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian.

It sounds to me as if your prophet was in fact an early promoter of miscegenation. Much advanced for his time.

The Catholic Church does not perform gay marriages and it had the liberty not to perform interracial marriages.

Right, no same-sex marriage is allowed by Rome. And apparently no few Lutheran churches are in favour of same-sex marriage. Should I care? No. I feel no relation to either Gays or Protestants.

Do you disagree that whites and natives entered into Catholic marriages already in the 16th and 17th century? It seems to be obvious that they did so due to the extent of the miscegenation that happened.

I disagree with your dishonesty to present Catholicism as an anti-nationalist belief, under such fallacious arguments, which you bring in the name of Lutheranism.

As early as 1614 the Native American Pocahontas was baptised in the Protestant church and married into it. Surely not an isolated case, but one that you have hidden all along.

I find this most ignoble. Didn't they teach you under the Protestant upbringing that lying in the name of your religious beliefs is a despicable act?
I guess they didn't, since for you salvation doesn't come through your acts but through believing in Jesus. A variant of Judaic predestinationism.

While the source does not exactly validate the categorical statement in my previous post it certainly validates the existence of a major discrepancy in the racial views of the churches. In the 1800s and early 1900s Protestant churchmen who would perform an interracial marriage were very rare in the US.

You still fail to see it, don't you?

Your religion (allegedly Protestantism) is by your own words a materialistic belief, much in line with the other religion which influenced in it, Judaism.

The Catholic Church asserts that Judaism is valid and provides salvation to the Chosen people whereas mainstream Protestant Churches in Europe deny that Jews can reject Christ and be saved.

Your campaign of defamation through lies is, I must say, pathetic beyond belief:

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which church is judaized?

More from your prophet, cursing the Catholic Church for reviling the Jews:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

The fury of some Christians (if they are to be called Christians) is damnable. They imagine that they are doing God a service when they persecute the Jews most hatefully, think everything evil of them, and insult them with extreme arrogance and contempt amid their pitiable misfortunes, whereas, according to the example of this psalm and that of Paul (Rom. 9:1), a man ought to be most heartily sorry for them and continually pray for them. These folk ought certainly see to it that they listen to Paul (Rom. 11:18): "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." And again (v. 20): "Be not high-minded, but fear." But by this tyrannical attitude of theirs these godless people, who are Christians in name only, are inflicting no light injury on the Christian name as well as Christian people. And they are guilty and partakers of Jewish godlessness. By the example of this cruelty they are, as it were, repelling Jews from Christianity, whereas they ought to attract them by all manner of gentleness, patience, pleading, and care.”[69]

There are even some theologians so unreasonable as to sanction such cruelty to the Jews and to encourage people to it; in their proud conceit they assert that the Jews are the Christians’ slaves and tributary to the emperor, while in truth they are themselves Christians with as much right as any one nowadays is Roman Emperor. Good God, who would want to join our religion, even though he were of a meek and submissive mind, when he sees how spitefully and cruelly he is treated, and that the treatment he can expect is not only unchristian, but worse than bestial? If hating Jews and heretics and Turks makes people Christians, we are beyond a doubt worse than Jews, heretics, and Turks, because no one loves Christ less than we. The rage of these people reminds me of children and fools, who, when they see a picture of a Jew on a wall, go and cut out his eyes, pretending that they want to help the Lord Christ. Most of the preachers during Lent treat of nothing else than the cruelty of the Jews towards the Lord Christ, which they are continually magnifying. Thus they embitter believers against them, while the Gospel aims only at showing and exalting the love of God and Christ.

This is hardly surprising that Luther defended his Jewish friends against the Gentiles, since his pretension was to present his schismatic views as the only "Truth" by having the Jews converted to his new religion:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

