As @CHIRO has already explained, I ping him for his own interest, not for his "help." Although I wonder at your irritation at my use of pings. I am the one being downvoted here, not you.
>No. BS. Jews were jewing long long before any messianic business. They just didn't have much of an opportunity to do it in europe. They had no ties there so their fuckery was restricted to the middle east.
All peoples were sinning grievously prior to Christ, and all peoples continue to do so after His Ascension. You can point to any number of cases in the Old Testament, or other historic documents, to reveal the iniquitous ways of the Jews. But this is by no means unique to them. What is under discussion is the specifically organized way in which the Jewish people effect certain revolutionary changes in history, and *this* manifestation is uniquely post-Christian. You can argue that this behaviour manifested only because Christianity enabled the consolidation of Jewish power in a way that the pre-Christian world never enabled. But this argument depends on the assertion that the Jews, by nature, sought to act in such a way even prior to Christ.
But this is contrary to the evidence. All you have in support of this argument is evidence of Jewish iniquity prior to Christ. But as I've said, all peoples were (and are) iniquitous. What you require is evidence of attempted Jewish consolidation and subversion of all peoples, everywhere. Not warlike behaviour, not conquest, but parasitic subversion via tribal tactics. But the Old Testament reveals that the Jews took pains to isolate themselves from pagan influence, and wanted little to do with other peoples once they had secured the land they thought was theirs. This is not equivalent to what we see today.
Rather than saying that some unevidenced revolutionary nature manifested itself more potently as a result of Christian tolerance, I argue that the merely human, common iniquity of the Jews translated to a *unifying religious spirit* of revolution only post Crucifixion, and signs of this spirit could be seen whether the Jews had power or not, in ways that it was not seen prior to this moment in history.
There is even a naturalistic explanation for why this is the case. Prior to Christ, the Jews still staked their hope in the Messiah. After Him, there were a few claimants, who failed miserably to satisfy, and so eventually they projected the awaited Messiah-ship upon *the Jewish people themselves*. Thus we have tikkun olam, this notion that the Jews are called by God to "heal the world" (thus act as revolutioanries against a certain order), a notion which we only see emerge, not in the days of the Old Testament, but in the *post-Christian Talmudic era*.
It is Providential that the Jews finally abandoned their awaiting their Messiah only after Christ came, and they (those who did not accept Him) rejected Him.
The article from 1890 was written then because the 100 years previous to it had brought the notion of the Jewish Question to every household.
If the Jews are a problem by virtue of their presence, rather than their behaviour, then the Jews were a problem prior to the Holy Roman Empire, for they were granted existence under Rome, and were not genocided as some here would wish they had been.
"But they had no power under Rome, because Rome kept them in check," you might answer.
Fine, then we are in agreement that it is Jewish behaviour, and not the Jewish presence, that is the problem (if there is a problem at all).
But if Jewish behaviour became in issue in France principally after the yoke of Catholicism was thrown off, then the problems that followed this can no more be blamed on the Christian people's tolerance of the Jewish presence prior to that time, than the Romans could be blamed for not genociding the Jews in AD 70.
So what I have said is not irrelevant, if there is a difference between Jewish behaviour pre-1789 in France, vs post-1789 in France, which there clearly is.
And a careful surveillance of history shows that it is similarly following disobedience to the Church, and not by following the Church's dictates, that the Jews gained more power or caused more harm among Christian peoples.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Testament, and Jesus was a Semite, A Galilean, a descendant of David, and of Abraham.
Jesus came among the people from which He took his flesh, and spoke to them first. Those who believed in Him then spread the word of Him to all the world. Those who denied Him became enemies of His Church. Both the believers and the deniers, initially, were Jews, Semites.
You use "cult" in derogation. But the root of "cult" is the Latin *cultus*, from which we take "cultivation", and refers to the upbringing and training of people as much as the harvesting of food. There are good cults and bad cults, but nothing wrong with the structured training of persons, simpliciter.
There are wicked generations and pious generations of men. Ours is clearly the former. Whether you think some decentralized philosophy nonetheless united by a special DNA is the "true way", or whether it is true religion, there is no doubt that the throngs of the iniquitous outnumber us all. Why then should a cult's "dying" be proof of its lack of worth? Has not the *cultus* that you affirm, namely a cognizance of one's people and traditions, or one's identity and responsibility, likewise been dying for generations?
So you have said two irrelevant things. Being raised in a cult is neither good nor bad, in itself, nor is one's cult waning any indication of its truth.
