Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 25th, 2014 #1021
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[question the Holohoax and you're out of the gang, or communion, as the nerfs call it. this article is gunked with irrelevant religious concerns; the point is that the church has passed under the kikenyoke, accepting jewish lies for truth, willing to go to any lengths to punish anyone who disagrees. the church, thus, sides with the attackers and murderers of whites, and against the men who defended them, the German NS. the church is dogmatically and effectively anti-white, just like every single political party we find in "democracy."]

The Holocaust is Now Catholic Dogma

The last time a Pope of the Catholic Church defined an infallible dogma was in the year 1950. Pope Pius XII used this power reserved for the Vicar of Christ when speaking ex cathedra to define the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. It was an extraordinary event because a pope using the power of infallibly to define a dogma is done so rarely, and most popes have never used this power. Before Pius XII, the last pope to invoke papal infallibly to define a dogma was Pius IX in 1854, when he defined the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Both of these dogmas referred to events that had occurred 19 centuries before , and that had been studied by the best minds of the Church for almost as long. That’s because when making an infallible statement – it goes without saying – it can’t contain any errors! Fast forward to 2009 and Pope Benedict XVI has just defined a new dogma regarding a secular event that has nothing to do with the Faith. Moreover, this ‘dogmatic event’ only occurred in the middle of the 20th Century- and no one is allowed to investigate to see if it contains any errors!

A dogma is an infallible teaching of the Catholic Church that must be believed by every Catholic or they’re not in communion with the Church. In the past, a dogma referred only to a matter of Christian faith, and Catholics could believe whatever they wanted about historical events. But today’s remarks from the Vatican make it clear that the Jewish version of the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed in gas chambers, must be believed by every Catholic or they’re not in communion with the Church. That makes the Holocaust an official ‘dogma’ of the Catholic Faith (*sarcasm*). Here’s the news out of the Vatican.

On Jan. 28, the pope said he felt “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews, and warned against any denial of the full horror of the Nazi genocide.

Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted,” the statement said. The Shoah is the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.

Jewish groups welcomed the Vatican statement, saying it satisfied their key demand.

“This was the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for,” said Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.

Yes, this is the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for, but what exactly does this “sign” really mean? It means that in the post-Vatican II Church, the “Shoah” has replaced the Crucifixion as the central event in history. And do you notice the subtle switcheroo here? Now, instead of the central tenet of the Christian faith pertaining to the murder of the Christ by Jews, the new central tenet refers to the murder of Jews by Christians! This should come as no surprise to those who understand what really lies at the heart of the problem. At its core, this is a spiritual battle that’s being waged above our heads. It’s Christ vs. anti-Christ, and each of us must choose a side.

Lucifer wanted to be equal to God and out of pride refused to accept being a servant. When he uttered his famous “non servium” he took a third of the angels with him and set about waging war against God. When God sent His Son to redeem the world, Lucifer tried to prevent it. He took Jesus to the mountain top and tempted Him, saying “if you just bow down and worship me, I will give you all these things.” Jesus told the devil to buzz off. The Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah did so out of racial pride and ambition. They wanted an earthly kingdom where they would always be the ‘Chosen Ones’ and did not want to share a kingdom with the gentiles. But Jesus emphatically said that His kingdom was not of this world and to share the good news with the gentiles. The Jews who accepted the Messiah became the first Christians, and those who rejected Him fell into spiritual blindness. Satan takes advantage of Jewish hatred of Jesus and uses them to battle against the Church of Christ. The Jews continue to wait for a worldly Messiah, but the Messiah they await is known to us as the anti-Christ. Therefore, all Christians must love and pray for the Jewish people to accept Christ as the Messiah, thereby snatching them from the jaws of Satan, whom they don’t realize they are serving.

This battle between Christ and anti-Christ is 2,000 years old and all popes throughout history have waged it (at least until 1958). That’s what makes the Church’s post-Vatican II attitude toward the Jews so perplexing, since it enables them to continue in spiritual blindness and sets the stage for the coming of the anti-Christ. Pope Leo XIII had a vision at the end of the 19th Century in which he forsaw that the devil had been given extra powers for 100 years to try to destroy the Church. This seems to coincide with the shift in power that took place in the 20th Century when after two world wars, the Jews took Palestine and solidified their control over the West. This was also the century in which the Jews unleashed their most deadly weapon, Communism, which caused the deaths of millions of people. But these people’s genocides go unnoticed and certainly have not been declared “dogma” by a pope of the Catholic Church. Another clue that something is amiss inside the Church is that the Second Vatican Council refused to condemn Communism, but declared that anti-Semitism was a sin (without defining what constitutes anti-Semitism).

Enter Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), and the man who’s currently being crucified, Bishop Richard Williamson. Archbishop Lefebvre himself had fought inside the Second Vatican Council to prevent the coup of the liberals. He also stated that the mere fact that the Council refused to condemn Communism was enough to call the Council into question. The Archbishop knew that something nefarious had happened inside the Church and sensed that he was waging a battle against powers and principalities. In terms of his plans to restore Tradition, in the Biography of Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, he quotes the Archbishop as saying (pp. 500-501):

The Council is a non-infallible act of the Magisterium and, therefore, it is open to being influenced by a bad spirit … Therefore, we need to apply the criterion of Tradition to the various Council documents to see what we can keep, what needs clarifying, and what should be rejected.

And that’s exactly the whole point of the negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican that have been going on for almost 40 years. After the release of the Latin Mass and the lifting of the excommunications, the next phase is doctrinal discussions. But somebody doesn’t want that to happen. Archbishop Lefebvre founded the SSPX in 1970 in order to train priests in Tradition and not in the confusing, untraditional, Judeo-Masonic manner of the post-Conciliar era. The greatest threat to Revolutionaries is those who are not afraid to resist them to the face, i.e., the Counter-Revolutionaries. That is why Pope John Paul II would not allow Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrecate bishops, something that is usually rubber-stamped for every other order. John Paul II wanted the SSPX to go extinct after the death of its founder and put a stop to the Counter-Revolution. And if the Council really was influenced by a “bad spirit” as the Archbishop said, then certainly any attempt to exorcise this bad spirit would be met with the fiercest resistance by those who work for the anti-Christ.

This is where the controversy over Bishop Williamson’s remarks about the actual number of Jews killed in the Holocaust comes into the scenario. If the Jews are (wittingly or unwittingly) working to bring about the reign of the anti-Christ, then part of their strategy has to be to neutralize the Church. In their effort to overturn the crucifixion and replace it with the “Shoah,” they’re trying to utilize the Church to bring this about. And any force that appears to provide resistance to this switcheroo will be seen as the gravest possible threat. Because truly, it wouldn’t have mattered if Bishop Williamson had not said a word about the Shoah, they would have found something else to try to impede the Church’s return to Tradition. Because Christ and anti-Christ cannot co-exist on equal terms – one must naturally dominate the other. And the Church returning to Tradition and her normal role as the Church Militant is the one monkey wrench that could be thrown into the plans of the anti-Christ. No other challenger intimidates them, absolutely no one else causes them to tremble. But a fully traditional Church Militant with a billion souls in her army is the one thing that could defeat their plans. And that’s what this is really all about.

Bishop Williamson now finds himself in the center of a controvery that has been coming to a head for a very long time. In perusing the Catholic blogosphere, it appears that most Catholics (even trads) wish that he had just kept his mouth shut. But they would probably have said the same thing to Jesus, so as not to annoy the Pharisees. But I’m convinced Our Lord Jesus Christ knows what he is doing. Because it is time to confront the truth, as the the hour glass of time winds down, and get ready for the final conflagration. But it appears most Christians would rather retreat to the hills, than risk not being popular with the world. Thankfully, for the sake of our salvation, Jesus Himself was not so pusillanimous. And hopefully Bishop Williamson won’t be so pusillanimous either, since his founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, most assuredly was not. The Archbishop personally chose Richard Williamson to carry on his work after his death, to be a successor to the apostles. The only question that remains is: will he be like St. John or like the others who abandoned Jesus “for fear of the Jews’?

