The Real Cost Of Religious Faith - Atheist Experience

[Cato]

This last bit is just idle musing: Orthodox Christianity is the only form of Christianity that still has any vigour, but unfortunately it's really completely foreign to the Western ethos, and does not seem to be defined by the same necessary Westward motion that the barbarians of the sand are.

Authentic Catholicism does as well, but this sort of Catholicism is in the minority in the post-Vatican II era. In the little bit of investigating that I've done about it (traditional Catholicism), it stands in stark contrast to the sort of Catholicism that, say, embraces illegal immgrants with open arms.

[Magister Eckhart]

Christianity was never about the world if you care to look at what Jesus himself went on about (and not, say, Paul or the doctors of the church):

"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." John 18:36, KJV.

I'm just putting this in its inspirational context y'know. Of course I know that it's largely a non-sequitur these days.. This my major issue with the Christian religion: most of them "goats," for those familiar with the table of the sheep and the goats. It makes me scornful, which I guess can't be helped.

One honest Christian who is true to his or her beliefs is worth 99 atheists who see fit only to pathetically nitpick, trust me.

I won't challenge you on that last point, since anyone true to a real religion is worth far more than anyone who believes in nothing, (atheism is the ultimate nihilism), but you simply cannot think of Christianity without thinking of its effect on the real world.

Christian morality was a major source of order in the West from the days of Charlemagne forward, and that's historically significant. You may say that true Christianity wasn't at play here, indeed, taking the "two kingdoms" route (which seems to be what you believe-- an idea borrowed from the Doctors of the Church at whom you seem to sneer), but you still cannot deny the importance of Christian morality to the West and the direct relation of the collapse of Christian morals and the collapse of all moral order in the West. A new moral order is necessary now that Christian morality is now clearly broken. The material point here isn't the sustainability of the Christian's soul (go to the Pro Traditio forum for that sort of discussion), it's the sustainability of the West.

Furthermore, Christian morality is informed by an intelligentsia and elite who understand and find new ways to express that morality through theological and philosophical inquiry, something we've not seen done by major thinkers in more than two centuries. You cannot sustain Christianity by simply jumping to the "Good Book" - as history has shown, radical reformers like Zwingli (and actually, to an extent, Calvin) contributed to the destruction of Christianity through this notion. Even Luther felt you needed theology, you couldn't just work from the base text; he was a dedicated student of the early Fathers.

Authentic Catholicism does as well, but this sort of Catholicism is in the minority in the post-Vatican II era. In the little bit of investigating that I've done about it (traditional Catholicism), it stands in stark contrast to the sort of Catholicism that, say, embraces illegal immgrants with open arms.

I actually believe I said the very same thing:

Only Lutheranism, Catholicism, Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Coptic Orthodoxy still have a sizeable group of believers dedicated to intellectual undertakings, and even in these places their numbers are shrinking as some of them make efforts to proletarianise the faith (as we saw with Vatican II, the council that turned the Church Calvinist or turned the Church adolescent, depending on how hostile one is to it).

unlike the Thomists who have fallen into a minority, albeit a large one, in Catholic circles.

[Cato]

I won't challenge you on that last point, since anyone true to a real religion is worth far more than anyone who believes in nothing, (atheism is the ultimate nihilism), but you simply cannot think of Christianity without thinking of its effect on the real world.

Christian morality was a major source of order in the West from the days of Charlemagne forward, and that's historically significant. You may say that true Christianity wasn't at play here, indeed, taking the "two kingdoms" route (which seems to be what you believe-- are you Lutheran?), but you still cannot deny the importance of Christian morality to the West and the direct relation of the collapse of Christian morals and the collapse of all moral order in the West. A new moral order is necessary now that Christian morality is now clearly broken. The material point here isn't the sustainability of the Christian's soul (go to the Pro Traditio forum for that sort of discussion), it's the sustainability of the West.

And from whence will this new moral order come? It's looking like it might come from one of two possible directions insofar as I'm concerned: Islam or the sort of view of the world expressed by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. In lieu of this, rather than embrace old fairy tales (as I was of a mind to do), I'd rather try to prop up what made America great. This isn't Christianity per se, I suppose, but if I have to become a vocal instigator on behalf of a moral order that most of the world considers to be collapses... so be it. Christianity and what it did, not entirely mind you, in the minds of the one thing I hold dear in this world (the United States of America, its Constitution, etc.)... Well, you might get my recent positioning.

