The claim I'm seeing a lot is that Christianity is a jewish cult (religion, project, enterprise, emanation, etc. etc.) Simply, to be a Christian means to be beholden to jews in some important sense.
Some have even claimed that Christianity was a jewish invention, a literal conspiracy by a 1st-century jewish intelligentsia (with the help of Roman pawns) to create a "religious golem" that would help Judaism to spread its virus into the gentile "mainframe", infecting our cultures unto the present day.
I have a challenge for you.
(1) Are Christians today being better Christians than they were in the past? (Does Christianity have a more sprawling influence on the white European culture today than it did. . .a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, or a millennium ago?)
(2) Are all of the pro-jewish things undermining the West escalating in their intensity and reach?
(3) All else being equal, for the most recent decade or two, has Christianity strengthened in the west at the same time as the pro-jewish trends have strengthened?
If jews created Christianity to promote values in a target (host) society, why does it appear as if Christianity requires being undermined at the same time as the pro-jewish values are being inoculated?
If Christianity is a jewish virus for destroying a target society from within, wouldn't we expect jews to be promoting Christianity in the west?
If we were approaching a theoretical maximum in the west for the pro-jewish degeneracy trends, wouldn't we expect Christianity to also be at a theoretical maximum?
At what point does the golem become an enemy to those who created it, and at that point, how does it continue to be a boon for the jews? Either it is opposed to jews or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.
Let's be clear here that you're no longer talking about christianity as a religion or belief system, but christianity as a socio-political movement.
I'm thinking this is a distinction without a difference if we consider religion through a traditionalist or perennialist lens.
That's the thing. My philosophy of religion is very advanced. I'm not saying that to boast - who would I be boasting for? - but to just state a matter of fact that makes conversations in this format (Voat) difficult. It's just not the right medium for discussions of this kind. There's too much going on.
You're doing this to sidestep questions of "was christianity created by jews?" and "was the bible entirely written by jews?" and "is the god of christianity jewish?" to simply ask whether or not christianity is uniting or dividing Europe.
I have no intention of side-stepping these questions. The answers are "no" and "no", flatly. Whether a religion successfully grounds the existence of a church, conceived the right way (including as a socio-political, unifying movement), is the entire question. I believe Christianity fundamentally redefines what the term jew means. Prior to Christianity, jew had an ethno-theological significance. After Christianity, it has a political-theological significance. To be a jew in the world post-incarnation is to reject Christ. That's what it is most fundamentally; and the notion that the term jew designates a particular ethncicity is now a defunct idea. What we tend to call jews today is biologically meaningless. They're a scattered miscegenation of genetic data that have simultaneously exploited Christianity and ancient Israelite theology to larp as the inheritors of something that was never there to inherit. Christianity is the inheritance, and its parents are not only jewish, but Roman. I would argue that their father is Roman, and he has separated them from the mother completely.
At least, that is what happened in the past and needs to happen again.
I'm talking about Roman Christianity. I think nothing critical of the jewish lineage survived the application to Rome. In fact, you'll find that many orthodox Jews levy this exact criticism against Christians. Tovia Singer leans on this argument heavily. The idea is that Christianity didn't take over Rome, rather Rome absorbed Christianity and Romanized it. I believe this is true.
To begin with, the dying and rising savior deity was a concept that antedated most of the Jewish biblical lore, which came about largely as a result of both the Babylonian captivity, and later occupation under Rome. Jewish intellectuals were exposed in the latter to the great corpus of Greco-Roman literature, from Homer to Plato. I would like to say that the pre-Christian encounter with God, in a real sense, was happening in places like Rome. For me, the Christ, qua Jesus, in being assimialted to the Roman rite, was just coming back home and being consummated in the Catholic tradition that would occupy the formal station of the imperial cult.
Many gods were in the process of becoming one. Even the notion that pre-Christian jews were monotheists is incorrect. Monotheism is born of Roman Catholicism in so far as it was inherently drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and the neoplatonic tradition. It is the consummation of man's encounter with God until that point, as scattered and diverse as it had been until then: but make no mistake, it was consummated in Rome, unfortunately and fortunately at a time when Rome was in its twilight. Politically this seems suspect, but theologically it is opportune. There is a reason that we were moving away from paganism, and I am just fine thinking that this is a matter of divine providence that as the imperial, material center is dying, it is giving birth to the spiritual center, which being unshackled from a physical temple, if you will, was then free to spread across Europe, unifying Europa in Christendom. It couldn't have done this if there was still a physical temple, so to speak. It was able to unify us intellectually and spiritually, in a way that transcends mere political authority.