That you learned better is clearly an arguable matter. It is not clear whether you ever had a real depth of knowledge of the Catholic faith to begin with. I suspect that if you did, you would not speak of it with such disdain, even if you did not count yourself among its ranks.
As I said before, the Jewish Question arose because the "Jew" which posed a "problem" to the world, or Europe specifically, became a problem *because* they began to identify in terms of the rejection of Christ. "And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children." (Mt 27:25). And so, if this is indeed the origin of the problem, then conversion is indeed a valid solution. This metaphysical view is at odds with naturalistic determination, with which there are abundant flaws.
The article was written in 1890, describing events around the time of the revolution. It was written then because 100 years had passed since the growth in Jewish power, which followed as a direct result of abandoning Christian law and the Church at large.
I am saying that large institutions are subject to risks of infiltration / corruption in general. And I know you recognize well that risk, since you advocate for decentralization. Even if Christian institutions are more vulnerable to one kind of organized group, other institutions are likewise vulnerable to other groups (like big politics being vulnerable to Big Money, whether that money is Jewish or not). Any structure has a nature, and depending on the nature, different weaknesses can be exploited. If the desire for unity and brotherhood is a weakness among those who identify in terms of rejecting Logos, so be it. That does not in itself undermine the goodness or truth of the Christian mission.
I am not here to call you names or insult you, Broc. Ask yourself why you feel the need to lower the level of our discourse with useless affronts.
Do you understand the Biblical basis of so much of European culture?
Do you understand the Providential role of symbolism, shared by peoples who had never even communicated, in representing, poetically, human thoughts and natural truths?
One's loyalty should be to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, the Most High God. Love and dutiful service to one's neighbour follows necessarily from this. Without it, it is not given, but is at risk of becoming merely contractual.
Unless we deny our own self-will and subordinate it to the will of God, *whatever* that will may be, we will flee from one "flavour" to another, seeking whatever *we* think will satisfy *ourselves*.
But nothing but God can fully satisfy the human heart, and God on God's terms, not our own.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8%3A31-32&version=DRA
>Your argument falls at the first hurdle. Where did all the jewish moneylenders come from? There was no widespread diaspora of jewish financiers in europe before christians made a special place for them and gave them a monopoly.
^ Official Vatican magazine, 1890. The Jewish control of France began only following the anti-Catholic revolution, culmination in napoleon's emancipation of the Jews:
>Some years ago, a French writer completed a savory work on the Jewish invasion of his country, using a rationale that, in substance, can be summarized as follows.
>The French Christians have never forgotten that these Jews, by name and birth barbarians, most of whom are not pure, in less than a century have become our overlords. Their influence occurred in three phases: in 1791, when all of the national institutions collapsed; in 1815, when France fell prostrate; and in 1870, when the German armies mutilated France.
>When in 1789 the era of revolution against the hegemony of the nobility and clergy began, what militated against these two ranks of our civilization? Their ownership of two-thirds of French soil. Taine recently justified the basis for this ownership. The nobility was formed in order to defend the nation against external enemies, and thus procure security and glory for the nation. The clergy have well merited credit for civilizing the nation, of having sweetened our customs, of enriching us through knowledge and churches, and through many thousands of expressions of charity.
>Before the revolution, the clergy’s combined capital was estimated at about 4 billion francs. In 1789 there were at least 130,090 priests and religious. That was 30,000 francs for each. But after the revolution this was reduced to an income of 1,500 francs. To understand the magnitude of this, one need only look at the great number of people who cashed in on this reduction of capital to the clergy, and at the perquisites that were passed around everywhere. Who can deny a legitimate patrimony was subjected to an enormous abuse; and essentially confiscated?
>A hundred years later there are no longer 130,000 priests and religious, but 60,000 foreign, non-French Jews, who head a social order that is not marked by distinguished service toward the nation. Rather, they are a voracious mob of worldly supernumeraries, who, one hundred years later, have snatched up in our house, not a sum of 4,000, but 90 billion francs.
>And now, lords as they are over the public trust, they ardently inflame the common people, goading them against the clergy. The wicked popular passions they arouse form a screen for their monstrous wealth. At the time of the first revolution they reproved the clergy for their 4 billion francs. Yet, today isn’t it amazing to see the fortune of just one family of Jews (that of the Rothschilds), who have amassed it by bleeding from behind the scenes, in less than seventy years? And what’s more, this race was not content with bleeding us. They also made haste to kidnap the faith of Christ and the all that is most beautiful in our culture!