The Jews are the most miserable people on earth. They are plagued everywhere, and scattered about all countries, having no certain resting place. They sit as on a wheelbarrow, without a country, people, or government; yet they wait on with earnest confidence; they cheer up themselves and say: It will soon be better with us. Thus hardened are they; but let them know assuredly, that there is none other Lord or God, but only he that already sits at the right hand of God the Father. The Jews are not permitted to trade or to keep cattle, they are only usurers and brokers; they eat nothing the Christians kill or touch; they drink no wine; they have many superstitions; they wash the flesh most diligently, whereas they cannot be cleansed through the flesh. They drink not milk, because God said: “Thou shalt not boil the young kid in his mother’s milk.” Such superstitions proceed out of God’s anger. They that are without faith, have laws without end, as we see in the papists and Turks; but they are rightly served, for seeing they refused to have Christ and his Gospel, instead of freedom they must have servitude. If I were a Jew, the pope should never persuade me to his doctrine; I would rather be ten times racked. Popedom, with its abominations and profanities, has given to the Jews infinite offence. I am persuaded if the Jews heard our preaching, and how we handle the Old Testament, many of them might be won, but, through disputing, they have become more and more stiff-necked, haughty, and presumptuous. Yet, if but a few of the rabbis fell off, we might see them come to us, one after another, for they are almost weary of waiting.

Pathetic? Sure, but he is still willing to go to greather lengths to embrace the Jews and revile the Gentiles:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists,  and monks—the crude asses’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.

I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs.  They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that we might convert some of them.  For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.

But as if this pathetism was not enough, he soon starts to get signs that the Jews are not going to embrace him as their brother in God:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

I myself have discussed this with the Jews, indeed with the most learned of them, who knew the Bible so well that there wasn’t a letter in it that they did not understand. I held up this text to them, and they could not think of anything to refute me. Finally they said that they believed their Talmud; this is their exegesis, and it says nothing about Christ. They had to follow this interpretation. Thus they do not stick to the text but seek to escape it. For if they held to this text alone, they would be vanquished.

But, why should he expect Jews to accept "his truth"?

Well, I've been doing a little intensive search on the internet for the text words of Luther where he actually acknowledges, infuriated, his anger against the Jews for not having embraced his schismatic vision of Christianism, which he admits having reformed by his own translation of the Bible under which, accordingly, the Jews had no reasons left to reject their conversion.

Or, in other words, he had judaicised Christianism.

I would ask you to provide that text, if I trusted that you would do it. But I will not do it.

Were you educated in a Jesuit school?

Absolutely not.

This lousy map is supposed to be an answer to my assertion that the majority of Europe was either Catholic or Orthodox. And in fact it does confirm me, despite a large part of Europe (mostly Orthodox) being absent from the map.

The facts mentioned sum up the view Swedish (and later Finnish) historiography has of the Popes.

I did not refer to "clashes between states" but clashes between nations which desired liberty and the Catholic monarchs supported by the Pope.

What you have mentioned there are but distortions of yourself, by equating nations to states.

The Catholic establishment exemplified by Metternich resented nationalism as much as liberalism. He described ethnic nationalism as a "disorder" which could cause a revolution tearing apart (IMO delegitimate) multinational states such as Austria-Hungary.

XIXth century Romantic Nationalism was in fact a disorder, far from representing true Ethnic Nationalism. To it we owe the creation of "nations" as little ethnic as Italy, or the deconstruction of nations like Spain into states (based on the divisions of old kingdoms).

Austria-Hungary and the Catholics did actively oppose the formation of the German nation-state. While the loyalty of Catholics belongs to the Pope Martin Luther stressed obedience to the state.

You mean the German Empire, as that was its formal name. For which the "nationalist" Otto von Bismarck tried to Germanize the Danish and Polish minorities.

Most nationalistic..

The German Catholic Church has always been multicultural, the German Lutheran Church was nationalist. Although Hitler was a Catholic more Lutherans than Catholics voted for him.

Your bigotry is appalling.

"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany."

--William L. Shirer
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany--

I don't like the concept of multicultural Catholic empires in which "all races have equal rights".

And I don't like to be related in any way, be it political or otherwise, with bigoted liars be them Lutheran or Jewish.

It is a good thing to know where each one stand, and to keep well apart from each other since we have nothing in common to look forward to. To us, dignity and nobility of character matter.

[Aptrgangr]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Yes and what's wrong with that?

Egalitarianism is one reason why we are in this mess today.

Originally Posted by Plethon

Implying what? That they are subhuman? Have no dignity? I don't get it.

I never said they are subhumans, I just do not associate myself with them.

Originally Posted by Plethon

It's not the task of biologists to explain these things, but of sociologists and historians.

I would not exclude biologists here. Biological differences can not be explained by sociologists and historians only.