The Church and the Jews have been locked in this battle for 2,000 years, so this latest controversy is nothing to be surprised about. Satan uses the poor, blinded Jews to attack the Lord’s Church because he doesn’t want us or them to be saved. But at least in the past, it used to be clear which side the popes were on! The Pope and SSPX bishops need all our prayers and support right now, because they are going through a trial by fire. And, at least in this early stage, it appears Bishop Fellay is starting to get cold feet. Every day for the past several days he has issued a denunciation of his colleague, Bishop Williamson, each one more hysterical than the last. He even went so far as to refer to the Jews as our “elder brothers in the faith,” as though the Talmud has anything to do with our Faith. When I said last week that I wished Bishop Fellay would one day be pope, I didn’t mean in the mold of John Paul II!

Let us pray especially for Pope Benedict XVI, the keeper of the keys to heaven, that he prove himself a worthy successor of St. Peter, and that he not imitate Peter in his denial of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Lefebvre recognized that the day would come when the SSPX would be called on to save the Church. And judging by the howls and screams from the satanic press, that day might be just around the corner. Let us hope that we also have the courage to stand beside them, no matter how much the media attack and lambaste us. It’s for the Jews’ own good after all, for they know not whom they are serving. As the Archbishop wrote in 1966 (ibid, pp. 382-83):

When the Holy Father realizes that those whom he trusted are leading the Church to her ruin, he will find himself a group of bishops … who are ready to rebuild. Unfortunately, the time has not yet come, because the Holy Father himself must change what he is doing, and that conversion will be painful.

Let us hope that the time has come and that Pope Benedict will accept the help of the SSPX. It is time for the Holy Father to stop taking sides with the enemies of the Church and to stop defining secular events as “dogma,” especially ones so riddled through with holes. May God save the Church through His servant, Pope Benedict, although the Pope’s conversion will be painful.

http://truthisbeauty.wordpress.com/2...atholic-dogma/
 
Old December 12th, 2014 #1022
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Australians suggest celibacy played a role in clergy abuse scandal no wonder, celibacy is downright anti-human

By Josephine Mckenna | Religion News Service December 12 at 2:52 PM

VATICAN CITY — The Roman Catholic Church in Australia acknowledged that “obligatory celibacy” may have contributed to decades of clerical sexual abuse of children in what may be the first such admission by church officials around the world.

A church advisory group called the Truth, Justice and Healing Council made the startling admission Friday (Dec. 12) in a report to the government’s Royal Commission, which is examining thousands of cases of abuse in Australia.

The 44-page report by the council attacked church culture and the impact of what it called “obedience and closed environments” in some religious orders and institutions.

“Church institutions and their leaders, over many decades, seemed to turn a blind eye, either instinctively or deliberately, to the abuse happening within their diocese or religious order, protecting the institution rather than caring for the child,” the report said.

“Obedience and closed environments also seem to have had a role in the prevalence of abuse within some religious orders and dioceses. Obligatory celibacy may also have contributed to abuse.”

The council’s CEO, Francis Sullivan, who has held various administrative roles in the health sector, including heading Catholic Health Australia, said clergy training should include “psychosexual development.”

“It’s a no-brainer,” Sullivan said. “You need to address how sexuality is understood and acted out by members of the clergy.”

But the Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, which represents around 20,000 victims worldwide, said the latest report did little to help protect those at risk from abuse.

“Decisive action is needed, not more reports,” SNAP national director David Clohessy said. “The church hierarchy knows what’s needed. It simply refuses to give up its power and enable secular authorities to investigate and prosecute those who commit and conceal sexual violence against the vulnerable.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, could not be reached for comment Friday. But Maltese Bishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor for abuse cases, tried to put the report in context in remarks to the Italian daily La Stampa.

“You mustn’t forget that most abuse occurs in the family,” he said. “Obviously I don’t exclude individual cases where celibacy is lived badly that may have psychological consequences. But it should be said clearly that it is certainly not the origin of this sad and very painful phenomenon and remember that there is no nexus between cause and effect.”

The suggestion of a link between celibacy and child sexual abuse has divided Australian Catholic leaders in the past.

Cardinal George Pell, former archbishop of Sydney and now head of the Vatican’s powerful economic ministry, acknowledged there may be a connection when he testified before a separate government inquiry in Australia last year. He was unavailable for comment at the Vatican Friday.

The independent Australian council is made up of church and lay members and is supervised by some of the nation’s senior archbishops, though its views do not necessarily reflect those of all senior clergy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...5a7_story.html
 
Old December 13th, 2014 #1023
T. Jones
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Planet of the Apes
Posts: 24
Default

It has been my experience in life that most christians(including the white ones) are out to "burn" whites. I certainly agree that it is a militantly anti-white philosophy. Just look at the missionary work they do in all the 3rd world shit holes. They also import thousands of illegal refugees every year.

One thing I have noticed about many christian families is that they usually choose one member of the family and label him the "outsider". This is what happened to me. In essence, you become the personification of "satan" as far as they are concerned. I know this from experience, as I was brought up in a southern babtist household. If you are intelligent, they will resent you and see you as a threat. My sister is the biggest fucking whore on the planet, but yet, I somehow manage to be the "black sheep" hmmm......

Just like the kikes call "satan" the "adversary", this is what you become if you are a smart white man. You become the enemy of jews and christians. After all, christians are nothing but repackaged kikes anyway.

Oh well, I say fuck 'em all. They aren't worth the air they breathe and the food they consume. Totally worthless, useless pieces of shit.
 
Old December 17th, 2014 #1024
RickHolland
Bread and Circuses
 
RickHolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jewed Faggot States of ApemuriKa
Posts: 6,666
Blog Entries: 1
Default



__________________
Only force rules. Force is the first law - Adolf H. http://erectuswalksamongst.us/ http://tinyurl.com/cglnpdj Man has become great through struggle - Adolf H. http://tinyurl.com/mo92r4z Strength lies not in defense but in attack - Adolf H.
 
Old April 25th, 2015 #1025
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

[from "Restoring Pangaea]

Does “White” Privilege Exist? Christian Discourse & Blind Spots at Moody Bible Institute – Part 1
Posted on April 23, 2015 by Nathan Smith

Dr. Brian Litfin’s 5 Blunders:

MBI logoDr. Brian Litfin, a professor of theology at Moody Bible Institute is in a bit of blunder-blender right now. On March 9th, The Chicago Tribune reported that Dr. Litfin made some comments on a social media website that more or less questioned the use of the term “white privilege” by a campus focus group. Later, he apologized for said remarks as they weren’t made in the best of taste. Surprisingly, he openly agreed with those that critiqued him, received phone calls to answer hard questions and followed up his admittedly poor choice of words with an honest and candid public relations response we don’t see that often. While I was disappointed in his comments, I was impressed with his response to the aftermath. It seemed like he would have left it there and moved on, but he didn’t. On April 15th, he wrote a follow up letter-to-the-editor of Moody’s campus paper, the Moody Standard, and the responses have not been quiet, nor should they be.

My connection to this story is that 1. I’m a Moody Bible Institute graduate, 2. I’m a former student of Dr. Litfin’s and 3. As a Historical Theology major, I belonged to his department. As a new professor, Dr. Litfin came into the faculty at Moody with a lot of passion for his craft and a strong academic career in his pocket. I remember visiting him in his office and seeing his valedictorian picture, his high ranked graduation credentials and an impressive library. Each day in class, we would cover the history of the early church fathers and I would learn things about the early Christian tradition that blew my mind. Dr. Litfin on more than one occasion encouraged my young mind with affirmations of my approach to research and our subject matter. My final project for him was a 20+ page paper on the need to understand how Augustine’s personal life must have effected his theology, i.e. that he was a sex addict who became suspicious and outright critical of sexual pleasure in his later years. All of this was problematic for me, thinking that he had defined sin and the theological concept of the “Fall” for the Christian Traditions going on 1500+ years. I didn’t receive the best grade for the project, but I was happy to have done the research.

