Stronza recently took a swipe at Christianity…
I met a nice young Bahai couple (white North Americans in their 30s – quelle surprise) a few years ago. They said their Bahai belief system teaches “the unity of all religions”. So I asked what they thought of violence. They were against it. I said, suppose someone physically attacks you. They said – hee hee – that they would raise their arms to ward off the blows but never strike back. This is what whites have come to, compliments of yet another middle eastern religion.
Those in the movement who are hostile toward Christianity ought to host a symposium to determine whether Christianity amounts to a pacifist “slave morality” beneath the valiant and martial nature of the Aryan spirit or whether it was forced on the European folk through an abominable campaign of brute force. The curious contradiction in Europe is that the principle of “might is right” can only draw one to the conclusion that Christ’s sublime message has proven more mighty over centuries of European history.
Stronza doesn’t contradict himself as such in the aforementioned excerpt. He only asserts that Christianity is at its core yet another “pacifist” Middle Eastern religion. This theological fact went unobserved for dozens of centuries, only being rediscovered in a few eccentric sects in the last couple centuries, and only becoming common in the last few decades. Even today, the overwhelming majority of Christians reject this interpretation.
In contemporary America, the most devoutly Christian regions are among the most militant and the most secular regions are the least likely to resist aggression. The entire notion that Christianity = pacifism requires repeating a few lines of scripture out of context and without reflection.
Eric Rudolph, the Abortion Bomber
I’m a relatively recent convert who still has much to learn, and I hope to benefit from an open and respectful discussion on the topic. Eric Rudolph, a bit of an expert on the relationship between Christianity and violence, has written a relatively thoughtful and lengthy essay no the subject entitled Pacifism, with a section entitled Pacifism and Christianity.
I’m not implying support of the man’s actions. I ask commenters to refrain from discussing his actions in a way that would be a violation of the WordPress Terms of Service or federal, state, and local law. The point isn’t about his particular violent actions. But I believe he makes a very detailed rebuttal against the popular notion that Christianity is a pacifist religion. Being in SuperMax gives a man a lot of time to reflect on these issues, I would imagine.
Matt Parrott
mindweapon
Stronza took a swipe at Bahai faith. Bahai faith is a religion promoted by the Godless UN. It was founded by a middle easterner, named gobblygokkibaba, who preaches world unity, there is no race but the human race, we are all brothers and sisters, and yadda… yadda… yadda, you have heard it all before. I did not read that post as a swipe at Christianity, but at Bahai, the official religion of the UN, and a disease for White folks. It really is.
Is Christianity inherently pacifist?
I think that depends on the answer to the question, “What is Christianity?”. If you define the term to mean, “a religion based on following the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth”, then I think the answer is yes, Christianity is absolutely and fundamentally pacifist. One can easily see Jesus’ thoughts on the matter:
From Matthew 5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
On the other hand, if you define the term Christianity to mean, “a religion whose tenets are defined by the shared beliefs and practices of people calling themselves Christians” then one would conclude that Christianity is not pacifist.
However, Christianity as defined by the latter meaning diverges fundamentally from the example and teachings of Jesus. Why even say you’re practicing Christianity if you’re not following the commandments of Christ? I’ve wrestled with this question for at least 25 years.
Incidentally, this is the main reason why I’ve never considered myself a true Christian, since I do not abhor wealth like Jesus did, and I would use force to defend my family if necessary.
Many thanks, Lenahoneybee, for replying on my behalf. That is exactly what I meant. Personally, I love Jesus the Christ. I just don’t like his churches.
Bahai is loved by silly white people. It is so goofy it makes me weep. The young couple I met who follow the religion were such kind & nice people that I felt bad for them. I told them that I was hoping a “God” that I believed in at that time, the God of my childhood, would smite fools who hurt others instead of just tapping them on the shoulder. They were very, very shocked because up until that moment they thought I was a nice person, like them. Oh, well.
Stronza,
I apologize for the mix-up. I thought you were equating Bahai and Christianity.
Randy,
I believe Rudolph addresses your point at least partially. I’m exploring this topic a bit more thoroughly, and don’t have what I feel is a convincing rebuttal right now. Stay tuned.
Randy, you sum up the whole thing well. I sure don’t call myself a Christian but I like some of Christ’s teachings. I always keep in mind that he didn’t show up on this earth for us, he showed up for the semitic people. I struggled, same as you. Nevertheless, it is a mistake for racially aware white people to think that the thousand years of Christianity adopted by our ancestors was just some little side trip in our history and can be dismissed out of hand. It was a major influence on what we are.
Boy, wouldn’t it be nice if people of other races struggled this way. Why only us all the time, thinking & questioning endlessly.
Matt, I meant to say that all religions originting in the middle east, old (the Big Three) and new (Bahai), need to be looked at carefully simply because of their origins. The idea of a transcendent creator and the idea of being & becoming originated in the middle east as far as I can see; who’s to say it was ever right for us. Maybe if we had had far eastern thought (disinterest in cause; inability to transcend its own limitations) forced upon us by our rulers instead of the semitic, we wouldn’t be in this jam, I don’t know. Grist for the mill.