>Thus did the passionate French writer end by exclaiming: "Christian Frenchmen, let us join together to thwart the wicked tricksters. Let us form a defense league against these enemies of the name, race, belief and fatherland of our traditions."
>A similar cry is heard in other countries, and might also soon be heard in those where there is as yet no outcry, but where one shall soon be heard, when the boiling point is reached.
The difference between the strength and societal power the Jews have had in Europe post-1789 vs pre-1789 is greater than the difference between night and day. And yet "the Church did nothing to stand as a bulwark against the Jews," some would obstinately claim.
>Like I said, why were those defences necessary in the first place? Before christianity there was no jewish question.
Because before Christianity there was no (historic) Christ, and it is precisely the revolution *against Christ, in history* that *incarnated* the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit within history. The Jews are not the force that they are because of their DNA. that is an embarrassing level of reductive thinking. The Jews are the force that they are because they were unified, in Spirit, against Christ, the Logos, Himself. Define the good, and those who choose to define themselves in opposition to it we will all the more united. Which is why Christ wisely and truly said, "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Mat 12:30). With the advent of the Incarnation *within time*, **all** of human history is now measured by Him - if He is Who He says He is, *how could it be otherwise*?
>Political advantages. Christianity offered a useful mechanism for suppressing and controlling large numbers of people. It's iron-age marxism.
It would be more accurate to say, "Marxism is Christianity without Christ." But of course, if Christ is indeed the Logos, then subtracting Christ from the equation *radically changes the nature of the system*, now doesn't it?
>And yes, I think that without christianity the jews would have had a much more difficult time infiltrating europe. There's a reason why up until the 20th century the vast majority of their population was contained here: Christian countries make an ideal host.
This may be so. Liberalism likely would not have as readily evolved without the Christian sense that *every man* is made in the image and likeness of God. Marxism likely would not have evolved if not for liberalism.But to judge a thing by the corruption of it is mere folly, I'm sorry to say.
>No. Jews are highly adapted to taking over centralised institutions. "Unity" is a weakness. We need decentralisation and a return to local governance.
Why not both? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
>No. Christianity has never been a european unifier, it has been a globaliser.
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man...
European unity need not entail European exclusivity. If Christianity unifies all people, then it unifies Europe. And this it clearly did, better than anything that has ever been, including the (Unholy) Roman Empire. Although God's Providence clearly (unsurprisingly) knew what it was doing in selecting the time of Rome to send the Son of God, for the connectedness of Rome made spreading the Gospel to all the world a possibility in a way it would not have been even a few centuries before.
We don't need Europe against the world, Broc. We need man united against sin.
Which is true of any institutional structure, and bears not at all on the truth of the religion or the value of the institution. Especially when there are ways to prevent infiltration, of which sinful man does not avail himself in his love of iniquity.
"Jew" just refers to Judea, a region of ancient Israel. Israel today is the people of God, comprised of anyone who is willing to say to the Lord "Thy will be done", instead of declaring, with Satan, "My will be done."
One does not need to trace one's ethnicity or genetics back to the group of people who first received Revelation from heaven in order to be a true member of God's family.
This mentality supposes religion is a merely naturalistic phenomenon, that it is a human tool that only exists to serve human ends. But if true religion is a divinely revealed *way* of approaching the divine, and the divine is the true end for which man was made and without which man cannot be satisfied, then religion *must* be first and foremost. It is not a secondary issue. Supposing it is secondary is to mistake the nature of religion from the outset on the basis of demonstrably false naturalistic assumptions.
PS -1 points 2 years ago
We repeat and advance not at all. A disappointing exchange, all in all.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -2 points 2 years ago
As @CHIRO has already explained, I ping him for his own interest, not for his "help." Although I wonder at your irritation at my use of pings. I am the one being downvoted here, not you.
>No. BS. Jews were jewing long long before any messianic business. They just didn't have much of an opportunity to do it in europe. They had no ties there so their fuckery was restricted to the middle east.
All peoples were sinning grievously prior to Christ, and all peoples continue to do so after His Ascension. You can point to any number of cases in the Old Testament, or other historic documents, to reveal the iniquitous ways of the Jews. But this is by no means unique to them. What is under discussion is the specifically organized way in which the Jewish people effect certain revolutionary changes in history, and *this* manifestation is uniquely post-Christian. You can argue that this behaviour manifested only because Christianity enabled the consolidation of Jewish power in a way that the pre-Christian world never enabled. But this argument depends on the assertion that the Jews, by nature, sought to act in such a way even prior to Christ.
