Your views on Christianity

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Reinhold Elstner

Christianity is at base a synthesis of Judaism and Hellenism. The superiority of Catholicism is that it represents a process of de-semitisation, whereas Protestantism is Neo-Judaism - Calvin and his Elect etc.

I think that protestantism is more of a Germanic 'thing'...

In this sense Catholicism can be understood as damage limitation.

In what sense? The catholic church itself did a lot of damage during the pas 951 years

Notice how Jews thrive in Protestant countries but not in Catholic ones.

Jews don't thrive in France? South America?
USA has a large ( and growing ) catholic population.
The 'third reich' did expel and exterminate Jews, and it did that mostly in neighbouring, Catholic countries.

It's useless to compare things like that. Jews exist as microscopic minorities in Orthodox christian countries, you can practically say they don't exist, or take much part in the life of Orthodox countries, but, in Russia, they thrive.

I wonder why?

In fact, Jews thrived alongside Muslims, during the era of the caliphates, and all through the Ottoman times, when these were the most advanced empires on earth. Nowadays, they are tied to USA. Coincidence?

It is probably to be regretted that Marcionism did not survive. Marcion wanted to purge all connection with the Jews by dumping the OT and to make it a thoroughly Hellenic movment.

The origins of a religion are one thing, the clergy is another, and the actual effects on the population are a different thing yet again.

It's easy to create a new religion, or to reform an old one, and fill it with the message of love, peace, understanding etc. But, is that realistic? I think not.

Even if that religion survives, it will eventually become lead by the clergy,
and on the other hand, you have the people who will live their lives, survive, and work around the rules of the religion.

It is unfortunate that this movement ever took off in the first place, but now that it is here, it is better to preserve the Catholic form (preferably the traditional form) of it as a defence against the Jews and the NWO.

It wasn't much help up to now, was it.

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Awar

I think that protestantism is more of a Germanic 'thing'...

Calvin was a Francophone.

In what sense? The catholic church itself did a lot of damage during the pas 951 years

It did. Medieval scholasticism is a re-Hellenising tendency through the re-discovery of philosophy. The traditional discouragement of Catholics by the Church for reading the Bible, especially the OT could be seen in this light. No coincidence that Protestantism, especially Calvinist sects, seem more interested in the OT than the NT.

Jews don't thrive in France?

France is a secular state.

South America?

I don't think the Jews have the South American states in their pocket the way they do the Anglo states.

USA has a large ( and growing ) catholic population.

But the US is constituted in such a way as to facilitate the rise of the Jews as a major power there.

The 'third reich' did expel and exterminate Jews, and it did that mostly in neighbouring, Catholic countries.

Leaving aside the extermination myth, what is the point here?

It's useless to compare things like that. Jews exist as microscopic minorities in Orthodox christian countries, you can practically say they don't exist, or take much part in the life of Orthodox countries, but, in Russia, they thrive.

Of course! Russia was under Judeo-Bolshevik tyrrany for 70 years!

I wonder why?

In fact, Jews thrived alongside Muslims, during the era of the caliphates, and all through the Ottoman times, when these were the most advanced empires on earth. Nowadays, they are tied to USA. Coincidence?

They are parasitic on succesful states and empires. Letting them in spells doom. Catholic states like Spain rendered it difficult for them to achieve the same level of influence as they have done in secular or Protestant countries.

It wasn't much help up to now, was it.

It was in its pre-Vatican II form. My point is that Catholicism despite VII still stands in the way of the NWO agenda which explains why the Jews hate it.

[Biggles]

Id just like to add here in Britain the Conservative party has a Jew as its leader and a Jew as its Chancellor (money handler), that might become relevant later regarding Jewish stranglehold on European countries.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Reinhold Elstner

Calvin was a Francophone.

??? So ??? Calvin was 8 yrs old when Martin Luther ( a German ) was the most active... and ... surprise surprise, Protestantism is predominant in Germanic countries.

It did. Medieval scholasticism is a re-Hellenising tendency through the re-discovery of philosophy. The traditional discouragement of Catholics by the Church for reading the Bible, especially the OT could be seen in this light. No coincidence that Protestantism, especially Calvinist sects, seem more interested in the OT than the NT.

So, let me get this clear. You think that Christianity would be better-off without the bible. ( must be hard to explain ALL THOSE Old Testament imagery in the sistine chapel )

So, then, what's the basis of Catholicism? In Hellenistic faith?
Then, why not just revive the hellenistic faith?