So, it was with great disappointment that I read his letter. I like Dr. Litfin. He’s a good guy and his initial response to his social media debacle was exemplary. But I just wish he hadn’t written this letter. There are many reasons, most of which I won’t take up in this post. I thought about sending him a personal note or a phone call to discuss these things with him, but I decided not to. Instead I want to publicly counter Dr. Litfin’s call to his manner of charitable civility which he calls for in his letter,

Where sin does exist, the answer is not the ungodly modern practice of “calling it out.” Instead we are to offer gentle critique (Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 2:25) and cover the offense in love (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Pet. 4:8).

In Scripture, there is precedent for his call to charitable dialogue, but there is also precedent for the opposite approach as well. Context is typically what determines this decision. For our context, it seems appropriate “to call Dr. Litfin out”, to not give him the benefit of the doubt, and to respond to his publicly accessible letter with only a private response would be ill-fitting and unjust. In his letter, Dr Litfin provides 5 reasons why the term “white privilege” is objectionable and unfit for Christian discourse. He says,

I would like to propose five reasons why the term ‘white privilege’ isn’t appropriate for Christian discourse. This language is taken straight from a radical and divisive secular agenda. As such, it should be subjected to the penetrating light of God’s Word…The problem is, the term itself is inflammatory, so the real topic goes unheard because of the offense. Here are five ways the term “white privilege” is objectionable to many in our community:

Just so we all know, the writers of Scripture frequently and intentionally used terminology that was deemed radical, divisive and from agendas not their own. Because a term was inflammatory did not make ill equipped for usage and a term being offensive in naming structures, actions and systems that were sinful was usually only a concern when the writers were addressing those who didn’t follow Jesus or were outsiders to the Christian or Jewish community. If you were an insider who should have known better, Jesus, Paul and others did have choice words for you – not always, but it was always an option. In fact, in Matthew 23:27, Jesus publicly likens the teachers of the law and the Pharisees to “whitewashed tombs”, railing on them for their hypocrisy, i.e. they were the ones who should have know better. Maybe Jesus shouldn’t have used the word “white” and just referred to them as really clean tombs since “white” is the operative term that offends. (Anachronism and snark noted)

In what follows I will address 5 objectionable blunders in his letter and offer some suggestions for him at the end.

Blunder #1

The term [white privilege] can imply corporate responsibility for others’ sin…However, with the arrival of the New Covenant, individuals now stand or fall before God for their own actions.

Divided by FaithHis first blunder reads like a textbook example of what not to say out of Emerson and Smith’s, “Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.” Their research concluded that the typical white evangelical’s response to race issues was approached with the “the white evangelical tool kit.”[1] This toolkit consisted of 1) accountable freewill individualism, 2) relationalism (attaching central importance to interpersonal relationships), and 3) antistructuralism (inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social structural influences).[2] Smith and Emerson concluded that, “[white] Evangelicals are…antistructural because they believe that invoking social structures shifts guilt away from its root source – the accountable individual.”[3] Or as some might say, “it’s not a race issue, but a sin issue.” This explanation is not nearly robust enough given Soong-Chan Rah’s recent post that, “American Christians have too narrow of a definition of sin to engage the issue of environmental justice”. I would add, the issues of racialization and racial injustices to that statement.

As a church historian, Dr. Litfin can appreciate the heritage of a man like Jonathan Edwards. Brian’s anti structural freewill individualism has a direct link to the theological tradition inherited from people like Jonathan Edwards. His thinking falls too closely in line with erroneous theological conclusions like that of Jonathan Edwards who argued that he held equality before God with his black slave because they both were sinners. He’s right, as sinners they shared an equal status before God, but that didn’t solve the sin of slavery of which Edwards was both implicitly and explicitly guilty of. Edwards’s son on the other hand became an ardent abolitionist immediately after his father’s death and refused to enjoy the implicit and explicit benefits of owning another human being. What Dr. Litfin doesn’t accept, in his blundering statement, is the role of implicit guilt he shares based upon the benefits of his tradition, benefits procured through explicit sin.

Blunder #2

The term can contradict God’s approval of the very things that convey historic privileges. Consider how some Americans of all races have reached privileged positions today: through stable family units that saved money and passed wealth to their descendants.

I don’t want to belabor this one too much, but it in short order, the blunder is what Dr. Litfin doesn’t recognize, not in what he does recognize, which is the quintessential bane of “white privilege”. First off, he affirms that because God approves of rightly earned privilege, that we should not scorn said privilege. Rightly earned privilege is gained through stable family units that are careful with their money and the result is accrued wealth that can ben transferred generationally. There are much better people who can deal with that conventional reasoning to show how it is easily undermined. I will just mention a few things.

Wealth in the United States and Canada is not merely gained through working hard and being careful with your money. Many wealthy people actually admit that they had colleagues working just as hard as them, but they were in the right place at the right time and that they knew the right people. There is also the issue of opening up businesses in the era that his grandfather owned a dry cleaner. Ask any minority during that era what their chances were at starting and owning their own business compared to the average white American and it’s not too hard to figure out that his grandfather is not an exemplar in the least bit. Lastly, much of the wealth in the U.S. and Canada doesn’t come from just hard work and diligence. Anyone in the business sector will tell you that it is a dog eat dog world out there and anyone is going to take advantage of their implicit advantages to get ahead, “white privilege” being one of those advantages.

whiteprivilege

Sadly, Dr. Litfin’s statement is complicit in what is known as “laissez-faire racism”, a form of racism that blames minorities, particularly the Black community in the U.S., for their own economic plights. While he doesn’t make the claim explicitly, the inherent implication is that disadvantaged minorities are solely or primarily responsible for their predicaments and that if they just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like his grandfather and father before him, things would get better for them. His statement could be true and can be conventionally accepted, but it does the injustice of inherently ignoring the implications of “redlining“, “reverse redlining“, “blacklisting/whitelisting“, and how not so obvious things like highway construction, city planning and housing market incentives[4] are done to segregate minorities from forms of privilege in accessing jobs, housing and other avenues of upward social mobility. He goes on further with his blunder stating,

Most Caucasians aren’t the offspring of slave owners, but merely of hard-working forefathers who did what was right…The book of Proverbs repeatedly tells us that a life of diligent labor, careful family stewardship, and wise foresight will reap earthly rewards. “All hard work brings a profit” (Proverbs 14:23), and rightly so.

So, the hard working forefathers of the Black community in the U.S. who worked hard for generations as slaves for nothing and then worked hard for generations more in a prejudiced context for next to nothing must have not read Proverbs 14:23. Maybe they were reading too much Exodus for their own good. Generations of diligent slave labor, forced family dissolution and hopeless foresights apparently is the fault of the Black community. Two things are clear. Dr. Litfin has universally applied Scripture passages to his heritage that cannot be applied to everyone’s heritage in the same way, i.e. even the way he reads the Bible expresses white privilege. Secondly, the theology that standardizes the conventional wisdom of Proverbs 14:23 but ignores the contentional wisdom of Ecclesiastes 4:4 and 2:11 is not an adequate theology and must contain blind spots.

Then I saw that all hard work and skillful effort come from rivalry. Even this is pointless. [It’s like] trying to catch the wind. – Ecclesiastes 4:4

But when I turned to look at all that I had accomplished and all the hard work I had put into it, I saw that it was all pointless. [It was like] trying to catch the wind. I gained nothing [from any of my accomplishments] under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 2:11

Meaning well will never be enough Dr. Litfin. Your choice to publish an article such as this hurts your credibility and the credibility of the institution you represent as well as the graduates whom you instructed. So as you can tell, I’ve chosen to forego your suggested method of Christian Discourse for another method of Christian discourse. You do need to be called out and while you used the example of Galatians 6:1 in your reasoning to not call each other out, it is with great disappointment that I, along with Paul in Galatians, wish that you would have cut the whole conversation off before you ever ventured forward because all you’ve done is contribute confusion, not clarity.

You had time to think this one through and didn’t think far enough. You are good at church history and I learned a lot from you, but one thing you have proven to be unfit for is public commentary on race relations, and the application of Scripture to the bane of white privilege in the American context. This isn’t a matter to just charitably disagree over. In my next post I will explain why and offer the next 3 blunders as well as some suggestions for going forward.
See Part 2 for the next 3 blunders

[1] Emerson & Smith, Divided by Faith, pg. 76.
[2] Ibid., 76.
[3] Ibid., 79.
[4] Wilson, William Julius More Than Just Race: Being Black and Poor in the Inner City (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), 28-30.