Do the Bahais do silly stuff like using money they should be spending on their own families to send food and clothes to fecund African savages and Bahai missionaries to save their “souls”? Even they can’t be stupid and universalist enough to advocate what Southern Baptist leader Richard Land does:
“Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, plans to address a gathering of Hispanic Baptists this weekend. Land will tell the group that his denomination supports a path to U.S. Citizenship for illegal immigrants, a message that may test member loyalty within the conservative denomination.”
John,
A cursory review of the history of the ideas you’re objecting to demonstrates that our churches were among the last to cave to this hysteria. They did cave, and I won’t pretend they didn’t. If you’re implying that Christianity was a cause of the crisis of the modern world, I don’t believe the evidence can support that.
As the last sentence of your own quote suggests, there’s a great deal of resistance to this stuff among America’s Christians, if not its “Christian” leaders.
Converting savages to Christianity, has a history that goes pretty far back (further in Catholicism).
“In 1808, Mills and other Williams students formed “The Brethren,” a society organized to “effect, in the persons of its members, a mission to the heathen.” Upon the enrollment of Mills and Richards at Andover Seminary in 1810, Adoniram Judson from Brown, Samuel Newall from Harvard, and Samuel Nott from Union College joined the Brethren. Led by the enthusiasm of Judson, the young seminarians convinced the General Association of Congregational Ministers of Massachusetts to form The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1810. In February, 1812, Rev. and Mrs. Judson, Rev. and Mrs. Newall, Rev. and Mrs. Nott, Rev. Gordon Hall, and Rev. Luther Rice were commissioned as the Board’s first missionaries and set sail for Calcutta, India.”
In one of the Paul’s letters he talks about their being no nationality in Christianity (or something like that). That is the main problem with Christianity (other than its dubious origins) imo. If it’s not exclusive to your people — if a Bantu can be a Christian, that’s a big downside to me.
White Christians need to reverse the terms of this equation: Brother in Christ > Heathen Ethnic Brother
John,
I do believe there’s a spiritual unity among Christians of all nations and races that transcends worldly nations and kingdoms. But that kingdom is not of this world. The Bible clearly supports the notion that kingdoms which are of this world are very much ethnonational. While an unfortunate number of contemporary Christian leaders have signed on to the secular globalist agenda, it’s at best unsupported by scripture and I believe explicitly prohibited by scripture. The Tower of Babel comes to mind.
As for the African Christian, I do feel that he and I are in communion in Christ, and are both brothers in Christ’s kingdom…which is not a worldly kingdom. To reference a previous point you made, I would deport Jesus of Nazareth. I would deport the African Christian as well. Just as a convert to Christianity does not become a son of mine who’s welcome to live in my house and eat my groceries, a Christian does not become an honorary member of my worldly tribal extended family of White Americans.
White Christians need to reverse the terms of this equation: Brother in Christ > Heathen Ethnic Brother
Tribalism is no substitute for the Tradition and Transcendence that can be found in Christianity. On the other hand, neither Tradition nor Transcendence negate Tribalism. Therein lies my basic assertion: that these three cardinal dimensions of the human experience are to co-exist in harmony, not chosen between.
“there’s a great deal of resistance to this stuff among America’s Christians, if not its “Christian” leaders.”
That’s like saying, if Mr. Land had been born and raised and emigrated from Glasgow, that he’s not a Scotsman because he puts sugar on his oatmeal. What immigration policies does one have to support to be a “real Christian”? I don’t recall seeing anything on that subject in the translation of the Lutheran Bible.
The Southern Baptists, long an highly ethnocentric sect, have sure had the rug pulled out from under them. They have no other choice than to accept Mestizos not only in their in their neighbourhoods but even in their formerly white churches. Where else can they go in Christendom? This is not good.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: White is Right Edition (NSFW)
If you are starving for salvation, take your Bible into the desert and feast on it. When you are dying of thirst, come back to the world and drink again of the common well. Under no circumstance must you drink of your own waste. This parable I put unto you.
Hey, “uh” [what kind of a name is that, anyway], I have countless bibles that people have given me, including an ancient copy of Die Heilige Schrift in old German print, and I use them as little bases for vases of flowers. The bible can be useful. I love the bible.
I think you need more than a cursory glance here. Progressivism is Mainline Protestantism sans Jesus. Two, three generations ago the Progressive and American Left in general were easily the most zealously religious people in the civilized world.
Go back another couple of generations and you have the leaders of what is now the Bible Belt harping about State’s Rights, tariffs, et cetera (ie tangible geopolitical concerns) while the rhetoric coming out of New England was about doing the righteous work of God.
Regardless of where the ‘Left’, PCMC, Progressivism or whatever you want to call it all originated ideologically it certainly did so within a predominantly Christian society. Even if the ‘authors’ of the Zeitgeist don’t cite Christianity in their work, it certainly played an enormous part in the project.
You’ll never realistically win over much of anybody being explicitly anti-Christian, and even being implicitly so is probably too damaging to be taken seriously. You’ll never realistically remove Christianity from the West, especially America without some extreme measures that will never happen.