But this is contrary to the evidence. All you have in support of this argument is evidence of Jewish iniquity prior to Christ. But as I've said, all peoples were (and are) iniquitous. What you require is evidence of attempted Jewish consolidation and subversion of all peoples, everywhere. Not warlike behaviour, not conquest, but parasitic subversion via tribal tactics. But the Old Testament reveals that the Jews took pains to isolate themselves from pagan influence, and wanted little to do with other peoples once they had secured the land they thought was theirs. This is not equivalent to what we see today.
Rather than saying that some unevidenced revolutionary nature manifested itself more potently as a result of Christian tolerance, I argue that the merely human, common iniquity of the Jews translated to a *unifying religious spirit* of revolution only post Crucifixion, and signs of this spirit could be seen whether the Jews had power or not, in ways that it was not seen prior to this moment in history.
There is even a naturalistic explanation for why this is the case. Prior to Christ, the Jews still staked their hope in the Messiah. After Him, there were a few claimants, who failed miserably to satisfy, and so eventually they projected the awaited Messiah-ship upon *the Jewish people themselves*. Thus we have tikkun olam, this notion that the Jews are called by God to "heal the world" (thus act as revolutioanries against a certain order), a notion which we only see emerge, not in the days of the Old Testament, but in the *post-Christian Talmudic era*.
It is Providential that the Jews finally abandoned their awaiting their Messiah only after Christ came, and they (those who did not accept Him) rejected Him.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
The article from 1890 was written then because the 100 years previous to it had brought the notion of the Jewish Question to every household.
If the Jews are a problem by virtue of their presence, rather than their behaviour, then the Jews were a problem prior to the Holy Roman Empire, for they were granted existence under Rome, and were not genocided as some here would wish they had been.
"But they had no power under Rome, because Rome kept them in check," you might answer.
Fine, then we are in agreement that it is Jewish behaviour, and not the Jewish presence, that is the problem (if there is a problem at all).
But if Jewish behaviour became in issue in France principally after the yoke of Catholicism was thrown off, then the problems that followed this can no more be blamed on the Christian people's tolerance of the Jewish presence prior to that time, than the Romans could be blamed for not genociding the Jews in AD 70.
So what I have said is not irrelevant, if there is a difference between Jewish behaviour pre-1789 in France, vs post-1789 in France, which there clearly is.
And a careful surveillance of history shows that it is similarly following disobedience to the Church, and not by following the Church's dictates, that the Jews gained more power or caused more harm among Christian peoples.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Testament, and Jesus was a Semite, A Galilean, a descendant of David, and of Abraham.
Jesus came among the people from which He took his flesh, and spoke to them first. Those who believed in Him then spread the word of Him to all the world. Those who denied Him became enemies of His Church. Both the believers and the deniers, initially, were Jews, Semites.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
You use "cult" in derogation. But the root of "cult" is the Latin *cultus*, from which we take "cultivation", and refers to the upbringing and training of people as much as the harvesting of food. There are good cults and bad cults, but nothing wrong with the structured training of persons, simpliciter.
There are wicked generations and pious generations of men. Ours is clearly the former. Whether you think some decentralized philosophy nonetheless united by a special DNA is the "true way", or whether it is true religion, there is no doubt that the throngs of the iniquitous outnumber us all. Why then should a cult's "dying" be proof of its lack of worth? Has not the *cultus* that you affirm, namely a cognizance of one's people and traditions, or one's identity and responsibility, likewise been dying for generations?
So you have said two irrelevant things. Being raised in a cult is neither good nor bad, in itself, nor is one's cult waning any indication of its truth.
That you learned better is clearly an arguable matter. It is not clear whether you ever had a real depth of knowledge of the Catholic faith to begin with. I suspect that if you did, you would not speak of it with such disdain, even if you did not count yourself among its ranks.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -2 points 2 years ago
As I said before, the Jewish Question arose because the "Jew" which posed a "problem" to the world, or Europe specifically, became a problem *because* they began to identify in terms of the rejection of Christ. "And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children." (Mt 27:25). And so, if this is indeed the origin of the problem, then conversion is indeed a valid solution. This metaphysical view is at odds with naturalistic determination, with which there are abundant flaws.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
The article was written in 1890, describing events around the time of the revolution. It was written then because 100 years had passed since the growth in Jewish power, which followed as a direct result of abandoning Christian law and the Church at large.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
And what did who, specifically, say about "tolerance", specifically? Love is one thing, tolerance of evil another.