Does “White” Privilege Exist? Christian Discourse & Blind Spots at Moody Bible Institute – Part 2

Posted on April 24, 2015 by Nathan Smith


While a student at Moody, I was given many gifts. One aspect of my time there was the exposure to dynamics of downtown Chicago, one of America’s largest metropolitan centers. Stepping off the rural boat from Canada and onto Moody’s campus, I was immediately interested in getting involved in a ministry with the African American community. In rural Canada, there were very few opportunities to become friends with anyone from the Black community. After arriving at Moody I found the first opportunity to become involved by joining the Little Brother/Little Sister volunteer organization which partnered with the Cabrini Green community, a public housing complex 2 blocks from our campus. As a mentor, I was paired up with 10 year old boy, and then a year later with a 5 year old, who I stayed in touch with for years. I then joined the council of the Big Brother/Big Sister organization and started looking for a church in the community that I could take these boys to. I found it. St Luke Church of God in Christ (COGIC). COGIC is a historically Black pentecostal denomination, one of the largest in the world. My little brothers never came with me, but I kept going in hopes that they would eventually. Honestly, I didn’t like being there for the first three months. The services were 4 hours long, we only sang 3-4 songs for over an hour. It started too early and was too pentecostal for my taste. I had trouble really connecting with anyone even though I was warmly welcomed every week. I joined a Sunday School class to begin teaching 4th-5th graders which was fun, but it always felt laborious. But I knew in my heart that God wanted me there so I stayed, took membership and bought a KJV/NIV interlinear Bible. Then one day it happened, I fell in love with the church, the music, the cultural differences and especially the people. I couldn’t wait to get there every morning to sing along with the choir and hear the sermonic solo.

At some point during those first two years at Moody, I stopped glamorizing my experience in the Black community, stopped objectifying “Blackness”, and just became friends with my little brother’s family. Interest started to build between me and another student from Ethiopia leading to a friendship and dating relationship. In my sophomore year, I was asked by the Afro-Awareness Fellowship to consider being their chaplain. Though I turned it down, I was honored. While I had always glamorized and objectified the Black community, I was starting to feel like we were all just people with real differences. I felt like I was getting it.

Then it happened, I roomed with two friends over the summer in the largely Hispanic neighborhood of Pilsen. We were two white guys and a black guy in a small unfinished apartment. While setting up my room, I proudly hung my confederate flag above my bed. I know right. What was I thinking? Confederate FlagThough I was from Canada, my father was a southern boy who celebrated the history of the American south, the civil war and had memorabilia hanging in our home from that era. I inherited a small confederate flag, only knowing that this represented the side of the American civil war that lost, that it was “heritage not hate” and nothing else. As soon as my friend saw it, he sat me down and asked very bluntly why I thought hanging that in our apartment was ok. I argued with him for nearly two hours about why it wasn’t a racist symbol. I obviously didn’t win him over and for the rest of the summer, I didn’t see him in our apartment much. I eventually took down the flag, but not soon enough. And from that moment on, I didn’t see him very much at all. Our friendship was finished. He couldn’t understand why something that was so offensive to him could be so important to me. What had I missed? Was I really getting it?

Not Really Getting It

In part 1 of this series, I addressed the first two blunders of Moody Bible Institute’s professor of theology, Dr. Brian Litfin. While Dr. Litfin is a good man, has good intentions, his submission, Letter to the Editor: rescinding the term white privilege, demonstrates that he doesn’t seem like he’s getting it. He’s not alone. Many of us have struggled to “get it”. At the same time, Dr. Litfin has the ability to communicate to and influence students from all backgrounds and as such is compelled to take such a responsibility with brevity. Though he may have felt his letter was challenging a societal norm about the unhelpful use of “white” privilege, his letter to the editor at the Moody Standard has served instead to reinforce destructive norms. In what follows, I will continue responding with the last 3 of his 5 blunders.

Blunder #3

The term can be an unloving use of the power of naming. In scripture, the act of naming something claims authority over its identity and destiny. Jesus did this when he gave Simon a new name: Peter (Matthew 16:18)…But can billions of people really be described with the catch-all term “white” and then uniformly be assigned certain privileges? No. Such behavior is unloving because it forces simplistic categories on others that they themselves do not embrace.

cultural intelligenceIt is important to concede the point made in this statement. Billions of people who have white skin cannot be lumped into one category and be described accurately apart from those who do not have white skin. At the same time, I am thankful he has taken this conversation globally. In traveling to every arable continent and 35+ countries around the globe, I have learned that “white privilege”, though different, is everywhere. Ask any African American who has travelled abroad and most of them will recount a story of racial stereotyping of the likes that they never experienced in a Western country. In Singapore City, the most famous mall has primarily white models in its display windows, a reality in many countries in Asia and Africa. White skinned models sells more product.

In India, the hue of your skin can determine your marriageability, regardless of your personality, education, good looks, wealth, etc. The lighter the better and of course to marry someone from the West is very prestigious. All over Asia, there is a billion dollar industry of makeup just to make your skin lighter. I have personally experienced being given preferential treatment as a white male who makes about $25,000 USD a year on average over and against Indian men my senior who are more educated and make more than I’ll ever make, simply because of my skin color. While there can be social angst against white travelers in some countries, being white in a global setting affords you privileges solely based upon your skin color that no one else has. Out there, no one knows your socio-economic status, no one knows your education, they just have enough time to know your skin color and that makes all the difference. So Dr. Litfin, of course the issue is more complicated than the simplicity the term seems to afford, but if you travel, it is also much more real, prevalent and in your face.

Blunder #4

In reality, the doors are not entirely shut to minorities today, nor are white people universally trying to close them. In fact, I often see a lot of “white love” as the American church reaches out to the needy. Why must we criticize our Caucasian brothers and sisters? The secular world does this, but it is unworthy of Christians. 1 Thessalonians 5:11 tells us to “encourage one another and build each other up.” Where sin does exist, the answer is not the ungodly modern practice of “calling it out.” Instead we are to offer gentle critique (Galatians 6:1; 2 Timothy 2:25) and cover the offense in love (Proverbs 10:12; 1 Pet. 4:8).

As far as I’m aware, no one I know has ever indicated that “white privilege” entails your statement, “the doors are not entirely shut to minorities today, nor are white people universally trying to close them.” The absolutizing in this statement is not helpful to this discussion. It’s actually a straw man at best, if not a caricature, that you’ve seemingly set up to knock down and it’s not the first time you did this in your letter.

Secondly, I understand you to believe that, though complicated to describe, unfair forms of privilege do exist. Your problem is with qualifying term, “white”. So when you describe love from the American church, why not stay consistent? Why is it “white love” you see. Honestly, I don’t care if that term is used, but it demonstrates an inconsistency in your approach.

Peter & Paul

Thirdly, the ability to criticize a brother or sister in Christ and to do so even publicly, is not off limits biblically. In fact the Jewish and Christian traditions are known for the ability to practice healthy self criticism. Jesus did it, Paul did it and in fact, Paul published and circulated letters filled with criticisms to churches which were then provided for public reading. He named names, specific details and still today, you and I read the dirty laundry of the early church because it was published and circulated by Paul. I understand that Scripture also points to the importance of kindness, honesty, not slandering, not causing internal strife, etc., but these are aligned with other circumstances to the contrary, requiring us to understand the precedent of context. Paul’s letter to Galatians is his most angry letter and he has some choice words for the “Christian” Judaizers that he makes very public. On top of that, he counters Peter publicly for distorting the boundaries of the new community God had created in Christ, and then again publishes his criticism. We don’t even need to go into how Jesus publicly and privately criticized the disciples, the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, etc. In the Old Testament, the prophets were exemplary at self-criticism when it came to the Jewish community. Richard Rohr explains this dynamic well,

The Hebrew prophets are in a category of their own. Within the canonical, sacred scriptures of other world religions you don’t find major texts that are largely critical of that religion. The Hebrew prophets were free to love their tradition and to criticize it at the same time, which is a very rare art form. Even today, one of the most common judgments I hear from other priests is, “You criticize the Church.” But criticizing the Church, as such, is just being faithful to the pattern set by the prophets and Jesus. That’s exactly what they did (see Matthew 23)…The presumption for anyone with a dualistic mind is that if you criticize something, you don’t love it. Wise people like the prophets would say the opposite…I think it is fair to say that the prophetic charism was repressed in almost all of Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. None of us have been known for criticizing ourselves. We only criticize one another, sinners, and heretics–who were always elsewhere! Yet, Paul says the prophetic gift is the second most important charism for the building up of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11).