France is a secular state.

So, which country isn't? Iran...

I don't think the Jews have the South American states in their pocket the way they do the Anglo states.

Must be because the Anglo states have the South American states in THEIR pocket.

But the US is constituted in such a way as to facilitate the rise of the Jews as a major power there.

Which has ...what exactly... to do with your claim of Catholicism being the "best defense against Jews and the NWO" ?

Leaving aside the extermination myth, what is the point here?

The point is to explain why there aren't as many Jews there now, as there were before WW2. Poland, and other Catholic European countries don't have as many Jews now, as they had before the WW2. ( for whatever reason, but it explains your statement that "there are less Jews in Catholic countries" ).

Of course! Russia was under Judeo-Bolshevik tyrrany for 70 years!

So, you see, it has nothing to do with the religion of the country in which they are "parasites" it has more to do with the geopolitical strength of the given country. From Islamic empires, British Empire all the way to USSR and USA.

They are parasitic on succesful states and empires. Letting them in spells doom.

As I said...

Catholic states like Spain rendered it difficult for them to achieve the same level of influence as they have done in secular or Protestant countries.

I'm sorry, but theocratic states proved to be disastrous compared to Secular states. In any case, the rulers of any state, be it secular or religious are realists ( the successful ones, at least ).

It's dangerous to have institutions of state being tied with any religion.
Because religions, being irrational, are not a good basis for everyday institutions.

Unless you want to have courts which free people because they repented,
police which relies on Virgin Mary to catch the man who stole your computer, Firemen who wait for Allah to provide rain etc. etc.

It was in its pre-Vatican II form. My point is that Catholicism despite VII still stands in the way of the NWO agenda which explains why the Jews hate it.

You "know" the Jews hate "something", based on what?

An ordinary Jew hates the Palestinians, but a Jewish leader finds the Palestinians quite useful. How do you know that the heads of Jews don't
actually like something that just appears to be bad for them. Superficially.

Anyhow, I didn't put the Jews in power in the USA, neither did any other ordinary person in any country on earth. It's powerplay, of which we only see effects.

A catholic villager somewhere in Spain, or a godfearing catholic woman in Ireland or Croatia don't exactly have much say in anything really. In a similar way, an ordinary Israeli, or an ordinary Serb, or Russian, or Swede have little to do with what the 'grey heads' decide on something.

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Awar

??? So ??? Calvin was 8 yrs old when Martin Luther ( a German ) was the most active... and ... surprise surprise, Protestantism is predominant in Germanic countries.

In answer to your point about Protestantism being Germanic - the most Jew-friendly brand of Protestantism is Francophone in origin,

So, let me get this clear. You think that Christianity would be better-off without the bible. ( must be hard to explain ALL THOSE Old Testament imagery in the sistine chapel )

It may suprise you to learn that is precisely what the Marcionite church did. It rejected the Bible and the Jewish elements. It retained only one Gospel and a few Pauline letters for its canon.

So, then, what's the basis of Catholicism? In Hellenistic faith?
Then, why not just revive the hellenistic faith?

The basis of Catholicism? As I said, a mixture of Hellenism and Judaism.

So, which country isn't? Iran...

Pretty much all, but this discussion has a historical dimension.

Must be because the Anglo states have the South American states in THEIR pocket.

Very possibly.

Which has ...what exactly... to do with your claim of Catholicism being the "best defense against Jews and the NWO" ?

Because Catholic beliefs and doctrines are antithetical to what the NWO stands for.

The point is to explain why there aren't as many Jews there now, as there were before WW2. Poland, and other Catholic European countries don't have as many Jews now, as they had before the WW2. ( for whatever reason, but it explains your statement that "there are less Jews in Catholic countries" ).

There is a misunderstanding here. I did not say there were less Jews in Catholic countries, I said that they tended to do better in Protestant countries. Of course you are right to say that increased secularisation tends to negate these factors.

So, you see, it has nothing to do with the religion of the country in which they are "parasites" it has more to do with the geopolitical strength of the given country. From Islamic empires, British Empire all the way to USSR and USA.

To some extent - but that power can be minimised in a state where there are limitations on the rights of those who do not subscribe to the majority religion as there were in Catholic countries of old. Btw, I am not recommending any of this, just observing it.

I'm sorry, but theocratic states proved to be disastrous compared to Secular states. In any case, the rulers of any state, be it secular or religious are realists ( the successful ones, at least ).

