[John Q. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by procopius

Alex seems to be obsessed with this topic.

I think obsession is a little strong, but there certainly seems to be a desire on this forum to bitch-slap Christianity.

Part of the problem is that people are making outlandish claims that are, at best, historically imprecise, and at worst, total bullshit.

Just a few examples from Page One

By the time the first Christian evangelists showed up in Greece, the Greek intellectuals already considered their tribal Gods to be myths. The Romans did the same.

Wrong. Greeks were no different than modern man. Some were devout believers, some not. In 300 A.D. (around when Christianity took hold) Greeks were still worshipping Zeus & Co. but had also added other gods.

That is the typical model. All religions (especially Christianity and Islam) begin with what is there and modify it. Almost everything in Christianity, for example, can be traced back to Persian/Hindu/Aryan? sun-worship.

While I would agree with you the Christianity was heavily Hellenized, I would also submit that it was heavily Romanized and Germanized. The Romans provided the means of an expansive, Imperium that coincided with Christianity's inherent evangelism, which they freely adopted in becoming a State religion. The Germanic qualities of native industriousness, adventure, and spirited bellicosity, and even some governing institutions, have always underlaid European success, though little credit is given them, perhaps in penalty of not converting on time (i.e. the Vikings) in the name of their "progress."

All the above concessions only serve to demonstrate the inconsistency, incoherency and opportunistic features that have gone into creating the fog that is Christianity.

Wrong. Christianity has been remarkably consistent in its core beliefs since the 4th Century. The formal mechanisms and rituals have changed - for example, Henry VIII changed Catholicism in England, the Protestant Reformation changed Catholicism in Germany and Europe, etc, but the only fog here is between the writer's ears.

What we are witnessing today is just another huge change in the mechanisms of Christianity - for example, activism, allowing faggot ministers, etc.

culture by its very definition offers the very things you seek without the social engineering of ideologies. <snip> Christianity is anti-cultural, since it evaluates abstraction as superior and operates from the top down. Cultures are rooted, literally, and climb upward, with abstractions, well, abstracted from a ground of collective experience in-the-world amongst a people in a place. Again, cultures are not founded in "ideas" or "beliefs." That is ideology.

Wrong. I won't bore you with any one of the almost 200 definitions of culture, but you'll find that culture is ideology. This nonsense wouldn't survive five minutes in a freshman Cultural Anthropology class but it forms the basis for most of this writer's claims.

First, your sense of history is rather, well, lacking. While it is undeniable that Christians stopped Islam from spreading into Europe, it seems you have no understanding of Islam, even in plain historicity. Christianity pre-dates Islam, and is tied to it. Christianity was the State religion of the Byzantine Empire through which Muhammad traveled and traded as a merchant. Islam is a reaction to what was perceived as both Christian and Jewish decadence, from yet another Abrahamic and yes, Semitic, perspective. But, the real meat is that if there were no Judaism, there'd be no Christianity, and hence no Islam. So, your point regarding who stopped Islam's advance is circular at best. None of the monotheisms like competition, after all, though Judaism is historically more or less indifferent to other religions.

Wrong. Here is circular reasoning: Bad dogs bark. The fact that your dog is barking proves it. This writer simply doesn't want to concede a solid point - Christianity stopped Islam - so he babbles on about irrelevancies. This is called "deflection." (Well-known jew debate trick.) Here's another example of circular reasoning :

People who suffer a holocaust deserve a homeland. The fact that jews live in Israel proves it.


The bottom line is that this discussion rambles on like an overloaded garbage truck lurching down the street on three wheels. It goes nowhere and probably does little besides piss off WNs who also happen to be Christian.

Here's my question to the anti-Christians among you: SO WHAT?

I got that you don't like Christianity. So what is it you want to do about it? What do you propose to do with the millions of white Christians - many of whom are open to white nationalism?

That's where the discussion needs to be (imo).