Typically, open criticism was done in the NT for two reasons.
1. The distortion of the Gospel and
2. The distortion of the boundaries of the New Humanity God had created in Christ.

You might counter and say that “white privilege” at least distorts #2. The problem with that is that “white privilege” is the distortion – the distortion is not naming or recognizing it. And while we’re are at it, I have to add another term that Dr. Robin DiAgnelo, professor of multicutural education at Westfield State University coined – “white fragility”, of which your letter demonstrates key signals. One of the strongest signals is what is called, “Entitlement to racial comfort”.

White Fragility – White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.

white - third base
https://goingbacktoafrica.wordpress.com
The problem is that the occasional stress or angst you experience from the term “white privilege” is completely unmatched to the ongoing racialized stress that many minorities experience 24-7 in the United States. I have Native and Black friends who fear for their life when they are pulled over by law enforcement. I have Black friends who experience depression when they travel abroad because of ardent racial profiling. Those two examples can only be based on skin color and there’s many more where those came from. These are things you and I will rarely, if ever, encounter. That privilege is based up on the color of or skin, our “white” skin.

Blunder #5

This one I’ll keep short. Benevolent “white love” will never replace the need for justice in minority communities. In fact, benevolence from the white community has all to often been the answer to the cry for justice thereby placating the white community. This also relieves us of our responsibility to justice and allows us to bide our time until another cry for justice rings out only to be met by a nice card, a casserole or an invitation to a conversation without consequences. Seeking equality with minorities as a majority individual, doesn’t achieve equality. Joining the conversation doesn’t give us the right to determine the parameters of the conversation. Being benevolent in the face of a stark need for justice, does not make us act justly – in fact it only perpetuates the injustice. Benevolence is not justice and by checking our “white privilege”, we participate in naming that which we are complicit in, that which we benefit from. Even if we aren’t individually responsible, we will always be complicity responsible. Experiencing the collective implications of destructive choices based upon the actions of another is an experience we can choose to engage or disengage. Minority communities rarely, if ever, have that same choice.

When the norms are set and the scales are tipped in our favor because of the hue of our skin and the traditions we were born into, like Paul, in Romans, we need to favor the Gentiles and criticize the traditioned-privileged Judaizers, even though Paul’s aim was equality between Jew and Gentile. Like Paul in Galatians, we need to yell out that emasculation would be better than having to listen to petty arguments of the circumcision party, i.e. sometime we need to tell white people shut up when they argue and whine about the terms used to describe them pejoratively, when for hundreds of years, and still today, the terminology used to pejoratively describe minorities remain common speak. Sometimes we as white people have to choose to collectively endure the implications of our ancestor’s destructive choices, while minorities rarely have the choice to collectively endure anything. And that is why it is called privilege, “white privilege”, because we have a choice and they don’t.

5 Suggestions For Going Forward:

1. As white people, we should be radical & embrace the term “white privilege”, imbibing the shame and pain it brings into our discourse, Christian or not.

2. We need to travel more abroad with people who are not white, recognizing that traveling abroad is a privilege enjoyed by white Westerners more than anyone on the planet.

3. Ask at least three friends who are in a minority community to read our letters to the editor before we publish them.

4. Embrace our racism, admit we don’t get it and ask for forgiveness without expecting anything in return. Expect, as all white majorities in the West should, that we will struggle with racism, that we have choices minorities don’t and that we are going to make mistakes. Then make sure that when we are “called out”, we take those criticisms seriously, asking others to help us see our blind spots – assuming they exist.

5. As white Westerners, we need to quit trying to determine the parameters of Christian Discourse for others and just practice them on our own, especially when most Christians live in the Global South, are not Western and don’t have our privilege, white or not.

http://restoringpangea.com/does-whit...titute-part-2/

Last edited by Alex Linder; April 25th, 2015 at 03:33 PM.
 
Old April 25th, 2015 #1026
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

MUST READ: Jewish writer Marcus Eli Ravage gloating over the damage done to our folk by j*w-spawned Christianity --> http://tinyurl.com/qjq64ky

Ethan Enkisson ‏@stompthewaffle 7m7 minutes ago
"We have imposed upon you an alien book and an alien faith you cannot swallow or digest, which is at cross-purposes with your native spirit"

Ethan Enkisson ‏@stompthewaffle 6m6 minutes ago
... "which keeps you ever-lastingly ill-at-ease, and which YOU LACK THE SPIRIT EITHER TO REJECT OR TO ACCEPT IN FULL."
 
Old April 26th, 2015 #1027
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Default

It is well known in the South (except among the tards, whose reaction to everything is always "whut") that anybody with a Jesus fish on his business card and/or a bible verse on his truck, is a crook. A grinning, greasy, back-stabbing crook, with the morals of a shit-house rat.

The last people you want to do business with are jews. The next-to-last (or maybe it's a tie) are acolytes of the dirt-eating denominations of Christ-insanity.

To paraphrase Johnson, "The louder he talked of his jebus, the faster we counted our spoons."
__________________
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action
 
Old April 26th, 2015 #1028
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

Hat tip to VNNF's Pierre-Marc:


 
Old April 27th, 2015 #1029
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Default

To paraphrase Barbara Graziosi in her recent work 'The Gods of Olympus':

Early Christianity was rather like the modern Islamist movement. Extremely violent, fanatical and sectarian in its reading of its key texts (e.g. wanting to impose 'Biblical law', just like Sharia, rather than rely on secular law), a religious communist movement where there was no longer any socio-economic hierarchy in the community of believers (everyone referred to each other, as radical Muslims do to this day, as 'brother' and 'sister') and familial ties were oft spurned while martyrdom sought and secular knowledge denigrated and burned/destroyed.
__________________
 
Old April 27th, 2015 #1030
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West
April 27, 2015 — 15 Comments
Kevin MacDonald