Again, you seem to think I am commending it.

It's dangerous to have institutions of state being tied with any religion.
Because religions, being irrational, are not a good basis for everyday institutions.

You live in hope, becaue there is an irrational basis for all states, or, rather there is no purely rational basis for any existing state.

You "know" the Jews hate "something", based on what?

Are you seriously disputing that the Jews are anti-Catholic?

An ordinary Jew hates the Palestinians, but a Jewish leader finds the Palestinians quite useful. How do you know that the heads of Jews don't
actually like something that just appears to be bad for them. Superficially.

Of course they do. This is why they have 'antisemitism'; a very powerful binding agent for organised Jewry to keep the rank and file in line.

A catholic villager somewhere in Spain, or a godfearing catholic woman in Ireland or Croatia don't exactly have much say in anything really. In a similar way, an ordinary Israeli, or an ordinary Serb, or Russian, or Swede have little to do with what the 'grey heads' decide on something.

True, but in Catholic socities, where ordinary people follow their Church's teachings, NWO finds it more difficult to make inroads than in Protestant countries. For example, the family is the core of the Catholic idea of community, not just the immediate family but the extended family. The family is a bulwark against what the NWO offers, which prefers to atomise communities into a 'society' of individual worker-consumers. Individuals are way more manipulable than members of families, communities etc.

[Zyklop]

Better Christianity than nihilism and I couldn´t care less if people believe in some bearded guy in the clouds as long as they at least believe in something higher than piling wealth and having fun.
Christiany has been replaced in Germany by nihilism and lethargy during the last decades and it´s going downwards ever since.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Reinhold Elstner

In answer to your point about Protestantism being Germanic - the most Jew-friendly brand of Protestantism is Francophone in origin

Sure, but protestantism did catch in mostly in Germanic countries.
There are many reasons why it is so.

It may suprise you to learn that is precisely what the Marcionite church did. It rejected the Bible and the Jewish elements. It retained only one Gospel and a few Pauline letters for its canon.
The basis of Catholicism? As I said, a mixture of Hellenism and Judaism.

But, again, why not just Hellenism... I personally like it infinitely more than Judaistic teachings. But, everything has it's own positive sides.

Because Catholic beliefs and doctrines are antithetical to what the NWO stands for.

It does, so does Judaism.
Judaism would be even more anti-NWO, if you look at its teachings only.
Just look at Islam... it's the most extreme anti-NWO religion, but, it is in itself a IWO.

There is a misunderstanding here. I did not say there were less Jews in Catholic countries, I said that they tended to do better in Protestant countries. Of course you are right to say that increased secularisation tends to negate these factors.

To some extent - but that power can be minimised in a state where there are limitations on the rights of those who do not subscribe to the majority religion as there were in Catholic countries of old. Btw, I am not recommending any of this, just observing it.

I'm sorry. I'm pretty pissed off at my government. You know, they give money to build new churches, so, riding on that, the Muslims now want the government to build them a mosque ( a legitimate request, seeing that the government finances building of Christian objects ). So, I'd advocate NO meddling in religious affairs AT ALL.

On the other hand, our government is retarded enough not to pay for restauration of ancient christian buildings here. ( I'm absolutely FOR restoring historically important objects, regardless of religion, but, since christianity was numero uno here, most objects are churches and monasteries ).

You live in hope, becaue there is an irrational basis for all states, or, rather there is no purely rational basis for any existing state.

Sure, but I'm for rooting-out irrationality, not adding to it.

How else would you call the extreme anti-reason stance that so many people have taken on today, and which is called Political Correctness.

The problem is in the fact that religions nurture irrational views, which then easily backfire on them.

Are you seriously disputing that the Jews are anti-Catholic?

Of course they do. This is why they have 'antisemitism'; a very powerful binding agent for organised Jewry to keep the rank and file in line.

You answered yourself there

True, but in Catholic socities, where ordinary people follow their Church's teachings, NWO finds it more difficult to make inroads than in Protestant countries.

My opinion is that the entire religious system of Europe backfired and caused what we today live in.

As I said earlier, the church nurtured irrational thinking, repression of sexuality etc. not too much common sense at all... just, this lack of common sense was painted with 'religious colors', and now it's painted with PC-ism, NWO-ism etc.

Sexuality in the culture went from hiding into mind-numbing oversaturation.