For many reasons, paganism (in large part defined by Catholics) is dead. If we view this strictly in terms of historical traditions, I will grant why and how that seems like a kind of unfortunate destruction. But in terms of the theology and the intellectual edifice, it is far easier to see why it is this way. The way that God relates to a people, to blood, and soil as a singular power is far different than a menagerie of local deities that people mostly pick from according to their own sense of fortune and luck. If this one doesn't work, try another. The unifying capacity of Christinaity in the Roman rite is like a "theological imperialism."
All that needs to be done is to do away with the utterly false idea that being a Christian today means reserving some special place for ethnic jews. This is just a flat misunderstanding of the significance of Christianity. Many people have lost a true sense of the tradition and its wisdom and its power to unite. The failure of the Church has to do with jewish infiltration, but also a weakening of the people who would otherwise make up the Church Militant. The Church herself is to blame, but the story as to why is very complicated. You know, the reasons for establishing a pedagogical and authoritative hierarchy in the Church is about more than maintaining strict control and disuading questions/challenges to it. It has to do with the fact that scriptures in the hands of the lay tends to lead to a judaizing tendency, of worshipping words. And Christian truth is remarkably, remarkably hard to grasp. It's just a brute fact that a majority of people will not have the cognitive power to grasp it. You need only look to the Scholastic tradition beginning in late antiquity to see how under Roman Christianity, our doctrines and philosophy of God took off at an insane pace. In its wake, rabbinical judaism and later islam were simply taking cues. (Granted, Islam would see an intellectual heyday in which some of their thinkers contributed heavily to systematic theology.)
The point is that Christainity properly understood, de-fucked from the corruption that fooled it into thinking there was such a thing as a biblical jew any longer, and returned to the Roman way, with a full understanding of its provenance (including its seminal time in the form of Greco-Roman mythos), is a way of unifying the white race against the jewish enemy. It is there. It is live. It is available. It is resurrected. This is not true of pagan forms of religion that have to be held up on crutches by romantic hearts seeking a heathen revival. We aren't heathens anymore. Not only that, but a good deal of the Norse stuff we know about post-dates Christianity anyway (Yes, I understand that their claims will be that the Norse goes back further, but critical reflection on the sacrifice of Odin, for example, isn't really popping up in things like Codex Regius until the middle ages. To me, these are reflections on Christianity, even if they aren't framed that way due to a native desire for originality. Sharp minds can see through to the truth.)
This is what I mean. The truth of Christ isn't just an ethnic truth. It's a universal truth. It is for the white man to be universal. It is for him to transcend the material world and touch heaven like no other race has been able to do. And the evil rats of the world, like Cain, who hate this about him, will strike at his heels, attempting to subvert him at all times. Unfortunately, I think jews have done this successfully, and that explains why we have this half-a-millennium decline leading us to today. A battle between Christ and those who reject him.
We can extricate Christianity from jews. I would even say it is relatively easy to do, if people could just give up the fearful way they cling to most of the contemporary arguments for why God exists and why it is the God conceived by Christianity. They want to rely on historical arguments, and it's killing us. Faith is a choice, and it should be made to think of God in the most beautiful way possible. Forget anything jewish for a moment, and the Christ is the most beautiful thought that any human mind can have about God. It doesn't belong to anyone, but Roman Christianity took it up and lifted it higher than anybody. It's our flag to carry and our cross to bear.
CHIRO 0 points 11 months ago
I'm thinking this is a distinction without a difference if we consider religion through a traditionalist or perennialist lens.
That's the thing. My philosophy of religion is very advanced. I'm not saying that to boast - who would I be boasting for? - but to just state a matter of fact that makes conversations in this format (Voat) difficult. It's just not the right medium for discussions of this kind. There's too much going on.
I have no intention of side-stepping these questions. The answers are "no" and "no", flatly. Whether a religion successfully grounds the existence of a church, conceived the right way (including as a socio-political, unifying movement), is the entire question. I believe Christianity fundamentally redefines what the term jew means. Prior to Christianity, jew had an ethno-theological significance. After Christianity, it has a political-theological significance. To be a jew in the world post-incarnation is to reject Christ. That's what it is most fundamentally; and the notion that the term jew designates a particular ethncicity is now a defunct idea. What we tend to call jews today is biologically meaningless. They're a scattered miscegenation of genetic data that have simultaneously exploited Christianity and ancient Israelite theology to larp as the inheritors of something that was never there to inherit. Christianity is the inheritance, and its parents are not only jewish, but Roman. I would argue that their father is Roman, and he has separated them from the mother completely.
At least, that is what happened in the past and needs to happen again.
I'm talking about Roman Christianity. I think nothing critical of the jewish lineage survived the application to Rome. In fact, you'll find that many orthodox Jews levy this exact criticism against Christians. Tovia Singer leans on this argument heavily. The idea is that Christianity didn't take over Rome, rather Rome absorbed Christianity and Romanized it. I believe this is true.