Several comments on my post “What’s wrong with the Swedes?” mention Christianity as a problem in the dispossession of Whites. I agree that Christianity is part of the problem, but I think there are several difficulties with supposing that it is a root cause of the problem.
  • First and foremost, Christianity was the religion of the West during its expansion around the world. A century ago, with the exception of China, Japan, Siam, Korea, Ethiopia, and Liberia, the rest of the planet was dominated by Christian Europeans. Christianity was at least consistent with this incredible expansion and with the very large increase in the European population that occurred during this period of expansion. If anything, the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of religion among Western elites. If the world had stayed the way it was in 1960, no one would be talking about the suicide of the West.
  • Christianity has been many things throughout the centuries—an ideology of ethnic defense during the Iberian Reconquista, a pillar of exploitative monarchies and aristocracies in Europe and Latin America, a force for ethnic defense against usurious exploitation of peasants by ethnic outsiders at times during the Middle Ages, supporting slavery and segregation in the American South and apartheid in South Africa. And there are also the Puritans, Quakers and several other Protestant sects that figure so prominently in my account. Christianity has not had a consistent message of ethnic suicide or moral universalism. People on both sides of the slave trade in 17th–18th-century Britain were Christian. Both sides of the American Civil War were Christian.
  • Throughout history, Christianity has been quite adept at rendering unto Caesar—accommodating to the powers that be. In the U.S. and I suppose elsewhere in the West, Christians had much more influence on culture prior to the 1960s and the rise of the secular left — e.g., spearheading the successful drive to rein in Hollywood depictions of sex and Christianity beginning in the 1920s. But all that ended with the cultural revolution of the 1960s which was certainly not Christian in inspiration. Right now, the powers that be are the secular, multi-cultural, pro-non-White-immigration left, and one of their main goals is the eradication of public displays of Christianity and traditional Christian views on marriage and the family. Christianity itself has been corrupted by the secular left, most obviously in the case of the Second Vatican Council but also including the mainline Protestant sects. The Church had stood for cultural conservatism and had been a bulwark against Jewish influence for centuries.
  • The contemporary zeitgeist of the left is not fundamentally Christian. If anything, it is hostile to Christianity. The driving force of the left is decidedly secular, and the only areas where Christian views are welcomed into the mainstream (e.g., Christian Zionism and adopting non-Whites, but not abortion, gay marriage, or a public culture of Christianity) is where their beliefs coincide with those of the secular left. Right now in America, the Whites who are most Christian are behaving in an implicitly White manner in voting Republican and expressing concerns about illegal immigration. (And I strongly suspect that they are implicitly opposed to legal immigration and would have no hesitation voting for a candidate who proposed restrictions on legal immigration or ending it entirely.) On the other hand, secular Whites are more likely to be politically liberal and vote Democrat, the party of the non-White coalition. For example, in the recent senatorial election in Louisiana, a hotbed of Christian religious conservatism, only 18 percent of Whites voted Democrat, while only 5% of Blacks voted Republican. The figures would be very different for the predominantly non-religious Whites in the San Francisco Bay region. The increasing polarization in American politics based on race, not religious ideology; secular Whites are least likely to vote along with the White majority.
  • I very much doubt that people like Ms. Wilkström are guided by their religious beliefs. Across Europe, only 5-6% of Europeans are actively connected to their religious tradition. Throughout Europe, this has been a top-down revolution promoted by secular elites on the left. Many of the ethnically European among these elites are at best culturally Christian but do not take their religion seriously or have strong connection to their religious traditions. Christianity is not the guiding force behind the policies of the EU. Certainly some forms of ethno-masochism are motivated by Christianity, such as the family that adopted the 8 Africans (although in my experience plenty of non-religious Whites have also adopted non-White children), but here again we see a version of Christianity that is entirely acceptable and even approved by the real powers that be; imagine what would happen if this family owned a business that refused to cater a gay wedding because they took Leviticus seriously. Certainly, the Swedish university students who are so eager to be submerged with diversity are not being inundated with Christianity in their studies, but rather with cultural Marxism. The question is why they are so eager to adopt an ideology of ethnic suicide.
  • If Christianity is thought to be to be a Levantine import and hence foreign to the ethnic and cultural proclivities of Europeans, it’s worth noting that moral universalism and proneness to guilt and ethno-masochism are certainly not aspects of the cultures of the Levant. Rather, cultures of the Middle East tend to break down into closed ethnic enclaves, as in Syria now and throughout the region, despite often (but certainly not always) adopting a common religious veneer. Historically, Christianity did indeed originate in the fourth century as a non-ethnic ideology capable of broad appeal in the polyethnic Roman Empire. The Church Fathers often complained about the biological fixation of the Jews with their concern for biological descent from Abraham (see previous link). If anything, Europeans need to be more like the peoples of the Levant with their concern for ethnic kinship and empathy restricted to ingroup members. For example, within traditional Jewish culture there is no tradition of universalist ethics or for empathy with suffering non-Jews. Christianity, as it developed in Europe, is a European invention.
  • The problem is clearly worse in the north of Europe—Sweden is a paradigmatic case. As an evolutionist and given the recent population genetic data and the northern European ethnic origins of the main movements toward moral universalism in America and UK, I think the case can be made for an underlying ethnic component.
  • Nevertheless, I am certainly not denying a role for cultural forces. As I note, the anti-White revolution is massively incentivized, so the self-interest of Whites — professors, religious leaders, politicians, media figures, and corporate honchos — coincides with going along with the program of White dispossession. It is clearly also the case that Whites throughout the West are being brain-washed because of the control of the moral, intellectual, and economic high ground by elites hostile to the traditional Christian cultures of Europe and the West. That’s why I emphasize the power of messages aimed at the cortex in inhibiting tendencies (e.g., ethnocentrism) based in the lower brain centers (see here). But the central component of these brain washing messages in the contemporary West is not Christianity. Indeed, the messages are very likely to inculcate guilt about the Christian past as exclusionary, aggressive (the involvement of Christianity in colonialism, slavery, the Crusades, ethnic cleansing of native peoples, etc.) and hostile to non-Christian minorities (paradigmatically, the Jews and Blacks).
  • Cultural forces are also important in explaining why ethnic suicide is a pan-European phenomenon. As I noted in the first part of my talk, the revolution has been top-down—promoted by elites in politics, the media, and the academic world, with a major role for Jews with their traditional hostility toward the peoples and cultures of Europe. At TOO and in The Culture of Critique, we have repeatedly provided evidence that throughout the West (e.g., Sweden, France, Australia, the K., the U.S.) the organized Jewish community and individual influential Jews have been a necessary condition (not sufficient) in successfully promoting immigration, multiculturalism, and the idea that Western nations ought to be proposition nations—i.e., nations dedicated only to certain abstract conceptions of universal human rights rather than having any ethnic basis. For a variety of reasons, from taking advantage of the incentives that are now built into the system to pathological altruism, many non-Jews have been actively complicit in this project.
  • Understanding why particular countries are going along with this project is difficult and requires a detailed analysis for each country. For example, are the Croatian people, the Greeks or the Hungarians eagerly accepting African immigrants and eagerly embracing multiculturalism, or are the policies of their government dictated by their membership in the EU and by elites within these countries whose self-interest coincides with adopting the ideology of multiculturalism and ethnic suicide? I think the latter.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...e-of-the-west/
 
Old April 27th, 2015 #1031
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Key View Post
Christianity and the Ethnic Suicide of the West
April 27, 2015 — 15 Comments
Kevin MacDonald

Several comments on my post “What’s wrong with the Swedes?” mention Christianity as a problem in the dispossession of Whites. I agree that Christianity is part of the problem, but I think there are several difficulties with supposing that it is a root cause of the problem.
  • First and foremost, Christianity was the religion of the West during its expansion around the world. A century ago, with the exception of China, Japan, Siam, Korea, Ethiopia, and Liberia, the rest of the planet was dominated by Christian Europeans. Christianity was at least consistent with this incredible expansion and with the very large increase in the European population that occurred during this period of expansion. If anything, the decline of the West has co-occurred with the decline of religion among Western elites. If the world had stayed the way it was in 1960, no one would be talking about the suicide of the West.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...e-of-the-west/
Came here to post this. You beat me to it. Not the first time. That makes you a great poster on this forum, in my prejudiced view. I will BTL this tomorrow. Lot o' correlation-aint-causation going on, which is par for the pro-xtian side.
 
Old April 28th, 2015 #1032
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

It's remarkable how well the trad caths who infest 'our' ranks has succeeded in making it all, more or less, about the Second Vatican Council (MacDonald mentions it in the typical way non-Christian, but sympathetic people do) when it comes to the Catholic faith. It is obvious that is has been (very) damaging to the church, but it doesn't explain away stuff like the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge by Pope Pius XI, which was written in 1937:

Quote:
The encyclical condemned breaches of the 1933 Reichskonkordat agreement signed between the German Reich and the Holy See.[4] It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism", "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolizing of the State. It contained a vigorous defense of the Old Testament out of belief that it prepared the way for the New.[5] The encyclical states that race is a fundamental value of the human community which is necessary and honorable but condemns the exaltation of race, or the people, or the state, above their standard value to an idolatrous level.[6] The encyclical declares "that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect."
Mit_brennender_Sorge Mit_brennender_Sorge


How does a Catholic who at the same time claim to be a racial nationalist explain this apparent contradiction? While E. Michael Jones doesn't sound all that convincing on this area, he doesn't claim to be a racialist either like a few others of his ilk do.

Last edited by Robbie Key; April 28th, 2015 at 12:39 PM.
 