Ultimately I think Christianity is salvageable, but the undercurrents in American thought regarding the religion will need to undergo serious changes. Obviously early Americans were robust, and proud and vital while still being very Christian. They had American Exceptionalism. The belief in America as New Jeruselam and the extracanonical belief in Americans as being God’s Chosen.
That whole belief system has been carried to the logical extreme though. Puritans were concerned with purity. As in living a way of life as laid out by God and Christ, and their coda for this life was scripture. Sola Scriptura is absolutely not a fundamental tenet of Christianity (although almost omnipresent in what are now called fundamentalist Christians), and the associated pursuit of more and more ‘authentic’ Christianity has been a downward spiral. If you are always in search for a better way to live a life, you are rejecting the notion that God has a plan for you (despite giving lip service to the concept).
Having faith in God isn’t really what made Christendom ascendant. It’s not what the made the Puritans so fruitful in all aspects. It was the syncretic Christianity of European barbarians. A pagan fatalism infused it just enough to allow a ‘close minded’ a kind of unflinching piety that would spawn something like Manifest Destiny, Gold, Glory, and God, or American Exceptionalism.
Writing in 1942, Bertrand Russell in A History of Western Philosophy said that the closest thing to Barbarian Christianity could be found in the United States. He was obviously referring to that Puritan-derived sense of fraternity ‘Real Americans’ call “Patriotism”.
Things have obviously degenerated a lot since WWII, and modern Protestant leaders of nearly any denomination are the logical end of those ever flowing Puritan undercurrents of seeking authenticity (and the rightful authority to commit to action) while Progressivism is probably the illogical end to the same.
“Progressivism is Mainline Protestantism sans Jesus.”
It’s not. Left-liberalism is a wrapper around cultural marxism to disguise it – like a venus fly-trap. It uses Christian sounding ideas as bait while being fanatically anti-Christian.
“Regardless of where the ‘Left’, PCMC, Progressivism or whatever you want to call it all originated ideologically it certainly did so within a predominantly Christian society.”
It originated as a hostile reaction to Christianity by a non-Christian minority.
Then how do you explain so many of its core tenets predating Karl Marx by such a vast time frame? The idea that a handful of European Jews engineered a system that brought down western civilization in half a century is absolutely ludicrous.
What specifically from Marxism, that is emblematic of PCMC/Progressivism, absolutely did not predate Marxism? Command economies? SES based political rhetoric?
This was all available before Marx in ENGLAND of all places. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke both forward proto-Marxist thought literally hundreds of years before Marx was born. I mean even Tom Paine and Jefferson’s writings reflect a certain level of nascent Progressivism (especially the former). Between the two you have the forced abolition of religion, compulsory education (of the correct ideas), the entire conception of Natural Rights. Was the French Revolution a Jewish plot as well? Did the French Revolution happen and it had no lasting impact on the world? Did the event that actually originated the label ‘Left-wing’ have no influence on Left-wing politics?
The modern Progressive hobby horse isn’t even classically Marxist. It’s not primarily class based, it’s race based. Marx’s class strife doctrine was cribbed from Hegel. Hegel’s idea of course was not the conflict classes but of Nations. Speaking from his era and background Hegel certainly meant ‘Nation’ in its’ original meaning; as synonymous with race. Hegel wasn’t even putting this idea as original, as an activist. He was just describing the way he believed the world worked.
Progressivism doesn’t wrap Marxism in fancy clothes and religious platitudes. Marx himself wrapped the already existing, religious and metaphysical philosophies of his peers and forebears in the language of philosophical materalists, and he was activist instead of descriptive. He made what was woo, sound like science, and as such sold it to the elite and intelligensia at a time when definable woo had fallen out of fashion.
If anything the modern Left is Hegel wrapped in materialism, just like Marx did, but with even fewer alterations. But it isn’t. It’s native to Europe, in particular western European Protestants.
‘Left-liberalism’ doesn’t even use Christian sounding ideas. They deliberately try to sound non-Christian and non-religious. How even make that claim? It’s their underlying philosophy. Egalitarian, natural rights oriented, non-jugmental transcendance of tribe and tradition.
Even Matt in this very thread said he subscribes to a Christ-based transcendentalism. Liberals subscribe to the exact same thing but with their liberalism as the supratribal identity in place of Christianity.
That is why Progressivism is so incoherent. They are actually called God-given Rights, and most Progressives subscribe to them yet are overwhelmingly atheist. Realistically they shouldn’t give a shit about you being racist, but they do so damn much. They want to save your soul. They care about how clean the air your breathing is, what you eat, you drink. How you conduct your every little action. They are Puritans to the marrow. They’ve just abandoned Jesus as a justification for their righteous authority. Now it’s secular White Man’s Burden, and the white racist rubes are the savages they are coming to civilize and bring their New God to. They want Heaven on Earth. Utopia. New Jerusalem.
Heh, had someone point this out to me in another conversation. Apparently I’m not the only one who sees the nature of SWPLdom as being both homegrown from New English Protestantism.
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/Gura-Transcendentalism.pdf