No, not a Lutheran, but been to Lutheran services years ago. Lapsed Methodist, really, lapsed because, in the words of my late grandfather, they're a bunch of "white-washers."

As to Protradition, I'm familiar with the forum.

[Magister Eckhart]

And from whence will this new moral order come? It's looking like it might come from one of two possible directions insofar as I'm concerned: Islam or the sort of view of the world expressed by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. In lieu of this, rather than embrace old fairy tales (as I was of a mind to do), I'd rather try to prop up what made America great. This isn't Christianity per se, I suppose, but if I have to become a vocal instigator on behalf of a moral order that most of the world considers to be collapses... so be it. Christianity and what it did, not entirely mind you, in the minds of the one thing I hold dear in this world (the United States of America)... Well, you might get my recent positioning.

As to Protradition, I'm familiar with the forum.

No moral order can come from atheism-- atheism itself is a lack not a substance. Much like evil represents the absence of good (at least according to Augustine), atheism represents the absence of moral order. So either the new moral order must come from some creative force that is still left here in ourselves, preparing the way for the future, or it must come from some outside source. The only outside source that has designs on conquering us is Mohammedanism, so I must admit with some distaste that of the two you list, only Mohammedanism offers a new moral order, but I can guarantee there will be nothing left of the West when they conquer us, unlike the shell of Classical civilisation preserved in the new Western culture.

What made us great cannot still make us great. Christianity as a real moral and cultural force is confined to the past tense, however one feels about it as a religion--and unless Jesus comes back and does it very soon, I doubt it will even be sustainable as that. Our task in preserving the West is indeed to combat atheism, but resorting to simple-minded Calvinist protestantism won't successfully do that, it will only speed up the process of collapse. The one thing more dangerous than godless apostasy is heresy, as Ambrose, Tertullian, and Augustine (and later, Aquinas) rightly observe, and, unlike Luther, who remained confirmed in a doctrine steeped in early (and, more importantly, catholicly sanctioned) Christianity his entire life, Calvin and the other "reformers" were truly heretics.

What's your username on Pro Traditio?

[Cato]

No moral order can come from atheism-- atheism itself is a lack not a substance. Much like evil represents the absence of good (at least according to Augustine), atheism represents the absence of moral order. So either the new moral order must come from some creative force that is still left here in ourselves, preparing the way for the future, or it must come from some outside source. The only outside source that has designs on conquering us is Mohammedanism, so I must admit with some distaste that of the two you list, only Mohammedanism offers a new moral order, but I can guarantee there will be nothing left of the West when they conquer us, unlike the shell of Classical civilisation preserved in the new Western culture.

What made us great cannot still make us great. Christianity as a real moral and cultural force is confined to the past tense, however one feels about it as a religion--and unless Jesus comes back and does it very soon, I doubt it will even be sustainable as that. Our task in preserving the West is indeed to combat atheism, but resorting to simple-minded Calvinist protestantism won't successfully do that, it will only speed up the process of collapse. The one thing more dangerous than godless apostasy is heresy, as Ambrose, Tertullian, and Augustine (and later, Aquinas) rightly observe, and, unlike Luther, who remained confirmed in a doctrine steeped in early (and, more importantly, catholicly sanctioned) Christianity his entire life, Calvin and the other "reformers" were truly heretics.

What's your username on Pro Traditio?

Man's potential is man's potential, and man can make his own way in the world, sure. That much I don't dispute, but man is to be directed by, hm, the power cosmic for lack of a better term.

I don't view Jesus as some sandaled sissy like I used to; it's easy to fall into the mental trap that Jesus was a pacifistic beatnik who came to teach toleration and peace and "social justice" when he often said and did things contrary to this rather shallow view (whipping the moneychangers out of the temple, telling his followers to sell their coats and buy swords, etc.).

It's easy to get caught up in Tolstoy's view of Jesus, which is largely a product of, well.. Wishful thinking.

[Magister Eckhart]

Man's potential is man's potential, and man can make his own way in the world, sure. That much I don't dispute, but man is to be directed by, hm, the power cosmic for lack of a better term.

I don't view Jesus as some sandaled sissy like I used to; it's easy to fall into the mental trap that Jesus was a pacifistic beatnik who came to teach toleration and peace and "social justice" when he often said and did things contrary to this rather shallow view (whipping the moneychangers out of the temple, telling his followers to sell their coats and buy swords, etc.).