For example, the family is the core of the Catholic idea of community, not just the immediate family but the extended family. The family is a bulwark against what the NWO offers, which prefers to atomise communities into a 'society' of individual worker-consumers. Individuals are way more manipulable than members of families, communities etc.

I don't think so. The institution of family was nothing like that previous to the 18th and 19th century.

The more the church was strong, the less importance family and "family values" had. In fact, what most today perceive as "traditional family" is actually a recent phenomenon which was effectively dicsouraged by the church until the last centuries.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Awar

I don't think so. The institution of family was nothing like that previous to the 18th and 19th century.

The more the church was strong, the less importance family and "family values" had. In fact, what most today perceive as "traditional family" is actually a recent phenomenon which was effectively dicsouraged by the church until the last centuries.

Material to read on such a statement? Preferably from Christian/Catholic sources carrying the approval of the institutions in question.

[Awar]

Well... it's one of the basics we learned on pedagogy classes.

I could search for the books cited by the authors. I have no idea if these are approved by the catholic church, and I don't place much confidence in what they do or do not approve of.

After all, we're speaking of an institution which brutally dealt with more than a few progressive scientists.

In any case, before I provide the citations,
I'll also add that during the time when faith and the church were the strongest,
the rights of children were on their lowest. The family values back before the 19th century included that a child would be given to another family, for training as a serf.
There was nothing even remotely similar to what we today perceive as family.
No motherly care as we see today.

It's understandable, because in those times, the average lifespan was no more than 30-something, most people were ignorant, illiterate ( thanks to the church holding a monopoly on education ), thus, most people were perpetually on the personal development stadium of today's early teens... etc. etc. Not blaming that on the church though

[Eriugena]

I don't think so. The institution of family was nothing like that previous to the 18th and 19th century.

The more the church was strong, the less importance family and "family values" had. In fact, what most today perceive as "traditional family" is actually a recent phenomenon which was effectively dicsouraged by the church until the last centuries.

I fear another misunderstanding. The family as I have described it is ancient. There are villages here were basically everyone is blood related and they know it too. Here people have a very high degree of knowledge as to who they are related to. In the modern secular socities I am familiar with, a lot of people are hard pressed to tell you who their cousins are.

[Awar]

It depends on which people you know then. By "secular", you probably mean "city folk".
We've lived through communism here, and even during the time when nobody was allowed to practise religion, people knew who their cousins are. Let alone centuries of supressed christianity during Ottoman rule. So, I think it's something else you should be targeting with gluing "family" onto "religion".

Then again, during the time when church was the strongest, few people actually had the right to have surnames. All across Europe.

[Awar]

Also, we, the people of today, are a product of our time.
We tend to perceive anything practised by our grandparents as 'traditional' and 'ancient',
while in reality, these things aren't older than a hundred or so years.

You know, those adorable old people who were married for more than 60 years, and in love all the time. And then, we see that as something ancient and traditional,
while in reality, there was just one or two generations of Europeans who actually lived in such a society which allowed them to be married out of love etc.

Romanticizing the past.

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Awar

It depends on which people you know then. By "secular", you probably mean "city folk".
We've lived through communism here, and even during the time when nobody was allowed to practise religion, people knew who their cousins are. Let alone centuries of supressed christianity during Ottoman rule. So, I think it's something else you should be targeting with gluing "family" onto "religion".

That is entirely as I would have expected ion the Balkans which I thought was probably more like rural Ireland than say rural Britain.
In Britain for example, many people have no idea who their cousins are let alone their second or third cousins.

Then again, during the time when church was the strongest, few people actually had the right to have surnames. All across Europe.

No, not in Ireland. We never had serfdom and the Irish system is based on clans (meta-families), our names are very ancient and continuous. My family name, for example, can be traced back to pre-Christian times, indeed to mythological sources.

[Eriugena]

Originally Posted by Awar

Also, we, the people of today, are a product of our time.
We tend to perceive anything practised by our grandparents as 'traditional' and 'ancient',
while in reality, these things aren't older than a hundred or so years.

You know, those adorable old people who were married for more than 60 years, and in love all the time. And then, we see that as something ancient and traditional,
while in reality, there was just one or two generations of Europeans who actually lived in such a society which allowed them to be married out of love etc.

Romanticizing the past.

You are constructing a straw man here. You assume by family I mean that based on man and wife - that is a modern thing - but that is not what I am talking about.