Originally Posted by Plethon

How could they belong to another species, is beyond me, if they have the same DNA, articulate languages, are able to learn European languages, read and write, are able to graduate from universities, are able to do many jobs that "whites" do, have (somehow, almost always despotically organized) societies. Of course, one can contend that their achievements in all the listed areas are lower to those of the average Europeans, or even that differences aren't just in pigmentation (although I would like some positive proofs about all those other physical differences that affect psyche), but can one ascertain that they are another species?

So when they are the same - what is wrong when they come here and interbreed then?
Why are you bothered by the chaninging genetical composition of your country then?
I consider them as differnt species since I have the freedom to choose the mammals want to associate myself; scientifically they are of a different race.
When they are this good and can do the same jobs as we do, why do they come here in masses then instead of building up their own countries?

Originally Posted by Plethon

And what about all those "whities" rapping and imitating other "cultural standards" of niggas from Bronx, living in their consumer world of today, not caring for anything higher than a can of beer or football match (not caring about things like nation, history etc.), embracing enthusiastically multicult and diversity, miscegenation and other things (and it's not just a few leftie "intellectuals" who embrace that, but hosts of so-called comon folks)... do they also belong to the same species as you and me?

Inheriting a certain genetical compostion does not automatically make sure one's cultureal achievements are honoured and maintained. In Europe the very opposite is the case, those having achieved the highest technological achievements are those who destroy their own race, heritage and culture. One cannot say the liberal-democracies are subcomlex constructs, they are highly sophisticated and thus this devastating.
And like all civilizations these liberal-democracies will come to an end too.

Originally Posted by Plethon

My experience - extremely diverse. I've known an Ethiopian who graduated agronomy in Vienna and was one of the best students (he learned hard because he had state scholarship from his home country). Some others of that kind. Also many others who were extremely stupid...

My general observation on them is that they tend to prefer only knowledge that is immediately applicable to some field, scarcely showing any propensity for abstract thinking and "knowledge for the sake of knowledge". And it is only through this principle that science can develop. But I could observe this trait on many "whites" as well.

I never said negroes were not capable to study and graduate, but most of them are not - here most could, but do not because they are degenerated.

Originally Posted by Plethon

What about Tamil mathematicians and computer programmers?

No idea, what's with them?

Originally Posted by Plethon

Actually, nobody thinks about that or perceives that problem, because those of other races are so few in numbers. In Croatia there are maybe one hundred mixed children (out of 4,5 millions), mainly of foreign students from Africa (Communists gave them scholarships) and local stupid women, but it's so few in numbers that nobody pays attention to it. Were they in greater numbers, probably there would be some attitude towards that.

We have masses of mulattoes here, and a large number of them are displaying behavioural problems.

[Tennyson]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Are you going to tell me that Lutheranism prohibited interracial marriage?

Yes when the question did actualize until the latter half of the 20th century.

"My dissertation examines precisely these issues. Focusing on Perez and Loving, I analyze the reasons for Catholic legal advocacy on behalf of interracial couples, and for Protestant expressions of "separate races" in the legal arguments opposing intermarriage. I argue that divergent Protestant and Catholic theologies of marriage and race, in conjunction with racial and regional differences between the South and the West, fundamentally shaped legislation on interracial marriage: Southern Protestant views on marriage and race facilitated the creation and maintenance of anti-miscegenation laws throughout U.S. history, while liberal Catholic beliefs inspired their repeal during the 20th century. By exposing the influences of Christianity on the socio-legal construction of race and marriage, my dissertation has substantial implications for scholarly discussions of history and law.
Scholars have recently investigated linkages between religion and race, religion and marriage law, and region and anti-miscegenation laws. Stephen Haynes’ book on “Noah’s curse” as the religious justification for American slavery establishes a strong relationship between Southern Protestantism and segregation. In her study on the history of marriage, Nancy Cott similarly links Christianity and American marriage law. Peggy Pascoe notes the significance of region, specifically, the multiracial American West, in creating the intricate anti-miscegenation laws enacted in Western states. John McGreevy connects religion, race and region in his examination of how 20th-century white ethnic Catholic parishes in the urban North responded to the influx of African-Americans. These works prepare the groundwork for an analysis of Christianity, region and anti-miscegenation law.
My research to date suggests that Perez and Loving offer a remarkable place for building upon this scholarship. A few details illuminate how religion and region played into these cases. The Perez case began in 1947, when Angela Perez and Sylvester Davis, a Catholic interracial couple from Los Angeles, asked to receive the sacrament of holy matrimony in their racially mixed parish. Upon learning of California’s anti-miscegenation law, they turned to Daniel Marshall, a Catholic civil rights attorney and President of the Los Angeles Catholic Interracial Council. When, as expected, the County Clerk refused to grant the couple a marriage license, Marshall filed a brief with the California Supreme Court. In the Catholic Church, he argued, marriage was a sacrament, and since the Church gave no prohibitions against interracial marriage, the law prevented the couple from participating in one of the most sacred of Catholic rituals. In his opinion concurring with the majority, Justice Douglas Edmonds agreed, asserting that marriage is “grounded in the fundamental principles of Christianity” and that the right to marry is thus “protected by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”