It's easy to get caught up in Tolstoy's view of Jesus, which is largely a product of, well.. Wishful thinking.

Agreed, agreed with reservations, and disagreed.

1. Well I agreed so I won't go into it.

2. While this is true, and the hippie-Christ most Christians worship today is an invention of the liberal, pacifistic, senile West, I do not recall the passage where Jesus tells any of his apostles to "buy swords". He claims to bring a sword and not peace (Mt. 10:34, Lk. 12:51), and he does drive the money changers from the temple in a rage (Mk. 11:15, Mt. 21:12, Lk. 19:45, Jn. 2:14-15), he even kills a fig tree for not having any figs on it (and it wasn't even in season!) (Mt. 21:19, Mk. 11:12-14, 20-21) but I do not recall seeing him encouraging the acquisition of arms-- indeed he speaks against that sort of thing (Mt. 26:52).

Furthermore, don't misunderstand me: I certainly don't suggest the figure of the Nazarene is somehow weak, merely that Christian morality is no longer strong enough to sustain moral order.

3. I don't find it easy at all to get caught up in Tolstoy. Dostoevsky is far superior.

[Cato]

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm

The figure of Jesus as portrayed these days is largely powerless in my view. It's commonly said that he taught "do not judge," when, in fact Jesus taught people to judge sensibly. As to violence, I've always been under the impression that Jesus, despite being seemingly rather bland about violence himself, might very well approve of its use under appropriate circumstances (self-defense, "just" warfare, saving the life of an innocent, and so forth).

[Egbert]

Let's assume that your generalisation is correct, i.e. Heathens are largely in favour of a less interventionist foreign policy. You seem to be saying that the more interventionist you are the better, as though it were a virtue in itself. In Schiklgrueber's case, the results were horrific for his people, and to some extent Europeans as a whole. Did he simply fuck up a situation in which he COULD have succeeded? Or is interventionism on an extreme scale necessarily about the riskiest thing a state can engage in?

Being "better" is being safer and the safest position is determined by power. Whatever secures more power, in turn secures more safety, this might be engagement or it might not, depending upon circumstances. But one thing is certain, avoiding the game entirely doesn't keep one from being considered by those actually playing it. The world has become too small to simply fly under radar indefinitely.

You seem fairly pro-establishment, too. You want America to be proactive on the world stage. Can you honestly demonstrate that this improves the life of Americans and the White Man as a whole? Might it not be more realistic to view interventionism as always at risk of transforming into meddling and miscalculation? Might not this application of Will zu Macht in foreign policy be the very LAST thing the West needs at this particular low moment in its history? Could Germany have done rather better with a few more 'folkish comedians' at the helm in the Forties, and few less mad imperialists?

America is a Western, white-dominated nation with an Anglo foundation, in spite of immigration, degenerative pop culture and a darkie president. As long as it remains such, American domination is Western domination and clearly this improves the lot of Western white men, as opposed to their lot under non-Western civilizations. As nature abhors a vacuum, where the West shrinks, other civilizations gain, whether Latin America or Islam.

I'm a firm believer in being realistic, not living in the past or allowing oneself to be paralyzed by idealism...the West isn't ideal, but it is *far* superior to anything else at present.

A Christian remarked a good few decades ago that Islam is only a problem when Europe/Christendom is in crisis. Now, considering our internal problems, might our 'proactive' foreign policy in these times be more comparable to the frantic lashings out of a desperate wounded civilisation on the decline, than the measured and skillful actions of a confident and strong Culture with a Vision? You want the latter, but fail to see how it is impossible without domestic rebirth, and I don't see you suggesting anything to help that come about.

I disagree entirely that Islam is only a problem because of Western intervention. Islam is at war along the whole of it's borders, with everyone, not just Westerners.

We are wounded and in decline and our enemies are strengthening...frantic or not, it is better to hit them while we still have the ability to do so. You are right in that I haven't suggested some kind of internal cultural revival, whether I want one or not, largely because I don't see it as realistic in a time frame that would help defend against current foreign threats. Nor do I assume it necessary in securing Western dominance, at least in the short term.

There is a very real problem regarding birthrates that desperately needs to be solved and it is an issue that could relate to a kind of cultural and/or spiritual revival. At the risk of being kinda silly, my suggestion here would be the obvious...to breed and learn from those who are breeding.