To begin with, the dying and rising savior deity was a concept that antedated most of the Jewish biblical lore, which came about largely as a result of both the Babylonian captivity, and later occupation under Rome. Jewish intellectuals were exposed in the latter to the great corpus of Greco-Roman literature, from Homer to Plato. I would like to say that the pre-Christian encounter with God, in a real sense, was happening in places like Rome. For me, the Christ, qua Jesus, in being assimialted to the Roman rite, was just coming back home and being consummated in the Catholic tradition that would occupy the formal station of the imperial cult.
Many gods were in the process of becoming one. Even the notion that pre-Christian jews were monotheists is incorrect. Monotheism is born of Roman Catholicism in so far as it was inherently drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and the neoplatonic tradition. It is the consummation of man's encounter with God until that point, as scattered and diverse as it had been until then: but make no mistake, it was consummated in Rome, unfortunately and fortunately at a time when Rome was in its twilight. Politically this seems suspect, but theologically it is opportune. There is a reason that we were moving away from paganism, and I am just fine thinking that this is a matter of divine providence that as the imperial, material center is dying, it is giving birth to the spiritual center, which being unshackled from a physical temple, if you will, was then free to spread across Europe, unifying Europa in Christendom. It couldn't have done this if there was still a physical temple, so to speak. It was able to unify us intellectually and spiritually, in a way that transcends mere political authority.
For many reasons, paganism (in large part defined by Catholics) is dead. If we view this strictly in terms of historical traditions, I will grant why and how that seems like a kind of unfortunate destruction. But in terms of the theology and the intellectual edifice, it is far easier to see why it is this way. The way that God relates to a people, to blood, and soil as a singular power is far different than a menagerie of local deities that people mostly pick from according to their own sense of fortune and luck. If this one doesn't work, try another. The unifying capacity of Christinaity in the Roman rite is like a "theological imperialism."
All that needs to be done is to do away with the utterly false idea that being a Christian today means reserving some special place for ethnic jews. This is just a flat misunderstanding of the significance of Christianity. Many people have lost a true sense of the tradition and its wisdom and its power to unite. The failure of the Church has to do with jewish infiltration, but also a weakening of the people who would otherwise make up the Church Militant. The Church herself is to blame, but the story as to why is very complicated. You know, the reasons for establishing a pedagogical and authoritative hierarchy in the Church is about more than maintaining strict control and disuading questions/challenges to it. It has to do with the fact that scriptures in the hands of the lay tends to lead to a judaizing tendency, of worshipping words. And Christian truth is remarkably, remarkably hard to grasp. It's just a brute fact that a majority of people will not have the cognitive power to grasp it. You need only look to the Scholastic tradition beginning in late antiquity to see how under Roman Christianity, our doctrines and philosophy of God took off at an insane pace. In its wake, rabbinical judaism and later islam were simply taking cues. (Granted, Islam would see an intellectual heyday in which some of their thinkers contributed heavily to systematic theology.)
The point is that Christainity properly understood, de-fucked from the corruption that fooled it into thinking there was such a thing as a biblical jew any longer, and returned to the Roman way, with a full understanding of its provenance (including its seminal time in the form of Greco-Roman mythos), is a way of unifying the white race against the jewish enemy. It is there. It is live. It is available. It is resurrected. This is not true of pagan forms of religion that have to be held up on crutches by romantic hearts seeking a heathen revival. We aren't heathens anymore. Not only that, but a good deal of the Norse stuff we know about post-dates Christianity anyway (Yes, I understand that their claims will be that the Norse goes back further, but critical reflection on the sacrifice of Odin, for example, isn't really popping up in things like Codex Regius until the middle ages. To me, these are reflections on Christianity, even if they aren't framed that way due to a native desire for originality. Sharp minds can see through to the truth.)
This is what I mean. The truth of Christ isn't just an ethnic truth. It's a universal truth. It is for the white man to be universal. It is for him to transcend the material world and touch heaven like no other race has been able to do. And the evil rats of the world, like Cain, who hate this about him, will strike at his heels, attempting to subvert him at all times. Unfortunately, I think jews have done this successfully, and that explains why we have this half-a-millennium decline leading us to today. A battle between Christ and those who reject him.
We can extricate Christianity from jews. I would even say it is relatively easy to do, if people could just give up the fearful way they cling to most of the contemporary arguments for why God exists and why it is the God conceived by Christianity. They want to rely on historical arguments, and it's killing us. Faith is a choice, and it should be made to think of God in the most beautiful way possible. Forget anything jewish for a moment, and the Christ is the most beautiful thought that any human mind can have about God. It doesn't belong to anyone, but Roman Christianity took it up and lifted it higher than anybody. It's our flag to carry and our cross to bear.