But the mere presence of a person or people is no evil. For the will is free.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
I am saying that large institutions are subject to risks of infiltration / corruption in general. And I know you recognize well that risk, since you advocate for decentralization. Even if Christian institutions are more vulnerable to one kind of organized group, other institutions are likewise vulnerable to other groups (like big politics being vulnerable to Big Money, whether that money is Jewish or not). Any structure has a nature, and depending on the nature, different weaknesses can be exploited. If the desire for unity and brotherhood is a weakness among those who identify in terms of rejecting Logos, so be it. That does not in itself undermine the goodness or truth of the Christian mission.
I am not here to call you names or insult you, Broc. Ask yourself why you feel the need to lower the level of our discourse with useless affronts.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
Do you understand the Biblical basis of so much of European culture?
Do you understand the Providential role of symbolism, shared by peoples who had never even communicated, in representing, poetically, human thoughts and natural truths?
Your angle will not stand up to scrutiny.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
One's loyalty should be to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, the Most High God. Love and dutiful service to one's neighbour follows necessarily from this. Without it, it is not given, but is at risk of becoming merely contractual.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
Unless we deny our own self-will and subordinate it to the will of God, *whatever* that will may be, we will flee from one "flavour" to another, seeking whatever *we* think will satisfy *ourselves*.
But nothing but God can fully satisfy the human heart, and God on God's terms, not our own.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+8%3A31-32&version=DRA
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
Do you even hear yourselves?
@Lordbananafist
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
You had it right the first time ;)
Though you may not have understood why.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -2 points 2 years ago
>Just because Jews argue with each other doesn't make them worthy of worship.
Being the Son of God does.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
You've never heard of the Church Fathers, apparently.
Read Clement's letters. Read Ignatius of Antioch. Read about Polycarp.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
>Your argument falls at the first hurdle. Where did all the jewish moneylenders come from? There was no widespread diaspora of jewish financiers in europe before christians made a special place for them and gave them a monopoly.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/judaism/jewrope.htm
^ Official Vatican magazine, 1890. The Jewish control of France began only following the anti-Catholic revolution, culmination in napoleon's emancipation of the Jews:
>Some years ago, a French writer completed a savory work on the Jewish invasion of his country, using a rationale that, in substance, can be summarized as follows.
>The French Christians have never forgotten that these Jews, by name and birth barbarians, most of whom are not pure, in less than a century have become our overlords. Their influence occurred in three phases: in 1791, when all of the national institutions collapsed; in 1815, when France fell prostrate; and in 1870, when the German armies mutilated France.
>When in 1789 the era of revolution against the hegemony of the nobility and clergy began, what militated against these two ranks of our civilization? Their ownership of two-thirds of French soil. Taine recently justified the basis for this ownership. The nobility was formed in order to defend the nation against external enemies, and thus procure security and glory for the nation. The clergy have well merited credit for civilizing the nation, of having sweetened our customs, of enriching us through knowledge and churches, and through many thousands of expressions of charity.
>Before the revolution, the clergy’s combined capital was estimated at about 4 billion francs. In 1789 there were at least 130,090 priests and religious. That was 30,000 francs for each. But after the revolution this was reduced to an income of 1,500 francs. To understand the magnitude of this, one need only look at the great number of people who cashed in on this reduction of capital to the clergy, and at the perquisites that were passed around everywhere. Who can deny a legitimate patrimony was subjected to an enormous abuse; and essentially confiscated?
>A hundred years later there are no longer 130,000 priests and religious, but 60,000 foreign, non-French Jews, who head a social order that is not marked by distinguished service toward the nation. Rather, they are a voracious mob of worldly supernumeraries, who, one hundred years later, have snatched up in our house, not a sum of 4,000, but 90 billion francs.
>And now, lords as they are over the public trust, they ardently inflame the common people, goading them against the clergy. The wicked popular passions they arouse form a screen for their monstrous wealth. At the time of the first revolution they reproved the clergy for their 4 billion francs. Yet, today isn’t it amazing to see the fortune of just one family of Jews (that of the Rothschilds), who have amassed it by bleeding from behind the scenes, in less than seventy years? And what’s more, this race was not content with bleeding us. They also made haste to kidnap the faith of Christ and the all that is most beautiful in our culture!