Eleven years later on the other side of the continent, Virginia residents Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple who legally married in Washington, D.C., pleaded guilty to having contracted an interracial marriage and to having left the state to evade Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law. In 1963, the Lovings appealed their sentence, contending that Virginia’s laws violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights. Judge Leon Bazile reaffirmed the validity of the laws and the sentence, justifying his position by appealing to a hermeneutical tradition that found its most ardent expression among Southern Protestants. “Almighty God,” he wrote in his opinion,


…created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on
separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there
would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows
that he did not intend for the races to mix.

The Lovings again appealed the decision. In 1966 when the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, two Catholic organizations and a coalition of Southern Catholic bishops submitted an amicus curiae brief on the Lovings’ behalf, defending on religious grounds their right to marry, even though the couple was not Catholic. No Protestant organizations presented briefs or showed any similar support for them.
In Judge Bazile’s view, Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws promoted social harmony between the races as per God’s own segregation policy. Daniel Marshall, in contrast, viewed California’s laws as undemocratic infringements on a couple’s right to practice their Catholic faith. These are but two examples that illustrate how Christianity intersected with Perez and Loving, and that underscore the significance of regional differences. Viewed this way, it becomes clear that the religious dimensions underlying the cases cannot be understood apart from an analysis of theological differences between Catholics and Protestants, and racial and religious differences between the South and the West.

Botham CGU Dissertation Grant Proposal

A diatribe of Luther against the medieval Catholic prohibition of mixed marriages with Jews:It sounds to me as if your prophet was in fact an early promoter of miscegenation. Much advanced for his time.

It would also be appropriate to note that he was talking about people already married to members of different religions. Luther naturally said that Christians are not allowed to marry non-Christians.

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic. I marvel that the blasphemous tyrants are not in their hearts ashamed to place themselves in such direct contradiction to the clear text of Paul in I Corinthians 7 [:12-13], where he says, "If a heathen wife or husband consents to live with a Christian spouse, the Christian should not get a divorce." And St. Peter, in I Peter 3 [:1], says that Christian wives should behave so well that they thereby convert their non-Christian husbands; as did Monica, the mother of St. Augustine.

Right, no same-sex marriage is allowed by Rome. And apparently no few Lutheran churches are in favour of same-sex marriage. Should I care? No. I feel no relation to either Gays or Protestants.

In the 19th century the Catholic Church allowed interracial marriages. Most Protestant denominations forbade them.

I disagree with your dishonesty to present Catholicism as an anti-nationalist belief, under such fallacious arguments, which you bring in the name of Lutheranism.

As early as 1614 the Native American Pocahontas was baptised in the Protestant church and married into it. Surely not an isolated case, but one that you have hidden all along.

It would also be appropriate to note that people thought that she belonged to the white, European race.

American Renaissance January 2004

I find this most ignoble. Didn't they teach you under the Protestant upbringing that lying in the name of your religious beliefs is a despicable act?
I guess they didn't, since for you salvation doesn't come through your acts but through believing in Jesus. A variant of Judaic predestinationism.

You still fail to see it, don't you?

Your religion (allegedly Protestantism) is by your own words a materialistic belief, much in line with the other religion which influenced in it, Judaism.

Your campaign of defamation through lies is, I must say, pathetic beyond belief:

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you happen to be aware of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is interpreted today?