Old April 28th, 2015 #1033
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

I don't have whatever it takes to wallow in a body of verbosity as viscous as the one MacDonald has laid down, but for what it's worth, I'll give a quick analogy of my visceral reaction.

The rationalization of historical Heebie-Jeebism reminds me of listening to a meth-whore describe how good it was in the early days.

I'm sure it was, baby, but what are you going to do with yourself now that the jew and nigger are done using your dumb ass?

Christianity is a judaized meth-whore whose unique trick it was to free-base jusurious currencies.

Who gives a shit if her principles were universal? Did she apply them universally, or dispense exemptions to every form of inferiority that could crawl out from under a goddamned rock?

Die, whore. Die.

Last edited by Jimmy Marr; April 28th, 2015 at 01:58 PM.
 
Old May 3rd, 2015 #1034
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

CHRISTIAN COLLEGES BUYING INTO ‘WHITE PRIVILEGE’ ARE DISTORTING THE GOSPEL

by TJ JAN - SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY on MAY 1, 2015

“White privilege” is all the rage on college campuses around the country, even Christian colleges like Moody Bible Institute, Azusa Pacific University and Seattle Pacific University.

tali-hairston-165x228SPU’s own Tali Hairston, director of the Perkins Center for Reconciliation, recently told Christianity Today that white evangelical students “have not had to understand” that they have a “deficit of cultural literacy” when it comes to their own privilege.

Schooling themselves in white privilege is the Christian thing to do, he says.

As an evangelical with more “cultural literacy” than the average white person, I’d like to ask Hairston and those who think like him to reconsider their assumptions about the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am a minority – half Chinese – and have been deeply influenced by international service to the poorest around the world in places like Thailand and Honduras.

My Chinese ancestors barely made it into the United States on the eve of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. I was the only Chinese-American in my high school and I am the only minority in my immediate group of friends.

My “white” side comes from Polish and Irish stock, hardly ethnic groups to which American and world history have been kind.

From this vantage point, I’ve grown deeply skeptical – and frankly, quite tired – of SPU’s hubristic fixation on liberation theology’s social justice agenda.

The assault on “white privilege” is nothing more than an ad hominem fallacy, built upon incredible assumptions about a diverse group of nearly 224 million people as of 2010, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Liberation theology sinfully wrests Christ and the message of grace into a political tool and this debased gospel wrongfully fixates our spiritual gaze on the temporal rather than on the transcendent.

Instead of speaking directly about the economic, social and governance issues that may exacerbate America’s inequalities of wealth and opportunity, the argument for white privilege instead assaults a one-dimensional image of the Oppressive White Man.

If such an approach is unacceptable in philosophical or logical discourse, why have we allowed it to gain so much traction in our modern discussions of poverty and inequality?

To point the finger at all whites is illogical, unhelpful, and downright offensive.

Try explaining white privilege to the 5.1 million white children living in poverty in the United States, as estimated in 2013 by Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count Data Center. There are deeper systemic problems to be fixed than the perceived aristocratic superiority of a supposedly homogeneous group of Americans called “whites.”

hoodie.TJ_Jan.FacebookThough I’m no biblical scholar, I don’t think that you need a master’s of divinity to see that Christ’s purpose was to demonstrate supernatural redemption and grace, not primarily promote fleshly transformation.

At the core of the gospel lies the truth of a transcendent Savior who lived the life – and died the death – that we could not do ourselves, so that we might be reconciled to him. Out of this supremely powerful narrative flows the motivation to love one’s neighbor and care for the poor, widows and orphans.

Instead of leaning into this transcendent story of grace, Christian social justice as understood today, motivated by liberation theology, debases the gospel.

It insists that the primary mission of Christianity and Christian action in the world is to promote distinctly progressive and occasionally Marxist incarnations of civil society, government and economic structures.

Using the gospel in such a manner irresponsibly paves the way for endless partisan applications of Christ’s message. When we do this, we cease to be Christians who do politics and transform into politicians and activists who happen to be Christian.

Perhaps I direly misunderstand the basic message of liberation theology, Christian social justice or the arguments against white privilege. Perhaps I just do not understand how I have been racially disadvantaged and am therefore not sufficiently frustrated.

Am I so blinded by some sort of hybrid white privilege that I am unable to exercise “proper” Christian solidarity with the disenfranchised?

But whether you agree with me or call me part of the problem, we as a Christian community should be able to agree that we need to start having conversations about our conversations, rather than dismissing alternate viewpoints as heresy, racism or ignorance.

If I’m being invited to freely participate in “the conversation” about race, religion and politics, why is my voice not being heard? Surely we can do better than a never ending echo-chamber.

College Fix contributor TJ Jan is a student at Seattle Pacific University.

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

IMAGES: TJ Jan, Seattle Pacific University

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/22...College+Fix%29
 
Old May 3rd, 2015 #1035
Jimmy Marr
Moderator
 
Jimmy Marr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Jew S. A.
Posts: 3,679
Default

I suspect the Wholly Bible was a product of the same racial mechanism we see at work in modern Hollywood.

In other words, it served (and still does serve) as metaphysical pornography.

 
Old May 22nd, 2015 #1036
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Default Michael Brown Died for Your Sins

There's a reason why Whites are abandoning the western JUDEO-christian church and it's not just because a sincere faith interferes with jew-promoted materialism, careerism, feminism, the sodomite agenda and all the other spiritual pathogens being promoted in our modern world. Simply put, most churches are a cultural marxist embarrassment chasing the latest secular evils and ignoring the tradition and timelessness that's the main appeal of organized Christianity. We get sermons on "social justice," on bringing in the fuzzies from the darkest parts of Africa, on why the sodomite degeneracy is perfectly normal and fine, on why we must die for Israel and take down the cross because it offends the jew. Suffice it to say, very few Whites find this message compelling. Poz doesn't fill pews, marxist lies don't generate many tithes. In the latest bit of blasphemous insanity a female preacher compares cigar thief Michael Brown to Christ.

http://modernheretic3000.blogspot.co...your-sins.html
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Old June 10th, 2015 #1037
Robbie Key
Senior Member
 
Robbie Key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,399
Blog Entries: 8
Default

Is Universalism So Bad for Whites?

Enza Ferreri on June 9, 2015 — Leave a Comment

Our current disastrous situation is that the White race is rapidly declining in absolute numbers and the countries it built are being taken over by the Third World.

There are, clearly, two elements to this. The first is that Whites are disappearing of their own volition because they don’t reproduce.

The second element is unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism.

It’s my argument that universalism in general and Christianity in particular didn’t produce either (for simplicity I’m assuming that Christianity is universalist although there are exceptions). The distortions of the Left did.

The elephant in the room which nobody is too happy to mention is that the evident reason for the demographic suicide of White, Western peoples is that they have dissociated sex from reproduction, which Christianity teaches not to do. Here, far from Christianity being the cause of this White birth decrease, there is its opposite, the erosion and abandonment of Christianity, at the root of this trend.

There is a Jamie Kelso video in which he confronts young Whites about such an issue as well.

Whites have done this to themselves (I’m childless, so I’m not blaming others, just stating a fact). There is no amount of mass immigration, no number of people from alien races and foreign cultures that could have imposed sexual promiscuity, widespread use of contraception, abortion en masse and similar behaviour on our populations.

After Jesus, Judaism has taken, with the Talmud, a completely different path from its previous history and has become virulently anti-Christian — hence the deceitful ambiguity of the expressions “Judaeo-Christianity” and “Judaeo-Christian”.

For major Jewish movements and organisations in the Diaspora, the erosion of Christianity and traditional Christian sexual mores in Western societies has been a primary goal.

Christianity is what has made the West strong and united for a long time; Jews saw this as a threat.

But it’s up to Whites not to fall into this trap.

Having fun (sex without children or “strings attached”) and the ambition to make money and get influence (pursuing a career) have become more important than family. This is the Christian priority of values turned upside down.

We can forever speculate about why Whites — women in particular — decided to stop having children or greatly reduced their number, but that they did it is beyond dispute.

We have all the possible empirical evidence in the world to assert that wide use of contraceptives and abortion, starting from the mid-60s, the time when Jewish influence on the minds of the young reached its full maturity, resulted in declining Western birthrates and populations.