>Thus did the passionate French writer end by exclaiming: "Christian Frenchmen, let us join together to thwart the wicked tricksters. Let us form a defense league against these enemies of the name, race, belief and fatherland of our traditions."
>A similar cry is heard in other countries, and might also soon be heard in those where there is as yet no outcry, but where one shall soon be heard, when the boiling point is reached.
The difference between the strength and societal power the Jews have had in Europe post-1789 vs pre-1789 is greater than the difference between night and day. And yet "the Church did nothing to stand as a bulwark against the Jews," some would obstinately claim.
>Like I said, why were those defences necessary in the first place? Before christianity there was no jewish question.
Because before Christianity there was no (historic) Christ, and it is precisely the revolution *against Christ, in history* that *incarnated* the Jewish Revolutionary Spirit within history. The Jews are not the force that they are because of their DNA. that is an embarrassing level of reductive thinking. The Jews are the force that they are because they were unified, in Spirit, against Christ, the Logos, Himself. Define the good, and those who choose to define themselves in opposition to it we will all the more united. Which is why Christ wisely and truly said, "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth." (Mat 12:30). With the advent of the Incarnation *within time*, **all** of human history is now measured by Him - if He is Who He says He is, *how could it be otherwise*?
>Political advantages. Christianity offered a useful mechanism for suppressing and controlling large numbers of people. It's iron-age marxism.
It would be more accurate to say, "Marxism is Christianity without Christ." But of course, if Christ is indeed the Logos, then subtracting Christ from the equation *radically changes the nature of the system*, now doesn't it?
>And yes, I think that without christianity the jews would have had a much more difficult time infiltrating europe. There's a reason why up until the 20th century the vast majority of their population was contained here: Christian countries make an ideal host.
This may be so. Liberalism likely would not have as readily evolved without the Christian sense that *every man* is made in the image and likeness of God. Marxism likely would not have evolved if not for liberalism.But to judge a thing by the corruption of it is mere folly, I'm sorry to say.
>No. Jews are highly adapted to taking over centralised institutions. "Unity" is a weakness. We need decentralisation and a return to local governance.
Why not both? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)
>No. Christianity has never been a european unifier, it has been a globaliser.
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man...
European unity need not entail European exclusivity. If Christianity unifies all people, then it unifies Europe. And this it clearly did, better than anything that has ever been, including the (Unholy) Roman Empire. Although God's Providence clearly (unsurprisingly) knew what it was doing in selecting the time of Rome to send the Son of God, for the connectedness of Rome made spreading the Gospel to all the world a possibility in a way it would not have been even a few centuries before.
We don't need Europe against the world, Broc. We need man united against sin.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
Your religion courses were not the teachings of the saints. Listen to those who actually lived the truth.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
Which is true of any institutional structure, and bears not at all on the truth of the religion or the value of the institution. Especially when there are ways to prevent infiltration, of which sinful man does not avail himself in his love of iniquity.
https://www.voat.xyz/profile?user=CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
It's God who tolerates you and me, for our iniquity.
The Christian Church is heavenly, ordered far beyond anything the Jews - or any people - could contrive.
Sin is the only control structure you need fear.
https://www.voat.xyz/profile?user=CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
"Jew" just refers to Judea, a region of ancient Israel. Israel today is the people of God, comprised of anyone who is willing to say to the Lord "Thy will be done", instead of declaring, with Satan, "My will be done."
One does not need to trace one's ethnicity or genetics back to the group of people who first received Revelation from heaven in order to be a true member of God's family.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
/>thinking the goodness or truth of God is dependent on any human society or tradition
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
Hope you've been doing well. But of course you're still mistaken.
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS -1 points 2 years ago
>Agreed
See above. This mentality reveals potentially fatal presuppositions about the nature of reality itself.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc
PS 0 points 2 years ago
This mentality supposes religion is a merely naturalistic phenomenon, that it is a human tool that only exists to serve human ends. But if true religion is a divinely revealed *way* of approaching the divine, and the divine is the true end for which man was made and without which man cannot be satisfied, then religion *must* be first and foremost. It is not a secondary issue. Supposing it is secondary is to mistake the nature of religion from the outset on the basis of demonstrably false naturalistic assumptions.
@CHIRO
/v/whatever viewpost?postid=6262eccb000bc