The U. S. Bishops Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious affairs: "Evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history. Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also believes that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God."

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Holy See's Commission for Religious Relations with Jewry:

"This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition, they are in line with God’s plan, which for us came to its historical completion in Jesus Christ."

More from your prophet, cursing the Catholic Church for reviling the Jews:
This is hardly surprising that Luther defended his Jewish friends against the Gentiles, since his pretension was to present his schismatic views as the only "Truth" by having the Jews converted to his new religionathetic? Sure, but he is still willing to go to greather lengths to embrace the Jews and revile the Gentiles:But as if this pathetism was not enough, he soon starts to get signs that the Jews are not going to embrace him as their brother in God:But, why should he expect Jews to accept "his truth"?

Well, I've been doing a little intensive search on the internet for the text words of Luther where he actually acknowledges, infuriated, his anger against the Jews for not having embraced his schismatic vision of Christianism, which he admits having reformed by his own translation of the Bible under which, accordingly, the Jews had no reasons left to reject their conversion.

Or, in other words, he had judaicised Christianism.

I would ask you to provide that text, if I trusted that you would do it. But I will not do it.

Martin Luther - On the Jews and their lies

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
"Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
Martin Luther - On the Jews and Their Lies

Absolutely not.

This lousy map is supposed to be an answer to my assertion that the majority of Europe was either Catholic or Orthodox. And in fact it does confirm me, despite a large part of Europe (mostly Orthodox) being absent from the map.

What you have mentioned there are but distortions of yourself, by equating nations to states.

In Northern European nations which were Lutheran nationalism and Lutheranism were in a symbiotic relationship. In the nations both faiths were present Lutheran Christians were more ardently nationalists than Catholics.

In nations without Lutheran presence the faith had no influence, true.

XIXth century Romantic Nationalism was in fact a disorder, far from representing true Ethnic Nationalism. To it we owe the creation of "nations" as little ethnic as Italy, or the deconstruction of nations like Spain into states (based on the divisions of old kingdoms).

You tolerate no irredentism in your backyard, obviously.

I found this interesting:
List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean the German Empire, as that was its formal name. For which the "nationalist" Otto von Bismarck tried to Germanize the Danish and Polish minorities.

Most nationalistic..

Which nationalistic historic ruler did not try to assimilate national minorities?

The German Empire was a German nation-state.

Your bigotry is appalling.

"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience. Even worse perhaps, it helped to perpetuate and indeed to sharpen the hopeless divisions not only between classes but also between the various dynastic and political groupings of the German people. It doomed for centuries the possibility of the unification of Germany."

--William L. Shirer
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich : A History of Nazi Germany--

A socialist distortion.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Egalitarianism is one reason why we are in this mess today.
I never said they are subhumans, I just do not associate myself with them.
I would not exclude biologists here. Biological differences can not be explained by sociologists and historians only.
I consider them as differnt species since I have the freedom to choose the mammals want to associate myself; scientifically they are of a different race.
When they are this good and can do the same jobs as we do, why do they come here in masses then instead of building up their own countries?
Inheriting a certain genetical compostion does not automatically make sure one's cultureal achievements are honoured and maintained. In Europe the very opposite is the case, those having achieved the highest technological achievements are those who destroy their own race, heritage and culture. One cannot say the liberal-democracies are subcomlex constructs, they are highly sophisticated and thus this devastating.
And like all civilizations these liberal-democracies will come to an end too.
I never said negroes were not capable to study and graduate, but most of them are not - here most could, but do not because they are degenerated.

OK, so I guess I had misunderstood you

But this:

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

So when they are the same - what is wrong when they come here and interbreed then?
Why are you bothered by the chaninging genetical composition of your country then?

Do I have to repeat it for hundredth time like a broken record?

The biological composition of the nation, as all other attributes of the nation (culture etc.), is something worth preserving, worth in its own merit, I don't feel any need to posit it in terms of superiority/inferiority.

I never said they are "the same", I said equal in purely theoretical, metaphysical terms, as being human, although belonging to another race. I didn't mean equality in rights, in this worldly purely materialistic categories (I am generally suspicious towards the very notion of rights, not only in this case).