Patrick Buchanan, in his book The Death of the West (Amazon USA) (Amazon UK) , is justifiably gloomy:

Quote:
Only the mass reconversion of Western women to an idea that they seem to have given up – that the good life lies in bearing and raising children and sending them out into the world to continue the family and nation – can prevent the Death of the West.

Why are Western women having fewer children than their mothers or none at all? Why have so many enlisted in what Mother Theresa called “the war against the child”? Western women have long had access to the methods and means of birth control but chose not to use them to the extent they do today…

From studying the birth charts, we find that something happened in the mid-1960s, in the midst of the postwar prosperity, that changed the hearts and minds of Western women and killed in them the desire to live as their mothers had.
That something is the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960s when the movements of the left originated and dominated by ethnic outsiders achieved hegemony over the culture of the West. But there is no usefulness in always blaming someone else. We have to accept our responsibilities and change our views and behaviour.

We have been brainwashed, yes. The great battle over the last century has been a fight for the minds of the Western peoples, which was won by acquiring control over practically all of the mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media, and using that control to disseminate their message and the way they want us to think.

It has been a top-down revolution carried out originally at the highest levels of society by hostile elites motivated by hatred of and alienation from traditional Western societies. Although their rhetoric always promises a Utopian future free of sexual neurosis and ethnic strife, it is motivated first and foremost by hatred and desire for revenge against the traditional peoples and cultures of the West. It is, as Roger Scruton once noted, “a way of taking revenge on a social order from which they feel alienated.”

So the first thing is to fight the battle inside ourselves. We’ve got to stop thinking in a way that is still affected by Leftist influences, ways of thinking which we may have absorbed in our university years.

In the same way as the words ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ evoke in most people a classical, Pavlovian conditioned response of rejection of everything associated with them, developed through decades of careful conditioning, so that the conscious part of the brain is totally bypassed and — without the possibility of considering the merits of it — there is an automatic reaction, not dissimilar from a kneejerk, so words like “God”, “Christian doctrine” and “Catholic teaching” evoke conditioned negative responses, inculcated by the same sources, and similarly without the benefit of knowing or reflecting on what is being rejected.

We may have become thoroughly aware of the control of the education system and media and entertainment industries by anti-Christian elites, but are we just as thoroughly capable of neutralising and rejecting their effects on the less conscious parts of our brains?

How many of us have refused Christianity only on the basis of the scantest, most superficial knowledge, mostly coming from the distortions of the mainstream media in Christian-hating hands?

Universalism and Christianity don’t require suicide: this is an incorrect, deformed view of their meaning.

The idea that someone should suffer or die so that others can prosper has a long history.

First there are the animal and human sacrifices of some ancient — and contemporary — religions, including paganism. Animal experimentation which, although clothed in pseudoscientific garb, may be seen as a revisitation of the ritual animal sacrifices of primitive religions.

While animal and human sacrifices were immoral and just useless, animal experiments are worse: they are dangerous and harmful to the human beings whose health they are supposed to protect, due to the extreme unreliability of their outcome, on which treatments for humans are based.

But then scientific activity is much more dogmatic than people think, and wrong but well-established theories are hard to die.

The most recent incarnation of the belief in sacrifice is the problem we’re dealing with: the indigenous people of the West are supposed to sacrifice themselves, by allowing their countries to be flooded with populations from another day and age in the distant past (that’s what the Third World is), which will set the clock back for Westerners as well, in order to help these destitute, primitive populations. A modern version of the White Man’s Burden thing in which White people are implicitly seen as superior to the poor and downtrodden they are helping.

Like the other forms of sacrifice described above, it will not help the supposed beneficiaries.

For the result of this invasion of epic proportions will be the eventual destruction of Western civilisation.

Whites are declining fast and furiously in number; Arabs, Blacks and Browns are replacing them in White countries due to the rates of both their migration and their reproduction. What will happen is that the less advanced human elements with higher rates of reproduction enabled by the advanced welfare and medical care systems of the West will replace the traditional peoples of the West.

It’s easier for a more advanced state to revert to a previous one than the other way around. It may well be impossible for Third Worlders to adapt to a far more sophisticated society. But it will be relatively simple for them to destroy it from within, and that will become even more effortless as their numbers and percentage of the population increase.

There is a certain entropy in human affairs as well as in nature: disorder is easier than order, destruction is easier than construction, barbarism is easier than civilisation.

If we look long-term (rather than short), we see that the West, the civilisation created by Whites, will be no more as the same process will be repeated in every part of the West.

The image of a lifeboat that can only take a certain number of victims of a shipwreck springs to mind. It sinks when that number is exceeded so that everybody on it drowns and not even the original number can survive.

Is this a rational strategy to pursue?

Of course not. It’s not callousness, selfishness or particularism which make us realise that the West cannot take this unsustainable level of immigration and survive.

It’s realism and rationality.

From an ethical, universalist viewpoint, it’s essential, nay imperative, to preserve Western civilisation, which has established important moral principles to apply to humans and all other sentient beings. Without it, the world would — will? — be a much worse place. What other culture outlawed slavery for moral reasons? Without the West, the world descends into barbarism and moral particularism.

Therefore, there is no contradiction between opposing mass immigration from the Third World and embracing universalism, no conflict between advocating a stop to this colonisation and believing in Christianity.

People quote Pope Francis and other representatives of the Church who say the opposite.

But we mustn’t forget that this is the post-Vatican-II Church, which is completely on board with the Third Worldization of the West and, not coincidentally, apologised to the Jews and totally changed its views on them.

The Church has for a long time been pressured by Jewish activists and infiltrated by crypto-Jews and Jewish converts. We can’t understand the contemporary Church without appreciating the impact of Jewish influence since Vatican II.

But it has not always been like this. In fact, it has been only in the last few decades of its two millennia of history. We have to understand what happened to the Church, not just with Vatican II, but during decades and centuries before.

To reject Christianity on the basis, as I have read sometimes, that it’s “not White”, it’s “Levantine” or of Jewish derivation is every bit as rational as if the Japanese, in an outburst of self-harming hypernationalism or racialism, had historically rejected Western technology because it hadn’t been created by Japanese or Orientals but Whites.

Finally, one has to ask oneself why, if Christianity were so bad for Whites as some people think, the media, entertainment industry and intellectuals are constantly bashing and deriding it. Is it atheism or Christianity that they fear?

They don’t attack and ridicule paganism or atheism. They actually promote and lionise atheism day in and day out. We don’t have Hollywood films making fun of atheism or criticising it.

This is a comment someone left to one of my posts on Facebook:

Quote:
Christianity is a Roman reworking of some sand demon kult…

They [Christians] have no place being here in the heartlands of the Celto-Germanics/Nordics. The west died when Rome/Catholics tried to destroy our real heritage.
It could sound like a fairly common — if not typical — observation from a White advocate. Except, as I discuss, there were several telltale signs that he’s in fact Jewish. Not all those who trash Christianity are what they seem.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ad-for-whites/
 
Old June 11th, 2015 #1038
CJayC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 6
Default

Christianity is the biggest scam and the biggest mistake the West has ever made. These days we have Christian charities and churches that promote amnesty for illegal aliens and 3rd world immigration to the Western nations. What more needs to be said?
 
Old June 14th, 2015 #1039
JohnEngelman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 210
Thumbs up In Christ there is no East or West.


In Christ there is no East or West,
In Him no South or North;
But one great fellowship of love
Throughout the whole wide earth.

In Him shall true hearts everywhere
Their high communion find;
His service is the golden cord,
Close binding humankind.

Join hands, then, members of the faith,
Whatever your race may be!
Who serves my Father as His child
Is surely kin to me.

In Christ now meet both East and West,
In Him meet North and South;
All Christly souls are one in Him
Throughout the whole wide earth.
 
Old June 14th, 2015 #1040
JohnEngelman
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 210
Thumbs up Jesus Loves the Little Children, All the Little Children of the World.

 
Reply

Tags
#1, christianity

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:13 PM.
Page generated in 2.39557 seconds.