Let me explain it with this parable:

Let's suppose you think of some other man as possessing the same basic humanity like you. You recognize that as a fact. Let's suppose he's German. Does it, however, mean that you would let that man into your house and allow him to do there whatever he wants, for example, to break your dishes or ruin your furniture? You probably wouldn't, I suppose. But does the fact that you would never let him do that, mean that you necessarily think that he has lesser human dignity, that he is not the same in the virtue of being human?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Tennyson

Yes when the question did actualize until the latter half of the 20th century.

That piece denies the evidence of interracial marriages blessed by Protestants. I see that there is nowhere in Lutheranism where it says that interracial marriages are prohibited. If some prohibited and others did not, then there is no such prohibition in Lutheranism.

It looks as if you hope to attract people to your Lutheranism through sympathy, by telling lies. Well, why am I not surprised?

It would also be appropriate to note that he was talking about people already married to members of different religions. Luther naturally said that Christians are not allowed to marry non-Christians.

Since Luther also said the exact opposite in one of his diatribes against Catholicism, it is clear to anyone that Luther contradicts himself at every step.

Compare this:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic.

to this:

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools who forbid it.

What a fake!

In the 19th century the Catholic Church allowed interracial marriages. Most Protestant denominations forbade them.

What does this have to do with the issue of Gay marriage by the Lutheran church?

It would also be appropriate to note that people thought that she belonged to the white, European race.

Of course. Therefore it was not interracial marriage. Thank you for pointing to hipocrisy as another characteristic of your fundamental beliefs.

Do you happen to be aware of the doctrine Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is interpreted today?

I am aware that many things have changed since Vatican II and beyond. Including ecumenical approaches to Lutherans or the recognition of the State of Israel.

However, Traditional Catholicism is still there, unpolluted by this.

Changes in Lutheranism however, include the denial of anti-semitism through pathetic attempts to reinterpret his words. The internet is full of them and they denote a total lack of dignity.

More so when one realizes that Luther's hate to the Jews arose from his bitterness for having been rejected by them, after he remodeled Christianism into Protestantism, to accomodate the Jews. Will you ever stop crawling before their presence?

http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/11/14...SdrQluWdarLuDQ

Martin Luther - On the Jews and their lies

Which he wrote after having sucked so much on the Jews, having written his translation of the Bible where he accommodated the Jews, and seeing himself rejected and even mockered by the Jews.

To lies and hipocrisy let us now add bitterness as the tenants of his Judeo-Christianism.

In Northern European nations which were Lutheran nationalism and Lutheranism were in a symbiotic relationship. In the nations both faiths were present Lutheran Christians were more ardently nationalists than Catholics.

Now I see that you have lowered the tone of it, by changing your fallacious defamations to something more appropriated for a civilised discussion.

Even fundamentalists can learn.

In nations without Lutheran presence the faith had no influence, true.

We did not create fundamentalist theocracies, if that's what you mean.

You tolerate no irredentism in your backyard, obviously.

I support Irredentism when this is based on real ethnic grounds.

I found this interesting:
List of active autonomist and secessionist movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact I used the example of Spain when I could have used other examples. What you see there is actually the result of XIXth Romantic nationalism orchestrated by Freemasonry.

If that's what you understand by ethnic nationalism, let me recall a conversation that I had some weeks ago with one representative of these so-called "nationalist" movements, when I asked him about the ethnic problem in their "nationalist" agenda, and he answered that theirs was merely based on language. In other words, it only takes to learn (badly) the local language to be one.

Which nationalistic historic ruler did not try to assimilate national minorities?

How is that ethnic nationalism?

The German Empire was a German nation-state.

Nations and empires are different things.

A socialist distortion.

Is that a modern way to say "the satanic work of The Vatican"?

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

The foundation of modern liberalism? (do whatever you want...)

Originally Posted by Martin Luther

Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, the sin cannot tear you away from him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders" (Enders, "Briefwechsel", III, 208).

[Errigal]

Originally Posted by Plethon

The foundation of modern liberalism? (do whatever you want...)

Let's not go crazy here, we're going to have Martin Luther causing global warming next.

[Arthur Gordon Pym]

Originally Posted by Errigal

Let's not go crazy here, we're going to have Martin Luther causing global warming next.

No, it's the cows' farts that are causing global warming, I would never accuse the good old Martin of that.